LCMS Pastor Jonathan Fisk and the Keys of the Kingdom

[Duane1966]

Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers seem to attest a difference between bishops and priests much earlier and more widely accepted than the Lutheran “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” would like to admit.

The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4)and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — “A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain.” A council held at Alexandria (340) declared the orders conferred by Caluthus, a presbyter, null and void (Athanas., “Apol. contra Arianos”, ii).

The word is used in its technical meaning by Clement of Alexandria(Stromata VI.13, 106; cf. Apostolic Consitutions II.32). “A priest lays on hands, but does not ordain”.

It is a much-disputed question whether Abbots have ever been permitted to confer the subdiaconate and the diaconate. Many canonists hold that the subdiaconate, being of merely ecclesiastical institution, was formerly amounted one of the minor orders of the Church, and infer that before the time of Urban II (1099), Abbots could have given that order. But the further claim that Abbots have also conferred the diaconate cannot, apparently, be sustained, for the Bull of Innocent VIII, “Exposcit tuae devotionis” (9 April, 1489), in which this privilege is said to have been granted to certain Cistercian Abbots, makes no reference whatever to the diaconate.

And I would say if not the diaconate which is the lowest rank of Holy Orders, then certainly not the priesthood, and even if the diaconate, not without a Papal Bull. Luther and his followers seem to have had to steamroll through 1,400 years of Sacred Tradition and Church practice to get to a point so soon after the birth of the Church that the word for priest and bishop were in some instances interchangeable even though the offices and their respective inherent graces were not.

If the abbots did ordain, they did it union with the Holy See. If they did not have permission, they would not have ordained.

 

[conRep12]

If the abbots did ordain, they did it union with the Holy See. If they did not have permission, they would not have ordained.

Exactly, and how many Lutherans await a papal bull to authorize an ordination?

 

[Topper17]

Hi Mary,

I would hope he is just ignorant and not purposefully using an anti Catholic agenda that is incorrect.

Mary.

I don’t know. He has been at his little pod videos now for quite some time and they are often extremely offensive to Catholics. He knows they offend us. Are we supposed to believe that he is inadvertently caustic or that his intention IS to offend?

Some time ago a Fisk rant was linked to. I watched it and was disgusted.

youtu.be/KxTglbyabk0

Exerpts:

“The Lutheran church exists because the teachings of the RCC is so abhorrent and so connected to the description of the abomination mentioned in the Book of Daniel and by Jesus in Matthew……The Jesuits are basically not even Trinitarian….(the RCC) is Mary worshiping, saint idolizing, money grubbing, pedophile protecting”. When quoting the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, fisk states: “Indeed they ought to curse the Pope and his minions” as the very realm of the antichrist.”

Which of course begs the question – Who, specifically and exactly are the ‘minions’ if not loyal Catholics?

For the record, I watched this hateful and disgusting video. One has to wonder whether this LCMS pastor was ‘disciplined’ for his outrageous rant against the Catholic Church. Actually I don’t wonder at all. I would bet pretty big money that he was never disciplined for his rant, BECAUSE all he was doing was expounding the official teachings of the Lutheran church.

Pastor Fisk rant: youtu.be/KxTglbyabk0

Exerpts:

**“The Lutheran church exists because the teachings of the RCC is so abhorrent and so connected to the description of the abomination mentioned in the Book of Daniel and by Jesus in Matthew……****The Jesuits are basically not even Trinitarian….(the RCC) is Mary worshiping, saint idolizing, money grubbing, pedophile protecting”. When quoting the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, fisk states: “Indeed they ought to curse the Pope and his minions” as the very realm of the antichrist.” **z

Which of course begs the question – Who, specifically and exactly are the ‘minions’ if not loyal Catholics? Maybe us ‘minnions’ are the same as us ‘adherents’.

For the record, I watched this hateful and disgusting video. One has to wonder whether this LCMS pastor was ‘disciplined’ for his outrageous rant against the Catholic Church. Actually I don’t wonder at all. I would bet pretty big money that he was never disciplined for his rant, BECAUSE all he was doing was expounding the official teachings of the LCMS. After all, Fisk continues to put together his little pod casts.

All I can say that I don’t know what to wish for. Should I wish that Fisk is the future of the LCMS, or will Fisk be drummed out by wiser heads.

God Bless you Mary, Topper

 

[steido01]

Did the greater Church accept it? It was accepted universally?

What I meant is that we agree the Church, in general, holds the power to call and to ordain. This is particularly emphasized in the Orthodox ordination and consecration rites, where the congregation says, “So-and-so is worthy.” This is, sadly, less emphasized in the Western Catholic Rites, as I understand it). We might also agree that the power to ordain is, for the sake of order, vested in the bishops. Where we disagree is in the understanding of that Office. Most Lutherans traditionally have seen no distinction between bishop and presbyter.

And here is the problem, I have bolded the key part, which parallels my hypothetical. There was no in lieu of, as if there were no bishops in the area to ordain the original Lutherans, they were in the area, there were just none to be found who agreed with Luther.

And our Confessions note the graveness, and necessity, of our actions. Deus mihi iustitiam dabit:

To dissent from the agreement of so many nations and to be called schismatics is a grave matter. But divine authority commands all not to be allies and defenders of impiety and unjust cruelty. On this account our consciences are sufficiently excused…

Can you give me some quotes that show this was the practice of the early Church?

I can do better, though I’m sure you can guess what I’m about to write. Holy Scripture; Titus; Chapter 1, Verses 5-9. Note that Paul uses elder and overseer interchangeably. If a distinction exists, it is merely in the human exercise of the Office, not in the Divine institution of it.

Here are quotations from the early Church, on the practice of ordination in the early Church. It seems to be at odds with your view.

Firstly, I would disagree that all of these necessarily disagree with the traditional Lutheran understanding, but that’s picking nits. I’ll take an apostle’s written word over the fathers’ well-intentioned, wise, useful, yet entirely human creation of the threefold ministry.

Thank you for your dialogue, Duane. I appreciate being able to ‘think out loud’ with someone who can remain respectful, even in disagreement. I would appreciate more reading on the topic, if you have recommendations.

 

[Duane1966]

We might also agree that the power to ordain is, for the sake of order, vested in the bishops. Where we disagree is in the understanding of that Office. Most Lutherans traditionally have seen no distinction between bishop and presbyter.

Lutherans have to downplay the distinction, because no bishops supported them. But for almost 2000 years there has been a distinction though.

And our Confessions note the graveness,** and necessity**, of our actions. Deus mihi iustitiam dabit:

Once again I have bolded part of your quote. Do you know of any denomination, or branch of another, that does not claim necessity, and divine will? Every splinter group from what was, always, I repeat, always claims necessity. Truly, my hypothetical church fits quite nicely with yours. No Apostles would ordain my followers, so I did it myself, out of necessity, and claim validity by divine law.

If one accepts the Confessions reasoning, then one should accept the validity of all denominations. Every one of them claim divine will and necessity for their existence.

I can do better, though I’m sure you can guess what I’m about to write. Holy Scripture; Titus; Chapter 1, Verses 5-9. Note that Paul uses elder and overseer interchangeably. If a distinction exists, it is merely in the human exercise of the Office, not in the Divine institution of it.

Ahhh, but it is just your interpretation of it. I interpret it differently, and history and the early church are on my side.

In the early Church I could call one person Father Timothy, and another Father Paul, and I would be correct on both terms. And yet no one doubts that there is a distinction, one is an Apostle, the other is not, by divine will.

From Catholic.com on fluidity of language in early church:

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as adiakonos*(“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.*Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.*The term for bishop,episcopos(“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

I’ll take an apostle’s written word over the fathers’ well-intentioned, wise, useful, yet entirely human creation of the threefold ministry.

And yet we see the threefold ministry divinely created right there in the NT. The fathers confirm what is there in scripture. Also from Catholic.com:

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).*

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek wordpresbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).*

Felix Cirlot Apostolic Succession: Is It True? Interesting read.

Don, thank you for the dialogue and your kind words. I wish I could say some kind words back at ya. And since I can, by divine will and necessity, I shall. It has been a pleasure to converse with you. :tiphat:

 

[MaryT777]

Duane 1966: You make some excellent points and are a wonderful witness to our Faith Catholic

Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

Lutherans have to downplay the distinction, because no bishops supported them.

Hi Duane!

One think to keep in mind is that Nother European Lutherans don’t have Apostolic Succession issues - the AS issue is more of a dirt-poor immigrant American Lutheran problem.

I’ll freely admit that AS is an issue we American Lutherans like to dance around - it’s not ideal. But that the church suffers is to also be expected - if everything was going well and swimmingly we’d start to think the devil likes the way things are going.

 

[JonNC]

If the abbots did ordain, they did it union with the Holy See. If they did not have permission, they would not have ordained.

This is precisely the point. The point isn’t whether or not presbyter ordination was used and accepted in the western Church prior to the Reformation. It was. The issue comes down to whether or not for it to be valid the pope must grant permission for it to occur. Obviously, we disagree on the pope’s jurisdiction in this, and other matters as well.

Jon

 

[conRep12]

This is precisely the point. The point isn’t whether or not presbyter ordination was used and accepted in the western Church prior to the Reformation. It was. The issue comes down to whether or not for it to be valid the pope must grant permission for it to occur. Obviously, we disagree on the pope’s jurisdiction in this, and other matters as well.

Jon

I don’t think any of the Catholics in this thread are admitting to valid presbyterian ordination at any point in Church history; I think that is the point. The defense of it in “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” is a Lutheran misunderstanding of some of St. Jerome’s writings. Even if St. Jerome did believe in the validity of presbyterian ordination, he would not have been the last word of the Church on the matter, for one saint does not a magisterium make.

The case of the abbots is a hypothetical secondary prong to the argument Catholics are making. We haven’t even conceded that such ordinations occurred. The point of this hypothetical is that even if someone other than a bishop can ordain (which no Catholics in this thread have agreed is possible), that someone would have required direct papal dispensation to do so. Basically, our argument is that priests cannot ordain priests, but even if they could, they’d still need the authorization of the pope.

We have provided quite a few sources supporting our argument that priests cannot ordain priests and never have. Lutherans provided Tractate 65 which purports to represent the belief of St. Jerome; about which, we are firstly dubious of him actually believing it and secondly would say he is not the Church. Lutherans also provided the example of the Cistercian abbots ordaining priests; about which, we are firstly dubious of its ever occurring and secondly quick to point to the authorization of the pope inherent in that claim.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think any of the Catholics in this thread are admitting to valid presbyterian ordination at any point in Church history; I think that is the point. The defense of it in “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” is a Lutheran misunderstanding of some of St. Jerome’s writings. Even if St. Jerome did believe in the validity of presbyterian ordination, he would not have been the last word of the Church on the matter, for one saint does not a magisterium make.

The case of the abbots is a hypothetical secondary prong to the argument Catholics are making. We haven’t even conceded that such ordinations occurred. The point of this hypothetical is that even if someone other than a bishop can ordain (which no Catholics in this thread have agreed is possible), that someone would have required direct papal dispensation to do so. Basically, our argument is that priests cannot ordain priests, but even if they could, they’d still need the authorization of the pope.

We have provided quite a few sources supporting our argument that priests cannot ordain priests and never have. Lutherans provided Tractate 65 which purports to represent the belief of St. Jerome; about which, we are firstly dubious of him actually believing it and secondly would say he is not the Church. Lutherans also provided the example of the Cistercian abbots ordaining priests; about which, we are firstly dubious of its ever occurring and secondly quick to point to the authorization of the pope inherent in that claim.

Ok, I’m no expert, and I’m not asking Catholics to admit to it or not. We accept your ordinations as valid. We see ours as valid, as well. But here’s what Dr. Ludwig Ott says:

In regard to the sacramental Order grades of diaconate and presbyterate, most theologians, with St. Thomas, hold the opinion that a simple priest cannot validly administer these, even with plenary power from the Pope. But there are grave historical difficulties with regard to this opinion: Pope Boniface IX, in agreement with the teachings of numerous medieval canonists (for example, Huguccio d. 1210), by the Bull “Sacrae religionis” on the 1st of February 1400, conferred on the Abbot of the Augustine Monastery of St. Osytha at Essex (Diocese of London) and his successors, the privilege of administering to those subject to them both the Minor Orders and those of the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood. The privilege was withdrawn on 6th February, 1403, on the instance of the Bishop of London. But the Orders conferred on the ground of the privilege were not declared invalid. Pope Martin V, by the Bull “Gerentes ad vos” of 16th November, 1427,** conferred the privilege on the Abbot of the Cistercian Monastery of Altzelle (Diocese of Meissen) of promoting all his monks and others subject to him for the term of five years, to the higher Orders also (Sub-diaconate, Diaconate, and Presbyterate)**. Pope Innocent VIII, by the Bull “Exposcit tuae devotions” of 9th April, 1489,conferred on the four Proto-Abbots of the Cistercian Order and their successors the privilege of ordaining their subordinates to the Sub-diaconate and the Diaconate. **The Cistercian Abbots were still using this privilege in the 17th century without hindrance. **

Unless one wishes to assume that the Popes in question were victims of the erroneous theological opinions of their times (this does not touch the Papal infallibility, because an ex cathedra decision was not given), one must take it that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation. In this latter view, the requisite power of consecration is contained in the priestly power of consecration as “potestas ligata.” For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.” - “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”

Ott seems to be saying that presbyter ordinations are, from a Catholic POV, not invalid, but require the pope’s approval. Again, I am not telling Catholics what to believe. You must adhere to the teachings of The Magisterium and the pope. I suspect that they would say our orders are not valid. We disagree.

What seems clear, though, is that presbyter ordinations did happen in the western Church prior to the Reformation.

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

Ok, I’m no expert, and I’m not asking Catholics to admit to it or not. We accept your ordinations as valid. We see ours as valid, as well. But here’s what Dr. Ludwig Ott says:

Ott seems to be saying that presbyter ordinations are, from a Catholic POV, not invalid, but require the pope’s approval. Again, I am not telling Catholics what to believe. You must adhere to the teachings of The Magisterium and the pope. I suspect that they would say our orders are not valid. We disagree.

What seems clear, though, is that presbyter ordinations did happen in the western Church prior to the Reformation.

Jon

Jon,

In regards to the hypothetical I posted earlier, you would have no qualms about the validity of my church correct? You would consider it just as valid as the Lutheran?