How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[Isaiah45_9]

Maybe we should stop anathemizing each other (well, the councils do/did) over dogmatizing and going beyond universalities.

Oh no, don’t go down a rabbit hole.

Paul did not use any of the names for the Testaments or give a list of books. If you accept Scriptures, you are indeed accepting something not contained in them: the list. SO if you want to argue about titles or doctrines and dogmas, we have to throw the testaments out as well.

 

[KjetilK]

This article states:

Norwegians officially accepted the new faith in 1539. Roman Catholic bishops and clergy who would not accept Lutheranism were forced out of the church, and the church’s property was taken over by the government. By the end of the 16th century, the church had been reorganized, and Lutheranism was accepted by most of the people and clergy.

It seems to me that the current “church of Norway” was established in 1539, and there was a clear break from the Catholic faith.

Yes, just like the Russian Church was established around 1054, to use a symbolic date. Or are you suggesting that that transition was smooth?

 

[KjetilK]

Why did he found Lutheranism, instead of becoming a sui juris Orthodox Church?

Herein lies the problem. Luther didn’t ‘found Lutheranism.’

But the difference with the Orthodox, among other things, is that they have valid apostolic succession. This is what makes the sacraments valid, and preserves their identity as Church. Luther rejected that, so Lutheranism no longer meets that Apostolic criteria.

Where did Luther reject that? And how many times must I repeat that Luther’s private opinions are irrelevant here? The Church of Norway has apostolic succession. We unfortunately lost it, but regained it through the Church of England who regained it though Old Catholics, post Apostolicae Curae.

Well, it was political 500 years ago, but the Church now forbids those who have taken Holy Orders to hold political office, so how can that be a valid current complaint?

Why do you assume I’m talking about merely secular politics here? There was a real political struggle between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Actually, Eastern Orthodoxy has existed longer than Roman Catholicism. It was in Antioch of Syria that the followers of Jesus were first called Christians, and the line of Bishops coming from Peter there is older than the line in Rome.

By Eastern Orthodoxy I am referring to its current state, out of communion with the West.

There have been many particular Churches that became separated by politics, war, disease, inablity to travel, etc. The difference in this case, though, is that the doctrines were changed when Norway adopted Lutheranism.

And no change in doctrine came along with the Great Schism? Am I supposed to take that seriously?

Other particular churches have re-united with the successor of Peter in Rome after such separations, but Norway could not, since they no longer professed the Catholic faith.

It’s always interesting being told by people what I really believe.

No, those bodies retained the faith that was handed down to them through the paradosis.

Yes, no doctrinal change occurred at all. None of the Old Catholics, for instance, rejected the First Vatican Council. No, siree.

I fear that this is, regretably, an accurate observation. “Protestantism” is now so broad that the new Bible Christians think that the liturgical communions such as Lutheran did not go far enough to throw off the Catholic trappings. They are so unaware of their historical and doctrinal origins that they claim they are not “protesting” anything.

Then why use the term? Why lump a Lutheran together with an anabaptist?

While I can affirm that Lutherans are an offshoot of the Latin Rite, you are a catholic of the Augsburg confession, which is intensely anti-catholic in language. It is more than being out of communion! Do you believe what is written in your Confessions?

Where is the anti-catholic language of Confessio Augustana?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Yes, just like the Russian Church was established around 1054, to use a symbolic date. Or are you suggesting that that transition was smooth?

:nope:

Tradition holds that the Apostle Andrew evangelized the area around the Black Sea. And Cyril and Methodius translated Scriptures and other Church documents into Old Slavonic in the 9th century.

Needless to say, the Russian Church was the initiative of within the Church. Not without.

Again Orthodox is brought into the discussion by a Non-Orthodox. What is it to you that the Church establishes Churches. They didn’t do it for the purpose of dissension.

Are you implying that the Orthodox and Catholic schism is ground for you to break away from an Apostolic Church?

Because there has been separation, then it’s ok to further the division and to break apart the body?

 

[guanophore]

Well it was Constantine that called for some unity and not your version of Apostolic See.

Of course all the Bishops were calling for unity, but at the time, Bishops did not have temporal power like they came to have later. They were unable to have a council, because they did not have the power to organize and guarantee the safety of the Bishops to get there. Only the temporal ruler, Constantine had the power to provide a venue, to guarantee safe passage, and to fund this council. Only he commanded the military prowess to escort the Bishops to a council amidst conspiracies of assasination,

And his motives were more secular than religious. He was provoked about the economic impact of half the Christians wanting a day off to observe the Sabbath on Saturday, and the other half wanting the day off to observe the Lord’s Day on Sunday, and some of them wanting both! It really to a chunk our of market functioning.

Remember that the Romans were accustomed to having a plurality of religious views that supported economic and political structures, or at the least, did not interfere. The Arian controversy was a hugely divisive and antagonistic phenomenon, with each side spilling vitriol upon the other, and whole communities refusing to interact with others because they were on the opposite sides. Also not good for peaceful commerce.

Constantine, ,though, did not have the power to resolve this, only the Bishops did. So he announced that they were all going to get together and “choose one or the other”
(he didn’t really care which). There would be one day off for religious observance (he actualy prefered Saturday as he already lost the Jewish subjects from the market that day) they would determine if the Holy Spirit was a Person, or not, etc. He wanted harmony for good commerce.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Curious why some posters continue to assert that the Lutheran Church does not have apostolic succession. Catholic documents confirm uninterrupted AS in the Church of Sweden for example and state that apostolic succession has been restored in much of Lutheranism including north America [ELCA & ELCC].

 

[KjetilK]

Needless to say, the Russian Church was the initiative of within the Church. Not without.

And the same is true of the Church of Norway. It was evangelised from England, first by King Olaf Tryggvason, who converted in England, and later by St. Olaf, our eternal king, who also converted in England. They both brought english bishops.

Again Orthodox is brought into the discussion by a Non-Orthodox. What is it to you that the Church establishes Churches. They didn’t do it for the purpose of dissension.

That doesn’t mean they didn’t dissent. You should really take a look at the relationship between Photius and the Pope.

Are you implying that the Orthodox and Catholic schism is ground for you to break away from an Apostolic Church?

No, my point is that when a Catholic says that to break off from Rome makes a Church invalid, the argument also hits at home with the Orthodox. The argument thus proves to much. My point is that schism as such doesn’t invalidate a Church. When FathersKnowBest said that the schism between the Church of England and Rome invalidated the Church, he was arguing against his own Church, which approved the appointment of Thomas Cranmer as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Because there has been separation, then it’s ok to further the division and to break apart the body?

No, but I try to answer the claims made by many Catholics here – that schism in an of itself invalidates a Church. According to Roman Catholic teaching, a Church is valid if it has validly ordained bishops. The Church of Norway lost its apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England who regained it though Old Catholics, post Apostolicae Curae. The Church of Sweden never lost it, as the Archbishops remained.

 

[Denise1957]

Curious why some posters continue to assert that the Lutheran Church does not have apostolic succession. Catholic documents confirm uninterrupted AS in the Church of Sweden for example and state that apostolic succession has been restored in much of Lutheranism including north America [ELCA & ELCC].

What documents of the Catholic Church definitively state that apostolic succession has been restored in much of Lutheranism. Please be specific as to exactly where this is stated.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

What documents of the Catholic Church definitively state that apostolic succession has been restored in much of Lutheranism. Please be specific as to exactly where this is stated.

1. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the succession of episcopal consecrations; this succession was broken in continental Lutheranism, maintained in parts of Nordic Lutheranism, and has been reclaimed by the ELCA. What is the significance of either preserving or breaking this succession? That question must not be isolated and made to bear the entire weight of a judgment on a church’s ministry. Whether a particular minister or church serves the church’s apostolic mission does not depend only upon the presence of such a succession of episcopal consecrations, as if its absence would negate the apostolicity of the church’s teaching and mission.135 Recent ecumenical discussions of episcopacy and succession do not remove our former disagreements, but they do place them in a richer and more complex context in which judgments made exclusively on the basis of the presence or absence of a succession of consecrations are less possible
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

 

[steido01]

What documents of the Catholic Church definitively state that apostolic succession has been restored in much of Lutheranism. Please be specific as to exactly where this is stated.

I’d be curious to see this too. Historically, it would seem that succession was never lost in those Lutheran communions who maintained Apostolic Succession, but I don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church has ever ruled specifically on those communions (unlike its stance on Anglican orders). That said, absence of ruling can hardly be taken as a “definitive statement” in defense of Lutheran orders*.

*Big point to keep in mind: Any Roman Catholic discussion of Lutheran orders would in no way affect how Lutherans understand their orders as “valid.” We know our pastors and bishops properly administer the sacraments, and that’s all we need to know.

 

[guanophore]

Curious why some posters continue to assert that the Lutheran Church does not have apostolic succession. Catholic documents confirm uninterrupted AS in the Church of Sweden for example and state that apostolic succession has been restored in much of Lutheranism including north America [ELCA & ELCC].

I do it because I have never seen said documents, and because my understanding of the separation is that no new Bishops could be validly ordained, and therefore, all priestly ordinations are not considered valid.

Trent declared that Trent those who were not “rightly” (rite ) ordained and not sent by canonical authority having been conferred in accord with the canons or with the authorization of a legitimate superior), are not lawful ministers of the Word and sacraments. This is true about any Holy Orders that are not in communion with the successors of Peter that fall within the Latin Rite. Like conditional baptisms, all clergy entering from other churches who have not been ordained in the historic apostolic succession must be re-ordained.

In some cases, it is difficult to establish, just as it is for baptism with no records. Since the Church believes that Holy Orders, like Baptism is a “once for all” deal, persons who may be validly ordained may be re-ordained. Since 1896 many Anglican bishops have been consecrated by bishops of the Old Catholic Church whose holy orders were recognized by the Holy See. Despite the recognition that there is an unbroken succession, all Anglican clergymen who desire to enter the Catholic Church do so as laymen and must be ordained in the Catholic Church in order to serve as priests. Catholics are, according to Ad Tuendam Fidem and Cardinal Ratzinger, obliged to hold the position that Anglican orders are invalid.

Catholics do not recognize the ordination of ministers in other, Protestant, churches that do not maintain the apostolic succession. The Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Finland have always maintained unbroken apostolic succession and their Holy Orders have never been dismissed by Rome. This is not the case for the Lutheran Churches of Norway, Denmark, and Iceland where there occurred breaks in succession.

My studies of this matter have brought me to realize that the matter is way above my paygrade. It is my fervent prayer that Christ’s Church will come into unity, and that all of those who are called to serve the flock can be recognized and serve in both a valid and licit manner.

I also think that there are many holy Lutheran and Anglican priests who easily outshine the ministry of Roman Catholic priests, and are more “catholic” in their faith than plenty of dissenting priests. We need our separated brethren to refresh the ministry.

Meanwhile I trust that those who are called by God to serve the flock will prayerfully and diligently figure it all out to our benefit.

 

[GKC]

I do it because I have never seen said documents, and because my understanding of the separation is that no new Bishops could be validly ordained, and therefore, all priestly ordinations are not considered valid.

Trent declared that Trent those who were not “rightly” (rite ) ordained and not sent by canonical authority having been conferred in accord with the canons or with the authorization of a legitimate superior), are not lawful ministers of the Word and sacraments. This is true about any Holy Orders that are not in communion with the successors of Peter that fall within the Latin Rite. Like conditional baptisms, all clergy entering from other churches who have not been ordained in the historic apostolic succession must be re-ordained.

In some cases, it is difficult to establish, just as it is for baptism with no records. Since the Church believes that Holy Orders, like Baptism is a “once for all” deal, persons who may be validly ordained may be re-ordained. Since 1896 many Anglican bishops have been consecrated by bishops of the Old Catholic Church whose holy orders were recognized by the Holy See. Despite the recognition that there is an unbroken succession, all Anglican clergymen who desire to enter the Catholic Church do so as laymen and must be ordained in the Catholic Church in order to serve as priests. Catholics are, according to Ad Tuendam Fidem and Cardinal Ratzinger, obliged to hold the position that Anglican orders are invalid.

Catholics do not recognize the ordination of ministers in other, Protestant, churches that do not maintain the apostolic succession. The Lutheran Churches of Sweden and Finland have always maintained unbroken apostolic succession and their Holy Orders have never been dismissed by Rome. This is not the case for the Lutheran Churches of Norway, Denmark, and Iceland where there occurred breaks in succession.

My studies of this matter have brought me to realize that the matter is way above my paygrade. It is my fervent prayer that Christ’s Church will come into unity, and that all of those who are called to serve the flock can be recognized and serve in both a valid and licit manner.

I also think that there are many holy Lutheran and Anglican priests who easily outshine the ministry of Roman Catholic priests, and are more “catholic” in their faith than plenty of dissenting priests. We need our separated brethren to refresh the ministry.

Meanwhile I trust that those who are called by God to serve the flock will prayerfully and diligently figure it all out to our benefit.

You need a "not "in the 2nd sentence, 3rd para. However, 2 Anglican priests have been ordained sub conditione, as RC priests since Apostolicae curae; the idea of the Dutch Touch is usually suggested in playing a part in that, but there has been no definite RC statement on the matter, either generally or specifically. Those two are anomalies.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And the same is true of the Church of Norway. It was evangelised from England, first by King Olaf Tryggvason, who converted in England, and later by St. Olaf, our eternal king, who also converted in England. They both brought english bishops.

Southern England was evangelized way before King Olaf by Pope Gregory I (540-604), who sent Augustine of Canterbury to evangelize the area after the King of Kent married a Christian Princess. Augustine would become the 1st Archbishop of Canterbury in 597AD.

That doesn’t mean they didn’t dissent. You should really take a look at the relationship between Photius and the Pope.

During the time of Photius, the Bishop of Rome did not have absolute immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church. This suggestion is a moot point.

No, my point is that when a Catholic says that to break off from Rome makes a Church invalid, the argument also hits at home with the Orthodox. The argument thus proves to much. My point is that schism as such doesn’t invalidate a Church. When FathersKnowBest said that the schism between the Church of England and Rome invalidated the Church, he was arguing against his own Church, which approved the appointment of Thomas Cranmer as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Before the 1054AD Schism, the Bishop of Rome did not have immediate jurisdiction in the same manner that it has today, or immediately after 1054AD.

After the Great Schism the Western Church, instead of having Autocephalous become all together under the absolute immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The Church of Norway included.

During the Reformation, the Bishops that broke ties from the Catholic Church did it under very different circumstances than those in 1054AD. As such, the point does not hit home at all. The Bishopric of Norway swore allegiance to the Bishop of Rome, and it broke it when they separated.

Apples and Oranges. Divisions need to be looked at through the glasses of their time.

No, but I try to answer the claims made by many Catholics here – that schism in an of itself invalidates a Church. According to Roman Catholic teaching, a Church is valid if it has validly ordained bishops. The Church of Norway lost its apostolic succession, but regained it through the Church of England who regained it though Old Catholics, post Apostolicae Curae. The Church of Sweden never lost it, as the Archbishops remained.

But I am not addressing what other Catholics claim. I’m having a separate conversation with you. It’s hard to reply to several posters. So I appreciate your time and effort.

I would like to see the specific sections of the Church of Sweden and the regaining succession for the Church of Norway from official Vatican sources. I don’t recall reading about them.

Then you have not yet answered my question:

Herein lies the problem:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.​

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments** unless he be regularly called**.​

The Gospel doctrine for ecclesiastical order is done by the laying on the hands from the Apostles and their successors. When St. Paul received revelation, he didn’t go off and planted his own Church. He was sent to the Apostles and their disciples. The Deacons we see in Acts 6, are not self appointed either. They were selected by the Apostles. Matthias didn’t self-appoint either. He was selected by the 11.

How can we maintain a Gospel doctrine of Ecclesiastical Order without the consent and authority of any of the Apostolic Churches? You are not in communion with Catholics or Orthodox.
​

​

Thanks,

 

[Denise1957]

1. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the succession of episcopal consecrations; this succession was broken in continental Lutheranism, maintained in parts of Nordic Lutheranism, and has been reclaimed by the ELCA. What is the significance of either preserving or breaking this succession? That question must not be isolated and made to bear the entire weight of a judgment on a church’s ministry. Whether a particular minister or church serves the church’s apostolic mission does not depend only upon the presence of such a succession of episcopal consecrations, as if its absence would negate the apostolicity of the church’s teaching and mission.135 Recent ecumenical discussions of episcopacy and succession do not remove our former disagreements, but they do place them in a richer and more complex context in which judgments made exclusively on the basis of the presence or absence of a succession of consecrations are less possible
   usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/koinonia-of-salvation.cfm

Thanks for posting the exact source to which you were referring. It isn’t clear as to who wrote #81, since the document appears to be a dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans on the subject of Koinonia Ecclesiology. While the statement does indicate that maybe the Catholic Church sees the ELCA as having reclaimed succession, it’s not a clear statement of the Catholic Church regarding Lutherans and apostolic succession.

 

[guanophore]

 Southern England was evangelized way before King Olaf by Pope Gregory I (540-604), who sent [Augustine of Canterbury](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Canterbury) to evangelize the area after the King of Kent married a Christian Princess. Augustine would become the 1st Archbishop of Canterbury in 597AD.

Which will be irrrelevant, since he does not seem to recognize that there was a hard break between the Catholic faith and the Norway Church at the time of the Reformation.

During the time of Photius, the Bishop of Rome did not have absolute immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church. This suggestion is a moot point.

It seems to me that Peter was either given the gift by Christ to feed and care for the flock, or not. If he was given it, then passed it to his successor, and so on, then the jurisdiction over the Church existed from the time Christ gave it.

That being said, there have always been areas of the flock that are beyond his influence (immediate absolute jurisdiction) and are now, in the West, Christians of a wide variety of ecclesial communities that are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

Before the 1054AD Schism, the Bishop of Rome did not have immediate jurisdiction in the same manner that it has today, or immediately after 1054AD.
​

Maybe I am not understanding how you are using this term. Was jurisdiction given by Christ, or not? If so, is it not a spiritual reality whether it is manifested in the temporal, or not?

After the Great Schism the Western Church, instead of having Autocephalous become all together under the absolute immediate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The Church of Norway included.

I think that the West was considered an autocephalous under the See of Peter from the beginning.

I would like to see the specific sections of the Church of Sweden and the regaining succession for the Church of Norway from official Vatican sources. I don’t recall reading about them.

I do recall reading about them, and it appears that there is not much to gain regularity. Still, the Protestants of Norway will still be separated if they are not in communion.​

 

[Denise1957]

I’d be curious to see this too. Historically, it would seem that succession was never lost in those Lutheran communions who maintained Apostolic Succession, but I don’t believe the Roman Catholic Church has ever ruled specifically on those communions (unlike its stance on Anglican orders). That said, absence of ruling can hardly be taken as a “definitive statement” in defense of Lutheran orders*.

*Big point to keep in mind: Any Roman Catholic discussion of Lutheran orders would in no way affect how Lutherans understand their orders as “valid.” We know our pastors and bishops properly administer the sacraments, and that’s all we need to know.

There does seem to an absence of a ruling of the CC in defense of Lutheran orders. I understand that Lutherans believe that their orders are valid, and that’s fine. I don’t have any interest in talking them out of that belief. If, however, Rome were to issue a definitive statement and say that Lutheran orders (or some of them) are valid, then I’d accept it, since I trust the Church to make decisions on these matters.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It seems to me that Peter was either given the gift by Christ to feed and care for the flock, or not. If he was given it, then passed it to his successor, and so on, then the jurisdiction over the Church existed from the time Christ gave it.

Maybe I am not understanding how you are using this term. Was jurisdiction given by Christ, or not? If so, is it not a spiritual reality whether it is manifested in the temporal, or not?

Guano,

There is a big difference between feeding and caring for the flock and having supreme absolute immediate jurisdiction over the Church Universal.

For a thousand years this supreme absolute immediate jurisdiction was not exercised and each Apostolic See was Autocephalous.

It’s not until 1075AD in Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae, that for the 1st time the Pope claimed the following powers (Among others):

1. 
   *]That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
   *]That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
   *]That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
   
   Never before in the history of the Church did we see something like this.
   
   The Western Bishops agree that this absolute immediate jurisdiction was given to the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Bishops do not. And to be honest, I don’t think they are being rebellious, since to rebel you must depart from an established practice. They don’t agree with this development.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Thanks for posting the exact source to which you were referring. It isn’t clear as to who wrote #81, since the document appears to be a dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans on the subject of Koinonia Ecclesiology. While the statement does indicate that maybe the Catholic Church sees the ELCA as having reclaimed succession, it’s not a clear statement of the Catholic Church regarding Lutherans and apostolic succession.

You had asked for proof in the past and I have directed you to the document. As I have stated before, it is not always possible to find the exact page on long Internet documents from the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue so you may have to actually read it for more insight.

Perhaps you can Google apostolic succession in the Lutheran Church for more info.

 

[guanophore]

Guano,

There is a big difference between feeding and caring for the flock and having supreme absolute immediate jurisdiction over the Church Universal.

For a thousand years this supreme absolute immediate jurisdiction was not exercised and each Apostolic See was Autocephalous.

It’s not until 1075AD in Pope Gregory VII’s Dictatus Papae, that for the 1st time the Pope claimed the following powers (Among others):

1. 
   *]That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
   *]That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
   *]That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
   
   Never before in the history of the Church did we see something like this.
   
   The Western Bishops agree that this absolute immediate jurisdiction was given to the Bishop of Rome. The Eastern Bishops do not. And to be honest, I don’t think they are being rebellious, since to rebel you must depart from an established practice. They don’t agree with this development.

1. 
   Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, this seems to be a major wedge between East and West.
   
   I think from their point of view, the Bishop of Rome stood up and proclaimed himself King of the Hill, and saying so does not make it so.

 

[steido01]

There does seem to an absence of a ruling of the CC in defense of Lutheran orders. I understand that Lutherans believe that their orders are valid, and that’s fine. I don’t have any interest in talking them out of that belief. If, however, Rome were to issue a definitive statement and say that Lutheran orders (or some of them) are valid, then I’d accept it, since I trust the Church to make decisions on these matters.

Same page.