Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Randy_Carson]

And I answered both with the same answer.

Perhaps. But you better ask THEM about that.

Yes, if.

This is a claim, not an argument.

Final question: If Rome rules that the Church of Norway does not have valid orders (even after Porvoo), how will you respond?

 

[commenter]

In the Church of Norway we have baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, ordination, Holy Matrimony and Extreme Unction. I am perfectly aware that many people, even in the Church of Norway, do not believe that all those are sacraments, but that doesn’t mean much. Even though Pentecostals (mostly) do not believe in the sacramentality of marriage, they still possess the sacrament of marriage, also after Roman Catholic belief.

Within the Church of Norway, is there a differentiation of those leaning towards High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church, comparable to Anglicans? Or is this like comparing apples and oranges?

 

[KjetilK]

Final question: If Rome rules that the Church of Norway does not have valid orders (even after Porvoo), how will you respond?

By examining the arguments presented.

 

[KjetilK]

Within the Church of Norway, is there a differentiation of those leaning towards High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church, comparable to Anglicans? Or is this like comparing apples and oranges?

There is, and the Church of Norway is in communion with the Church of England. As an ordained priest I can apply to jobs in England just in the same way as I can in Norway.

 

[pablope]

Hold on, now.

Hold on, now. No Lutheran here has said it is unimportant

. Only that it needn’t be the single test by which the validity of a ministry ought to be measured.

That it is umiportant is implied or somehow conveyed in the article.

See: Cistercian Abbots.

I

Ah…the cisterian situation…yet you forget to cite that they had persmission to do as they did…and did it out of obedience, not out of convenience.

And besides, presbyter ordinations only confer presbyter and minor orders, not bishoprics.

And the permisson given to the Cisterians was for subdiaconate and diaconate, not presbyters…quite a difference.

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm

A reply based on John of St. Thomas would be that the physical power of confirming and conferring certain Orders is to be found in either bishop or priest. In the bishop, who is the ordinary minister of these sacraments, the power is always unfettered in exercise and not subject to limitation; as far as validity is concerned it can be exercised immediately and unconditionally. In the priest, who is the extraordinary minister of these sacraments, this power is always subject to limitation and is ordinarily so limited; as far as validity is concerned, it cannot be exercised save in dependence on a concession, authorization or jurisdictional delegation of the Sovereign Pontiff.[233] Something similar is the case with the sacrament of Penance; the priest has the physical power of administering it, but he cannot exercise it save in dependence on a moral condition—that is, if he has jurisdiction. It is therefore not surprising if we meet in the ease of the extraordinary minister of Confirmation and certain Orders what we come across in the case of the ordinary minister of Penance…3. The most recent Bull among these documents, that of Innocent VIII of g April 1489, had been known for a long time past. In it the Pope grants to the Abbot of Citeaux (for the whole Cistercian Order) and to the Abbots of La Ferte, Pontigny, Clairvaux and Merimont (for their respective abbeys) and to the successors of all these, the power of themselves conferring the subdiaconate and diaconate on their monks. This Bull, which cannot today be located in the pontifical archives, but whose authenticity seems beyond doubt, was published as from 1491. It alone was enough to decide certain theologians that the diaconate should be included in the Orders which a priest can confer by means of a delegation from the Sovereign Pontiff.

t’s the church, in general, which has the power to call and ordain, not any singular bishop. For the sound reason of good order, this power of the church has generally been vested in the local bishop, especially in modern times. But this was not always so

. That’s why we see presbyter ordination in the early church. One need only look at the many hodgepodge means of selection that have been used to select the Bishop of Rome in the early church to see that the episcopal model is not the only tradition within the catholic church.

But the pope has already been ordained as a priest/bishop prior to being elected/selected as the bishop of Rome…so he has already apostolic succession…and his ordination of other bishops just confers AS.

 

[benjohnson]

And for the sake of argument, IF the Church of England lost its apostolic succession in the 17th century, what does that say for the validity of their sacraments in the 18th and 19th century?

Then you’d have to extend the same logic to

“the non-diocesan Bishops in Ireland from the sixth to the ninth centuries the town-parish episcopal jurisdictions of early third century Africa, the Antiochene situation at the beginning of the second century, and the presbyter-episcopate of the Philippians.” - Carl Piepkorn

So unless you’re willing to also say that thees others we also not part of the Church then you’re going to have to leave that particular argument. Saying that the Philippians were not part of the Church would be rather interesting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

By examining the arguments presented.

So, in other words, you will stand in judgment of Rome? You are the final authority?

 

[KjetilK]

So, in other words, you will stand in judgment of Rome? You are the final authority?

Well, the bishop of Rome has no immediate jurisdiction in Norway.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Then you’d have to extend the same logic to

“the non-diocesan Bishops in Ireland from the sixth to the ninth centuries the town-parish episcopal jurisdictions of early third century Africa, the Antiochene situation at the beginning of the second century, and the presbyter-episcopate of the Philippians.” - Carl Piepkorn

So unless you’re willing to also say that thees others we also not part of the Church then you’re going to have to leave that particular argument. Saying that the Philippians were not part of the Church would be rather interesting.

Since the passage you quoted contains no details, it’s hard to say.

However, if the same or similar flaws existed in the ordinations of the priests in question, then, yes. I would say that valid sacraments were not being celebrated (except for baptism and marriage).

Were those circumstances Piepkorn cites intentional? Accidental? Of necessity? The point is that the Church of Norway (like those in many Protestant locales) is intentionally indifferent to the opinion of the successor or Peter regarding the validity of their priesthood…

 

[commenter]

Well, the bishop of Rome has no immediate jurisdiction in Norway.

His jurisdiction may not be recognized by Lutheran, or Methodist, or similar denominations in Norway. His jurisdiction is recognized by other Christians in Norway; Francis has fired at least one bishop in another country, and “immediately” influences Catholics in Norway. Furthermore, the pope claims jurisdiction in Norway. When the pope proclaims that contraception is immoral, he is not just saying it is immoral for Catholics, he is saying it is immoral for 100% of the people in Norway.

The Church of Norway probably doesn’t claim “jurisdiction” over non-Lutherans in Norway. They might not even claim it for the large number of Lutherans who don’t go to their churches.

Keep in mind that when non-Catholic Christians say “we rely primarily on Scripture but also on Tradition”, much of what they mean by “Tradition” really is that 1% of Christian Traditions that were selected, filtered out, and “canonized” by the early Catholic Magisterium, whose rejection of the other 99% of traditions you respect. So I think you really mean the recent popes have no jurisdiction in Norway Protestantism, but their distant predecessors influence you very much.

 

[benjohnson]

However, if the same or similar flaws existed in the ordinations of the priests in question, then, yes. I would say that valid sacraments were not being celebrated (except for baptism and marriage)

You’re setting yourself against Saint Paul - who started Church in Philippi and who wrote extensively to them, and Saint Polycarp who addressed them “to the church of God, the one temporarily residing in Philippi.”

From here it also looks like there were not Bishops in Corinth as well:

books.google.com/books?id=HEE9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=ordination+of+church+of+philippi&source=bl&ots=f5kaIxdnap&sig=Ps25L1mpU9s1IDjPTiFOye-IbQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IpQyVZDFE4XjoASVoYDQBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ordination%20of%20church%20of%20philippi&f=false

The fact is that the early church was a mess and large portions of it didn’t have Bishops - given how close they were to Christ, I struggle to think that logic would lead one to immediately declare their sacraments invalid over the care that God had given these churches though the Saints.

 

[Thorolfr]

You’re setting yourself against Saint Paul - who started Church in Philippi and who wrote extensively to them, and Saint Polycarp who addressed them “to the church of God, the one temporarily residing in Philippi.”

From here it also looks like there were not Bishops in Corinth as well:

books.google.com/books?id=HEE9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=ordination+of+church+of+philippi&source=bl&ots=f5kaIxdnap&sig=Ps25L1mpU9s1IDjPTiFOye-IbQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IpQyVZDFE4XjoASVoYDQBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=ordination%20of%20church%20of%20philippi&f=false

The fact is that the early church was a mess and large portions of it didn’t have Bishops - given how close they were to Christ, I struggle to think that logic would lead one to immediately declare their sacraments invalid over the care that God had given these churches though the Saints.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The fact is that the early church was a mess and large portions of it didn’t have Bishops

Protestants often talk about wanting to get back to the faith of the early church.

Given the mess that we see in their churches today and the lack of Bishops in many of these denominations, I would say they have succeeded.

 

[Tomyris]

Protestants often talk about wanting to get back to the faith of the early church.

Given the mess that we see in their churches today and the lack of Bishops in many of these denominations, I would say they have succeeded.

There is a whole lot of mess in a lot of the denominations that have bishops. We see scandal after scandal involving them, don’t we?

Your logical error here is your assumption that a lack of bishops infers problems, and somehow you are claiming that those organizations that have bishops somehow are less messy than those that don’t -a claim that I think you would be hard-pressed to prove.

 

[Tomyris]

So, in other words, you will stand in judgment of Rome? You are the final authority?

Don’t you stand in judgment of Rome? Didn’t you decide they are who they said they were? So aren’t you the final authority? Anyone who disagrees with your final decision on this is wrong, no?

God is the final authority,.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, the bishop of Rome has no immediate jurisdiction in Norway.

That, succinctly put, is the central point of debate with you on the point of whether your priesthood is valid.

One position is that it is valid because the Church of Norway says it is, if I understand you correctly.

The other position is that it is only valid if Rome positively comes out and validates it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t you stand in judgment of Rome? Didn’t you decide they are who they said they were? So aren’t you the final authority? Anyone who disagrees with your final decision on this is wrong, no?

God is the final authority,.

God re-established the Royal Steward to rule over His flock in His absence.

So, while God is the “final authority”, the current office holder, Francis, has genuine authority over the Church.

 

[Tomyris]

God re-established the Royal Steward to rule over His flock in His absence.

So, while God is the “final authority”, the current office holder, Francis, has genuine authority over the Church.

That is your position.

 

[SyCarl]

God re-established the Royal Steward to rule over His flock in His absence.

So, while God is the “final authority”, the current office holder, Francis, has genuine authority over the Church.

This is your interpretation of the evidence. Others may reach a different conclusion. In either case it still comes down to private interpretation.

 

[Tomyris]

This is your interpretation of the evidence. Others may reach a different conclusion. In either case it still comes down to private interpretation.

Exactly. And he is trying to get Protestants to use private interpretation to conclude that their private interpretation is incorrect, while insisting his own private interpretation is correct.