The way I look at it Father, a communion or tradition or church which teaches against the Teachings of Christ, in one respect at least is NOT part of “the Church”, because it is failing to teach the gospel. Now, we can argue as to who does and who doesn’t, but I don’t buy into this ‘the church is where the sacraments’ are offered stuff.
Well, interestingly the way you look at it is contrary to what your own Church teaches. In
Dominus Iesus, the Roman Catholic Church teaches Churches with “apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist” while not being in in communion with Rome are “true particular Churches.” That tells us that what makes a ‘true particular Church’ is not communion with Rome, but apostolic succession and, consequently, a valid Eucharist.
I think that we are struggling where Catholics and Lutherans often struggle – definitions. Father, could you define precisely what is and what is NOT ‘the Church’?
The Church is the communion of saints gathered around a bishop, rightly proclaiming the Gospel and rightly administering the sacraments.
I have made it clear why I don’t see the ‘problem’ of Orthodoxy to be equal to that of ‘Protestantism’, and yet, you refuse to cede that there is a difference, and continually respond to criticisms with points about Orthodoxy, which by the way is not the subject of this thread.
The point I am trying to make is that you keep brushing over the problems of Orthodoxy. In fact I would claim that you have much more in common – doctrinally – with most Lutheran churches than you do with the Orthodox churches that won’t even recognise your baptism. In fact, had you converted to most Orthodox churches, at least outside the US, you would have to be rebaptized. That is a major difference. Take, for instance, the Copts. They don’t recognise baptisms outside of their own communion, but are
now contemplating whether or not to start recognising Roman Catholic baptisms.
I am willing to be educated here. When was it exactly that the Church of Norway broke away from the state? You say that you are partly financed by the state - to what percentage?
The last ties were severed in 2012. And I’m not sure about the percentage. Most of it is financed. But every Church, religious organisation, and some non-religious ones get the same, based on the number of members. And that includes the Roman Catholic Church.
As for the Catholic Church of Norway being financed by the state – we have seen how ‘friendly’ the state has been to the Church.
I’m have no idea what you mean by this.
State funding (or control) of a church is the result of Lutherans turning over religious authority to the state in the 16th century, with a perfect example being what happened in Norway.
Yeah, yeah…
Actually, I was quoting readily available statistics, which you have not countered or refuted. The statistics themselves represent a dire situation in Norway. The fact that you have not attempted to refute them is telling.
Telling of what. That Europe in general is not that Christian? I honestly have no idea what you point is. Because you seem to think that this somehow is ‘proof’ that the problem lies with
Lutheranism. Why not blame politics? Why not blame capitalism? Why go directly at Lutheranism as such? You are simply grasping at straws.
So in this discussion of Lutheran/Catholic relation, you say that it is somehow not important that Norway, which is almost completely Lutheran is only nominally Christian? Are you saying that it is ‘less serious’ because the 22% are generally not clergy?
I say that this has nothing to do with Lutheranism
qua Lutheranism. And where, exactly, did you find that 22%? Last week
a survey was presented that showed that there were there were equal numbers of theists and atheists in Norway (both 38%), and 24% agnostics (people who answered that they didn’t know). And this was presented as a setback.
But then again, I don’t really care that much about statistics, and you haven’t shown any causal link here to Lutheranism
qua Lutheranism.
Rather than discussing the basic collapse of Christianity in Lutheran Norway, you want to talk about infidelity in France? This is nothing more than a diversion.
No, it’s not. It is an illustration to show that Lutheranism is not the problem.
Christianity is collapsing in Scandanavia in general, and is also generally Lutheran.
Well, Christianity is generally ‘collapsing’ in the whole Western culture.
Surely there is some ‘connection’ between Lutheranism and the collapse. What do you make of this horrible situation?
And surely it ‘must’ be a ‘connection’ between the Roman Catholic Church and the Mafia. Surely.
This is not to say that adultery is not an important issue, but the collapse of Christianity in an almost totally Lutheran country is VERY concerning. As a Norwegian Lutheran Pastor, what is the Church of Norway plan to reverse this appalling trend?
By preaching.
