Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[KjetilK]

I read it. Did you?

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.

Are you and your “church” governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him? Or does your “church” subsist within the Catholic Church?

I’ve read it many times, in fact. I’m not saying that this document does not say that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church,” citing Lumen gentium, and basically saying the same that Pope Pius XII Pius XII did in Mystici Corporis Christi (Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS), vol. XXXV, p.193). I haven’t said anything that would remotely suggest that.

But that wasn’t my claim, and that was quite obvious in my post. It is pretty difficult to have a debate with a person who keep switching tactics. My point was really straightforward and I’ll happily make that point again: Dominus Iesus does not say that you must be in communion with Rome to be what that document describes as a true particular Church, as is evidence from this quote: “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.”

It would be much easier to have a discussion if you would actually answer the points I make, not straw men of your own creation.

 

[Porknpie]

We did sing “The Feast of Victory” at Easter Mass today.

That it was from the Lutheran Songbook was noted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve read it many times, in fact. I’m not saying that this document does not say that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church,” citing Lumen gentium, and basically saying the same that Pope Pius XII Pius XII did in Mystici Corporis Christi (Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS), vol. XXXV, p.193). I haven’t said anything that would remotely suggest that.

But that wasn’t my claim, and that was quite obvious in my post. It is pretty difficult to have a debate with a person who keep switching tactics. My point was really straightforward and I’ll happily make that point again: Dominus Iesus does not say that you must be in communion with Rome to be what that document describes as a true particular Church, as is evidence from this quote: “The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.”

It would be much easier to have a discussion if you would actually answer the points I make, not straw men of your own creation.

Switching tactics? Creating straw men? Moi?

Perhaps this will make it more clear to you why I quoted Dominus Iesus in the first place. You have misunderstood what that document is really saying.

+++

**CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION**

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiology. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter *Ecclesiam suam *(1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal Levada
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary

---

 

[KjetilK]

Switching tactics? Creating straw men? Moi?

Perhaps this will make it more clear to you why I quoted Dominus Iesus in the first place. You have misunderstood what that document is really saying.

So what you are saying is that your response was a complete non sequitur which didn’t even remotely touch upon the point I was making?

And as to who may or may not call themselves ‘Church,’ I have argued before why the Church of Norway has valid orders, following the history of the Church of England after 1896, the history of the Church of Norway after the signing of the Porvoo agreement, and the logic in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.458.

 

[Tomyris]

So what you are saying is that your response was a complete non sequitur which didn’t even remotely touch upon the point I was making?

And as to who may or may not call themselves ‘Church,’ I have argued before why the Church of Norway has valid orders, following the history of the Church of England after 1896, the history of the Church of Norway after the signing of the Porvoo agreement, and the logic in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.458.

Why do you care at all as to whether they consider your church a church? It makes as much sense as Catholics getting upset at being called anti-Christ. You get worse than that riding a New York city bus.

 

[JonNC]

We did sing “The Feast of Victory” at Easter Mass today.

That it was from the Lutheran Songbook was noted.

Beautiful, isn’t it?

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Why do you care at all as to whether they consider your church a church? It makes as much sense as Catholics getting upset at being called anti-Christ. You get worse than that riding a New York city bus.

Well, I care because I care about truth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So what you are saying is that your response was a complete non sequitur which didn’t even remotely touch upon the point I was making?

And as to who may or may not call themselves ‘Church,’ I have argued before why the Church of Norway has valid orders, following the history of the Church of England after 1896, the history of the Church of Norway after the signing of the Porvoo agreement, and the logic in Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p.458.

First, does Ott carry more authority than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or Pope Benedict who authorized the response clearly stating that neither the Anglican nor the Lutheran congregations are recognized as of 2007?

:nope:

Second, your position hinges on whether the Catholic Church (you know, the REAL one based in Rome) determines that Porvoo counts. So, either you Norwegians have corrected some previous deficiency (Rome has spoken. The matter is settled.) or you haven’t.

Previously, you denied that there was any such deficiency and asserted (if I recall correctly) that Porvoo was more about recognition of one another than about passing along valid orders. But if Rome is to be understood correctly, none of you Protestants had valid orders prior to Porvoo. If correct, then there was a deficiency in Protestant ordinations (and still is in many Lutheran ordinations throughout the world to this day, possibly). Which takes us back to the point I made a month or more ago when I pointed out that Norwegian Lutherans of 100 or 200 years ago THOUGHT they were receiving a valid Eucharist, but they really weren’t.

If they weren’t, then they were not members of an authentic particular church. Everyone in Norway was sincerely and piously but merely going through the motions of the sacrament.



I dunno…I applaud your desire to serve the Lord, but it seems to me that if you want so much to be a Catholic priest, why not be a REAL Catholic priest?

 

[Tomyris]

I dunno…I applaud your desire to serve the Lord, but it seems to me that if you want so much to be a Catholic priest, why not be a REAL Catholic priest?

Randy, I don’t know how you can make such a condenscending, dismissive, arrogant and insulting statement without realizing it.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, I care because I care about truth.

I am not following.

 

[KjetilK]

First, does Ott carry more authority than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or Pope Benedict who authorized the response clearly stating that neither the Anglican nor the Lutheran congregations are recognized as of 2007?

Well, since I have no idea what document you are referring to, I cannot answer. Please do provide a link. And I didn’t cite Ott as an ‘authority.’ He points out, quite rightly, that even schismatic or heretic bishops can validly ordain priests or consecrate bishops.

My point was not that the Roman Catholic Church has ‘recognised’ anything, but that if we follow the logic of Roman Catholic belief, they cannot dismiss Holy Orders in the Church of England post 1930s or Church of Norway post 1990s. Note that I don’t claim that we didn’t have them before 1990. I am simply going at it from a Roman Catholic perspective - that is, following the logic of the teachings.

Second, your position hinges on whether the Catholic Church (you know, the REAL one based in Rome) determines that Porvoo counts. So, either you Norwegians have corrected some previous deficiency (Rome has spoken. The matter is settled.) or you haven’t.

No, it hinges on the teachings themselves. For a sacrament to be valid, you need a valid minster, valid matter, valid form, and valid intent. In this case, this is a baptised male who has been consecrated bishop in the apostolic succession, a baptised male, a valid ordination formula, and the intent to do what the Church does (facere quod facit ecclesia).

Previously, you denied that there was any such deficiency and asserted (if I recall correctly) that Porvoo was more about recognition of one another than about passing along valid orders.

Yes, and I do nothing else here. I am simply seeing it from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, i.e. from the logic that follows from her teachings.

But if Rome is to be understood correctly, none of you Protestants had valid orders prior to Porvoo. If correct, then there was a deficiency in Protestant ordinations (and still is in many Lutheran ordinations throughout the world to this day, possibly). Which takes us back to the point I made a month or more ago when I pointed out that Norwegian Lutherans of 100 or 200 years ago THOUGHT they were receiving a valid Eucharist, but they really weren’t.

If they weren’t, then they were not members of an authentic particular church. Everyone in Norway was sincerely and piously but merely going through the motions of the sacrament.

Yes, if the Roman Catholic Church is correct. But why assume that she is?

I dunno…I applaud your desire to serve the Lord, but it seems to me that if you want so much to be a Catholic priest, why not be a REAL Catholic priest?

I am not following.

I want to present people with the truth. In a forum, not only the direct adressee will read the post.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, I don’t know how you can make such a condenscending, dismissive, arrogant and insulting statement without realizing it.

I don’t follow you.

• Kjetilk desires to serve the Lord. I applaud this.
• He hold many doctrines in common with the Catholic Church. I applaud this.
• He wants to be a priest in the one true Church founded by Christ. I applaud this.
• He believes that his Lutheran congregation is a true, particular church. I reject this.
• He believes that his ordination is valid per Porvoo. I question this, but reserve the right to be convinced.

There’s nothing condescending, dismissive, arrogant or insulting about any of that.

I have stated the truth, and Kjetilk will benefit from hearing someone tell it to him because he will NOT hear it from any of his clique in Norway.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, since I have no idea what document you are referring to, I cannot answer. Please do provide a link.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

 

[KjetilK]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

Interestingly enough, neither the word ‘Lutheran’ nor the word ‘Anglican’ is found anywhere in that document.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Interestingly enough, neither the word ‘Lutheran’ nor the word ‘Anglican’ is found anywhere in that document.

They are if you read carefully. Were the Lutheran and Anglican communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

 

[KathleenGee]

I recalling listening to this program on EWTN focusing on testimonies of those who come into the Catholic Church.

I particularly remember the one with the Anglican priest…who in deep reflection realized he was in schism…and he wanted to teach …definitively…outside the Church…there is not this concept of faith binding…

Religio in Latin means to ‘look up’…to bind.

So he wanted to teach with defining doctrines…and be in communion…big difference!

 

[KathleenGee]

I am trying to start the day with the Liturgy of the Hours…it is hectic…people going to work and school, grandson coming in…

But I found the passage there…Acts 10:40-43.

God raised up Jesus on the third day and granted that he be seen, not by all, but only by such witnesses as had been chosen beforehand by God – by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commissioned us to preach to the people and to bear witness taht he is the one set apart by God as judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets testify saying that everyone who believes in him has forgiveness of sins through his name.

This refers to the high calling to the apostles…and regards life and death itself, as well as the forgiveness of sins that has blocked our reunification with God.

To base your understanding of Scripture based on your personal interpretation…and not that of the Apostles…is as Luther denied, the apostolic succession, the working of the Holy Spirit…that Christ would remain always with us…not so much in Bible book form…but from the encounter of Christ on the Road to Emmaus…in the breaking of the Bread…where we receive the Great Interpreter, Christ Himself…in the Eucharist.

To dissent from the Church teaching, its authority…and not trust that God is continuing to work today through the successors of the apostles…a lapse of faith in God itself…and putting more faith in one’s way of looking at things??

This week is Divine Mercy novena…and the other day we prayed all over the world for reunification of all Christians.

 

[KjetilK]

They are if you read carefully. Were the Lutheran and Anglican communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

This is a reiteration of Lumen gentium, treating every Reformation Church the same way. But note that they have never made a judgement on either the Church of Norway or the Church of Sweden. And the Church of England didn’t ‘lose’ the orders directly as a result of the Reformation, but due to changes in the Ordinal (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Rome was right in 1896, which I’m not convinced she was). In fact, the election and consecration of Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533 was, AFAICR, approved by Rome (not that they approved of it, in a moral, or even juridical sense, but that they recognised him as validly the Archbishop of Canterbury).

There haven’t been any changes of that nature to the Norwegian and Swedish Ordinals, and arguments can be made that the English Ordinals didn’t change significantly either, as argued by the former Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Sæpius officio, and by Dom Gregory Dix in his book The Question of Anglican Orders (Dacre Press, 1956, orig. 1944). I had to buy that used.

 

[GKC]

This is a reiteration of Lumen gentium, treating every Reformation Church the same way. But note that they have never made a judgement on either the Church of Norway or the Church of Sweden. And the Church of England didn’t ‘lose’ the orders directly as a result of the Reformation, but due to changes in the Ordinal (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Rome was right in 1896, which I’m not convinced she was). In fact, the election and consecration of Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533 was, AFAICR, approved by Rome (not that they approved of it, in a moral, or even juridical sense, but that they recognised him as validly the Archbishop of Canterbury).

There haven’t been any changes of that nature to the Norwegian and Swedish Ordinals, and arguments can be made that the English Ordinals didn’t change significantly either, as argued by the former Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Sæpius officio, and by Dom Gregory Dix in his book The Question of Anglican Orders (Dacre Press, 1956, orig. 1944). I had to buy that used.

Me too.

First and second editions.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a reiteration of Lumen gentium, treating every Reformation Church the same way. But note that they have never made a judgement on either the Church of Norway or the Church of Sweden. And the Church of England didn’t ‘lose’ the orders directly as a result of the Reformation, but due to changes in the Ordinal (assuming, for the sake of argument, that Rome was right in 1896, which I’m not convinced she was). In fact, the election and consecration of Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533 was, AFAICR, approved by Rome (not that they approved of it, in a moral, or even juridical sense, but that they recognised him as validly the Archbishop of Canterbury).

There haven’t been any changes of that nature to the Norwegian and Swedish Ordinals, and arguments can be made that the English Ordinals didn’t change significantly either, as argued by the former Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in Sæpius officio, and by Dom Gregory Dix in his book The Question of Anglican Orders (Dacre Press, 1956, orig. 1944). I had to buy that used.

What would be your response if the Catholic Church (based in Rome) issued a document next year explicitly rejecting Porvoo?

What would be your response if that document were issued near the end of your life?

Respectfully, K, I get that you desire the priesthood, and I applaud your response to God’s call. But you have no guarantee that you actually are a priest.

Are you really willing to spend a lifetime wanting to serve God and your congregation only to discover in the end that you weren’t really giving them valid sacraments after all? Yes, you can baptize and officiate at weddings, but doesn’t your heart long to bring Him to the people in the Eucharist? If you are not validly ordained, then transubstantiation is not happening by your hands.

And forgive me, but the only people telling you that you are a priest are the very people who are spiritually descended from those who separated themselves from the Catholic Church and started their own faith community. Not the most objective source of discernment, is it?

The Catholic Church has disagreements with the Orthodox, but they are acknowledged as having apostolic succession. The Catholic Church also has disagreements with the Anglicans, and in that case, the Church has judged Anglican orders invalid. So, if the Catholic Church had disagreed with the Church of Norway but acknowledged your orders, that would be one thing.

But the silence, Father…the silence…