Lutheran bishops

[GKC]

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.

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!

Rationally discussing history is good. I concur.

GKC

 

[PatriciusRex]

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.

I would be curious to see what the finding would be myself. Anglican orders were of course declared null and void in the 1896 encyclical Apostolicae Curae on the basis that the “Protestantized” ordination rite of the 1552 and 1559 editions of the Book of Common Prayer. While the 1662 Prayerbook corrected the offending terminology, that left a nearly century long period when Anglican orders had been conferred in what Rome deemed an insufficient manner.

While it’s outside my knowledge, judging from what examples of Swedish liturgy I have seen, I would assume their ordination rite would be largely identical to the pre-Reformation one apart from language, thus leaving their succession unbroken.

If that were the case, then their biggest problem would be the increase in female bishops, who cannot possess, and thus also cannot transmit, holy orders according to the position held by Rome and the eastern Churches.

PatriciusRex, are you channeling Erasmus? I’m noticing a pattern of well-thought-out posts rationally discussing history

I’m sure I don’t speak only for myself when I say how I hate discussing religion with Evangelicals (of the 18th/19th century Anglosphere variety) and other “low church” denominations and having them think they know all about what the Catholic Church believes and list all the ways I’m wrong, etc, when really 90%+ of what they claim is completely wrong.

So it REALLY bothers me when I see my co-religionists doing the same thing to Protestants. Especially the assumption that the historic Protestant confessions are no different than the non-denominational church down the road. I may disagree with Luther, Bucer, Calvin, etc but they were smart guys and knew their stuff. And I think they asked a lot of good questions, even if I find myself coming to different answers than they did.

Pax tecum

 

[GKC]

I would be curious to see what the finding would be myself. Anglican orders were of course declared null and void in the 1896 encyclical Apostolicae Curae on the basis that the “Protestantized” ordination rite of the 1552 and 1559 editions of the Book of Common Prayer. While the 1662 Prayerbook corrected the offending terminology, that left a nearly century long period when Anglican orders had been conferred in what Rome deemed an insufficient manner.

While it’s outside my knowledge, judging from what examples of Swedish liturgy I have seen, I would assume their ordination rite would be largely identical to the pre-Reformation one apart from language, thus leaving their succession unbroken.

If that were the case, then their biggest problem would be the increase in female bishops, who cannot possess, and thus also cannot transmit, holy orders according to the position held by Rome and the eastern Churches.

I’m sure I don’t speak only for myself when I say how I hate discussing religion with Evangelicals (of the 18th/19th century Anglosphere variety) and other “low church” denominations and having them think they know all about what the Catholic Church believes and list all the ways I’m wrong, etc, when really 90%+ of what they claim is completely wrong.

So it REALLY bothers me when I see my co-religionists doing the same thing to Protestants. Especially the assumption that the historic Protestant confessions are no different than the non-denominational church down the road. I may disagree with Luther, Bucer, Calvin, etc but they were smart guys and knew their stuff. And I think they asked a lot of good questions, even if I find myself coming to different answers than they did.

Pax tecum

Apostolicae Curae intertwined the supposed defective form with a supposed defective sacramental intent, in its judgement.

Hobby of mine.

GKC

 

[PatriciusRex]

Apostolicae Curae intertwined the supposed defective form with a supposed defective sacramental intent, in its judgement.

Though in this case, were they not the same thing? If memory serves, Rome accepted as an acceptable corrective the mere words “as a priest” and “as a bishop” that were added in the 1662 BCP ordinals.

This then created the appropriate form, so that even if intent were lacking, the sacrament would be conferred. Ex opere operato, anti-Donatism, and all that.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

most

-welcomed breath of fresh air. Do keep posting!

What I find frustrating with CAF is the preoccupation by some to emphasize differences between Catholics and Lutherans. When clearly, there is more we share in common, including Apostolic Succession and the very founding saints of Christianity in northern Europe.

 

[MaryT777]

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.

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!

Too sensible to post on CAF? No one is twisting the arm of anyone to be a member here.
Mary. Joking aside of course, everyone is welcome

 

[JonNC]

=EvangelCatholic;11114728]What I find frustrating with CAF is the preoccupation by some to emphasize differences between Catholics and Lutherans.

I find it frustrating too…
…but nearly so frustrating as the move by some Lutherans to throw up additional barriers, such as women’s ordination, etc.

When clearly, there is more we share in common, including Apostolic Succession and the very founding saints of Christianity in northern Europe

No argument.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I find it frustrating too…
…but nearly so frustrating as the move by some Lutherans to throw up additional barriers, such as women’s ordination, etc.

No argument.

Jon

The issue is Evangel Catholic we don’t share much in common with the ELCA church.
Morals are night and day. We don’t ordain women,. We don’t consider Lutherans as having valid apostolic succession nor a valid Eucharist.
We have a long ways to go and stating that we have much in common when in fact
we have a long way to go simply is incorrect.

We can’t even state we share the JDDJ with Lutherans unless we specify what Synod’
for the LCMS did not sign it. They don’t ordain women. There are differences between
the two synods on the relationship with the Pope etc.

Mary.

Mary.

 

[hn160]

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.

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!

The problem with the Swedish and Finnish Bishops is that they can be a woman. The Roman Catholic Church would never accept women priests or bishops. I have heard it said that Lutherans are always at the door of Rome knocking to be let in.
Our Lutheran Church has a great treasure in our Confessions that we should not be begging at the door of Rome. Nothing has changed since the Council of Trent except some wording that the meaning can be taken either way.

 

[GKC]

Though in this case, were they not the same thing? If memory serves, Rome accepted as an acceptable corrective the mere words “as a priest” and “as a bishop” that were added in the 1662 BCP ordinals.

This then created the appropriate form, so that even if intent were lacking, the sacrament would be conferred. Ex opere operato, anti-Donatism, and all that.

As you may know, the re-write was unrelated to the issues alleged in* Apostolicae Curae*. But if by “in this case”, you mean with reference to Apostolicae Curae, then no, the intent and the form were distinct issues, intertwined in the judgment.The form of the consecration/ordination rite was judged invalid, due to not mentioning the power of the priesthood to offer the sacrificial Mass. But this was not uncommon; there were existing liturgical rites which the RCC does recognize as validly conveying valid orders, other things being equally valid, which do not do so, either (Saepius Officio mentioned this). So the question of valid sacramental intent was intertwined with that of the liturgical form.

Valid sacramental intent is, as Apostolicae Curae says, an interior condition, of, as Clark demonstrates in his ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) the sacramental minister, and not necessarily subject to positive examination or judgment. The minimum (and it is minimal) required for valid sacramental intent is for the minister to intend facere quod facit eccelesia, to intend to do what the Church does, in the sacramental action. Since intent is an interior state, valid intent is normally assumed, if all other aspects of the sacramental action (minister, form, matter, subject) are themselves demonstrably valid. However, if there is some external aspect that permits a judgment of the intent, permitting a determinatio ex adiunctis, that may permit a judgment of invalid intent. In the logic of Apostolicae Curae, that was the use of the Ordinal, judged as it was in its historical context. Intent and form together were the presumptive basis of the judgment in Apostolicae Curae.

What the later impact of the 1662 rewrite, in the light, especially, of the OCs and PNCC joint episcopal consecrations, post 1932, might be, is an open question. Ott would suggest that there might be a interesting answer, logically. But it is a mystery.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I came across this discussion of AS on the Anglican site, Ask the Priest, about the Lutheran/ Anglican dialongues/ Provoo Communion

Apostolicity contains four major strands - faithful teaching, the sacraments, a recognized ministry, and involvement in mission - “the Church’s continuity with Christ and the apostles in its movement through history.” Apostolic succession is “a dynamic, diverse reality” embracing faithfulness to apostolic teaching; participation in baptism, prayer, and the eucharist; “sharing in the Church’s common life of mutual edification and caring, served by an ecclesiastically called and recognized pastoral ministry of Word and sacrament;” and “continuing involvement in the apostolic mission” of the church by proclaiming the gospel through word and deed. Apostolic succession is not to be understood “primarily in terms of historic episcopate.”

In other words, the apostolic succession is not only the laying-on-of-hands from one bishop to another over the centuries, but a cord formed by four important strands. While Anglicans have maintained the historic ministry explicity through the episcopate, the historic ministry has also been maintained through the Lutheran tradition as well, even in the absence of bishops. Similarly, while Anglicans have always preached the Gospel, the Lutherans have upheld its centrality most forcefully.

And this response to question over valid Anglican orders:

"So do Anglicans have a valid Historic Episcopate? I believe we do. Our lines of succession come not only from the pre-reformation Church in England, but also through the Old Catholic and Baltic Lutheran lines. Were our ordination rites ever “defective?” Only if you accept the Counter-Reformation Roman definition of priestly sacrifice as the only norm of the church, thus declaring generations of Roman ordinations and all Eastern Orthodox ordinations invalid:
askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2007/11/holy-orders-and.html

 

[GKC]

I came across this discussion of AS on the Anglican site, Ask the Priest, about the Lutheran/ Anglican dialongues/ Provoo Communion

And this response to question over valid Anglican orders:

"So do Anglicans have a valid Historic Episcopate? I believe we do. Our lines of succession come not only from the pre-reformation Church in England, but also through the Old Catholic and Baltic Lutheran lines. Were our ordination rites ever “defective?” Only if you accept the Counter-Reformation Roman definition of priestly sacrifice as the only norm of the church, thus declaring generations of Roman ordinations and all Eastern Orthodox ordinations invalid:
askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2007/11/holy-orders-and.html

Lots of Anglicans reason similarly with respect to Apostolicae Curae.

All other sacramental factors remaining valid, of course.

The last sentence is opaque.

GKC

 

[Nita]

, the **intent **and the form were distinct issues, intertwined in the judgment.The form of the consecration/ordination rite was judged invalid, due to not mentioning the power of the priesthood to offer the sacrificial Mass. But this was not uncommon; there were existing liturgical rites which the RCC does recognize as validly conveying valid orders, other things being equally valid, which do not do so, either (Saepius Officio mentioned this). So the question of valid sacramental intent was intertwined with that of the liturgical form.

…The minimum (and it is minimal) required for valid sacramental intent is for the minister to intend facere quod facit eccelesia,** to intend to do what the Church does**, in the sacramental action. Since intent is an interior state, valid intent is normally assumed, if all other aspects of the sacramental action (minister, form, matter, subject) are themselves demonstrably valid. However, if there is some external aspect that permits a judgment of the intent, permitting a determinatio ex adiunctis, that may permit a judgment of invalid intent. In the logic of Apostolicae Curae, that was the use of the Ordinal, judged as it was in its historical context. Intent and form together were the presumptive basis of the judgment in Apostolicae Curae.
…

GKC

A quote from Ott, III Priestly Office, Paragraph 8, 1. Concept of Sacrifice:The most essential function of the sacerdotal office is sacrifice. Hebr. 8,3 “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.” The Council of Trent declares: “Sacrifice and priesthood are, through God’s ordinance, so connected with each other that both existed in every order of salvation (in omni lege)” D 957

And that is the crux of the matter. Altho important, AS and form are not sufficient. Intent is crucial. Those who broke from the Church and rejected the sacrifical nature of the Mass would not have the same intent in ordaining as the Church does. Except for Henry VIII, I think all the early reformers rejected the Mass as a sacrifice - the sacrifice of the New Covenant. So, even if bishops joined them, the proper intent was not there and so ordinations were not valid.

Altho Luther and others may have kept the form, they were open about their rejection of the Mass as a sacrifice and this would serve as an " external aspect that permits a judgment of the intent," (part bolded in red).

 

[GKC]

A quote from Ott, III Priestly Office, Paragraph 8, 1. Concept of Sacrifice:The most essential function of the sacerdotal office is sacrifice. Hebr. 8,3 “For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices.” The Council of Trent declares: “Sacrifice and priesthood are, through God’s ordinance, so connected with each other that both existed in every order of salvation (in omni lege)” D 957

And that is the crux of the matter. Altho important, AS and form are not sufficient. Intent is crucial. Those who broke from the Church and rejected the sacrifical nature of the Mass would not have the same intent in ordaining as the Church does. Except for Henry VIII, I think all the early reformers rejected the Mass as a sacrifice - the sacrifice of the New Covenant. So, even if bishops joined them, the proper intent was not there and so ordinations were not valid.

Altho Luther and others may have kept the form, they were open about their rejection of the Mass as a sacrifice and this would serve as an " external aspect that permits a judgment of the intent," (part bolded in red).

Which, as I said, is why intent and form are intertwined in Apostolicae Curae. As Clark demonstrated (op. cit), the intent in question is the sacramental intent of a particular minister at a particular point; the consecration of ++Parker in 1559. Had the Pontificale Romanum been used, and not the Ordinal, there would not have been something judged to be an expression of the sacramental intent, in that action. There would have been nothing to permit a determinatio ex adiunctus.

GKC

 

[aemcpa]

Had the Pontificale Romanum been used, and not the Ordinal, there would not have been something judged to be an expression of the sacramental intent, in that action.

I don’t see anything wrong with that. Why formulate new ceremonies for ordination and consecration if you accept the current one? If your only intent is to nationalize the Church, why change the form of the Sacrament? It seems clear that the very creation of the new books signaled an intent to reject and replace the nature of the Sacrament as it had been heretofore understood.

 

[GKC]

I don’t see anything wrong with that. Why formulate new ceremonies for ordination and consecration if you accept the current one? If your only intent is to nationalize the Church, why change the form of the Sacrament? It seems clear that the very creation of the new books signaled an intent to reject and replace the nature of the Sacrament as it had been heretofore understood.

That is part of the argument. But the intent, as used in your post here, in writing the Ordinal, is not the same as the sacramental intent in the sacramental action, as Clark spends a lot of words pointing out. Writing a ritual is not a sacramental action and sacramental intent is not involved. Nor was the form developed unique in its wording. But the use of that form, developed in the context it was, in that particular circumstance, was taken to be revelatory of the sacramental intent of the consecrators of ++Parker.

Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AN DEFECT OF INTENTION is the best exposition of the logic behind Apostolicae Curae that I know of. Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD are the best presentation of, in the first case, the history, personalities and politics in the long sad story of the subject, and in the second, some considerations of a theological nature. I recommend them often.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

I came across this discussion of AS on the Anglican site, Ask the Priest, about the Lutheran/ Anglican dialongues/ Provoo Communion

And this response to question over valid Anglican orders:

"So do Anglicans have a valid Historic Episcopate? I believe we do. Our lines of succession come not only from the pre-reformation Church in England, but also through the Old Catholic and Baltic Lutheran lines. Were our ordination rites ever “defective?” Only if you accept the Counter-Reformation Roman definition of priestly sacrifice as the only norm of the church, thus declaring generations of Roman ordinations and all Eastern Orthodox ordinations invalid:
askthepriest.org/askthepriest/2007/11/holy-orders-and.html

Yes, far be it for me to suggest that the redefinition of apostolic succession as a multi-stranded rope is politicking — these are honourable people and the Spirit will have enhanced their understanding during their discussions I have no doubt. Certainly it is true that the redefinition allowed churches without the historic episcopate in apostolic succession to sign the agreement, and now the intermingling of lines is taking place between the Nordic Lutherans and the Anglican churches in the British Isles and Iberia which will mean that such validity as exists in the orders of any of them will be passed (insofar as matter is concerned, at any rate) to all the others.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I came across this document from 1876 written for consideration of the Protestant Episcopal Church ecclesiastical relations with Lutherans. Here are a few segments.

anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/tustin_sweden1876.html

1st, As to the Episcopate.–The Church of Sweden took open and independent ground for separation from the Roman Papacy before the Church of England did. Gustavus Vasa, the kingly patron of the Reformation in Sweden, was in many respects Henry VIII. of England all over again; though his personal and religious character was immeasurably more pure and noble than Henry’s… In royal prerogative and in assuming the political headship of the Church, Gustavus and Henry were nearly in all respects alike.

As early as 1522, Gustavus caused the election of the three Bishops of Skara, Strangness, and Aebo, without waiting for confirmation from Rome, or any other ecclesiastical metropolis, or from any Papal legate. These Bishops hesitated a long time about performing their functions without due consecration, according to the ancient practice; but when the king left them no discretion between consecration and abdication, they were finally consecrated at Strangness, on the 5th of January, 1528, [8/9] by Petrus Magni, who himself had been consecrated at Rome according to the Papal ritual.

So far, the old order of the Catholic Church was preserved, though the supremacy of the Pope was no longer recognized by the Church of Sweden. The Apostolic succession was thus preserved to the Bishops of the Swedish Church, by continuous and derived authority received from duly consecrated Bishops. The recorded proofs of the historical continuity of that Church are not open to any serious suspicion. The archives of their respective Dioceses have been singularly well protected.

Politically, and organically important as the Episcopate is in Sweden, yet it is sad to say, that the clergy and people hold but indifferent notions as to the Divine authority of the Episcopate, as to its Scriptural and Apostolic basis, or as to its Primitive Church witnesses. They adhere to Episcopacy from tradition, expediency, and national pride

 

[GKC]

I came across this document from 1876 written for consideration of the Protestant Episcopal Church ecclesiastical relations with Lutherans. Here are a few segments.

So far as it goes, that looks encouraging. One would need to know more about the sacramental factors other than the minister.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

So far as it goes, that looks encouraging. One would need to know more about the sacramental factors other than the minister.

GKC

I am glad that you are participating in this discussion, GKC, since you, likely have the most expertize on Apostolic Succession among posters. Curious what your other thoughts are on this nearly 150 year old document? It was written from the Anglican perspective that Lutherans should view AP as canonical rather than just “tradition, expediency, and national pride”