E
estesbob
Guest
They were Catholics.
- Status
K
KjetilK
Guest
You keep asking the same question I have already answered. Sola Fide is, as pope Benedict XVI points out, perfectly reasonable if we see faith as ‘faith operating through love.’ Sola Scriptura doesn’t state that Tradition is not binding. It never has, and it never will. It means that Scripture is above Tradition as the norming norm which is not normed (norma normans non normata), while Tradition is the normed norm (norma normata). It is basically what the Roman Catholic Church states in Dei Verbum.
But Luther is not lord in the Church of Norway. What is binding is the confessions, not Luther’s academic papers. You keep revealing your ignorance of what Lutheranism is, but refuse to take correction. It would be like me insisting that you answer to everything some Catholic theologian has said, even when it isn’t part of Roman Catholic belief.
I keep asking you to base your questions and claims on what is said in the confessions – in the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and the Small Catechism. I have no obligation to answer for everything some Lutheran Christian has said or done. What I’m bound to is Scripture and the confessions.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Bingo!
P
pablope
Guest
There are always those not of the papacy that call for unity…like St. Paul called for the council of Jerusalem to settle the issue of the circumcision of gentiles.
There are the likes of Catherine of Sienna, St. Francis, St. Dominic, Teresa of Avila, who all advocated for unity and reform of the Church.
But the thing you are missing is they did it through the papacy…not apart from it.
P
pablope
Guest
But Father K…you do have one thing in common with protestants…a dislike for the papacy and consider him anti-christ…
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I only consider him that on Tuesday’s. What does that make me?But Father K…you do have one thing in common with protestants…a dislike for the papacy and consider him anti-christ…
K
KjetilK
Guest
But Father K…you do have one thing in common with protestants…a dislike for the papacy and consider him anti-christ…
What? Where have I said that the Pope is the Anti-Christ?
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
He’s probably referring to the Smalcald Articles.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Probably. But if he had bothered to read my posts, he would have known that I am not bound to follow the Smalcald Articles.
The only confessions to which I am bound are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, Confessio Augustana, and the Small Catechism, none of which even mentions the Roman Pontiff in any way whatsoever.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
KjetilK,
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.
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.
You can’t have the cake and eat it too. If Scriptures are the norm of norms, shouldn’t you must do like Paul and go the Church that’s already here?
K
KjetilK
Guest
What makes you think Lutherans in general do not have valid orders? In the Church of Sweden, for instance, the Archbishop became part of the Reformation. What you see, then, is that the Scandinavian Reformation in many respects foreshadowed the Old Catholic Churches post 1870, Churches which do have valid ordained priests and bishops. One example is the Polish National Catholic Church (PNCC).
The problem with your argument is that it proves to much. If valid, it strikes at the heart of the Orthodox Churches and Churches like the PNCC, since they also broke communion with Rome. And that is a reading not shared by your own Magisterium, which sees these Churches as valid ones. Another interesting example is that even when the Church of England was separated from Rome, it was seen as the historic Church of the realm, and when Thomas Cranmer was appointed archbishop of Canterbury, his appointment was accepted by Rome.
Remember that I am not speaking about free church Lutheranism. I am speaking as a member and an ordained priest of the Church of Norway, which is the historic church in my realm.
B
benhur
Guest
That is debateable that Paul called Peter Pope or viewed Peter as today’s definition of Pope. Thank you but am now even more aware that reform was and is called from within CC as well as from without. Constantine worked also with the bishop of Rome as one of the handful of "Sees’’ at the time.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I did not say you do not have valid orders. What I did ask is:
Again, I did not say that. What I said was:
Anglican Orders lack form and intent as specified in Apostolicae Curae.
Neither am I saying that you are a free Lutheran Church. But as far as I’m concern, you are not PNCC or Orthodox. Something that I really don’t follow, since you are not one or the other. They should be left out of the discussion.
We are talking about your Church - the Lutheran Church of Norway, that is bound by the Creeds, Confessions, and Catechism you have specified.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Paul didn’t call the New Testament - “New Testament” either.
Paul didn’t call the Old Testament - “Old Testament” either.
Nor did Paul said which letters, epistles are Scriptures either.
Hmm…
B
benhur
Guest
Maybe we should stop anathemizing each other (well, the councils do/did) over dogmatizing and going beyond universalities.
E
estesbob
Guest
Or perhaps you should just the accept the fact your denomination did not exist for at least 1500 years after Christ founded his Church
G
guanophore
Guest
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.
B
benhur
Guest
Like Paul, things are what they are whether you call it this or call it that. Keep the main thing the main thing. Apostolic is as apostolic does, by any name or denomination. One could say if the church stayed as the church and" loose "as in Paul’s day the name "catholic’’ would not have evolved so much and then you would not have needed any counter evolving. So for sure the name Lutheran or Episcopalian did not exist until after1500 years just as sure as Roman Catholic did not exist until some centuries after the first church and it is the walk that counts.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think I am not asking my question the best way. Let me back up a step. Do you agree with this statement?
If so, what s it that separates the Lutheran communion from the Orthodox? Luther knew about the Christians in the East. Why did he found Lutheranism, instead of becoming a sui juris Orthodox Church?
Yes, we must all work toward the unity for which Christ prayed and gave up His life.
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.
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?
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.
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. The Catholic faith, and the particular Church that was there was abrogated, the priests ejected, and the Apostolic faith abandoned. As has been the case with all the other separations from the Apostolic succession, more splintering and division has resulted.
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.
No, those bodies retained the faith that was handed down to them through the paradosis. Because of the preservation of the Sacred Tradition, unity has been maintained. There have been vast separations like this in the East, particularly as a result of the Muslim ravishing of Christians for the last 1000 years, but whenever there is opportunity to reconnect with the successors of the Apostles, ,the faithful have retained the faith, so there is no division. This is why there was never a Protestant Reformation in the East.
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.
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?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Some centuries? :nope: You are forced to add the qualifier of “Roman”… Nope, Wishful thinking…
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (Disciple of John the Apostle and 3rd Bishop of Antioch - after Peter and Evodius)(Before ~107AD — not even half a century)
Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
And by the way, Paul wrote an Epistle to the Church in Rome, whose faith was proclaimed throughout all the world. Yup Rome as Roman Catholic. Wishful thinking indeed.
- Status