You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Jon, forgive my ignorance, but what is your synod’s view, if it has one, of the merits of embracing episcopacy in its polity? As there are Lutheran churches which believe they have bishops in apostolic succession this would presumably not be practically difficult if your synod sought it?Valid, illicit a foot the Catholic Church. And according to sort, pg 459, a presbyter ordination can be valid, as well.
Therefore, even from a Catholic view if it is consistent , presbyter ordination could be valid / illicit.
Jon
M
Micosil
Guest
Yes, these churches also have validly consecrated bishops and celebrated valid sacraments. However, the issue with the Catholic Church, the EO Church, the OO churches and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East is that they have a valid claim to specific Apostolic sees, founded by the Apostles of Jesus Christ themselves. For example, the Coptic Church of Egypt was founded in 42 AD by St. Mark the Evangelist (who admittedly wasn’t an “Apostle”, as in one of the 12 hand-picked by Jesus, but was most certainly an early follower of Jesus); the Syriac Orthodox Church is the community mentioned in Acts 11:26, having been founded by St. Peter in 37 AD; the Assyrian Church of the East traces its origins back to Apostles such as St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew/Nathanael.And a little broader than that. Per Ott/FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458. Any bishop possessing valid orders, whether schismatic, heretical, excommunicated, etc, can validly dispense the sacrament of Orders (validly, not licitly) providing all other sacramental requirements are validly met. Hence the valid/illicit Orders recognized in the PNCC and selected portions of the Old Catholics.
I am not sure this specific claim is also true of the Polish National Catholic Church or the Old Catholics.
G
GKC
Guest
I would doubt that last was true, but it is not my area of focus.Yes, these churches also have validly consecrated bishops and celebrated valid sacraments. However, the issue with the Catholic Church, the EO Church, the OO churches and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East is that they have a valid claim to specific Apostolic sees, founded by the Apostles of Jesus Christ themselves. For example, the Coptic Church of Egypt was founded in 42 AD by St. Mark the Evangelist (who admittedly wasn’t an “Apostle”, as in one of the 12 hand-picked by Jesus, but was most certainly an early follower of Jesus); the Syriac Orthodox Church is the community mentioned in Acts 11:26, having been founded by St. Peter in 37 AD; the Assyrian Church of the East traces its origins back to Apostles such as St. Thomas and St. Bartholomew/Nathanael.
I am not sure this specific claim is also true of the Polish National Catholic Church or the Old Catholics.
The LCMS confesses the Augsburg Confession, as well as the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which I quoted earlier.Jon, forgive my ignorance, but what is your synod’s view, if it has one, of the merits of embracing episcopacy in its polity? As there are Lutheran churches which believe they have bishops in apostolic succession this would presumably not be practically difficult if your synod sought it?
Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
That is the principle by which some Lutheran synods have returned AS, usually using Anglican lines. But that takes a rather strong agreement on doctrine, and the LCMS is not as willing to compromise doctrine. The most likely Anglican groups in America would be a continuing Anglican church.24] 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
G
GKC
Guest
There are a few worth checking out.The LCMS confesses the Augsburg Confession, as well as the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which I quoted earlier.
That is the principle by which some Lutheran synods have returned AS, usually using Anglican lines. But that takes a rather strong agreement on doctrine, and the LCMS is not as willing to compromise doctrine. The most likely Anglican groups in America would be a continuing Anglican church.
Jon
Indeed. As we’ve discussed continuing Anglicans and confessional Lutherans, though so close, are sticklers when it comes to unity.There are a few worth checking out.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
I’d admire seeing a little more unity amongst the Continuum Churches. Small steps among 4 of the more well organized ones have been visible, of late.Indeed. As we’ve discussed continuing Anglicans and confessional Lutherans, though so close, are sticklers when it comes to unity.
Jon
These four.I’d admire seeing a little more unity amongst the Continuum Churches. Small steps among 4 of the more well organized ones have been visible, of late.
virtueonline.org/continuing-anglican-leaders-set-2017-goal-full-communion
G
GKC
Guest
That’s the crew.
Wonder how it will play out. The dance has been danced before, changing partners.
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Right — thank you for the reply.The LCMS confesses the Augsburg Confession, as well as the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which I quoted earlier.
That is the principle by which some Lutheran synods have returned AS, usually using Anglican lines. But that takes a rather strong agreement on doctrine, and the LCMS is not as willing to compromise doctrine. The most likely Anglican groups in America would be a continuing Anglican church.
Jon
C
commenter
Guest
The only people worth uniting with include those who are sticklers when it comes to unity. I trust those who are hesitant to compromise on doctrine more than those who would easily accept all my doctrines, and drop their own, for the sake of unity.Indeed. As we’ve discussed continuing Anglicans and confessional Lutherans, though so close, are sticklers when it comes to unity.
Jon
Of course there are always some who are sticklers, for the sake of stickling.
Well said. I am not one to favor compromise for the sake of unity, but I marvel at the closeness in doctrine , without unityThe only people worth uniting with include those who are sticklers when it comes to unity. I trust those who are hesitant to compromise on doctrine more than those who would easily accept all my doctrines, and drop their own, for the sake of unity.
Of course there are always some who are sticklers, for the sake of stickling.
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
pablope;13766865:
JonSo, is it permission from the pope, or laying on hands by a bishop? If it is both, how can "schismatics " have valid ordinations without the pope’s say so? The answer is only those in communion with the pope need his permission. Valid ordination is not subject to his say so.
Valid ordinations certain require validly ordained bishops…who can trace their successions to the apostolic churches, which was and still is one of the underpinnings of AS.
In your situation, you do not have validly ordained bishops…so how can you then have valid ordinations?
P
pablope
Guest
Well…from your own post 26…you disolved the canonical order, instead of seeking reconciliation:Seek reconciliation from both sides, but until then we recognize the validity of your ordinations, and ours.
Jon
You very well know that all apostic churches have the sacrament of Holy Orders…but Lutherans have redefined the sacrament of Holy Orders and do not recognize it as a sacrament…so what is the basis for your orders to be recognized?But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved.
You say…Seek reconciliation from both sides,
Maybe you have missed it, but back then, Cardinal Contarini tried to reconcile…newadvent.org/cathen/04323c.htm
Contarini was the president of a commission appointed by the pope in 1536 to submit plans for a reform of evils in the Roman Curia or in other parts of the Church. It was largely due to him that, early in 1537, the commission could present its programme, the “Consilium de emendandâ ecclesiâ”. He advised the pope not to abuse the great jurisdiction placed in his hands;… At the desire of Charles V, Contarini was sent as papal legate to Germany in 1541, and took part in the conference held at Ratisbon between Catholics and Protestants in hope of conciliating the latter. As it gradually became evident that the differences in doctrine could not be bridged over, the conference was broken off; Contarini remitted the final decision of all articles of faith to the pope, and returned to Rome.
And follows Cajetan’s advise…ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08
In his Summa de Ecclesia (lib. II, cap. cvi) Cardinal Turrecremata pointed out several remedies for such a calamity: respectful admonitions, direct resistance to bad acts, and so forth. All these could, of course, prove useless.
There remains a supreme resource, never useless, terrible sometimes as death, as secret as love. This is prayer, the resource of the saints. "See that I do not have to complain of you to Jesus crucified, "wrote Catherine of Siena to Pope Gregory XI; "there is none other to whom I can appeal, since you have no superiors on earth. "And again, a little earlier in the same letter: “Take care, as you value your life, that you commit no negligence.”
To the bad theologians who thought that the Church would be defenceless if not allowed to depose a vicious Pope, Cardinal Cajetan, who had seen the reign of Alexander VI, had but one answer: he reminded them of the power of prayer. For never has it such power as in such crises. We must always have recourse to prayer, as one of the purest weapons a Christian can use. But here it is not only a “common” means, i. e. one to be used along with others, it is the “proper” means, the proper instrument for the use of the Church in distress. "If you tell me that prayer is but a common remedy to be used against all the ills that afflict us, and that for the special evil that troubles us here we need a proper remedy—since every effect comes of a proper cause, not merely from general causes—I reply, in a general way, that the highest causes, although they play the part of common causes in respect of lower effects, play in fact the part of proper causes in respect of higher effects.
JonNC;13767047:
Actually, you keep telling me they don’t. They only need the pope’s say so.Valid ordinations certain require validly ordained bishops…who can trace their successions to the apostolic churches, which was and still is one of the underpinnings of AS.
In your situation, you do not have validly ordained bishops…so how can you then have valid ordinations?
Jon
P
pablope
Guest
pablope;13772255:
Where did I say so? The situation was regarding the Cisterians, regarding presbyterian ordinations…which the distinction I made was they had papal delegation to do so…which you omit when citing the Cisterian defense of your Lutheran situationActually, you keep telling me they don’t. They only need the pope’s say so.
Jon
And that the delegation was not to ordain priests…but deacons.
JonNC;13772519:
Now, I do not claim in any way to be an expert on Catholic teaching, and I welcome correction if I understand this incorrectly, but the presbyterate means presbyter, or priest.Where did I say so? The situation was regarding the Cisterians, regarding presbyterian ordinations…which the distinction I made was they had papal delegation to do so…which you omit when citing the Cisterian defense of your Lutheran situation
And that the delegation was not to ordain priests…but deacons.
: PopeIn regard to the sacramental Order grades of diaconate and presbyterate,
most theologians, with St. Thomas, hold the opinion that a simple priest
cannot validly administer these, even with plenary power from the Pope.
But there are grave historical difficulties with regard to this opinion
Boniface IX, in agreement with the teaching of numerous medieval canonists
(for example, Huguccio t 1210), by the Bull" Sacrae religionis" of the 1St
February, 1400, conferred on the Abbot of the Augustine MO~1astery of St.
Osytha at Essex (Diocese ofLondon) and his successors, the privilege of administering
to those subject to theln both the Minor Orders and those of the subdiaconate,
diaconate, and priesthood. The privilege was withdrawn on 6th
February, 1403, on the instance of the Bishop of London.** But the Orders
conferred on the ground of the privilege were not declared invalid.** Pope
Martin V, by the Bull" Gerentes ad vos" of 16th November, 1427, conferred
the privilege on the Abbot of the Cistercian Monastery of Altzelle (Diocese of
Meissen) of promoting all his monks and others subject to him for the term of
five years, to the higher Orders also (Sub-diaconate. Diaconate, and Presbyterate).
Pope Innocent VIII, by the Bull “Exposcit tuae devotionis” of 9th
April, 1489, conferred on the four Proto-Abbots of the Cistercian Order and
their successors the privilege of ordaining their subordinates to the Sub-diaconate
and the Diaconate. The Cistercian Abbots were still using this privilege in the
17th century without hindrance.
Unless one wishes to assume that the Popes in question were victims of the
erroneous theological opinions of their times {this does not touch the Papal
infallibility, because an ex cathedra decision was not given}" oae Q.lust take it
that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate
and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation.
In this latter view, the requisite power ofconsecration is contained in the priestly
power of consecration as U potestas ligata." For the valid exercise of it a special
exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.
Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pg. 459
(Highlighting is mine)
www.essan.org/…/Fundamentals%20Of%20Catholic%20Dogma.pdf
Jon
M
Micosil
Guest
It more specifically means just “presbyter”, as “priest” is any ordained minister that shares in Christ’s priesthood, and can thus confect the Eucharist. This is both presbyters and bishops. It’s just unfortunate that in English, “priest” is the common word used to denote someone who is technically speaking more appropriately called “presbyter”.Now, I do not claim in any way to be an expert on Catholic teaching, and I welcome correction if I understand this incorrectly, but the presbyterate means presbyter, or priest.
Ott Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pg. 459
(Highlighting is mine)
www.essan.org/…/Fundamentals%20Of%20Catholic%20Dogma.pdf
Jon
Yes. Lutherans agree. Ott, page 459 shows, however, that it was priests who were permitted to ordain. And those ordinations were valid.It more specifically means just “presbyter”, as “priest” is any ordained minister that shares in Christ’s priesthood, and can thus confect the Eucharist. This is both presbyters and bishops. It’s just unfortunate that in English, “priest” is the common word used to denote someone who is technically speaking more appropriately called “presbyter”.
Jon
- Status
- Not open for further replies.