Lutheran 'Apostolic Succession'?

[FabiusMaximus]

The Catholic catechism, though makes provision for those who, as Jon tells us, have these ideas as “adiaphora”. One can seek the intercession of the saints, but it is not considered a doctrine of the faith. Now, if a Lutheran espousing such a view wishes to become Catholic, so long as they do not openly dispute the Teaching of the Church, they can hold to this adiaphora position. In the Catechism is is called having “mental reservations”.

Yes but they would at least have to accept it as part of Church teaching, right? They could choose not to do it, but they must still believe it, no?

These theological changes are what continue to separate us today. Catholics are not at liberty to change the once for all divine deposit of faith that was commited to the Church. Therefore, we cannot embrace the innovations of the Reformation.

Then how do you win over the Lutherans? Enough must still exist as differences to prevent unity.

That seems to be the position. Total apostasy?

Makes me nervous to consider that the Church “failed” and there was a blank spot where Christianity was dead.

As you have noted, Luther was a very intelligent and well educated man. It was the CC that educated him. The CC that gave him his Bible, and taught him how to read and transalate from the ancient languages. He was well equipped for the task.

Even more then, he must have been asked how he could go against the Church authority, no? Because I imagine it’s not really appropriate in Catholicism to challenge offiicially established doctrine.

Can you imagine what the Councils for Reconciliation suffer?

Lord have mercy!

Authority, not infallibility. We today still accept the first 6 councils, and effectively the 7th, since the Reformation era Lutherans rejected the 16th century iconoclasm. The nature of an ecumenical council is an issue for us. For example, our view of the dogmatic statements regarding the IC and Assumption are two-fold: 1) without explicit scriptural support, we oppose them being articles of faith, binding the conscience of the believer, and 2) these councils were not truly ecumenical.

So Lutherans don’t necessarily consider the first seven ecumenical councils as infallible? Does that mean they can challenge them?

And if they accepted the authority before, why not accept it again at Trent when the Church cleaned up the structural corruption and defined the doctrines that were being challenged as dubious? This is what I’m trying to discover. Luther was also heavily influenced by Augustine. But Augustine and many of his contemporaries clearly believed in saint intercession and prayer to the saints.

What I have difficulty in understanding is how do you prove that a certain interpretation was correct? If I came up to you and said ‘Lutherans got it wrong, it’s this’ - understandably, you’d ask: well who the heck are you to tell us that you’re right and we’re wrong? Where are your credentials?

Couldn’t the same argument technically be made with regards to Martin Luther himself? How does Lutheranism respond with regards to authority?

 

[Hesychios]

One of the problems for Germany was that there was no German bishops that would ordain new Lutheran priests, so without German Bishops, the ordained Lutheran priests/pastors used the laying of hands as in the early church to ordain newly trained pastors. The Nordic countries had bishops that converted.

I am almost positive that there were Catholic bishops in the German lands that became protestants, but that they would not or could not consecrate new bishops in the traditional manner. The Thirty Years War may have had something to do with that, or maybe it was an ideological shift.

The Swedish situation was different. The king merely wanted to control the church more directly, so he aligned with the Lutherans. Outwardly they more strictly adhered to Catholic forms (even while reformation theology was spreading). It was a lot like the English situation. There were even Catholic monarchs.

There was an attempted reconciliation between the Swedish Lutheran church (through the efforts of a king) and Rome, but Rome rejected the deal, apparently because it would have allowed married priests in that country. I don’t remember under which king that deal was attempted. These days the papacy might have been willing to agree, but not at that time.

 

[JonNC]

=FabiusMaximus;8071602] So Lutherans don’t necessarily consider the first seven ecumenical councils as infallible? Does that mean they can challenge them?

They challenged the others, particularly those outside of what we would call truly ecumenical. The main point would be, do they rightly reflect the truth of scripture, and those councils, while not equal to scripture in our system, do.

And if they accepted the authority before, why not accept it again at Trent when the Church cleaned up the structural corruption and defined the doctrines that were being challenged as dubious? This is what I’m trying to discover. Luther was also heavily influenced by Augustine. But Augustine and many of his contemporaries clearly believed in saint intercession and prayer to the saints.

There was fear at the time, quite frankly, about attending Trent.

And this is why the discussion in the confessions about invocation is somewhat nuanced. The major point was there is no command, example, or promise.

What I have difficulty in understanding is how do you prove that a certain interpretation was correct? If I came up to you and said ‘Lutherans got it wrong, it’s this’ - understandably, you’d ask: well who the heck are you to tell us that you’re right and we’re wrong? Where are your credentials?

Well, no. I’d ask why you believe the way you do, and cite the things - scriptural or not - that makes you think that. But then, I’m wierd that way. I generally don’t jump to the “who do you think you are…” approach.

Couldn’t the same argument technically be made with regards to Martin Luther himself? How does Lutheranism respond with regards to authority?

Sure it could, and regularly is, and not just from Catholics. For some, we are not Catholic enough. For others, we are not protestant enough.

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord is our response regarding authority.

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

Jon

 

[hn160]

If the roles were reversed and a non-catholic attended a Catholic Mass, they too would not be able to receive. I don’t understand why the Catholic couple would be so rude as to leave in the middle of your service, but I also don’t understand why they felt it necessary to receive your communion anyway.

The Catholic couple told their neighbor that for some reason they were unhappy with the Catholic Church and wanted to see what a Lutheran Service was like. The neighbor explained to them that they were welcomed to attend but they could not commune. But I guess that they didn’t believe her until they read it in the bulletin have way through the service.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jon NC wrote:

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, **we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God. **

Jon, which Catholic “heresies and dogmas” that “have been introduced into the Church of God” are referred to here?

Thanks,

Jim Dandy

 

[guanophore]

Yes but they would at least have to accept it as part of Church teaching, right? They could choose not to do it, but they must still believe it, no?

One can distinguish between doctrines, and practices. One can be saved without ever asking anyone in the Body to pray for them. It is a lot more difficult, but possible. What must be accepted is what is in the Creed “'the communion of saints”.

Then how do you win over the Lutherans? Enough must still exist as differences to prevent unity.

I think the best way to win souls is to be Christ to others. It is for our shepherds to work out our differences.

Makes me nervous to consider that the Church “failed” and there was a blank spot where Christianity was dead.

It should. If this had happened, it would mean that Jesus did not keep His promises.

So Lutherans don’t necessarily consider the first seven ecumenical councils as infallible? Does that mean they can challenge them?

I don’t know if they accept the concept of infalliblity as the Apostolic Churches do (Catholic and Orthodox). I think they adhere to them, though.

And if they accepted the authority before, why not accept it again at Trent when the Church cleaned up the structural corruption and defined the doctrines that were being challenged as dubious?

There was almost a millenia of contamination by secular involvement, and so many centuries of corrputed leaders. One cannot expect that the wounds would be healed immediately. As you can see by reading this thread, there is still a great deal of distrust among Lutherans toward the Catholic Church.

This is what I’m trying to discover. Luther was also heavily influenced by Augustine. But Augustine and many of his contemporaries clearly believed in saint intercession and prayer to the saints.

Like all those who have left the Catholic faith, they pick and choose the parts of Scripture and of the FAthers that support their views. Significant portions of Augustine are ignored, whole those reinforcing innovative doctrines are stressed. This is the same thing that happens with Scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Jon, which Catholic “heresies and dogmas” that “have been introduced into the Church of God” are referred to here?

Thanks,

Jim Dandy

Hi Jim,
Look back at the heresies that prompted the convening of the early councils in the first place. Lutherans side with the Church universal against the Arians, etc. It was these that they were referring to.

Jon

 

[FabiusMaximus]

There was fear at the time, quite frankly, about attending Trent.

And this is why the discussion in the confessions about invocation is somewhat nuanced. The major point was there is no command, example, or promise.

So are you saying that Lutherans could, technically, invoke saint intercession legitimately in Lutheranism, even if it’s not expressly commanded?

Well, no. I’d ask why you believe the way you do, and cite the things - scriptural or not - that makes you think that. But then, I’m wierd that way. I generally don’t jump to the “who do you think you are…” approach.

Fair enough, haha. But I meant in terms of qualification. I am certainly not capable enough to interpret scripture accurately vis-à-vis some other more illustrious folks, that’s what I’m saying. Is there a way to interpret scripture authoritatively?

Sure it could, and regularly is, and not just from Catholics. For some, we are not Catholic enough. For others, we are not protestant enough.

The Epitome of the Formula of Concord is our response regarding authority.

So essentially, an affirmation of Sola Scriptura. The Bible is infallible, traditions are not, but they might be useful in correct interpretation of scripture. Did I understand that correctly?

But what about the Bible itself? How did we get the infallible canon? I’m just a litltle confused. Forgive my ignorance.

It should. If this had happened, it would mean that Jesus did not keep His promises.

Joseph Smith was right. Just kidding.

Like all those who have left the Catholic faith, they pick and choose the parts of Scripture and of the FAthers that support their views. Significant portions of Augustine are ignored, whole those reinforcing innovative doctrines are stressed. This is the same thing that happens with Scripture.

Well some Fathers also had rather ambiguous or problematic theories as well. Didn’t Origen propose the preexistence of souls? How do we know the correct from the false?

 

[JonNC]

=FabiusMaximus;8075917]So are you saying that Lutherans could, technically, invoke saint intercession legitimately in Lutheranism, even if it’s not expressly commanded?

Hi Fab,
Some Lutherans will tell you that, no, it isn’t adiaphora. OTOH, there was a Lutheran pastor that did tell his flock to pray for intercession if they chose (not sure if he received any consequence from his synod for it). If I were to do it, I wouldn’t vocalize it in a parish setting, but my sense is that the confessions do not smile on it brightly. That said, there is nothing stopping a Lutheran from praying to God that he listen to the prayers of the saints for the Church Militant.

Fair enough, haha. But I meant in terms of qualification. I am certainly not capable enough to interpret scripture accurately vis-à-vis some other more illustrious folks, that’s what I’m saying. Is there a way to interpret scripture authoritatively?

In terms of doctrine, I see no place for me to interpret scripture. I am bound to the confessions as a Lutheran. In things adiaphora, for example the assumption, I certainly can make a determination on it.

So essentially, an affirmation of Sola Scriptura. The Bible is infallible, traditions are not, but they might be useful in correct interpretation of scripture. Did I understand that correctly?

The Bible is innerant, but pretty close. Notice in the case of the creeds it is more than just useful, however. It says, “we pledge ourselves to them”. Where Tradition rightly reflects the truth of scripture, they could be said to be, in a way, authoritative. And remember, in terms of doctrine, we rely on the Church to interpret.

But what about the Bible itself? How did we get the infallible canon? I’m just a litltle confused. Forgive my ignorance.

Reliance on the Church to determine that. The confessions, however, do not close the canon, at least in a technical sense. Lutherans (should) highly value the D-C’s for example, but as a practice would not use them exclusive of the rest of scripture to set doctrine.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Lutherans (should) highly value the D-C’s for example, but as a practice would not use them exclusive of the rest of scripture to set doctrine.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi Jim,
Look back at the heresies that prompted the convening of the early councils in the first place. Lutherans side with the Church universal against the Arians, etc. It was these that they were referring to.

Jon

Hi Jon,

The quote concerned “heresies and dogmas” that “have been introduced into the Church of God.”

Arianism wasn’t “introduced into the Church of God,” it was rejected.

Isn’t it purgatory, prayers to the saints, the Marian beliefs, etc., etc., – the usual Catholic beliefs that Lutherans have objected to – that are referred to in the Book of Concord? In the Catholic view, they were “introduced” by the Apostles.

Jim Dandy

 

[FabiusMaximus]

JonNC;8076017:

The Bible is innerant, but pretty close. Notice in the case of the creeds it is more than just useful, however. It says, “we pledge ourselves to them”. Where Tradition rightly reflects the truth of scripture, they could be said to be, in a way, authoritative. And remember, in terms of doctrine, we rely on the Church to interpret.

Reliance on the Church to determine that. The confessions, however, do not close the canon, at least in a technical sense. Lutherans (should) highly value the D-C’s for example, but as a practice would not use them exclusive of the rest of scripture to set doctrine.

Jon

Why rely on the Church’s interpretation? After all you have the Bible, right?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

The quote concerned “heresies and dogmas” that “have been introduced into the Church of God.”

Arianism wasn’t “introduced into the Church of God,” it was rejected.

Isn’t it purgatory, prayers to the saints, the Marian beliefs, etc., etc., – the usual Catholic beliefs that Lutherans have objected to – that are referred to in the Book of Concord? In the Catholic view, they were “introduced” by the Apostles.

Jim Dandy

No, Jim. Look at the first part of that paragraph, and look at what is addressed by the creeds.

And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

They speak specifically to the nature of the Trinity, and the Person of Christ. None of the creeds speak about Purgatory, nor do they address the marian beliefs. In addition, Purgatory, as the CC accepts it, is still not accepted doctrine in the east, neither is the IC or the Assumption (Dormition has some differences).

What is more, marian beliefs are not rejected by Lutherans doctrinally. In fact, Virgin Birth and Holy Theotokos are doctrine, Sempre Virgo is mentioned positively in the confessions, and the rest are considered adiaphora.

I think you’re reading more into the statement than is there.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Why rely on the Church’s interpretation? After all you have the Bible, right?

That’s not the intent of SS, in the Lutheran practice. The confessions never speak of it in those terms. What you are saying is a much later approach, and not of Lutherans.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8079705]

The difference in canons is quite troubling. Whose Bible, Which Canon, is the (written) Word of God?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Thank you, Jon, for your thoughtful replies to my questions. Much obliged.

I have another, regarding your post that follows:

Originally Posted by JonNC
The Bible is innerant, but pretty close. Notice in the case of the creeds it is more than just useful, however. It says, “we pledge ourselves to them”. Where Tradition rightly reflects the truth of scripture, they could be said to be, in a way, authoritative. And remember, in terms of doctrine, we rely on the Church to interpret.

Reliance on the Church to determine that. The confessions, however, do not close the canon, at least in a technical sense. Lutherans (should) highly value the D-C’s for example, but as a practice would not use them exclusive of the rest of scripture to set doctrine.

Jon

I’m unclear about which church you rely on, by this I mean do you rely on all the various synods of Lutherans? Are they in agreement regarding biblical interpretation? Or do you rely only on the LCMS? Would you clarify, please? Thank you for your patience with my ignorance.

Jim Dandy

 

[hn160]

Thank you, Jon, for your thoughtful replies to my questions. Much obliged.

I have another, regarding your post that follows:

I’m unclear about which church you rely on, by this I mean do you rely on all the various synods of Lutherans? Are they in agreement regarding biblical interpretation? Or do you rely only on the LCMS? Would you clarify, please? Thank you for your patience with my ignorance.

Jim Dandy

1 1. We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and norm according to which all teachings, together with ‹all› teachers, should be evaluated and judged [2 Timothy 3:15–17] are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and New Testament alone. For it is written in Psalm 119:105, “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” St. Paul has written, “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).
2 However, other writings by ancient or modern teachers—no matter whose name they bear—must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures. All of them are subject to the Scriptures [1 Corinthians 14:32]. Other writings should not be received in any other way or as anything more than witnesses that show how this ‹pure› doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved after the time of the apostles, and at what places.
3 2. Right after the time of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose [Titus 3:9–10]. Therefore, symbols (i.e., brief, concise confessions) were written against the heretics in the Early Church. These symbols were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church. They are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. We pledge ourselves to these symbols, and in this way we reject all heresies and teachings that have been introduced into God’s Church against them.
4 3. However, schisms in matters of faith have also happened in our time. Therefore, we regard as the unanimous consensus and declaration of our Christian faith and confession—especially against the papacy and its false worship, idolatry, superstition, and against other sects—the first, unaltered Augsburg Confession. It is the symbol of our time, and it was delivered to the Emperor, Charles V, at Augsburg in the year 1530 in the great Diet. We hold to this confession along with its Apology and the Articles composed at Smalcald in the year 1537, which the chief theologians signed at that time.
5 Such matters also concern the laity and the salvation of their souls. Therefore, we also confess Dr. Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms as they are included in Luther’s works. They are “the layman’s Bible” because everything necessary for a Christian to know for salvation is included in them, which is handled more extensively in the Holy Scriptures.
6 As announced above, all teachings are to be conformed in this way. What is contrary to these confessions is to be rejected and condemned, as opposed to the unanimous declaration of our faith.
7 In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament and all other writings is preserved. The Holy Scriptures alone remain the judge, rule, and norm. According to them—as the only touchstone—all teachings shall and must be discerned and judged to see whether they are good or evil [1 Thessalonians 5:21–22], right or wrong.
8 The other symbols and writings mentioned above are not judges like the Holy Scriptures. They are only a testimony and declaration of the faith. They show how the Holy Scriptures have been understood and explained in regard to controversial articles in God’s Church by those living at that time. Also, they show how the opposite teaching was rejected and condemned ‹by what arguments the dogmas conflicting with the Holy Scriptures were rejected and condemned›.
I. ORIGINAL SIN
Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions. Edited by Paul Timothy McCain. St. Louis, MO : Concordia Publishing House, 2005, S. 473

 

[JonNC]

Thank you, Jon, for your thoughtful replies to my questions. Much obliged.

I have another, regarding your post that follows:

I’m unclear about which church you rely on, by this I mean do you rely on all the various synods of Lutherans? Are they in agreement regarding biblical interpretation? Or do you rely only on the LCMS? Would you clarify, please? Thank you for your patience with my ignorance.

Jim Dandy

The unifying symbol of Lutheranism is the Lutheran confessions, most importantly the Augsburg Confession, it Apology, and The Small Catechism, despite the varying synods.
With the exception of some of the more liberal synods, which most confessional Lutherans would consider as drifting away from the confessions, Lutherans hold to the confessions.
As the confessions, along with the universal symbols of the Church, the creeds, rightly reflect the truth of scriptures, confessional Lutherans vary little if any in terms of doctrine.

As a member of the LCMS, I rely on the Church regarding statements of doctrine. There are areas I disagree with the practices of the LCMS - its polity, and its sometimes intransigence regarding ecumenism, most notably.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

The unifying symbol of Lutheranism is the Lutheran confessions, most importantly the Augsburg Confession, it Apology, and The Small Catechism, despite the varying synods.
With the exception of some of the more liberal synods, which most confessional Lutherans would consider as drifting away from the confessions, Lutherans hold to the confessions.
As the confessions, along with the universal symbols of the Church, the creeds, rightly reflect the truth of scriptures, confessional Lutherans vary little if any in terms of doctrine.

As a member of the LCMS, I rely on the Church regarding statements of doctrine. There are areas I disagree with the practices of the LCMS - its polity, and its sometimes intransigence regarding ecumenism, most notably.

Jon

Thank you, Jon, for helping us all to understand your faith better. Your patience is a virtue.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

That’s not the intent of SS, in the Lutheran practice. The confessions never speak of it in those terms. What you are saying is a much later approach, and not of Lutherans.

Jon

Wonderful.

But then in that case, Martin Luther’s version of Sola Scriptura doesn’t sound that different than the Catholic Church’s insistence on Scripture and Tradition.

It’s just that the Catholic Church seems to see things that Lutherans don’t generally see.

Some of the Catholic doctrines that are criticized, after all, don’t seem illogical when reading the Bible, and vice versa with regards to Lutheranism.