How do protestants explain the 1500 year gap.

[KjetilK]

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.

Why could no new bishops be validly ordained? And why does that not apply to, say, the Polish National Catholic Church, which is a Western Church?

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.

Why would you read about that from Vatican sources? They are not the official medium of the Church of Sweden.

My point is this: Since the Roman Catholic Church recognises the validity of post-reformational orders in the Church of Sweden, and since we have Swedish bishops who have ordained Norwegian bishops, then we have succession in the Church of Norway. The Roman Catholic Church claims to follow an Augustinian view of validity, over and above a ‘Cyprianic.’ The ‘Cyprianic’ view goes back to St. Cyprian of Carthage, and is largely followed by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. He maintained that the validity of apostolic succession had to do not only with who ordained you, but with whom you were in communion. St. Cyprian held, therefore, that if you broke out, you lost the succession. The Eastern Orthodox, ‘Cypriarian’ theory, has been taken so far by some Orthodox that they do not even recognise non-Orthodox baptisms. I don’t think that applies to the most, but I think it does in (at last parts of) Russia and (at least parts of) the ROCOR churches.

In the Roman Catholic church, and in Western theology in general, the focus has been on St. Augustine’s theory, that the validity of apostolic succession had to do with who ordained you, and nothing more. The relevant distinction here is between validity and licitity (if that is even a word). On the technical question of validity, then, the Augustinian idea wholly ignores the opinion of the individual priest or bishop or whether or not he is in communion with other validly ordained bishops, including the Roman Pontiff, and asks: Are they validly ordained/consecrated? If yes, then whoever they ordains (if they are bishops) will have apostolic succession. A Catholic might say that they got it or exercises it illicitly, but that they have it validly. That some aren’t coherently applying that principle is not my problem.

To read more, respectively from a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic point of view, see William C. Weinrich, “Cyprian, Donatism, Augustine, and Augustana VIII: Remarks on the Church and the Validity of Sacraments” (Concordia Theological Quarterly 55:4, 1991): 267-296; and Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the “Rebaptism” Crisis: Cyprian of Carthage’s Synod of Spring 256” (Theological Studies 67, 2006): 257-274. The latter is unfortunately not freely available outside academic subscriptions.

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.

There was a break between the Church of Norway and the Roman Catholic Church, which is not equivalent with ‘the Catholic faith.’

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.

If so, then my point stands.

Still, the Protestants of Norway will still be separated if they are not in communion.

And so will everyone else, including the Orthodox, the Old Catholics, etc. The debate here is not whether or not schism is good, but whether or not there is validity in some Lutheran orders, and whether or not there exists a ‘gap.’

 

[spina1953]

There is no new revelation. All that has been revealed for our salvation has been given to us and doctrines are teachings of that which has been revealed. Since the death of the last Apostles there is no new revelation only doctrines that explains and teaches what has been revealed. At least that is my understanding.

 

[GKC]

In the Roman Catholic church, and in Western theology in general, the focus has been on St. Augustine’s theory, that the validity of apostolic succession had to do with who ordained you, and nothing more. The relevant distinction here is between validity and licitity (if that is even a word). On the technical question of validity, then, the Augustinian idea wholly ignores the opinion of the individual priest or bishop or whether or not he is in communion with other validly ordained bishops, including the Roman Pontiff, and asks: Are they validly ordained/consecrated? If yes, then whoever they ordains (if they are bishops) will have apostolic succession. A Catholic might say that they got it or exercises it illicitly, but that they have it validly. That some aren’t coherently applying that principle is not my problem.

“Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops, can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided that he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite” (senta. certa). Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.

Ott uses “liceity”, in this context.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why would you read about that from Vatican sources? They are not the official medium of the Church of Sweden.

You are kidding right? After all you have said about not being bound by sources outside your confessions. You want me to accept what the Church of Sweden says at face value, in regards to a subject that deals with the opinion of the Catholic Church?

You are saying that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of post-reformational orders in the Church of Sweden, and you can’t produce a Catholic Church document that supports your argument.

No, thank you.

My point is this: Since the Roman Catholic Church recognises the validity of post-reformational orders in the Church of Sweden, and since we have Swedish bishops who have ordained Norwegian bishops, then we have succession in the Church of Norway.

Where is the Catholic Church’s document on this matter?

The Roman Catholic Church claims to follow an Augustinian view of validity, over and above a ‘Cyprianic.’ The ‘Cyprianic’ view goes back to St. Cyprian of Carthage, and is largely followed by the Eastern Orthodox Churches. He maintained that the validity of apostolic succession had to do not only with who ordained you, but with whom you were in communion. St. Cyprian held, therefore, that if you broke out, you lost the succession. The Eastern Orthodox, ‘Cypriarian’ theory, has been taken so far by some Orthodox that they do not even recognise non-Orthodox baptisms. I don’t think that applies to the most, but I think it does in (at last parts of) Russia and (at least parts of) the ROCOR churches.

In the Roman Catholic church, and in Western theology in general, the focus has been on St. Augustine’s theory, that the validity of apostolic succession had to do with who ordained you, and nothing more. The relevant distinction here is between validity and licitity (if that is even a word). On the technical question of validity, then, the Augustinian idea wholly ignores the opinion of the individual priest or bishop or whether or not he is in communion with other validly ordained bishops, including the Roman Pontiff, and asks: Are they validly ordained/consecrated? If yes, then whoever they ordains (if they are bishops) will have apostolic succession. A Catholic might say that they got it or exercises it illicitly, but that they have it validly.

GKC beat me to it. Apostolic Succession does not necessarily validate Holy Orders. If you read closely the very same document you spoke about initially (Apostolicae Curae), it clearly states that Anglicans orders are invalid because of form and intent (What Ott is referring to as well). If you have Apostolic Succession from them, then you also lack form and intent.

That some aren’t coherently applying that principle is not my problem.

You keep pointing to others… And it’s really annoying… I am [not] others.

I am coherently presenting an argument, requesting reasonable information, and asking specific questions.

To read more, respectively from a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic point of view, see William C. Weinrich, “Cyprian, Donatism, Augustine, and Augustana VIII: Remarks on the Church and the Validity of Sacraments” (Concordia Theological Quarterly 55:4, 1991): 267-296; and Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Validity of Baptism and Ordination in the African Response to the “Rebaptism” Crisis: Cyprian of Carthage’s Synod of Spring 256” (Theological Studies 67, 2006): 257-274. The latter is unfortunately not freely available outside academic subscriptions.

Those seem to be scholarly opinions, and while they have my respect. Unless it is the [Official] position of the Catholic Church. It’s just an opinion. As informed as it may be.

 

[benhur]

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.

Ignatius used catholic as an adjective as did Tertullian “the catholic goodness of God” or Iraneus, “the 4 catholic winds” or Justin the" catholic resurrection" or Aristotle the “catholic rule” and Ignatius and the “catholic church”, as in universal . An adjective , not a noun or pronoun, at least not yet… That people all around heard about Christian faith in Rome, the world’s largest an most powerful city of the world, with all roads leading to (or from) it means what ?

 

[GKC]

You are kidding right? After all you have said about not being bound by sources outside your confessions. You want me to accept what the Church of Sweden says at face value, in regards to a subject that deals with the opinion of the Catholic Church?

You are saying that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of post-reformational orders in the Church of Sweden, and you can’t produce a Catholic Church document that supports your argument.

No, thank you.

Where is the Catholic Church’s document on this matter?

GKC beat me to it. Apostolic Succession does not necessarily validate Holy Orders. If you read closely the very same document you spoke about initially (Apostolicae Curae), it clearly states that Anglicans orders are invalid because of form and intent (What Ott is referring to as well). If you have Apostolic Succession from them, then you also lack form and intent.

You keep pointing to others… And it’s really annoying… I am [not] others.

I am coherently presenting an argument, requesting reasonable information, and asking specific questions.

Those seem to be scholarly opinions, and while they have my respect. Unless it is the [Official] position of the Catholic Church. It’s just an opinion. As informed as it may be.

Not quite what Ott (per GKC) is saying. Apostolic succession does validate Holy Orders, assuming the conditions given in Ott’s quote. It doesn’t assure licit orders, which is a different thing. What (I think) KjetilK was basically saying was that (as Ott says), an infusion of the OC/Utrecht’s episcopal lines (or the PNCC’s, for that matter) would convey valid/illicit episcopal lines, either to the Anglicans or the Lutherans, directly or derivatively. This seems the only logical conclusion to what Ott stated.

That the RCC has never spoken definitively on that precise issue is something I often point out.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not quite what Ott (per GKC) is saying. Apostolic succession does validate Holy Orders, assuming the conditions given in Ott’s quote. It doesn’t assure licit orders, which is a different thing.

Right, but Ott also follows with:

For the **liceity **of Orders it is necessary that they be conferred by an episcopus proprius or by another bishop with his approval (Dimissories). CIC 955.

Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 458).

Which is what you (And Ott) are saying in regards to liceity of Orders.

I wouldn’t use the word Validate/Licit if we are to understand “Episcopus Propius”. What Ott, Augustine and Aquinas say is that it is possible for a separated (heretical, schismatic, etc) Bishop to convey Holy Orders.

Aquinas further says:

On the contrary, When a bishop who has fallen into heresy is reconciled he is not reconsecrated. Therefore he did not lose the power which he had of conferring Orders.
Further, The power to ordain is greater than the power of Orders. But the power of Orders is not forfeited on account of heresy and the like. Neither therefore is the power to ordain.
Further, As the one who baptizes exercises a merely outward ministry, so does one who ordains, while God works inwardly. But one who is cut off from the Church by no means loses the power to baptize. Neither therefore does he lose the power to ordain.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologica. Supplementum, Q38, 2nd Article

Maybe I’m lost in translation, but for me: Illicit = Not Valid (Until reconciliation).

That the RCC has never spoken definitively on that precise issue is something I often point out.

GKC

In that case there is no “yes” or “no”. In the absence of a “yes” a decision remains to be entered.

 

[GKC]

Right, but Ott also follows with:

Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 458).

Which is what you (And Ott) are saying in regards to liceity of Orders.

I wouldn’t use the word Validate/Licit if we are to understand “Episcopus Propius”. What Ott, Augustine and Aquinas say is that it is possible for a separated (heretical, schismatic, etc) Bishop to convey Holy Orders.

Aquinas further says:

Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologica. Supplementum, Q38, 2nd Article

Maybe I’m lost in translation, but for me: Illicit = Not Valid (Until reconciliation).

In that case there is no “yes” or “no”. In the absence of a “yes” a decision remains to be entered.

Illicit merely means not authorized (hence, not lawful), since the sacramental action is not being performed by one in communion with the RCC (or, by one in communion, but without authorization), but one otherwise capable of validly performing the action (any validly consecrated bishop), The statements by Ott, and by Aquinas make it clear that such authorization is not required for a valid sacramental action, with respect to Holy Orders. Per Ott’s 2nd quote, it is for a valid/licit one, one done under authority. Hence there is not a question that the OC orders were considered valid. But not licit.

What remains to be seen is how the clear implication in Ott’s accounting might be applied in the case of the Dutch Touch or Polish Pat. I would be glad to see that explicated, definitively. Would stop all the speculation.

GKC

 

[raikou]

This was the real question I had in a previous thread that got derailed. Personally leaving my non denominational church and coming home to the Catholic Church if both had a solid answer from the bible I had to go with the catholic one because it was rooted in history such as the writings from the first three centuries after Christ.

When ever I show protestants of any kind writings such as the Didiache, polycarp, and ignatius of Antioch. They say “well false teachers were there from the beginning and I have the truth from the bible”. This had come from Lutherans to baptists

This argument falls apart when you point out that it is through the hierarchy and authority of the Catholic Church that we have the official list of the New Testament books. Since such a list only developed after the time of the Apostles, we can be sure that the Apostles never taught Sola Scriptura (how can you teach the “Bible alone” doctrine if it is not yet clear what the Bible is?). Therefore, Sola Sciptura is a novel teaching of false teachers who deviated from the Apostles’ teachings.

 

[KjetilK]

I had to do this in two posts.

Not quite what Ott (per GKC) is saying. Apostolic succession does validate Holy Orders, assuming the conditions given in Ott’s quote. It doesn’t assure licit orders, which is a different thing. What (I think) KjetilK was basically saying was that (as Ott says), an infusion of the OC/Utrecht’s episcopal lines (or the PNCC’s, for that matter) would convey valid/illicit episcopal lines, either to the Anglicans or the Lutherans, directly or derivatively. This seems the only logical conclusion to what Ott stated.

That the RCC has never spoken definitively on that precise issue is something I often point out.

Exactly.

You are kidding right? After all you have said about not being bound by sources outside your confessions. You want me to accept what the Church of Sweden says at face value, in regards to a subject that deals with the opinion of the Catholic Church?

Maybe we talked past each other. I wash’t talking about the opinion of the Roman Catholic Church, but the objectivity of the orders of the Swedish Church. I do not go the the Roman Catholic Church to ask what Lutheran teaching is.

GKC beat me to it. Apostolic Succession does not necessarily validate Holy Orders. If you read closely the very same document you spoke about initially (Apostolicae Curae), it clearly states that Anglicans orders are invalid because of form and intent (What Ott is referring to as well). If you have Apostolic Succession from them, then you also lack form and intent.

No, because if you read closely my post, the Church of England regained orders post Apostolicae Curae, from Old Catholic bishops. The form of the rite was changed back (from the Edwardian reform) in the 17th century.

You keep pointing to others… And it’s really annoying… I am [not] others.

I am coherently presenting an argument, requesting reasonable information, and asking specific questions.

I was talking about Catholic bishops, Cardinals, and Popes. When they claim that Anglicans lack orders, even if they have been given them by Old Catholic bishops, using an approved form, they are inconsistent. They claim to be Augustinian, but remain Cyprianic.

Those seem to be scholarly opinions, and while they have my respect. Unless it is the [Official] position of the Catholic Church. It’s just an opinion. As informed as it may be.

The articles presents arguments. If arguments are valid, with true premises, it is incoherent to deny them.

 

[KjetilK]

You are saying that the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of post-reformational orders in the Church of Sweden, and you can’t produce a Catholic Church document that supports your argument.

No, thank you.

The document has been provided by EvangelCatholic. He linked to The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries, which is an official discussion document between the Roman Catholic Church, here represented by the USCCB, and Lutherans (in the US, if I’m not mistaken). The documents states:

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.
2. In Sweden and Finland (under Swedish rule until 1809), the medieval episcopal structure was preserved relatively intact. In the Swedish Lutheran Church Ordinance of 1571, the importance of episcopacy was stressed as “an irreplaceable order of the church.” This document maintains that, while “the distinction which now exists between bishops and simple priests was not known at first in Christendom, but bishop and priest were all one office,” the “agreement that one bishop among them [the pastors] should be chosen, who should have superintendence over all the rest…was very useful and without doubt proceeded from God the Holy Ghost…so it was generally approved and accepted over the whole of Christendom,” a ministerial function that has remained in the church “and must remain in the future, so long as the world lasts, although the abuse, which has been very great in this as in all other useful and necessary things, must be set aside.” This text has been reaffirmed in modern Swedish church statements.
3. While a succession of episcopal consecrations was threatened during the sometimes tumultuous sixteenth century, it was not broken and has been continued in Sweden down to the present. In 1884, all three Finnish bishops died within a short period of time. As a result, no bishop was available to consecrate a new bishop. After some debate, focusing on the question of inviting a Swedish bishop to consecrate a bishop in Russian-ruled Finland, a new Archbishop was consecrated by a professor of theology at the University of Helsinki. After independence from Russia in 1917, Swedish bishops were invited to participate in Finnish episcopal consecrations and a succession of consecrations was re-established.
4. In 1536, the Reformation was carried through in Denmark, which at that time ruled Norway and Iceland. The previous bishops were replaced in 1537 by “superintendents” for the Danish and Norwegian dioceses, consecrated by Johannes Bugenhagen, city pastor of Wittenberg. While a succession of consecrations was thus broken, the medieval diocesan and cathedral structures were preserved and bishops continued to exercise a ministry of oversight. A significant episcopal continuity or sucessio sedis or localis was preserved.
5. The ecclesial structures of the Baltic lands went through complex changes as political power shifted among the Teutonic Knights, Poland, Sweden, and Russia. Episcopal structures remained in place for the most part in Estonia until Russian rule arrived in the early eighteenth century. Lutheran churches in Latvia and Lithuania tended to follow patterns more like those in Germany with consistories and superintendents. In the early twentieth century, following the independence of all three of the Baltic republics, the Estonian and Latvian churches turned to episcopal structures. Swedish and Finnish bishops were invited to participate in their episcopal consecrations and thus these churches deliberately entered episcopal succession. World War II and the Soviet annexation led to a severe disruption of church life, including the interruption of succession, but in both countries such succession was re-established when it again became possible to invite foreign bishops to participate in episcopal consecrations. The Lithuanian church gave the Chair of the Consistory the title “Bishop” in 1976 and the first bishop was consecrated by the Estonian archbishop.
6. In the Porvoo Declaration (see §§69, 111, 118, 241) all the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches (with the exception of Denmark and Latvia) have committed themselves theologically to “the episcopal office . . . as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry” and procedurally “to invite one another’s bishops normally to participate in the laying on of hands at the ordination of bishops as a sign of the unity and continuity of the Church.” As a result, all the Nordic and Baltic churches are episcopally structured and all but Denmark have taken on succession as a sign of unity and continuity.
7. In other nearby countries, the Swedish episcopal succession was reintroduced into Finland early in the twentieth century; into Latvia after World War I (but later interrupted); and into Estonia in the 1960s. The Porvoo Common Statement envisions the process extending to Norway and Iceland (Denmark otherwise).

As you see here, we lost it in Denmark-Norway, but got it back through Sweden and through England (the latter of which got it back through Old Catholic bishops). Denmark has later joined the Porvoo communion.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The document has been provided by EvangelCatholic. He linked to The Church as Koinonia of Salvation: Its Structures and Ministries, which is an official discussion document between the Roman Catholic Church, here represented by the USCCB, and Lutherans (in the US, if I’m not mistaken). The documents states:

Trimmed for space

The Porvoo Declaration (see §§69, 111, 118, 241) all the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches (with the exception of Denmark and Latvia) have committed themselves theologically to “the episcopal office . . . as a visible sign expressing and serving the Church’s unity and continuity in apostolic life, mission and ministry” and procedurally “to invite one another’s bishops normally to participate in the laying on of hands at the ordination of bishops as a sign of the unity and continuity of the Church.” As a result, all the Nordic and Baltic churches are episcopally structured and all but Denmark have taken on succession as a sign of unity and continuity.

1. In other nearby countries, the Swedish episcopal succession was reintroduced into Finland early in the twentieth century; into Latvia after World War I (but later interrupted); and into Estonia in the 1960s. The Porvoo Common Statement envisions the process extending to Norway and Iceland (Denmark otherwise).

As you see here, we lost it in Denmark-Norway, but got it back through Sweden and through England (the latter of which got it back through Old Catholic bishops). Denmark has later joined the Porvoo communion.

This is what I was asking for, thank you.

Just like you don’t go to the Catholic Church for teaching (Even though all of your foundational teaching is Catholic later changed into Lutheran teaching), I don’t go to the Lutheran Church for teaching. So when you claim that my Church recognizes something, unless you show a Catholic official source, all I can do is just take it as an opinion.

This document also specifies in its preface:

*This dialogue also recognizes that we are not proposing to settle all of the church-dividing issues before us. We have not attempted to resolve the important ecclesiological issues of the ordination of women or the authority by which such a decision is made, nor the full meaning of apostolic succession in ordained ministry and how we might be reconciled. We have not addressed the level of communion in ministries and structures that would be necessary for even interim Eucharistic communion. We are, however, convinced that the clarifications and research represented by this text make an important contribution in the stages toward reconciling these and other elements along the path toward full communion.

The reader will find this text a bit longer than earlier publications of this dialogue. Biblical and historical material that was prepared and presented in supporting essays over the years of this study has been summarized here. Needless to say, not all of the historical, biblical, and theological research on which this text is based is presented here nor is it included in the supporting essays. It will be important for the reader to review some of the earlier research of the U.S. and international dialogues to clarify further the context of these arguments.

This agreed text may be published both by itself and in a volume with some supporting essays. In the volume of essays, only a selection of those which contributed to the dialogue is published. Those not summarized in the final document but which further clarify the historical background, are included. Some of the biblical, historical research, and overview of previous dialogues will be published as articles elsewhere. As we build a common understanding of our biblical and historical heritage, this research becomes an increasingly important resource for our teaching and preaching. It adds to the serious theological literature produced in an ecumenical mode.*

 

[guanophore]

  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](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=894693&page=35#517), he was arguing against his own Church, which approved the appointment of Thomas Cranmer as the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Your point is well taken, though I think “break off with Rome” might be too vague. It is true that schism does not necessarily invalidate Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession, but once a Church chooses to deviate from the proper form and matter of consecration, whether that is the eucharistic elements, or the ordination of priests and bishops, invalidation occurs.

No, but I try to answer the claims made by many Catholics here

You are a brave soul.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Let us all pray fervently that it is a precursor to such a document that will soon appear.

 

[GKC]

Your point is well taken, though I think “break off with Rome” might be too vague. It is true that schism does not necessarily invalidate Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession, but once a Church chooses to deviate from the proper form and matter of consecration, whether that is the eucharistic elements, or the ordination of priests and bishops, invalidation occurs.

You are a brave soul.

For the Church of England, the alleged fault was form and intent, and that to be taken together, as necessary to the finding.

GKC

 

[ragsbinwashed]

This argument falls apart when you point out that it is through the hierarchy and authority of the Catholic Church that we have the official list of the New Testament books. Since such a list only developed after the time of the Apostles, we can be sure that the Apostles never taught Sola Scriptura (how can you teach the “Bible alone” doctrine if it is not yet clear what the Bible is?). Therefore, Sola Sciptura is a novel teaching of false teachers who deviated from the Apostles’ teachings.

Then you think that Isaiah got it wrong?

Isaiah 8:20
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

rags

 

[KjetilK]

Just like you don’t go to the Catholic Church for teaching (Even though all of your foundational teaching is Catholic later changed into Lutheran teaching), I don’t go to the Lutheran Church for teaching.

That wasn’t my point. I said that I do not go to the Roman Catholic Church to ask if the Church of Sweden had valid orders after the Reformation.

So when you claim that my Church recognizes something, unless you show a Catholic official source, all I can do is just take it as an opinion. This document also specifies in its preface…

Yes, this document didn’t propose the end all barriers, but it did state that some Lutheran Churches retained succession, and passed it on. They were then “Churches in the proper sense” and not merely “ecclesial communities,” to use the language of Dominus Iesus. The point is that, per the subject under discussion, for us there is no ‘1500 year old gap’ to explain.

It is true that schism does not necessarily invalidate Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession, but once a Church chooses to deviate from the proper form and matter of consecration, whether that is the eucharistic elements, or the ordination of priests and bishops, invalidation occurs.

And I completely agree. The form was changed under Edward VI (the son of Henry VIII). But it was changed back in the 17th century. I don’t see how you could say that it remains invalid when the form was changed back, and consecrations were done by Old Catholic bishops who clearly did not intend that priesthood be ‘non-sacrificial’ (for lack of a better term).

 

[GKC]

That wasn’t my point. I said that I do not go to the Roman Catholic Church to ask if the Church of Sweden had valid orders after the Reformation.

Yes, this document didn’t propose the end all barriers, but it did state that some Lutheran Churches retained succession, and passed it on. They were then “Churches in the proper sense” and not merely “ecclesial communities,” to use the language of Dominus Iesus. The point is that, per the subject under discussion, for us there is no ‘1500 year old gap’ to explain.

And I completely agree. The form was changed under Edward VI (the son of Henry VIII). But it was changed back in the 17th century. I don’t see how you could say that it remains invalid when the form was changed back, and consecrations were done by Old Catholic bishops who clearly did not intend that priesthood be ‘non-sacrificial’ (for lack of a better term).

The consecrations are jointly done. As to intent, at the first such consecration, in 1932, +van Vlijmen, OC Bishop of Haarlem, declared that, when laying on hands with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the intent was to confer “… the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church…and to impart the same episcopal character which…we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same, in the precise sense in which the fullness of the priesthood has been understood *everywhere, always, and by all *” (quote cites emphasis in the original). He also said, as to the reason for OC participation, it was to mingle the two streams of episcopal succession, from the Apostles, in the bishops of the OC and in the Anglican episcopate. Sounds like someone was making a point.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

The consecrations are jointly done. As to intent, at the first such consecration, in 1932, +van Vlijmen, OC Bishop of Haarlem, declared that, when laying on hands with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the intent was to confer “… the order of the episcopate according to the mind of our holy mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church…and to impart the same episcopal character which…we bishops of the Old Catholic Church possess, that is, the fullness of the priesthood with each and every function pertaining thereto and with the faculties inherent in the same, in the precise sense in which the fullness of the priesthood has been understood *everywhere, always, and by all *” (quote cites emphasis in the original). He also said, as to the reason for OC participation, it was to mingle the two streams of episcopal succession, from the Apostles, in the bishops of the OC and in the Anglican episcopate. Sounds like someone was making a point.

Yes, it most certainly does. I cannot see that this implies anything else but the express intent to ordain bishops (and priests) with sacrificial functions.

Do you have a source for the quote, perhaps a book? I would love to read more on this.

 

[GKC]

Yes, it most certainly does. I cannot see that this implies anything else but the express intent to ordain bishops (and priests) with sacrificial functions.

Do you have a source for the quote, perhaps a book? I would love to read more on this.

It is quoted in Appendix II, footnote 3, in Fr. John J. Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD. That book, and Fr. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID, are 2 titles I often recommend, on the history, personalities, politics and the theology involved in the story of Apostolicse curae. For a good treatment of the basic RC position, Francis Clark’s (at the time, Fr. Clark, SJ) ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION is recommended.

GKC