Anglican Catholic Church?

[Per_Crucem]

Also Gregory did not reject a council! More research for you…

Actually, Gregory rejected four Councils. And Luther did not reject Trent as he was dead. That’s irrelevant, though.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Being a priest does not validate being a doctor of the church!

I don’t see where I said it did. Your claim was that anyone who produces anything worthwhile can become a doctor. Well, Luther produced something worthwhile…ergo…

 

[LutheranScholar]

I don’t see where I said it did. Your claim was that anyone who produces anything worthwhile can become a doctor. Well, Luther produced something worthwhile…ergo…

Good point… among Confessional Lutherans, Luther is regarded as a Doctor of the Church, as well as Confessor and Reformer.

 

[Reuben_J]

Could somebody explain this for me? Luther was ordained a priest so he was always considered a priest? When it’s said that he could celebrate the sacraments illicitly, does that mean because he had been excommunicated?

Would his ordination as a priest be a part of the line of apostolic succession?

Sorry for my ignorance of this subject but I hope you’ll bear with me and help me understand this better…

I’m still learning!

In the Catholic Church, it is correct in saying that the priest is a priest for life. When he is ordained he is permanently configured to Jesus Christ.

Thus he participates in the one ministry of Christ through the functions of sanctification (through the sacraments), teaching, and governance. A priest (or bishop) because he has been permanently ordained, never looses the function or power of sanctification.

However, the Church can regulate this power for the common good, and she does so by giving additional permission called a faculty or authority to a priest to validly celebrate certain sacraments.

**If a priest is excommunicated, he cannot legally (or licitly) celebrate any sacrament (except in danger of death), and he also loses the faculties or authority to validly celebrate the sacraments that need them. **

What this means is that for an excommunicated priest, the only sacraments he celebrates validly are Baptism and the Eucharist (Holy Mass); they would be valid but illicit (illegal).

**If he is a bishop who is excommunicated, he would still validly ordain (other priests), but to do so would be gravely sinful. **

Hope that helps.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[commenter]

Good point… among Confessional Lutherans, Luther is regarded as a Doctor of the Church, as well as Confessor and Reformer.

This is from Wikipedia, by my flimsy standards intensive research, normally I rely strictly on guess, rumor and factless conjecture.

“The Lutheran calendar of saints does not use the term “Doctor of the Church.” The calendar of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod refers to Martin Luther by the title of “Doctor” in recognition of his academic degree, Doctor of Theology from the University of Wittenberg in 1512”.

I welcome correction on this. BTW, do Lutheran or Anglican bodies regard anyone, people like Augustine as a “Doctor of the Church”? They utilize the phrase “Early Church Fathers” of course. I guess Anglicans might consider Thomas a Doctor of the Church, wonder how that works.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t see where I said it did. Your claim was that anyone who produces anything worthwhile can become a doctor. Well, Luther produced something worthwhile…ergo…

From Michael Scanlon, O.S.A.

If Roman Catholics recognize an authentically evangelical thrust surging through the more or less adequate formulas of Luther and Reformation anthropology in general, then they must see in it a theology of grace that is a valid complement to their own and other traditional formulations.

**Luther was a religious genius and deserving of consideration as a doctor of the Church universal. **He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.

www1.villanova.edu/villanova/mission/campusministry/spirituality/resources/spirituality/augustinians/famous/luther.html

 

[LutheranScholar]

This is from Wikipedia, by my flimsy standards intensive research, normally I rely strictly on guess, rumor and factless conjecture.

“The Lutheran calendar of saints does not use the term “Doctor of the Church.” The calendar of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod refers to Martin Luther by the title of “Doctor” in recognition of his academic degree, Doctor of Theology from the University of Wittenberg in 1512”.

I welcome correction on this. BTW, do Lutheran or Anglican bodies regard anyone, people like Augustine as a “Doctor of the Church”? They utilize the phrase “Early Church Fathers” of course. I guess Anglicans might consider Thomas a Doctor of the Church, wonder how that works.

It looks like you’re right! peacealma.org/sermons/commemoration_of_martin_luther,
lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=506, lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=435
Martin Luther seems here to be known as a Doctor and Confessor and commemorated as such.

 

[spedteacherita]

Thank you, Per Crucem, GKC, and Reuben for taking the time to answer my question about Luther.

God bless!!

Rita

 

[GKC]

Thank you, Per Crucem, GKC, and Reuben for taking the time to answer my question about Luther.

God bless!!

Rita

You are very welcome.

Esp. since I know little of Luther, but a little about the way the RCC looks at validity of sacraments, in general.

GKC

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you, Per Crucem, GKC, and Reuben for taking the time to answer my question about Luther.

God bless!!

Rita

You are welcome.

God bless you.

Reuben

 

[commenter]

From Michael Scanlon, O.S.A.
“He accurately theologized the cardinal point of the Christian vision of human existence in its relationship to God at a time when the Catholic hierarchy, caught in the whirlpool of the Renaissance and the real politik of emerging nation states, could not hear him.”

Fr. Scanlon tends towards a horizontal view of church. He was president of the CTSA at a time when it was battling the Vatican. His views on Luther should get a full consideration; but I suspect he would be inclined to support theological rebels in general.

 

[PRmerger]

In fairness, PR, this discussion originally began with regard to the quote from St. Augustine. So while our focus wasn’t on Greek, it certainly was on Latin.

No. It began with my reference to Dave Armstrong. Who speaks English.

And if we’re going to get into the minutiae of the language of St. Augustine, then I retract that reference.

In fact, I can certainly retract my reference to Dave.

I simply state: it is gaga lala nonsense to think that there’s a subset of Catholics who have been deputized to decree, “Pope? We don’t need a pope to lead our Catholic Church!”

Just as it would be nonsense for an Anglican to say, “I’m with an Anglican church/rite/denomination/community which doesn’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God!”

 

[Novocastrian]

No. It began with my reference to Dave Armstrong. Who speaks English.

And if we’re going to get into the minutiae of the language of St. Augustine, then I retract that reference.

In fact, I can certainly retract my reference to Dave.

Fair enough. I think it’s an unhelpful line of argument for both of us!

I simply state: it is gaga lala nonsense to think that there’s a subset of Catholics who have been deputized to decree, “Pope? We don’t need a pope to lead our Catholic Church!”

You may well think that, in general, but I’m still curious how you explain the outliers we’ve discussed earlier (i.e. St Gregory in this thread). Of course you don’t have to - I’d understand if you’re sick of hearing me bang on about him!

 

[PRmerger]

You may well think that, in general, but I’m still curious how you explain the outliers we’ve discussed earlier (i.e. St Gregory in this thread). Of course you don’t have to - I’d understand if you’re sick of hearing me bang on about him!

Well, since you have NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT of St. Gregory detailing his rejection of Catholic teaching, I have to remain quite dubious of your claim.

He is silent on the issue.

What we have is 2 views: since he was a member of this obscure “Armenian Apostolic Church”, you must assume he rejected the papacy.

And then we have this:
since he is part of the Catholic hagiography, you must assume he accepted all that the Catholic Church professed and revealed.

How do we know which one is true?

You choose the former.
I choose the latter.

There is no evidence either way.

So your point is moot.

 

[PRmerger]

SI don’t struggle to believe that. Feel free to do so the moment I show contempt for Catholicism.

Thanks, but I’m pretty sure I don’t need your permission.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, mainly because ‘Jehovah’ is not a faithful rendition of YHWH. But mostly because calling oneself a ‘Jehovah’s Witness’ is not part of the Tradition of the Church.

You are not a witness for Jehovah? That’s too bad. I’m pretty sure your church obligates you to be one…but…whatever.

Interesting. So you say it is OK for me to call myself ‘katolsk’ in Norwegian or ‘katholisch’ in German (when the Roman Catholics also call themselves the same, and have no distinction between ‘Catholic’ and ‘catholic’)? Somehow I have a feeling you don’t. But you have to, since you have already conceded that the word ‘catholic’ does not include communion with the Roman Pontiff in its definition.

I don’t care what you call yourself in Norwegian, Kj.

But if you call yourself a member of my Catholic Church, in any language, yet deny the supremacy of the vicar of Christ, you are professing something akin to this: “I am the Finnish Queen of Nigeria and I now say that the capital of Korea is Paris. Or paris. Either one is fine!”

#youcansaywhateveryouwantbutthatdoesn’tmakeittrue

 

[PRmerger]

Yay! Can I go door to door ( preferably during a mealtime) and hand out copies of the Small Catechism, then? Also, maybe call myself a Rastafarian Anatolian Orthodox Catholic of the Augsburg Confession? Sounds peachy!

Yep.

And don’t let some dude on the internet tell you you can’t do this, ok?

 

[Novocastrian]

Well, since you have NOT A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT of St. Gregory detailing his rejection of Catholic teaching, I have to remain quite dubious of your claim.

He is silent on the issue.

We’ve been over this a lot, but I’ll repeat: I don’t need to prove the absence of something you’re asserting. The assertion which needs proving is in your claim below, about assuming that he accepted etc.

In the absence of MSS dealing directly with the question of Roman obedience and dogma, we go with our next best available evidence, which is the fact that we do know that he lived and died as a member of the mediaeval Armenian Church, which during his lifetime was not in communion with Rome.

What we have is 2 views: since he was a member of this obscure “Armenian Apostolic Church”, you must assume he rejected the papacy.

A major national church, part of the major non-Chalcedonian communion.

And then we have this:
since he is part of the Catholic hagiography, you must assume he accepted all that the Catholic Church professed and revealed.

Ah, see, this is the premise I don’t think is true* a priori*. I think he’s the counterexample or defeater for exactly this claim!

There is no evidence either way.

Except the crushing historical reality of the theology and religious life of mediaeval Armenia.

 

[Novocastrian]

But if you call yourself a member of my Catholic Church, in any language, yet deny the supremacy of the vicar of Christ, you are professing something akin to this: “I am the Finnish Queen of Nigeria and I now say that the capital of Korea is Paris. Or paris. Either one is fine!”

So commuion with Rome is the essence of Catholicism?

 

[KjetilK]

You are not a witness for Jehovah? That’s too bad. I’m pretty sure your church obligates you to be one…but…whatever.

I don’t care what you call yourself in Norwegian, Kj.

But if you call yourself a member of my Catholic Church, in any language, yet deny the supremacy of the vicar of Christ, you are professing something akin to this: “I am the Finnish Queen of Nigeria and I now say that the capital of Korea is Paris. Or paris. Either one is fine!”

#youcansaywhateveryouwantbutthatdoesn’tmakeittrue

This is just begging the question. You take something which is not part of the definition of a word, then make that a prerequisite to using that word (thus ending up with the absurd notion of a word that means and doesn’t mean something at the same time), then proceed to use that conclusion as a premise.

And Jehovah is a word found by combining the divine name YHWH with the vowels of Adonai. I prefer following Christ, and Jewish tradition. So I simply say Lord or God.