Do any Protestant communities have valid Apostolic Succession?

[MaryT777]

lol, Mary. You are so right. I should have mentioned the burden that a pastor’s wife bears. And as a PK, my biggest burden was in Catechetical Class, all my friends whispering, “Jon, answer your dad’s question”.
BTW, my daughter is a Lutheran school teacher in her mid twenties. She has NO interest in becoming a pastor’s wife.

Jon

Jon…
Do I recall you are a teacher? My friend teaches 4th grade and rolls her eyes when
persons comment on they saw her son or daughter “do this” or do that". These are “minor if any offenses” so every vocation has it’s
sacrifices. I know you got an A in Catechism by your posts.

That’s off topic.
Never mind.
The point is there’s a sacrifice for all vocations. I have wondered what it would be like
to have a married priesthood. Do I want to “share” my priest?
LOL…He is a father to me and I don’t “wanna share” sometimes

 

[JonNC]

=MaryT777;10894454]Jon…
Do I recall you are a teacher? My friend teaches 4th grade and rolls her eyes when
persons comment on they saw her son or daughter “do this” or do that". These are “minor if any offenses” so every vocation has it’s
sacrifices. I know you got an A in Catechism by your posts.

Very kind of you to say. Thank you, Mary

The point is there’s a sacrifice for all vocations. I have wondered what it would be like
to have a married priesthood. Do I want to “share” my priest?
LOL…He is a father to me and I don’t “wanna share” sometimes

Indeed. Sharing dad was a problem, at times. I remember one Father’s Dad, while in my mid-teens. A table of white carnations near the front of the nave, for fathers to come up and take. It was the start of the sermon, and after waiting until every other dad had gotten one, I was impatient enough that I stood up, walked to the table, and took one to him in the pulpit, since he had made no move to get one himself.

The lines were sometimes blurred, even for him. He needed a moment to get started.
As I said, I loved him and miss him dearly. And I would not have my childhood any other way.

Jon

 

[Jotto]

Borrowing from St. Augustine: it appears that everyone, including Jotto, wants to claim the name “Catholic”, but when someone comes to your town and asks where the nearest Catholic church is, no one will point him to your church.

Yes, because I, as most people, would assume that the enquirer meant by “Catholic” “Roman Catholic.” But if someone asks me if I am a Catholic, my response is, "Yes, I am an Evangelical Catholic of the Lutheran Rite. When we say the creeds in my (as well as other Lutheran congregations) we do not say, “We believe in the Holy Lutheran Church.”

“Lutheran” for me has the same denotive significance as such terms as “Jesuit” or “Dominican” or “Benedictine.” When I speak simply of the “Church,” I almost always am referring to something more than the Lutheran Church or the Roman Catholic Church or any other particular communion or rite.

 

[rfournier103]

…if someone asks me if I am a Catholic, my response is, "Yes, I am an Evangelical Catholic of the Lutheran Rite.

I have never heard that before. Are there any other Lutherans or Presbyterians or Baptists that say that?

When we say the creeds in my (as well as other Lutheran congregations) we do not say, “We believe in the Holy Lutheran Church.”

I dated a Presbyterian once, and she said that when they recited their creed, they said “holy catholic church.” Most of the people I had met in my entire life up to that point had been Catholics, so that was a shocker for me.

I attended a Congregational service one time, and the minister thought it would be interesting to recite the Apostle’s Creed. There was an old man who stood up and was very angry that the word “catholic” was in there. She spent the next 15 minutes explaining to him the definition “catholic”. He was not impressed.

“Lutheran” for me has the same denotive significance as such terms as “Jesuit” or “Dominican” or “Benedictine.” When I speak simply of the “Church,” I almost always am referring to something more than the Lutheran Church or the Roman Catholic Church or any other particular communion or rite.

Jesuit, Dominican, and Benedictine are religious orders. Is there a Lutheran Order? Basically what I am asking is; according to you, is it an order or a Rite?

If it’s a Rite, are there any plans to reunite with the Latin Catholics, and many Anglicans have done?

Inquiring minds want to know…

 

[JonNC]

=rfournier103;10897347]I have never heard that before. Are there any other Lutherans or Presbyterians or Baptists that say that?

Jotto, here, represents the view of many knowledgeable Lutherans, and I think he expresses well when he says that we do not say, “One, Holy, Lutheran, and Apostolic Church”. We see ourselves as Evangelical and Catholic.

Jesuit, Dominican, and Benedictine are religious orders. Is there a Lutheran Order? Basically what I am asking is; according to you, is it an order or a Rite?

If it’s a Rite, are there any plans to reunite with the Latin Catholics, and many Anglicans have done?

If, in fact, Lutheranism is a Reformation movement, it must be assumed that the intention is to be in unity with the rest of the Church Catholic, most notably the western patriarch. The Reformation is completed when that happens.
If the goal, OTOH, is to simply be content in division, then the Reformation has failed, and has become, as some posters here polemically refer to it as, a “deformation” of the Church.

Jon

 

[rfournier103]

Jotto, here, represents the view of many knowledgeable Lutherans, and I think he expresses well when he says that we do not say, “One, Holy, Lutheran, and Apostolic Church”. We see ourselves as Evangelical and Catholic.

If, in fact, Lutheranism is a Reformation movement, it must be assumed that the intention is to be in unity with the rest of the Church Catholic, most notably the western patriarch. The Reformation is completed when that happens.
If the goal, OTOH, is to simply be content in division, then the Reformation has failed, and has become, as some posters here polemically refer to it as, a “deformation” of the Church.

Jon

I think you hit the nail right on the head. I am new to the study of religion, but given my natural love of history and law, (not to mention my love of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit), this is an amazing subject to study.

This history of Christianity is fascinating. I was introduced to the Reformation in high school western civ. class. Granted, I may not have as good of a grasp on the history and reasons for the Reformation as someone older and Protestant, but even in high school I would have told you that reform and some change was very badly needed. The Reformation was the biggest “wake-up call” in human history.

Any Protestant should readily admit that their church was Catholic and in communion with the Bishop of Rome if they go back far enough. Their ancestors were very likely of the Roman Rite, and either forced into a Protestant church, (or if they were up on current events), left of their own accord.

In my opinion, one of the most polarizing issues is the Pope. I would think that if a Protestant really DID see him as the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, they would be taking steps to become Catholic. The history of the Church, and Apostolic Succession have brought many a good and decent Christian “back” to the Latin/Western/Catholic Church. They enrich the Church, and we are all better off for it!

Given the Godlessness that plagues the world today, ALL Christians should consider banding together and re-uniting. There IS strength in numbers, and I truly think that ALL of Christianity has benefitted from some VERY good Supreme Pontiffs over the last 75 years or so… The Holy Spirit has truly blessed the Church with Pope Francis, in particular. I think if anyone could be an instrument of the Holy Spirit, it would be Francis. Perhaps he will make people curious enough to give a good look at Apostolic Succession, and see Catholicism as the historical offspring of the Twelve Seeds planted by Jesus Himself.

 

[MaryT777]

Jon and Don both identify their religion as Evangelical Catholic -LCMS
Top right hand corner!
When I first noted that I thought What? Hmmmm
Until they explained why.

As a Catholic I had also never heard anyone identify themselves as an Evangelical Catholic.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

All Christians who profess the apostolic creeds say:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

 

[PRmerger]

All Christians who profess the apostolic creeds say:

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

It appears to me to be false advertising to claim to be Catholic when you are, indeed, not Catholic and only wanting to claim the name “Catholic”, but…in the end, it’s not any skin off my nose if anyone who’s a Christian wants to claim to be Catholic.

Where I draw the line is with self-identifying Catholics who feel free to proclaim some ga-ga la-la nonsense is part of Catholicism… Then, that makes me

 

[EvangelCatholic]

It appears to me to be false advertising to claim to be Catholic when you are, indeed, not Catholic and only wanting to claim the name “Catholic”, but…in the end, it’s not any skin off my nose if anyone who’s a Christian wants to claim to be Catholic.

Where I draw the line is with self-identifying Catholics who feel free to proclaim some ga-ga la-la nonsense is part of Catholicism… Then, that makes me

Strange that you would character others as phonies? And be clearly out of step with current ecumenical dialogue and agreement.

 

[MaryT777]

Strange that you would character others as phonies? And be clearly out of step with current ecumenical dialogue and agreement.

Do you see ANY differences between Catholics and Lutherans that are of import?
I would imagine there’s some reason you are not Catholic and I also don’t understand why you would want to Commune in a Church you have grave doctrinal differences with.

May.

 

[pablope]

Jotto, here, represents the v

The Reformation is completed when that happens.
If the goal, OTOH, is to simply be content in division, then the Reformation has failed, and has become, as some posters here polemically refer to it as, a “deformation” of the Church.Jon

But how could the Reformation succeed without the involvement of the Western Patriarch?

If Lutherans continue to be separated, how can the Reformation succeed?

Anyway, these are questions/insights from this, the author is a Lutheran pastor:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0097.html

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation
MARK BRUMLEY

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.

From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles.

Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. But how to bring this about?

Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified? Furthermore, if, as Bouyer contends, the negative elements of the Reformation were drawn from a decadent theology and philosophy of the Middle Ages and not Christian antiquity, then it is the Catholic Church that has upheld the true faith and has maintained a balance regarding the positive principles of the Reformation that Protestantism lacks. In this way, the Catholic Church is needed for Protestantism to live up to its own positive principles.

 

[PRmerger]

Strange that you would character others as phonies? And be clearly out of step with current ecumenical dialogue and agreement.

I haven’t heard that it’s been agreed upon that we’re ok with Lutherans calling themselves Catholic?

Can you point me to the document which limns this?

 

[MaryT777]

I haven’t heard that it’s been agreed upon that we’re ok with Lutherans calling themselves Catholic?

Can you point me to the document which limns this?

I wonder how Luther would feel about that .

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What century do you think Lutherans and Catholics begin to differ? Augsburg Confession agrees with all Catholic history right up to the Reformation. Identifying differences but mostly upholding Catholic doctrine. Western Christians from Jerusalem and Rome.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;10898297]But how could the Reformation succeed without the involvement of the Western Patriarch?

It can’t.

If Lutherans continue to be separated, how can the Reformation succeed?

It hasn’t.

Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.

I would cautiously agree.

From Bouyer’s conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can’t be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the “full flowering of the principles of the Reformation”? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles.

We have seen the second part.

Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. But how to bring this about?

Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified? Furthermore, if, as Bouyer contends, the negative elements of the Reformation were drawn from a decadent theology and philosophy of the Middle Ages and not Christian antiquity, then it is the Catholic Church that has upheld the true faith and has maintained a balance regarding the positive principles of the Reformation that Protestantism lacks. In this way, the Catholic Church is needed for Protestantism to live up to its own positive principles.

Without context, I will ponder this. I will try to spend some time on the link.

Jon

 

[rfournier103]

Honestly, look at the name: “Reformation.”

Reform was the goal, NOT separation, correct?

As I learned it, wasn’t the issue NOT theology, but corruption?

The Church has often referred to Protestants as “Our separated bretheren.” Sadly, this separation has removed them from the “line of succession.”

I think that since the Church has taken many steps over the centuries to correct the problems, why not return? Unless Protestants wish to remain separated.

Is the pope, the 73 book Bible, Purgatory, the Eucharist, intercession of saints, and the Sacrament of Confession REALLY what is keeping us apart? Or is it something else?

 

[vsedriver]

Married priests have the insight and joyful experience that the Sacrament of Matrimony gives.

they can also bring personal baggage and prejudices of their personal experiences with marriage.

A celibate priest can remain neutral. I’d rather discuss my marital difficulties with a spiritual adviser who isn’t going to have only one side of the marital experience. Or tell me how to behave with my husband because that’s what his wife does to make him happy.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

they can also bring personal baggage and prejudices of their personal experiences with marriage.

A celibate priest can remain neutral. I’d rather discuss my marital difficulties with a spiritual adviser who isn’t going to have only one side of the marital experience. Or tell me how to behave with my husband because that’s what his wife does to make him happy.

Sounds reasonable. However, chastity is a great gift/ price in today’s world.

 

[vsedriver]

My father would not have been able to teach, help or serve as spiritual father to so many. Oh, and I wouldn’t be here!

yes, he would have as an ordained deacon.