Lutherans Declare Catholic Priesthood is Valid

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvangelCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Celtic_Maiden said:
The whole thing is a Joke. Who gave Martin Luther a mandate to form a Church of his own,
correct. Know One.
Click to expand...
I would not go so far as calling it a joke, but you seem to have a point. It would be no different than my local-parish priest leaving the Catholic Church, for whatever reason, and starting his own church i.e. he would remove himself from 2000 years of apostolic succession and become self-ordained. Eucharistically speaking everyone will have to draw their own conclusions. Hmm…
 
joe371 said:
I would not go so far as calling it a joke, but you seem to have a point. It would be no different than my local-parish priest leaving the Catholic Church, for whatever reason, and starting his own church i.e. he would remove himself from 2000 years of apostolic succession and become self-ordained. Eucharistically speaking everyone will have to draw their own conclusions. Hmm…
Click to expand...
He would be still ordained, if he did so. Valid orders impart an indelible mark.

GKC
 
JonNC;12186160]We wouldn’t claim Luther had authority to form a separate Church. We confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
Jon
Click to expand...
It’s a good idea. However, I’m not sure, logistically speaking, how that works?:idea:
 
GKC said:
He would be still ordained, if he did so. Valid orders impart an indelible mark.

GKC
Click to expand...
True, but would his priesthood carry over in a newly formed church, with a valid Eucharist?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Any thoughts on the Lutheran Church proclaiming Catholic validity. Telling Lutheran laity it is OK to view Catholic priests as another source for spiritual needs including the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry EC, but this is like the United States (1776 AD) saying that they recognize China (221 BC) as a valid nation…
 
joe371 said:
True, but would his priesthood carry over in a newly formed church, with a valid Eucharist?
Click to expand...
Assuming nothing else, and assuming that all other factors required for a valid sacrament were present, yes. Illicit, but valid.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Assuming nothing else, and assuming that all other factors required for a valid sacrament were present, yes. Illicit, but valid.

GKC
Click to expand...
Outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church? Hmm…For example, if Father Corapi, (who is a a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek) started another church calling it Black-Sheep Dog ministries, I could go there and receive the Body and Blood of Jesus? BTW still praying for Father Corapi; awesome priest…
 
joe371 said:
Outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church? Hmm…For example, if Father Corapi, (who is a a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek) started another church calling it Black-Sheep Dog ministries, I could go there and receive the Body and Blood of Jesus? BTW still praying for Father Corapi; awesome priest…
Click to expand...
AFAIK, and I base it on analogous reasoning to what is said in Ott/FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, with respect to bishops, yes.

Whether such illicit sacraments convey grace, in the RCC’s eyes, is something I have read more than one opinion on.

GKC
 
GKC said:
AFAIK, and I base it on analogous reasoning to what is said in Ott/FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, with respect to bishops, yes.

Whether such illicit sacraments convey grace, in the RCC’s eyes, is something I have read more than one opinion on.

GKC
Click to expand...
Taking it right to the Catholic Church, the answer is of course no to a valid priesthood. Others, outside the CC, will of course disagree, and that is their right. The CC does recognize a vaild priesthood, and sacraments, in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They however do not reciprocate.🤷
 
joe371 said:
Taking it right to the Catholic Church, the answer is of course no to a valid priesthood. Others, outside the CC, will of course disagree, a 4458,nd that is their right. The CC does recognize a vaild priesthood, and sacraments, in the Eastern Orthodox Church. They however do not reciprocate.🤷
Click to expand...
No, the RCC recognizes valid orders in a number of places, such as the PNCC and some parts of the Old Catholics. Just not licit ones. See Ott, op. cit, p.458.

GKC
 
GKC said:
No, the RCC recognizes valid orders in a number of places, such as the PNCC and some parts of the Old Catholics. Just not licit ones. See Ott, op. cit, p.458.

GKC
Click to expand...
I did not know. Thanks for the feedback. 🙂
 
The Catholic Church hasn’t always gone with the “indelible mark” = always a functioning priest. Whether or not there is an indelible mark is debated between Cyrillic and Augustinian thinkers, in any case, both agree, no priest can be properly celebrating Sacraments without the Bishop’s authority - they are the delegates of the local bishop, outside of who’s Communion, they cannot act as priest.

As such, whether Luther, Corapi or any other man ordained to the sacerdotal role, he must be in Communion with his bishop, or released by his bishop to another bishop, outside of who’s Communion he is to be in action and practice, a layman.
 
SyroMalankara said:
The Catholic Church hasn’t always gone with the “indelible mark” = always a functioning priest. Whether or not there is an indelible mark is debated between Cyrillic and Augustinian thinkers, in any case, both agree, no priest can be properly celebrating Sacraments without the Bishop’s authority - they are the delegates of the local bishop, outside of who’s Communion, they cannot act as priest.

As such, whether Luther, Corapi or any other man ordained to the sacerdotal role, he must be in Communion with his bishop, or released by his bishop to another bishop, outside of who’s Communion he is to be in action and practice, a layman.
Click to expand...
All of which is the licit/illicit question (not in the eyes of the Orthodox; the sacerdotal function must be exercised, under authority, within the/U Church).

But Rome and the East certainly differ on the Augustinian/Cyprianic approach to orders.

GKC
 
GKC said:
All of which is the licit/illicit question (not in the eyes of the Orthodox; the sacerdotal function must be exercised, under authority, within the

Someone who has strayed from the Church’s clear intention is no longer licit, many outside the Catholic or Orthodox Communion clearly have a different idea of what a priest is and does, not to mention the other Mysteries.
Click to expand...
 
SyroMalankara said:
Someone who has strayed from the Church’s clear intention is no longer licit, many outside the Catholic or Orthodox Communion clearly have a different idea of what a priest is and does, not to mention the other Mysteries.
Click to expand...
Not arguing that, though whether that suggests their sacramental intent in a sacramental action (facere quod facit ecclesia) is invalid, I doubt. Absent any convincing evidence to the contrary, I hold to Ott, as to Rome’s teaching.

GKC
 
GKC said:
Not arguing that, though whether that suggests their sacramental intent in a sacramental action (facere quod facit ecclesia) is invalid, I doubt. Absent any convincing evidence to the contrary, I hold to Ott, as to Rome’s teaching.

GKC
Click to expand...
Rome seems to be developing it’s teaching on the matter. It no longer sees a magical set of words to confect the Sacraments, but sees the Institutional Narrative, along with the Epiclesis as part of the entirety of the whole Sacrament in action - mainly due to reacquaintance with the East. I can’t see Rome upholding any celebration by ex-Fr. Cutie or ex-Fr. Beaugouis as having any “validity” in Rome’s eyes, other than their priesthood could be seen as “intact” should they seek to come back to full Communion with the Church, upon which they would be treated as laymen for a time - or even a lifetime, and should an unlikely rehabilitation occur, there would be no need to a(n) "re"ordination.
 
SyroMalankara said:
The Catholic Church hasn’t always gone with the “indelible mark” = always a functioning priest. Whether or not there is an indelible mark is debated between Cyrillic and Augustinian thinkers, in any case, both agree, no priest can be properly celebrating Sacraments without the Bishop’s authority - they are the delegates of the local bishop, outside of who’s Communion, they cannot act as priest.

As such, whether Luther, Corapi or any other man ordained to the sacerdotal role, he must be in Communion with his bishop, or released by his bishop to another bishop, outside of who’s Communion he is to be in action and practice, a layman.
Click to expand...
:yup: That’s exactly what happened with John Corapi…He does not go by Father any more…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top