Lutheran 'Orders'?

[CommonMan]

If Historical Apostolic Succession is the determination of the validity of the sacraments what would you say to those who lived and in areas where bishops received their position by election from within the assembly of the church and never had a ceremony of ordination with a neighbor bishop in attendance? Not an unusual circumstance in the early church. Augustine and Ambrose were both elected by their local church members, there most certainly were others.

 

[Katholikos]

Contarini:

I find it impossible to believe that Lutherans (or other Christians without a distinct episcopal succession) lack the Real Presence. That’s one of the biggest reasons I’m not Catholic.

Edwin

You believe, then, that every layman has the power to confect the Eucharist? Without apostolic succession, i.e., without the authority of the Apostles, anyone can ordain anyone else at will. I could “ordain” you and vice versa. “Ordination” is therefore meaningless. And why would clergy be necessary at all?

In Catholicism, the Eucharist is confected, offered to God, and distributed to the Faithful in Holy Communion only in the context of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Mass is a renewal of the Covenant between Christ and His Church – the People of God. It takes a priest to offer sacrifice. No sacrifice, no Eucharist. Priests can’t confect the Eucharist whenever a bread truck rolls by . And a priest can offer the Sacrifice only when he has been given “faculties” to do so by the bishop of the diocese.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, student of St. John the Apostle, writes in 110 A.D.: “You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be* proof against danger and valid*.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ancient Christian Writers, Vol. 1, p. 93) Italics in the original.

JMJ Jay

 

[CommonMan]

You believe, then, that every layman has the power to confect the Eucharist? Without apostolic succession, i.e., without the authority of the Apostles, anyone can ordain anyone else at will. I could “ordain” you and vice versa. “Ordination” is therefore meaningless. And why would clergy be necessary at all?

No, this is not the teaching.

Nor do Lutherans think it’s necessary to offer a sacrifice to God to appease him lest he become angry. We believe Christ’s work was complete and when he said “it is finished” it was indeed finished.

 

[Katholikos]

CommonMan:

No, this is not the teaching.

Then what is the Lutheran teaching?

Nor do Lutherans think it’s necessary to offer a sacrifice to God to appease him lest he become angry. We believe Christ’s work was complete and when he said “it is finished” it was indeed finished.

The sacrifice is not offered to appease God’s anger. At Mass, we kneel at the foot of Calvary, as Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice is re-presented and applied to our souls. It is not a new sacrifice, but the very same sacrifice that was offered on Golgotha in 33 A.D. I know that this sublime truth is beyond your Protestant understanding. But that’s the truth.

QUOTE "Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have “a pure offering” made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . . END QUOTE (Excerpt from Catholic Answers: The Sacrifice of the Mass)

What did Christ mean when He said “It is finished”? For an explanation, read the transcript or listen to the tape of former Presbyterian biblical scholar, theologian, and pastor Scott Hahn’s exegesis entitled, *The Fourth Cup. *Here’s the transcript:

webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm

JMJ Jay

 

[CommonMan]

Katholikos,

Do you deny that the Lord’s Supper is considered a propitiating sacrifice in the RC church?

Would you argee or disagree with this statement;

“In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. … this sacrifice is truly propitiatory… For the Lord, appeased by this oblation, grants grace and the gift of repentance, and he pardons wrong-doings and sins, even grave ones.”

You said " I know that this sublime truth is beyond your Protestant understanding" , is this a typical commentary that you apply to strangers?

 

[Contarini]

Katholikos:

You believe, then, that every layman has the power to confect the Eucharist?

I don’t think it’s a matter of “power,” and I’m not sure the Eucharist is rightly spoken of as something that human beings “confect.” (I don’t have huge objections to the term, but if you’re basing an argument on that way of phrasing it, I need to note my queasiness with this kind of language.) The Eucharist is a covenantal gift of Christ to the Church. This gift is given to the whole Church. The holy Sacrifice is rightly offered by priests in apostolic succession. But where for whatever reason the historic succession has been lost, I don’t question that Christ is truly present however irregular the form of presidency.

Without apostolic succession, i.e., without the authority of the Apostles, anyone can ordain anyone else at will.

First of all, I’d say that apostolic succession in the strict sense is a subset of apostolic authority. The Church as a whole carries on the authority of the Apostles. Bishops and the presbyters they ordain are the proper organs to carry that authority within the Church as a whole. To depart from this right order without extremely grave cause is sinful. The Reformers believed that they did have grave cause, and furthermore they adopted an ecclesiology that value institutional embodiments of ecclesiastical authority far too lightly (just as medieval Catholicism had come to rate such things far too highly). So most Protestant churches were left without episcopal succession (I do not of course accept Apostolicae Curae as correct in its judgment regarding Anglicans). That was a very bad thing. However, I don’t believe that the Church ceases to exist within those bodies as a result.

Katholikos:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, student of St. John the Apostle, writes in 110 A.D.: “You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be* proof against danger and valid*.”

I seem to recall checking the Greek of this in a previous argument (probably not with you, though it may have been) and concluding that “valid” was not necessarily the correct translation of the Greek word. If I remember rightly the word means something like “firm,” but my memory may be playing tricks on me (I’ve almost persuaded myself that the word is “bebaios,” which I know does mean firm–but I’m probably wrong on that one). At any rate, given that Ignatius’s point is to prevent schism within a local church, I think this doesn’t really make your point, and if anything it contradicts the Catholic view that schismatic Eucharists (i.e., of the Orthodox) can be valid. “Without the bishop” in context does not mean so much “without someone on whose head properly authorized hands have been laid” but “without the properly appointed head of the unified local community.” He’s attacking schism, not a pipeline failure. As far as I know, the concept of apostolic succession isn’t articulated until Irenaeus, and even then it refers only to sees actually established by apostles, not to the idea that all bishops are in apostolic succession through the laying on of hands. As any well-informed Baptist can point out, there’s nothing in Ignatius to distinguish the “bishop” from a local pastor in a Protestant church today (nothing in terms of polity and authority, I mean–I’m not talking about the specific doctrinal content of course). Except the fact that in Ignatius’s view he’s the sole valid leader of the Church in that place. Which, again, is the point in the passage you’re quoting. You’re using it anachronistically and out of context.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[oat_soda]

I see. So your faith is built on the deadly sin of envy. If all Christians had the Real Presence, you wouldn’t care about it. It only matters to you if you can look down on others. This is really rather sad

trust me, i don’t envy protestants. i may admire them at times, but they are missing out on a lot i.e. the eucharist.

I come here in the hopes of squashing some of the sillier Catholic apologetics arguments and getting you guys to think more carefully and fairly about other Christians.

you must then realize the catholic church is absolutely bound to its unchangeable teachings such as AC. this is especially true when it comes to the sacraments and the necessity of ministerial priesthood. so why bother arguing against it? GKC seems to understand this and respects it.

 

[GKC]

oat soda:

trust me, i don’t envy protestants. i may admire them at times, but they are missing out on a lot i.e. the eucharist. you must then realize the catholic church is absolutely bound to its unchangeable teachings such as AC. this is especially true when it comes to the sacraments and the necessity of ministerial priesthood. so why bother arguing against it? GKC seems to understand this and respects it.

Greetings, oat soda,

You’re right. I do accept that* AC * is the stated RC position on the question of Anglican Orders. I don’t mind discussing it with RCs but I am not trying to get them to think like an Anglican when I do, just trying to show them (you) how an Anglican thinks. In my case, with respect to AC, I think as Contarini does, I don’t accept it; I know too much about the historical circumstances that underlie it. I consider it a sad, erroneous verdict, but not an illogical one. But it is no problem at all for me to accept that the RCC does accept it, and that RCs should do likewise, under the current circumstances.

OTOH, you should accept that I (and many others, like Contarini) don’t believe I’m missing the Eucharist at all. I receive it every Mass, just as you do, in the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, the Body and Blood made present in the hands of the alter Christus, as time and eternity intersect for humanity, at the foot of the Cross. As you believe yourself.

It’s possible to talk of these things without waving cardboard cutouts at each other. As I have read Contarini over the years (he was literally the second person I ever talked to on a board like this), that’s what he is trying to do.

Pax tecum, frater.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[oat_soda]

I think as Contarini does, I don’t accept it; I know too much about the historical circumstances that underlie it. I consider it a sad, erroneous verdict, but not an illogical one.

i understand as an anglican that you would be in a difficult situation if you accept AC. at least we can admit that either your right and the AC is wrong, or vice versa. let me ask you this, is it ultimately up to the individual to make his own decision, or are we to be obedient to what was handed down to us? or another way, what is truth?

 

[GKC]

oat soda:

i understand as an anglican that you would be in a difficult situation if you accept AC. at least we can admit that either your right and the AC is wrong, or vice versa. let me ask you this, is it ultimately up to the individual to make his own decision, or are we to be obedient to what was handed down to us? or another way, what is truth?

If I accepted AC, I wouldn’t be an Anglican. As to the rest, you ask questions too broad for me to answer. If you are indeed obedient to what is handed down, surely that is by your own decision.

Quid est veritas? An old question, indeed.

GKC

 

[Katholikos]

CommonMan:

Katholikos,

Do you deny that the Lord’s Supper is considered a propitiating sacrifice in the RC church?

Catholics don’t use that terminology. And please – the name of the Church is plain ole “Catholic,” abbreviated CC.

Would you argee or disagree with this statement;

“In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. … this sacrifice is truly propitiatory… For the Lord, appeased by this oblation, grants grace and the gift of repentance, and he pardons wrong-doings and sins, even grave ones.”

I would have to know who wrote this statement, the context of it, what was omitted by the elipses, and what meaning the writer intended to convey. The Lord pardons wrong-doings and sins, even grave ones, but not through or by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is true that venial sins can be forgiven during the Penitential Rite of the Mass, depending upon the disposition of the penitent, but not “grave ones.” Sacramental confession and absolution are required for mortal (grave, deadly) sins. The “divine sacrifice” or “Mass” takes place only in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches, appearances and claims of the Episcopalians and Lutherans notwithstanding.

You said " I know that this sublime truth is beyond your Protestant understanding" , is this a typical commentary that you apply to strangers?

It is a statement of fact based on my own experience as a Protestant, in contacts with Protestants since I became a Catholic – God be praised! – years ago, and through reading Protestant materals. Protestants don’t get it. And if they do, they become Catholic.

Peace be with you,

Katholikos (Jay)
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[GKC]

Katholikos:

Catholics don’t use that terminology. And please – the name of the Church is plain ole “Catholic,” abbreviated CC.

I would have to know who wrote this statement, the context of it, what was omitted by the elipses, and what meaning the writer intended to convey. The Lord pardons wrong-doings and sins, even grave ones, but not through or by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is true that venial sins can be forgiven during the Penitential Rite of the Mass, depending upon the disposition of the penitent, but not “grave ones.” Sacramental confession and absolution are required for mortal (grave, deadly) sins. *The “divine sacrifice” or “Mass” takes place only in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches, appearances and claims of the Episcopalians and Lutherans notwithstanding. *

Hope I’m not intruding, here.

This is, of course, the correct position and belief for any RC. But, generally, and especially at the altar rail, the Anglicans who do possess valid orders are not overly concerned by it. In the larger picture, with respect to unity, it is a sad thing. But not when we receive the Body and Blood. No offense intended, Katholicos.

It is a statement of fact based on my own experience as a Protestant, in contacts with Protestants since I became a Catholic – God be praised! – years ago, and through reading Protestant materals. Protestants don’t get it. And if they do, they become Catholic.

Sure. As I did, when I became Anglo-Catholic. Yes, of course I know you disagree. If you didn’t, I’d tell you that you should.

Peace be with you,

Katholikos (Jay)
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Pax tecum, frater.

GKC

ex-Southern Baptist, Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[CommonMan]

Catholics don’t use that terminology. And please – the name of the Church is plain ole “Catholic,” abbreviated CC.

I attended St. Michaels Roman Catholic Church and St. Jeromes R.C. church for the first 30 years of my life. They are still named as such and I see no problem with the term, Roman Catholic. But I’ll defer to CC if you like.

I would have to know who wrote this statement, the context of it, what was omitted by the elipses, and what meaning the writer intended to convey.

I don’t understand why you can’t answer the question. At face value does it agree or not agree with your understanding?

 

[CommonMan]

Catholics don’t use that terminology. And please – the name of the Church is plain ole “Catholic,” abbreviated CC.

I attended St. Michaels Roman Catholic Church and St. Jeromes R.C. church for the first 30 years of my life. They are still named as such and I see no problem with the term, Roman Catholic. But I’ll defer to CC if you like.

I would have to know who wrote this statement, the context of it, what was omitted by the elipses, and what meaning the writer intended to convey.

I don’t understand why you can’t answer the question. At face value does it agree or not agree with your understanding?

 

[CommonMan]

Commonman asked:
"Do you deny that the Lord’s Supper is considered a propitiating sacrifice in the RC church? "

Katholikos replied:

“Catholics don’t use that terminology.”​

Katholikos,

I was re-reading your post and this jumped out at me. So I’ll re-post it in a slightly different way to be sure of your reply.

“The sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory not only for those living but also for those who have died”

Yes or no?

Thanks,
Commonman

 

[jwilder]

“From a Catholic perspective, Lutherans do in fact have 2 sacraments, but they’re baptism and matrimony, not baptism and the Eucharist.”

In fact marriage is not a sacrament in the Lutheran church. The only two sacraments the Lutheran church recognizes are baptism and communion. However, it is true that there has been long-running discussion (since the day of Martin Luther) within the Lutheran church whether or not confession should be a sacrament.

 

[Katholikos]

“From a Catholic perspective, Lutherans do in fact have 2 sacraments, but they’re baptism and matrimony, not baptism and the Eucharist.”

In fact marriage is not a sacrament in the Lutheran church. The only two sacraments the Lutheran church recognizes are baptism and communion. However, it is true that there has been long-running discussion (since the day of Martin Luther) within the Lutheran church whether or not confession should be a sacrament.

Is there a Lutheran church? Or is it Lutheran churches? The disparity of belief between the synods in the U.S. – and I don’t know whether the Lutheran bodies in other countries have any connection, credally, with any of these – is significant. I think the church Luther founded may have split or splintered even within his lifetime. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The Catholic definition of a sacrament: a sensible sign, initiated by Jesus Christ, by which invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary). What is the Lutheran definition?

To Baptists (and some other Protestants), baptism and the “Lord’s Supper” are “ordinances,” not sacraments, since they effect or communicate nothing.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Olympia]

GKC:

This is, of course, the correct position and belief for any RC. But, generally, and especially at the altar rail, the Anglicans who do possess valid orders are not overly concerned by it. In the larger picture, with respect to unity, it is a sad thing. But not when we receive the Body and Blood. No

Pax tecum, frater.

GKC

ex-Southern Baptist, Anglicanus Catholicus

You have an altar rail??? I’M ENVIOUS!!!

 

[jwilder]

Katholikos:

Is there a Lutheran church? Or is it Lutheran churches? The disparity of belief between the synods in the U.S. – and I don’t know whether the Lutheran bodies in other countries have any connection, credally, with any of these – is significant. I think the church Luther founded may have split or splintered even within his lifetime. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The Catholic definition of a sacrament: a sensible sign, initiated by Jesus Christ, by which invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul (John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary). What is the Lutheran definition?

To Baptists (and some other Protestants), baptism and the “Lord’s Supper” are “ordinances,” not sacraments, since they effect or communicate nothing.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

regarding churches,

Yes, there are many Lutheran church bodies world wide, and there have been different Lutheran church bodies since the 16th century, so one may take the view that there are many Lutheran “churches”. Possibly it depends on how strict or how loosely one defines the word “church.” Sometimes I tend to use the word the way I have heard many within Lutheran theological circles use it - that is, “Lutheran church” = “Lutheran communion”, or the whole collection of Lutheran church bodies together. Whether or not one sees that use of the word “church” as appropriate is a whole other matter and not one I intended to raise. However, if speaking of the “Lutheran church” causes confusion then I will try not to do that.

Lutherans in general define a sacrament in this way: it requires a “visible (physical) sign”, such as water, wine, bread (is this what you mean by “a sensible sign”?); it requires the command of Christ (is this what you mean by “initiated by Jesus Christ”?); and it serves as a “means of grace” (is that what you mean by “invisible grace and inward sanctification are communicated to the soul”?). If our terminology is in fact equivalent, then we define a sacrament in the same way. However, it is possible our terminology may not be exactly equivalent.

What the Lutherans have done is to take these three qualifications for a sacrament in such a way as to understand that only baptism and communion are sacraments. (Historically there have been discussions within the Lutheran communion about whether or not confession should be a sacrament; Martin Luther even considered that question, and and he almost decided that confession is in fact a sacrament. That debate still goes on in some quarters. There have even been some Lutherans who maintain that foot washing should be a sacrament, although I don’t know of any Lutheran church body that practices foot washing as a sacrament.)

In as far as no Lutheran church body that I know of has ever defined marriage as a sacrament I just imagine it would be hard for the RC Church to view Lutherans as practicing the sacrament of matrimony. Certainly not in the way Catholics do. It seems to me that we would have to first say that marriage is a sacrament and then Catholics would recoginze that and say, “Yes, Lutherans practice that sacrament…”

You are correct about the Baptists, I know them well. There is nothing sacramental about their practice of the Lord’s Supper. It is basically a type of re-enactment, a memorial and nothing more (although to say it is that much is stretching it when I’ve seen it done with fried chicken and iced tea by Rev. Nathan Pillow in Yuma, Arizona). In Baptist theology there is no means of grace connected with the Lord’s Supper, Christ is not present in any way, and there is no communion through the bread and wine with other Christians or with Christ. I think that even most Baptists would agree and say that that’s sensible and that’s the way it should be. They would then tell me what a horrible Catholic I am for thinking differently!

pr. j

 

[Genesis315]

CommonMan:

“The sacrifice of the mass is propitiatory not only for those living but also for those who have died”

Yes or no?

Thanks,
Commonman

Yes, the Mass is a sacrifice, but it is the same sacrifice as that on Calvary, it is not re-sacrificing Christ every time. Just as Christ’s death was propitiatory for all the living and the dead, so is the Mass. Does that make sense?