Pope Francis stirs debate on Lutheran spouses of Catholics receiving Communion [CH-UK]

[pablope]

Precisely. Though the Lutheran Reformers did recognize the seriousness of their actions, and how regrettably necessary they were. From the Treatise:

Except…it as the truth according to them…:shrug:nwhich caused further division…and disunity.

 

[pablope]

The Cistercian Abbots in the 1400’s.
cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

I think it would be fabulous if others first discerned the true and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood given and shed for the forgiveness of sin, and secondly ordained their ministers.

Jon

But you fail to mention that the Cistercians were given permission to do so…and the permission you cite was to ordain deacons…not presbyters.

And besides…Lutherans disregard the sacrament of holy orders…so it really does not matter, does it, whether you have permission or not…

 

[JonNC]

Except…it as the truth according to them…:shrug:nwhich caused further division…and disunity.

The unwillingness of the bishops to ordain caused further division… And disunity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

But you fail to mention that the Cistercians were given permission to do so…and the permission you cite was to ordain deacons…not presbyters.

And besides…Lutherans disregard the sacrament of holy orders…so it really does not matter, does it, whether you have permission or not…

The Cistercians needed permission because they chose to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Orthodox don’t get permission to ordain, neither does the PNCC. Reason: permission from the Bishop of Rome is not needed.
On Holy Orders

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

 

[Duane1966]

The unwillingness of the bishops to ordain caused further division… And disunity.

Jon

The unfitness for the priesthood of those wishing to be ordained caused the unwillingness of the bishops.

 

[Duane1966]

The Cistercians needed permission because they chose to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Orthodox don’t get permission to ordain, neither does the PNCC. Reason: permission from the Bishop of Rome is not needed.
On Holy Orders

Jon

Jon, do Orthodox or PNCC priests ordain, or do only their bishops?

 

[Duane1966]

The unwillingness of the bishops to ordain caused further division… And disunity.

Jon

Jon, were there no Catholic bishops that turned Lutheran? Ones that could have ordained priests, and consecrated other bishops, therefore continuing Apostolic Succession?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, were there no Catholic bishops that turned Lutheran? Ones that could have ordained priests, and consecrated other bishops, therefore continuing Apostolic Succession?

None in Germany. They did in Scandinavia.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, do Orthodox or PNCC priests ordain, or do only their bishops?

No. They have bishops, and where Lutherans do, they ordain.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The unfitness for the priesthood of those wishing to be ordained caused the unwillingness of the bishops.

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. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine.

Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

And so it has gone for centuries. I think Cardinal Ratzinger and the dialogue are pointing us in a new, better direction. Don’t you think so?

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

None in Germany. They did in Scandinavia.

Jon

So the following is not true?

About 12 Catholic bishops in Germany joined the Lutherans between 1525 and 1565 (and one more, Gerhard Truchsess of Cologne, did around 1582). Most of these were prince-bishops, rulers of ecclesiastical territories, who were no more zealous in fulfilling their episcopal ministry as Lutherans than they had been as Catholics — this is true even of the two Archbishops of Cologne, Hermann von Wied in the late 40s and Truchsess in the early 80s, who tries to turn their principalities Protestant before being excommunicated by the pope and driven out. However, Matthias von Jagow, Bishop of Brandenburg from 1526 to his death in 1544, became a zealous Lutheran in 1539 and aided in the introduction of a Lutheran reformation in to the electorate of Brandenburg in 1540. **No attempt was made, even in Brandenburg, however, to perpetuate the episcopate, **and when an “evangelical bishop” was imposed by the Saxon elector on neighboring Naumburg in 1542, Luther served as the man’s “consecrator,” and von Jagow was not even asked to participate (Luther served as “consecrator” again in 1545 when the same elector imposed an “evangelical bishop” on Merseberg). And when the Italian Bishop of Capodistria, Pierpaulo Vergerio (1498-1565) became a Protestant in 1549 and subsequently held various church positions in Switzerland, Poland and finally Wurttemberg, nobody ever thought of making use of his episcopal orders in a Protestant context.

1. When East Prussia became the first territorial state to embrace Lutheranism in 1525, **both of its Catholic bishops went along with the process. **One of them died in 1528, the other in 1550. The one who died in 1550 had consecrated a successor in 1528 to the one who died in that year; he died in 1551. The gov’t did not appoint any replacements until 1565, who were merely appointed, not consecrated, and finally abolished the episcopate altogether in 1587.

 

[commenter]

Sure, but your question assumes that the Bishop of Rome has universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church on Earth, an assumption that we are in disagreement over, an assumption not evident in scripture or the early councils (Nicaea canon 6). In fact, were that particular issue resolved, **Church unity would be far greater than it is today.
**
Jon

Church Unity
In general, Christians who accept the the Bishop of Rome’s universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church on Earth have shown an enormous amount of “church unity” among each other, over the whole Earth, for instance over the past 500 years, granted with some tensions and differences all along. The problem is that this fact is so big, people tend not to notice it. We ought to find it astonishing.
BTW, how’s the Church Unity going among Protestants, who don’t accept the universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction? Without that elephant in the room, wouldn’t they unite with each other better?

**Interchurch Unity **
The fact that the Pope has “universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Earth” makes the RCC role in ecumenism crucial - potentially productive. Haven’t you ever had to deal with an organization where this guy’s job title is Facilitator, that Lady’s title is Encourager of Process, where there are committees on Throughput, where the lines on the organization chart are written in pencil, and everyone’s range of unaccountability is updated every Monday?
(forgive sarcasm)

A better question would be, “do you have confidence in any ecumenical processes where no one represents or believes in a single universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Earth?” Would you trust that kind of ecumenical process long term?

 

[JonNC]

=commenter;13466271]Church Unity
In general, Christians who accept the the Bishop of Rome’s universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Church on Earth have shown an enormous amount of “church unity” among each other, over the whole Earth, for instance over the past 500 years, granted with some tensions and differences all along. The problem is that this fact is so big, people tend not to notice it. We ought to find it astonishing.

But it is also true that this claim has led to the largest divisions within the One True Church. Perhaps the most significant cause of a thousands years of division is this very claim.

BTW, how’s the Church Unity going among Protestants, who don’t accept the universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction? Without that elephant in the room, wouldn’t they unite with each other better?

The disunity between the various communions known loosely continues to today, sadly. And take note that these various communions are a result, in part, of the inability of that universal jurisdiction to maintain unity.

**Interchurch Unity **
The fact that the Pope has “universal ordinary and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Earth” makes the RCC role in ecumenism crucial - potentially productive. Haven’t you ever had to deal with an organization where this guy’s job title is Facilitator, that Lady’s title is Encourager of Process, where there are committees on Throughput, where the lines on the organization chart are written in pencil, and everyone’s range of unaccountability is updated every Monday?
(forgive sarcasm)

It is absolutely true that the Pope must play a central role in successful movement toward unity of the One True Church, not because of his claim of universal jurisdiction, but because of the fact that he has always had primacy among the bishops.

A better question would be, “do you have confidence in any ecumenical processes where no one represents or believes in a single universal and immediate jurisdiction over the whole Earth?” Would you trust that kind of ecumenical process long term?

Yes. I have a confidence, first, in the Holy Spirit, but I also have confidence that it is possible that a new understanding of the pope’s primacy, agreeable to Orthodoxy and Rome, and certain western non-Catholic communions, could be the catalyst for a unity of the Church not seen since the early councils.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/lutheran/attitudes-papal-primacy.cfm

In these sessions, we have once again found common ground. There is a growing awareness among Lutherans of the necessity of a specific Ministry to serve the church’s unity and universal mission, while Catholics increasingly see the need for a more nuanced under-standing of the role of the papacy within the universal church. Lutherans and Catholics can now begin to envision possibilities of concord, and to hope for solutions to problems that have previously seemed insoluble. We believe that God is calling our churches to draw closer together, and it is our prayer that this joint statement on papal primacy may make some contribution to that end.

…

Such a Petrine function has been exercised in some degree by various officeholders, for example by bishops, patriarchs, and church presidents. However, the single most notable representative of this Ministry toward the church universal, both in duration and geographical scope, has been the bishop of Rome. The Reformers did not totally reject all aspects of the papal expression of the Petrine function, but only what they regarded as its abuses. They hoped for a reform of the papacy precisely in order to preserve the unity of the church. Melanchthon held that “for the sake of peace and general unity among Christians” a superiority over other bishops could be conceded to the pope.5 For many years Lutherans hoped for an ecumenical council that would reform the papacy. They continued to concede to the pope all the legitimate spiritual powers of a bishop of his diocese, in this case, Rome. They even granted the propriety of his exercising a larger jurisdiction by human right over communities that had by their own will placed themselves under him.6

Jon

 

[Duane1966]

But it is also true that this claim has led to the largest divisions within the One True Church. Perhaps the most significant cause of a thousands years of division is this very claim.

Jon, you would agree that just because there is division, does not mean that a claim is not true, correct?

The disunity between the various communions known loosely continues to today, sadly. And take note that these various communions are a result, in part,** of the inability of that universal jurisdiction to maintain unity.**

In any relationship to achieve unity all parties must actually want unity. I find it funny that a certain reformer wrote letters saying he would abide by a decision of a pope, and then as soon as that decision went against him, he broke his word to said pope. That is why I laugh when I read what the reformers said they never wanted to break up the Church the way they did. Their actions speak differently than their words.

The part in bold, is poor reasoning. By that logic, God is actually to blame for the fallen angels who did not want to serve, ergo, God could not maintain unity in Heaven. By your logic, God is to blame for Hell.

It is absolutely true that the Pope must play a central role in successful movement toward unity of the One True Church, not because of his claim of universal jurisdiction, but because of the fact that he has always had primacy among the bishops.

Again, you have shown nothing to show that the claim is untrue. Just because people do not accept a claim, even a majority of people, does nothing to really show the veracity of such a claim. If a claim’s truthfulness depends on acceptance by people, then Jesus is not the Messiah, as He was rejected by most of His people when He walked the Earth, and to this day, He has not been accepted as such by the majority of the known world.

Yes. I have a confidence, first, in the Holy Spirit, but I also have confidence that it is possible that a new understanding of the pope’s primacy, agreeable to Orthodoxy and Rome, and certain western non-Catholic communions, could be the catalyst for a unity of the Church not seen since the early councils.

Jon

Jon, if this unity attained, for the sake of unity, actually hurts the gospel message, which I forsee, then it is better to continue as we are.

Duane

 

[pablope]

The unwillingness of the bishops to ordain caused further division… And disunity.

Jon

And when the bishop is unwilling to ordain for certain reasons…what is one to do? Pray for the bishop to change his mind…and trust in divine providence?

Or go tell the bishop to take a hike and call him the anti-Christ?

 

[JonNC]

And when the bishop is unwilling to ordain for certain reasons…what is one to do? Pray for the bishop to change his mind…and trust in divine providence?

Or go tell the bishop to take a hike and call him the anti-Christ?

Well, we certainly wouldn’t do the latter nor would we claim that one is certainly condemned for not being in communion with him.

Perhaps a rereading of the OP would help with the intent of the thread. The pope seems to be taking a different approach, my friend.

Jon

 

[pablope]

The Cistercians needed permission because they chose to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Orthodox don’t get permission to ordain, neither does the PNCC. Reason: permission from the Bishop of Rome is not needed.
On Holy Orders

Jon

The OC have not lost their Apostolic Connection. The PNCC are a different matter. But Lutherans have entirely ditched the sacrament of Holy Orders.

On Holy Orders
Quote:
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.

From Nicea II…proper Canonical Ordination:

It is necessary that the person who is to be advanced to a bishopric should be elected by bishops, as has been decreed by the holy fathers at Nicaea in the canon that says: “It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all [the bishops] in the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan”.

So how have you maintained proper canonical ordination according to this canon from Nicea II?

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].

So…those Fathers of the Church, who determined how to properly govern the Church…do you say then that they were acting on their own and without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

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

Were these Fathers acting on their own or with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

 

[pablope]

Well, we certainly wouldn’t do the latter nor would we claim that one is certainly condemned for not being in communion with him.

Perhaps a rereading of the OP would help with the intent of the thread. The pope seems to be taking a different approach, my friend.

Jon

But that is what happened then… Ain’t it? Seems prayer was not resorted to…

From Cardinal Cejetan…

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.

Perhaps a rereading of the OP would help with the intent of the thread. The pope seems to be taking a different approach, my friend.

Jon

Yes…the pope rules with love…and feels the wounds of disunity perhaps more than any other…yet he loves you despite your confession he is anti christ and his adherants are…despite these…we still love you…

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Vic Taltrees UK View Post

• When Francis says “talk to the Lord” he is saying the same as when he spoke on the plane of those who “are seeking the Lord” and when in the square he said “listen to the Holy Spirit”. He always means through the appropriate authority.

P.S. Although no one’s responded to that, I’d like to add a follow-up question that I thought of: Could we “talk to the Lord” without going through the proper authority?