Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[JonNC]

Hey, Jon!

Since you are active in this thread, can you give me your opinion of the Porvoo Communion and its implications for the various Lutheran groups which did or did not participate in it?

Specifically, do the Lutherans who did not participate have any reason to believe that that their ordinations are suspect? Why or why not?

Thanks.

Hi Randy,
Since that’s a European communion, I’m not as well versed in it as, say, Father K. My general opinion is that, to the extent that AS is expanded, that’s a good thing, Vatican acceptance of it notwithstanding. Same thing with “Call to Common Mission” between the ELCA and TEC. The problem is, in some cases, the validity is undermined by female ordinations.
I was raised LCA/ELCA. I’ve been 15 years in the LCMS. I remain a firm believer in AS, though I believe there is enough precedent for presbyter ordination in the historic Church.
Female ordination, which has no precedent in Church history, is more problematic than presbyter ordination, ISTM.

Jon

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy,
Since that’s a European communion, I’m not as well versed in it as, say, Father K. My general opinion is that, to the extent that AS is expanded, that’s a good thing, Vatican acceptance of it notwithstanding. Same thing with “Call to Common Mission” between the ELCA and TEC. The problem is, in some cases, the validity is undermined by female ordinations.
I was raised LCA/ELCA. I’ve been 15 years in the LCMS. I remain a firm believer in AS, though I believe there is enough precedent for presbyter ordination in the historic Church.
Female ordination, which has no precedent in Church history, is more problematic than presbyter ordination, ISTM.

Jon

I guess what I’m asking is whether someone such as yourself (whose particular branch of Lutheranism did not participate in the Porvoo exchange) has any reason to question the validity of your clergy’s ordination in light of the fact that SOME Lutherans have taken steps to ensure that their ordinations are valid.

And, if your church did NOT participate (seeing no need to do so?), what do you make of Kjetilk’s church’s decision that they needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain?

 

[JonNC]

=Randy Carson;12911906]I guess what I’m asking is whether someone such as yourself (whose particular branch of Lutheranism did not participate in the Porvoo exchange) has any reason to question the validity of your clergy’s ordination in light of the fact that SOME Lutherans have taken steps to ensure that their ordinations are valid.

I don’t believe any American synod is a member of the Porvoo Communion. Again, I have no reason to question the validity of presbyter ordination. That said, I applaud those Lutheran synods that have moved to AS. If the levels of unity between Anglicans and Lutherans happen around bishop’s laying on of hands, all the more reason to believe that that will be the case with Rome, when the time comes.
What I’m saying is one does not exclude the other.

And, if your church did NOT participate (seeing no need to do so?), what do you make of Kjetilk’s church’s decision that they needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain?

It isn’t a matter of seeing no need. Its a matter of doctrinal unity. We won’t ordain women. It is a source of disagreement between those Lutherans, Anglicans, and Old Catholics that do.
As I said, I applaud the Church of Norway’s move.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

has any reason to question the validity of your clergy’s ordination in light

My priest could be raging sinner and a invalidly ordained - but as far as the Eucharist is concerned, my trust is in the words of the Lord who has given me assurances that it is his body and blood.

Parsing the words of my local Catholic priest - it seems that he ‘confects’ the Eucharist, so I can see from a Catholic viewpoint such questions are of much importance.

In contrast our Lutheran priest ‘announces’ the Eucharist and what God has done - I know some Lutheran priests go so far as to not touch the bread and whine - and only use the words of institution to demonstrate that that God’s word is efficacious, and that what we have before us is the Body and Blood of our Lord.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I guess what I’m asking is whether someone such as yourself (whose particular branch of Lutheranism did not participate in the Porvoo exchange) has any reason to question the validity of your clergy’s ordination in light of the fact that SOME Lutherans have taken steps to ensure that their ordinations are valid.

And, if your church did NOT participate (seeing no need to do so?), what do you make of Kjetilk’s church’s decision that they needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain?

You are again misrepresenting the position. Porvoo was not an attempt by the Nordic churches to ensure that their ordinations were valid, nor did the Church of Norway agree to the Porvoo statement because it “needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain”. Porvoo was an agreement on intercommunion between the Anglican churches of Europe and the northern Lutheran churches. Whether it might affect Rome’s view of those Lutheran ordinations is an interesting question which has been raised hereabouts a number of times. But you are mistaken in thinking that non-RC churches live in a state of doubt about their ordinations, and your misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of the Bonn and Porvoo agreements has been pointed out to you before.

 

[Memaw]

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

And look where that’s gotten folks since the Reformation! God Bless, Memaw

 

[GKC]

You are again misrepresenting the position. Porvoo was not an attempt by the Nordic churches to ensure that their ordinations were valid, nor did the Church of Norway agree to the Porvoo statement because it “needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain”. Porvoo was an agreement on intercommunion between the Anglican churches of Europe and the northern Lutheran churches. Whether it might affect Rome’s view of those Lutheran ordinations is an interesting question which has been raised hereabouts a number of times. But you are mistaken in thinking that non-RC churches live in a state of doubt about their ordinations, and your misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of the Bonn and Porvoo agreements has been pointed out to you before.

Yep.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

You are again misrepresenting the position. Porvoo was not an attempt by the Nordic churches to ensure that their ordinations were valid, nor did the Church of Norway agree to the Porvoo statement because it “needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain”. Porvoo was an agreement on intercommunion between the Anglican churches of Europe and the northern Lutheran churches. Whether it might affect Rome’s view of those Lutheran ordinations is an interesting question which has been raised hereabouts a number of times. But you are mistaken in thinking that non-RC churches live in a state of doubt about their ordinations, and your misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of the Bonn and Porvoo agreements has been pointed out to you before.

Yes, indeed. It seems he has a problem reading posts. I have repeatedly said that neither the Church of Norway nor the Church of England have ever held that their orders have been compromised in any way, and after the Roman Catholic Church examined the orders of the Church of England in Apostolicae curae, and declared them “absolutely null and utterly void,” she was aswered by +Canterbury and +York, in Saepius officio, and it has later been argued, amongst others by Dom Gregory Dix, that the arguments of Apostolicae curae were flawed and based on a wrongful reading of history, and of the ordinals.

My point has not been to say that the Church of Norway (or the other churches of Scandinavia) lacked orders, which were then gracefully given to us by the benevolent English, whose orders had gracefully been given to them by the Old Catholics, but that even if Rome was right in her assesment in Apostolicae curae, she cannot extend that into the future. The relevant question is: Do we possess orders now?

But Randy has a tendency to ignore that all important if, and simply begs the question by using his conclusion as a premise in his arguments.

 

[JonNC]

My priest could be raging sinner and a invalidly ordained - but as far as the Eucharist is concerned, my trust is in the words of the Lord who has given me assurances that it is his body and blood.

Parsing the words of my local Catholic priest - it seems that he ‘confects’ the Eucharist, so I can see from a Catholic viewpoint such questions are of much importance.

In contrast our Lutheran priest ‘announces’ the Eucharist and what God has done - I know some Lutheran priests go so far as to not touch the bread and whine - and only use the words of institution to demonstrate that that God’s word is efficacious, and that what we have before us is the Body and Blood of our Lord.

ISTM that genuflecting would be a far more effective demonstration following the consecration, if that’s what we need, than excluding the Eucharistic prayer, etc. Just my view.

Jon

 

[steido01]

ISTM that genuflecting would be a far more effective demonstration following the consecration, if that’s what we need, than excluding the Eucharistic prayer, etc. Just my view.

Jon

I agree, and I am thankful that my church still does kneeling communion for this very reason. If some Lutheran churches have moved away from these good pious practices because they are “too Catholic,” I’d like to remind them what it means to be Lutheran.

That said, I do find myself sympathetic to the thought of the pastors who intentionally do not touch the elements during the Verba. and announcing the Sacrifice Christ has made and the transformation taking place upon the altarin persona Christi; he is not standing in place of the congregation to personally harness God for a sacrifice. They are still just as sinful as those in the pews. To think otherwise is bordering on Donatism.

 

[JonNC]

I agree, and I am thankful that my church still does kneeling communion for this very reason. If some Lutheran churches have moved away from these good pious practices because they are “too Catholic,” I’d like to remind them what it means to be Lutheran.

That said, I do find myself sympathetic to the thought of the pastors who intentionally do not touch the elements during the Verba. The pastor is standing in persona Christi and announcing the Sacrifice Christ has made and the transformation taking place upon the altar; he is not standing in place of the congregation to personally harness God for a sacrifice. They are still just as sinful as those in the pews. To think otherwise is bordering on Donatism.

I understand this, though I remain partial to the elevation. Our current pastor does not touch. Our previous pastor elevated (though not dramatically).

Jon

 

[steido01]

I understand this, though I remain partial to the elevation. Our current pastor does not touch. Our previous pastor elevated (though not dramatically).

Oh, yes! Sorry for being unclear. I only meant that I can sympathize with their thinking.

For my own part, I’ll side with you and Dr. Luther, who encouraged proper reverence of the consecrated Body and Blood with elevation during the Verba and kneeling during communion. In either case, so long as it is done (or not done) with respect, it’s adiaphora. Now, if a pastor were to start doing the Reformed-style fraction, then we’d have some words…

Current pastor elevates. Dad always has. Brother-in-law does. It’s the one thing we can agree on with the Daleks.

 

[pablope]

Yes, i
My point has not been to say that the Church of Norway (or the other churches of Scandinavia) lacked orders, which were then gracefully given to us by the benevolent English, whose orders had gracefully been given to them by the Old Catholics, but that even if Rome was right in her assesment in Apostolicae curae, she cannot extend that into the future.

The relevant question is: Do we possess orders now?

.

Okay…so who, in your estimation, who would and should answer the question if you have valid orders or not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are again misrepresenting the position. Porvoo was not an attempt by the Nordic churches to ensure that their ordinations were valid, nor did the Church of Norway agree to the Porvoo statement because it “needed to get consecrated by some folks whose apostolic succession is more certain”.

That’s the public line, anyway.

Porvoo was an agreement on intercommunion between the Anglican churches of Europe and the northern Lutheran churches.

Which does not require bishops to attend each other’s ordination ceremonies, does it? :nope:

Whether it might affect Rome’s view of those Lutheran ordinations is an interesting question which has been raised hereabouts a number of times.

And that is where the rubber really meets the road.

But you are mistaken in thinking that non-RC churches live in a state of doubt about their ordinations, and your misrepresentation of the nature and purpose of the Bonn and Porvoo agreements has been pointed out to you before.

It’s true that folks have explained Porvoo to me with this same spin before, but that does not mean that I was mistaken or misrepresenting what the REAL purpose of Porvoo was all about.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yep.

GKC

Yes, indeed. It seems he has a problem reading posts. I have repeatedly said that neither the Church of Norway nor the Church of England have ever held that their orders have been compromised in any way, and after the Roman Catholic Church examined the orders of the Church of England in Apostolicae curae, and declared them “absolutely null and utterly void,” she was aswered by +Canterbury and +York, in Saepius officio, and it has later been argued, amongst others by Dom Gregory Dix, that the arguments of Apostolicae curae were flawed and based on a wrongful reading of history, and of the ordinals.

My point has not been to say that the Church of Norway (or the other churches of Scandinavia) lacked orders, which were then gracefully given to us by the benevolent English, whose orders had gracefully been given to them by the Old Catholics, but that even if Rome was right in her assesment in Apostolicae curae, she cannot extend that into the future. The relevant question is: Do we possess orders now?

But Randy has a tendency to ignore that all important if, and simply begs the question by using his conclusion as a premise in his arguments.

Of course, gentlemen. Of course.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, indeed. It seems he has a problem reading posts. I have repeatedly said that neither the Church of Norway nor the Church of England have ever held that their orders have been compromised in any way, and after the Roman Catholic Church examined the orders of the Church of England in Apostolicae curae, and declared them “absolutely null and utterly void,” she was aswered by +Canterbury and +York, in Saepius officio, and it has later been argued, amongst others by Dom Gregory Dix, that the arguments of Apostolicae curae were flawed and based on a wrongful reading of history, and of the ordinals.

What would you expect them to say? “Oh, Rome is right…we’ve merely been playing at church these past few centuries.”

Seriously?

My point has not been to say that the Church of Norway (or the other churches of Scandinavia) lacked orders, which were then gracefully given to us by the benevolent English, whose orders had gracefully been given to them by the Old Catholics, but that even if Rome was right in her assesment in Apostolicae curae, she cannot extend that into the future. The relevant question is: Do we possess orders now?

And if you have been carefully reading MY posts, you will know that my argument is that despite the fact that you deny any deficiency in your ordination (what else can you say?), YOU really don’t know for sure because Rome (where final authority lies) has not ruled. Further, I quoted Dominus Iesus which specifically states that Christian congregations born of the Reformation are NOT particular churches, and that is not a good sign for YOUR ordination’s validity, IMO, and the reason I say that is that not only is it possible that CoN orders have NEVER been valid, but they might NOT have been corrected by Porvoo due to some other technical issue that you haven’t even considered. So,

1. Maybe CoN orders have been valid for 400 years. But maybe not.
2. Maybe CoN orders were deficient but were corrected by Porvoo. But maybe they weren’t.
3. YOU. DON’T. KNOW. FOR. SURE. Because you are not the final authority and neither is anyone in the hierarchy of the CoN. You need an outside ruling from the one who holds the keys and has the authority to bind and loose “whatever”.

All you really have is a bunch of bishops who are in the same boat as you saying, “Nothing to worry about really. We were valid all along…but just in case, we’ve got Porvoo. Not that we needed it or anything, no sirree. But we’ve got it. Just in case, you know.”

But Randy has a tendency to ignore that all important if, and simply begs the question by using his conclusion as a premise in his arguments.

Yeah, go with that.

 

[GKC]

Of course, gentlemen. Of course.

Yep.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, indeed. It seems he has a problem reading posts. I have repeatedly said that neither the Church of Norway nor the Church of England have ever held that their orders have been compromised in any way, and after the Roman Catholic Church examined the orders of the Church of England in Apostolicae curae, and declared them “absolutely null and utterly void,” she was aswered by +Canterbury and +York, in Saepius officio, and it has later been argued, amongst others by Dom Gregory Dix, that the arguments of Apostolicae curae were flawed and based on a wrongful reading of history, and of the ordinals.

My point has not been to say that the Church of Norway (or the other churches of Scandinavia) lacked orders, which were then gracefully given to us by the benevolent English, whose orders had gracefully been given to them by the Old Catholics, but that even if Rome was right in her assesment in Apostolicae curae, she cannot extend that into the future. The relevant question is: Do we possess orders now?

But Randy has a tendency to ignore that all important if, and simply begs the question by using his conclusion as a premise in his arguments.

Oh…almost forgot.

I provided quite a bit of material in support of the papacy as you requested.

Any thoughts?

 

[benjohnson]

1. YOU. DON’T. KNOW. FOR. SURE.

Randy, this is out of character for you. You usually don’t discount the sincerity of fellow posters here.

When a Lutheran tells you that we have valid sacraments, feel free to argue theologically or logically with us. But I don’t think it’s chariatable to doubt our sincerity for we rely on God’s steadfast promises to His church.

My $.02 ( 0.16 kr )

 

[MaryT777]

Randy, this is out of character for you. You usually don’t discount the sincerity of fellow posters here.

When a Lutheran tells you that we have valid sacraments, feel free to argue theologically or logically with us. But I don’t think it’s chariatable to doubt our sincerity for we rely on God’s steadfast promises to His church.

My $.02 ( 0.16 kr )

Oh Oh, Randy. Now you’re on the list where your character is a topic of discussion
Not the subject.

Mary.