Lutheran bishops

[EvangelCatholic]

Does anyone on either side really care what each side really thinks of each other orders. They are valid in that Church. We can beat this subject to death.

Agree. It seems like some topics are recycled endlessly

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I suppose they might claim it through luther though thats very teneous, the best the Lutheran bishop can do is claim apostolic succession is more about keeping the faith than a line of ordained successors going back to the apostles. I for one believe in order to have some order and to prevent people from thinking they can just “start” a church need to have both faith and an apostolic bearing in the orthodox church.

 

[vsedriver]

Does anyone on either side really care what each side really thinks of each other orders. They are valid in that Church. We can beat this subject to death.

I think everyone should care and care a lot. Without Apostolic Succession which is much more than valid orders, you have no assurance of hearing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christianity becomes fractured and Christ’s teachings watered down or ignored completely.

If the Catholic Church doesn’t contain the fullness of Christ’s teachings via Apostolic Succession than no church does and there is no way of knowing what Christ’s message really was or what we must do to gain salvation. Ultimately that means Christ wasted 3 years of his life teaching a message that was never going to survive the ages intact.

Hence you open the door for anyone to start their own version of Christianity. A house divided against itself can’t stand.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I think everyone should care and care a lot. Without Apostolic Succession which is much more than valid orders, you have no assurance of hearing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Christianity becomes fractured and Christ’s teachings watered down or ignored completely.

If the Catholic Church doesn’t contain the fullness of Christ’s teachings via Apostolic Succession than no church does and there is no way of knowing what Christ’s message really was or what we must do to gain salvation. Ultimately that means Christ wasted 3 years of his life teaching a message that was never going to survive the ages intact.

Hence you open the door for anyone to start their own version of Christianity. A house divided against itself can’t stand.

very well stated!

 

[1ke]

Does anyone on either side really care what each side really thinks of each other orders.

We should really care about what is True.

They are valid in that Church.

No. They are either valid or not, objectively. And from validity of Orders and Apostolic Succession flow a whole host of important things without which you do not have a true particular Church.

What you have proposed above regarding validity is nothing more than relativism.

 

[hn160]

We should really care about what is True.

No. They are either valid or not, objectively. And from validity of Orders and Apostolic Succession flow a whole host of important things without which you do not have a true particular Church.

What you have proposed above regarding validity is nothing more than relativism.

Our orders in our eyes are just as valid as yours, our Church teaches the correct exposition of Scripture in the purist form as our Lutheran Confessions teach.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Our orders in our eyes are just as valid as yours, our Church teaches the correct exposition of Scripture in the purist form as our Lutheran Confessions teach.

I suspect that Lutherans really do not care if Rome states they are valid or not right? My Anglican family members do not care what Rome believes about their priesthood. They believe their priest are valid with orders from God. They do not need a Pope to declare so.

Is that the same for Lutherans?

 

[JonNC]

I suspect that Lutherans really do not care if Rome states they are valid or not right? My Anglican family members do not care what Rome believes about their priesthood. They believe their priest are valid with orders from God. They do not need a Pope to declare so.

Is that the same for Lutherans?

Dustin,

We would welcome with joy and thanksgiving the Vatican’s recognition of our orders, in the same manner that we recognize yours. We don’t need it. We don’t view it as a requirement for validity. We don’t lose sleep over it. But we would welcome it.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Dustin,

We would welcome with joy and thanksgiving the Vatican’s recognition of our orders, in the same manner that we recognize yours. We don’t need it. We don’t view it as a requirement for validity. We don’t lose sleep over it. But we would welcome it.

Jon

I am going to give you my Aunt’s number. Maybe you can talk some sense into her. lol

 

[MaryT777]

Does anyone on either side really care what each side really thinks of each other orders. They are valid in that Church. We can beat this subject to death.

I actually do care greatly about the importance of apostolic succession.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

Does anyone on either side really care what each side really thinks of each other orders. They are valid in that Church. We can beat this subject to death.

Actually, I believe it is important, but I agree that we beat it to death, because I also believe that, were we to come to the brink of unity, based on the confessions, AS would not be a roadblock.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Actually, I believe it is important, but I agree that we beat it to death, because I also believe that, were we to come to the brink of unity, based on the confessions, AS would not be a roadblock.

Jon

The topic admittedly is probably more important to Catholics than to some Lutherans.

Mary.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

To further Christian unity, Lutherans are increasingly adopting Apostolic Succession as the norm.

 

[JonNC]

To further Christian unity, Lutherans are increasingly adopting Apostolic Succession as the norm.

And, according to the confessions, that is precisely the reason for AS.

The Apology of the Augsburg Confession

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.

Jon

 

[jimkhong]

Nor is there really any doubt in the minds of Catholics that Lutherans are protestants, regardless of what some Lutherans say about it.

I asked in another thread, but never received an answer, why apostolic succession matters to Lutherans. If the Catholic Church was rejected as Christ’s Church by Lutherans, why in the world would claiming to derive the validity of its orders from the Catholic Church be anything they would want? Why not just acknowledge the clean break that it really was? Most protestant churches do, or perhaps claim their group was there all along from the very beginning of Christianity.

I have heard some Methodists claim to be part of the Catholic Church (broadly speaking) too. I didn’t understand why they would want to do that any better than i understand Lutherans wanting to do it.

I share your thoughts on this. The question is not from a Catholic point of view, which clearly view Lutheranism as a heresy and as such, their orders are not valid orders from a Catholic point of view. I don’t think that needs repeating in a Catholic forum.

I understand that the Church of Sweden seeks to maintain the Apostolic Succession while the Church of Norway intentionally broke theirs (I am not sure if my sources are correct). The other national churches allowed the Apostolic Succession to lapse, probably because they do not find it important. So (again, if my understanding is correct) there are three different approaches within the same Lutheran confession. Can someone explain from a Lutheran point of view why these three difference stances?

 

[PatriciusRex]

So (again, if my understanding is correct) there are three different approaches within the same Lutheran confession. Can someone explain from a Lutheran point of view why these three difference stances?

For reasons already stated by others, Luther himself regarded the episcopacy as superfluous, similar to Wesley’s ultimate conclusion that the bishop is not an order unto itself but merely an “office” within the presbyterate. (Compare Catholic views of the office of the Papacy within the universal episcopate). In this understanding, the bishop’s only function was to maintain order in the local churches and ensure the teaching of sound doctrine. In the caesaropapist tendencies of the Lutheran reformation, Luther accorded the “summus episcopus,” that is the episcopal duties of oversight and administration, to the territorial prince. Thus, as an example, in the Evangelical Church of Saxony, once subject to (I believe?) the bishops of the Province of Magdeburg, the dioceses were suppressed and the oversight exercised by the Prince-Elector of Saxony.

The princes usually left matters of doctrine to the theologians of the various universities, but every once in a while would intervene. The most (in)famous example was when the Prussian King Frederick William III, mandated that all the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) congregations in his kingdom be merged into a single church body with a common order of service in 1817. This was especially offensive to Lutherans who believed that Calvinists profaned the Lord’s Supper. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the exodus of many unyielding Lutherans was one of the origins of the founding of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in the US.

This arrangement persisted in Germany until the collapse of the German Empire and its constituent kingdoms/principalities/etc in 1919. Only then, deprived of the territorial prince, did the various churches today comprising the Evangelical Church of Germany re-adopt episcopacy, as a “republican” alternative to the former caesaropapism. Though note that this bishops were an entirely modern creation, having no ordinal links to pre-Reformation bishops, so their “invalid” status in Rome’s eyes is a given.

There were some bishops who converted to Lutheranism, including a couple Prince-Archbishops of Cologne. So had the German Lutherans wished to maintain the Apostolic Succession in the sense understood by Catholics they easily could have, but they didn’t.

Scandinavia was a little different because the bishops had long since been “nationalized” in the sense that the dioceses of the Danish bishops were coterminous with the country of Denmark, etc. In Germany the bishops, outside the bounds of a territory and sometimes even a rival prince in their own right, could be viewed as a “foreign” interloper by a prince. In Scandinavia, however, the bishops had long occupied the usual place as advisors and administrators to the monarch. Thus the Scandinavian kings felt no need to discard with the episcopate and in fact viewed it as a useful institution for executing their intended religious reform.

A key difference was how it came about. When Christian III of Denmark-Norway instituted the Lutheran reform in his lands (including Iceland and Greenland besides the two kingdoms of Denmark and Norway) he at first adopted Luther’s view and completely abolished the episcopate. All the existing Catholic bishops either accepted the decree and retired from public life, fled to Catholic parts of Europe, or were imprisoned before ultimately choosing one of the first two options. Christian recognized the need for “executive officers” for his summus episcopus and established an office of “superintendant” to replace the bishops. These men, however, were just Lutheran theologians appointed by the king and had no ordinal ties to the pre-Reformation bishops. Later, to make the new officers more palatable to the people, who remained nostalgic for old forms, the superintendants were renamed “bishops” as they continue to this day. Needless to say, their orders would be “invalid” as far as Rome is concerned.

In Sweden, however, the Reformation came very differently. Sweden had been united to Denmark-Norway since 1397 in the “Union of Kalmar” and in 1523 a Swedish noble named Gustavus Vasa led a national revolt to re-establish Sweden as an independent country. Driving out the Danes, Gustavus was troubled in his efforts by the fact that the Catholic Archbishop of Uppsala was a Danish loyalist. He petitioned Pope Clement VII to replace the Archbishop with a new one more agreeable to Swedish independence. In what seems a blunder in hindsight, the Pope refused because he was hoping to keep the King of Denmark happy and thus keep Denmark in the Catholic Church. Gustavus Vasa surprised everyone when his revolution became permanent, and resenting Rome’s answer to his call for help, went on to adopt Lutheranism in Sweden as one of his first major acts as King Gustavus I. The Swedish reform was pretty conservative and maintained all the existing Catholic bishops who would agree to the reform in their sees. Additionally, when the king appointed his new Archbishop of Uppsala, Laurentius Petri, Petri was consecrated by another Swedish bishop who had been consecrated in Rome, allegedly by the Pope himself. This line of bishops continues to this day.

So if any Lutheran bishops were to be considered “valid” according to the Roman definition, then it would be those of the Swedish and Finnish Churches. But, given the low priority Lutherans place on the matter, neither the Swedes nor the Finns have ever bothered to inquire for Rome’s opinion on the matter.

 

[jimkhong]

Ho PatricusRex. Thanks for a very comprehensive answer. As always, ecclesiastical history is influenced by secular history.

 

[GKC]

Ho PatricusRex. Thanks for a very comprehensive answer. As always, ecclesiastical history is influenced by secular history.

I second your comments.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

PatriciusRex:

Your thorough explanation is quite informative. I am glad you included Finland as part of the Kingdom of Sweden 6 centuries [until 1809]. St Henry, patron saint of Finland, relics lie below the hgh altar of the Lutheran Cathedral of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Turku. St Henry feast day is January 19 on the Lutheran calendar & July 15 on Roman calendar.

St Eric, King of Sweden, relics lie in Lutheran cathedral of St Lawrence in Uppsala; feast day is May 18 on both Lutheran and Catholic calendars. A special Pontifical High Mass honoring St Brigitta [Bridget] on July 23 is observed together with Roman Catholics. The remains of St Brigitta of Sweden, the patron saint of Europe, were sent to a Uppsala cathedral [arch-bishop of Sweden See] by Pope Boniface IX to a Lutheran kingdom.

Some may argue against Lutheran apostolic succession, yet Catholic faithful and Popes worship with Lutherans our common patron saints such as St Olaf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidaros_Cathedral and St Lucy.

 

[steido01]

The princes usually left matters of doctrine to the theologians of the various universities, but every once in a while would intervene. The most (in)famous example was when the Prussian King Frederick William III, mandated that all the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) congregations in his kingdom be merged into a single church body with a common order of service in 1817. This was especially offensive to Lutherans who believed that Calvinists profaned the Lord’s Supper. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the exodus of many unyielding Lutherans was one of the origins of the founding of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod in the US.

Indeed. And our sister churches in Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Canada, etc. The search for religious freedom (from both protestant and Roman Catholic authorities) has resulted in “Old Lutherans” being scattered across the globe - but we remain united in our reliance on the Word and adherence to the Confessions.

So if any Lutheran bishops were to be considered “valid” according to the Roman definition, then it would be those of the Swedish and Finnish Churches. But, given the low priority Lutherans place on the matter, neither the Swedes nor the Finns have ever bothered to inquire for Rome’s opinion on the matter.

Not that Scandinavian Lutherans would pay much mind to Rome’s opinion, if it were offered.

You expertly shared what seems to be the majority understanding, and it makes sense to my little mind. It is surprising, though, that not a single inquiry has been made to Rome in these last 500 years - even by a non-religious observer. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is keeping an avenue clear for potential reunion, then again, maybe not.

PatriciusRex, are you channeling Erasmus? I’m noticing a pattern of well-thought-out posts rationally discussing history; you might be too sensible for CAF. Joking aside, and in light of the recent rash of protestant-bashing on the forums, you are a most-welcomed breath of fresh air. Do keep posting!