Lutheran 'Apostolic Succession'?

[JonNC]

I dont’ think Luther ever intended to become separated from the Catholic Church. He wanted to address corruption that he thought was running rampant. He criticized the actions of the current bishops.

His standard was taken up, though by those who had witnessed clerical ignorance, debasement, and secular contamination for centuries.

When you say “is there a problem of authority at all?” it seems that you are asking about the present.

Yes, the Lutheran confessions separate them from the Catholic Church primarily on the issue of authority. Luther rejected the authority put in place by Christ. His followers continue to do so.

I would say, guan, that the reformers rejected, not authority in and of itself, but the way the authority had been, and to an extent today is defined by Rome. When one reads the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, one gets the impression that, in their view, the papacy had overstepped its authority by claiming universal jurisdiction, primarily.

The Roman Pontiff claims for himself [in the first place] that by divine right he is [supreme] above all bishops and pastors [in all Christendom].

2] Secondly, he adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].

3] And thirdly, he says that to believe this is necessary for salvation. And for these reasons the Roman bishop calls himself [and boasts that he is] the vicar of Christ on earth.

4] These three articles we hold to be false, godless, tyrannical, and [quite] pernicious to the Church.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

It goes on to cite the Council of Nicea (primarily canon 6) as evidence of the Bishop of Rome’s proper authority, and to the extent that we accept the Council, we recognize his authority in that way.

Jon

 

[jnpl1185]

I think one area that still separates us. It appears that Luther redefined the term “church” to suit himself. In doing so, he departed from what the Apostles taught about the nature of the Church.

I wouldn’t use the term “to suit himself” as it is not very gracious toward Luther’s motiviations, but yes, the reformers saw the necessity to have a wider view of the Church as a result of their separation (which was arguably forced in the first years of the Reformation–arguably because a Roman Catholic will presumably just say they should have simply stopped protesting). The reformers saw their protest as an extraordinary circumstance in which their actions were necessary for the sake of the gospel, which presumably included a broader definition of “Church”.

 

[JonNC]

Luther seemed to feel that his opinions had more authority than those who questioned him.

“My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ” (O’Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916–1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204).

[Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was "“Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet” (Luther, 682) - also translated as “I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ’s word, so my mouth is His who utters the words”(God’s words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm

, September 25, 2003).]

"You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

In his letter on translating, which is quoted here, one must also take into account, which you are always most willing to do, the context of the time. Luther, when he wrote this was miffed by his opponents in the Church criticizing his translation, while at the same time some were using it for their own translations. So, as was his sometimes regrettable practice, he employed hyperbole to express his POV. The letter continues:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous, it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

It is also important to point out that in no English translation that I know of does the word “alone” appear in Romans 3:28, which lends support to the translation argument he uses here.

The Church was reacting as much to Luther’s presentation of himself that “my will is enough” as they were anything that he wrote.

It is also important to point out that this letter was written in 1530.

The recent Joint Declaration on Justification affirms that the Church is in agreement with Luther on substantial points of the doctrine of justificaiton

And this is the important issue today. How much of the division at the time of the Reformation was based on acutal doctrine, and how much on perceptions of the time? I’m not saying there wasn’t doctrinal differences, I’m expressing the belief that 490 years later, it is quite possible to view each other’s expressions of doctrine in a new light, and perhaps be able to come to reconciliation on this, and a variety of differences, perceived and actual.

Jon

 

[hazcompat]

It’s about the pinnacle of the pinnacle of prayer. Valid communion.

peace

 

[guanophore]

I would say, guan, that the reformers rejected, not authority in and of itself, but the way the authority had been, and to an extent today is defined by Rome. When one reads the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, one gets the impression that, in their view, the papacy had overstepped its authority by claiming universal jurisdiction, primarily.

Yes. without question, the manner in which authority was exercised was quite corrupt. It needed to be redefined.

However, Jesus gave Peter the special commission to “feed” and “care” for the sheep. How can this be done if the shepherd has not jurisdiciton over the sheep?

It goes on to cite the Council of Nicea (primarily canon 6) as evidence of the Bishop of Rome’s proper authority, and to the extent that we accept the Council, we recognize his authority in that way.

Jon

I hope there is healing in the whole body on this point, between the East and West, and between ourselves and our separated brethren.

 

[guanophore]

And this is the important issue today. How much of the division at the time of the Reformation was based on acutal doctrine, and how much on perceptions of the time? I’m not saying there wasn’t doctrinal differences, I’m expressing the belief that 490 years later, it is quite possible to view each other’s expressions of doctrine in a new light, and perhaps be able to come to reconciliation on this, and a variety of differences, perceived and actual.

Jon

Indeed it is. The Augsburg confession, insisting that the Church accept revised “doctrines and our priests” is a major obstacle for us to overcome. The Church has never been able to succumb to outside forces to change the doctrines that have been passed down from the Apostles, or to install priests that were not ordained in a valid apostolic succession. These issues, still as present today as they were 500 years ago, are the ones that need to be addressed.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;8067805]
Yes. without question, the manner in which authority was exercised was quite corrupt. It needed to be redefined.

However, Jesus gave Peter the special commission to “feed” and “care” for the sheep. How can this be done if the shepherd has not jurisdiciton over the sheep?

It depends on what kind of jurisdiction and commission one sees in St. Peter. Surely, the pope holds a position of primacy amongst the bishops - even the Orthodox admit that. How that primacy is defined, and we think Nicea defines it properly, is the main issue.

I hope there is healing in the whole body on this point, between the East and West, and between ourselves and our separated brethren.

I share this hope with all my heart.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

By the way, does anyone, Lutheran or Catholic, believe that if all other issues were solved and reconciliation were at hand, that the issue of apostolic succession would stand in the way? Does anyone believe Bishops would refuse to lay on hands, or that Lutherans would refuse the process? I know some Lutheran clergy would perhaps balk at re-ordination now, but doesn’t it seem like the issue could be overcome?

Jon

 

[jnpl1185]

By the way, does anyone, Lutheran or Catholic, believe that if all other issues were solved and reconciliation were at hand, that the issue of apostolic succession would stand in the way? Does anyone believe Bishops would refuse to lay on hands, or that Lutherans would refuse the process? I know some Lutheran clergy would perhaps balk at re-ordination now, but doesn’t it seem like the issue could be overcome?

Jon

I think many Lutherans would unfortunately want to remain Lutherans regardless because of culture and identity which have grown up around it, but I certainly do not think that it would be a stumbling block for many. Not for me, in any case.

Personally, I think the biggest stumbling blocks at this point are the doctrines which have been defined by the RCC since the Reformation–most of the original points seem to be reconcilable to varying degrees

 

[pablope]

By the way, does anyone, Lutheran or Catholic, believe that if all other issues were solved and reconciliation were at hand, that the issue of apostolic succession would stand in the way? Does anyone believe Bishops would refuse to lay on hands, or that Lutherans would refuse the process? I know some Lutheran clergy would perhaps balk at re-ordination now, but doesn’t it seem like the issue could be overcome?

Jon

Well, look at the example of the Anglicans…as per the news, three anglican bishops accepted ordination as ordinary priests, not catholic bishops to join the Anglican ordinariate.

If the Anglicans can, why not the Lutherans?

 

[JonNC]

=jnpl1185;8067922] I think many Lutherans would unfortunately want to remain Lutherans regardless because of culture and identity which have grown up around it, but I certainly do not think that it would be a stumbling block for many. Not for me, in any case.

Yes. I think for some it would depend on what would remain of Lutheran “culture”, so to speak. What would a Lutheran liturgy look like, etc.

Personally, I think the biggest stumbling blocks at this point are the doctrines which have been defined by the RCC since the Reformation–most of the original points seem to be reconcilable to varying degrees

In some ways I agree. To that point, development of doctrine can be a two-edged sword.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

My prayer is that the Lutherans will return. My parish has a Lutheran church next door on the other side of the fence…there is now a barrister along the walk way so people can go back and forth. We all want to be one.

 

[JonNC]

Well, look at the example of the Anglicans…as per the news, three anglican bishops accepted ordination as ordinary priests, not catholic bishops to join the Anglican ordinariate.

If the Anglicans can, why not the Lutherans?

Yeah, see? I just don’t know. I expect some clergy would accept re-ordination simply to become part of AS, and just on from there. Others might say, why, my ordination is just fine. It should be accepted as is, in a way like the ELCA and TEC handled it. There are a couple of Lutheran clergy here, and I would love to hear their thoughts. Also, Archbishop Irl Gladfelter of the ALCC oocasionally posts here. I wonder if their priests are being re-ordained.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Yeah, see? I just don’t know. I expect some clergy would accept re-ordination simply to become part of AS, and just on from there. Others might say, why, my ordination is just fine. It should be accepted as is, in a way like the ELCA and TEC handled it. There are a couple of Lutheran clergy here, and I would love to hear their thoughts. Also, Archbishop Irl Gladfelter of the ALCC oocasionally posts here. I wonder if their priests are being re-ordained.

Jon

It’s early days, for those Lutherans. But you can count on it, if things proceed.

Since Apostolicae Curae, only 2 Anglican clergy have been ordained in the RCC
sub conditione. All the rest, absolutely.

GKC

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Well, look at the example of the Anglicans…as per the news, three anglican bishops accepted ordination as ordinary priests, not catholic bishops to join the Anglican ordinariate.

If the Anglicans can, why not the Lutherans?

Anglicans who join the Ordinariate pledge obedience to the Pope and affirm that they believe everything the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.

I can’t see Lutherans ever doing that as a group.

Confessional Lutherans still proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist.
See the Book of Concord, A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:

QUOTE
57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling. END QUOTE

Jim Dandy

 

[GKC]

Anglicans who join the Ordinariate pledge obedience to the Pope and affirm that they believe everything the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.

I can’t see Lutherans ever doing that as a group.

Confessional Lutherans still proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist.
See the Book of Concord, A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:

QUOTE
57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling. END QUOTE

Jim Dandy

And yet, there are Lutherans now who are exploring a sort of Ordinariate route.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Anglicans who join the Ordinariate pledge obedience to the Pope and affirm that they believe everything the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches.

I can’t see Lutherans ever doing that as a group.

Confessional Lutherans still proclaim that the Pope is the Antichrist.
See the Book of Concord, A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope:

QUOTE
57] Therefore, even though the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right, yet since he defends godless services and doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, obedience is not due him; yea, it is necessary to resist him as Antichrist. The errors of the Pope are manifest and not trifling. END QUOTE

Jim Dandy

Jim,
We were talking about if all other issues were resolved. Obviously, if all other issues were resolved, the quote you present would be moot.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And yet, there are Lutherans now who are exploring a sort of Ordinariate route.

GKC

Would you be referring to the ALCC, or is there another group of Lutherans exploring this?
I know the ALCC is entering through the Anglican Ordinariate.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Would you be referring to the ALCC, or is there another group of Lutherans exploring this?
I know the ALCC is entering through the Anglican Ordinariate.

Jon

ALCC was what I was thinking of. But, as I said, it’s early days. If the bishop returns, I’d be happy to learn more.

GKC

 

[guanophore]

Jim,
We were talking about if all other issues were resolved. Obviously, if all other issues were resolved, the quote you present would be moot.

Jon

How do you suppose this one could be resolved? Even if the Pope were to be accepted as first among equals, he has to get out of the role of antichrist, right?