Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[KathleenGee]

GKC…yes…authentic churches…we recognize them…but the laying on of hands and the transmission of grace is broken with the separation from the universal church.

 

[GKC]

GKC…yes…authentic churches…we recognize them…but the laying on of hands and the transmission of grace is broken with the separation from the universal church.

If by that you mean the transmission of valid orders, in apostolic succession, is broken, that is not what the RCC teaches. If you mean the orders are transmitted, and their sacramental functions operate, illicitly, yes.

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

And that is where my murky memory sets in. I was so disappointed in myself…last class with archdiocese after 5.5 years…I was caring for 4 kids and my aging dad who was in constant needs, it seemed to me at the time…that in the class with the bishop…one of them…I almost fell out of my seat and then had to get up…he looking at me like what was wrong with me…

I remember him describing what we consider as authentic churches…bishop and priests, baptism…but I don’t recall if he said they have all the 7 sacraments…

 

[GKC]

And that is where my murky memory sets in. I was so disappointed in myself…last class with archdiocese after 5.5 years…I was caring for 4 kids and my aging dad who was in constant needs, it seemed to me at the time…that in the class with the bishop…one of them…I almost fell out of my seat and then had to get up…he looking at me like what was wrong with me…

I remember him describing what we consider as authentic churches…bishop and priests, baptism…but I don’t recall if he said they have all the 7 sacraments…

I would suspect he would have said that they did. Valid, even if illicit, for those for which orders are required, as providing a valid sacramental minister.

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

GKC,

That was way back in 1999…end of quite extensive courses…this bishop acted in the movie put out by the De Fillipis, on St Therese the Little Flower…had lunch with him, from New Zealand. Wonderful person.

But so disappointed I didn’t grasp more as I really wanted to learn alot from it.

 

[GKC]

GKC,

That was way back in 1999…end of quite extensive courses…this bishop acted in the movie put out by the De Fillipis, on St Therese the Little Flower…had lunch with him, from New Zealand. Wonderful person.

But so disappointed I didn’t grasp more as I really wanted to learn alot from it.

Wanting to learn a lot is what started me reading and pursuing books, back 60 years ago, or so. It keeps me going.

GKC

 

[Randy_Carson]

My arguments show that I DO know. If you disagree, then please show this by refuting them. But allow me to give it one more time. Please engage the arguments, and not irrelevant side points, including what happened to people in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century in Norway or England who, ‘thought they were receiving the Eucharist.’ Now, I have made it clear many times that I do not agree that either the Church of England or the Church of Norway lost succession. But I have, for the sake of argument, agreed to take that as a premise to show, from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, that we do possess apostolic succession NOW. Can we please focus on that?

Thank you for your response. I can see why you believe as you do, and I hope you’re right. It will make eventual re-unification that much easier.

But would you agree that this sequence of events puts you into a different category than the American Lutherans who are also members of this forum? IOW, they may not have the same claim of validity for their pastors, do they?

One other question: Is there any good reason, in your mind, why neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Churches have formally recognized the apostolic succession of the Church of Norway as valid to date?

 

[commenter]

Wanting to learn a lot is what started me reading and pursuing books, back 60 years ago, or so. It keeps me going.

GKC

And we amateurs benefit from your willingness to share much of what you have painstakingly learned.

Us having to tolerate the occasional feeble pun is well worth the trade off, for the wisdom gained.

 

[KjetilK]

But would you agree that this sequence of events puts you into a different category than the American Lutherans who are also members of this forum? IOW, they may not have the same claim of validity for their pastors, do they?

Yes, probably.

One other question: Is there any good reason, in your mind, why neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Churches have formally recognized the apostolic succession of the Church of Norway as valid to date?

There can be many reasons. But that is really immaterial to the validity or nonvalidity of my arguments.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, probably.

Forgive me, but I asked two questions. Are you saying that you agree with me that Lutherans in the US may have a problem with the validity of their sacraments due to irregularities in their ordinations?

There can be many reasons. But that is really immaterial to the validity or nonvalidity of my arguments.

Yes, there can be many reasons…including some which you may not have considered?

As for whether that is immaterial, your view certainly sounds like the attitude one would take if the successor of Peter does NOT have the authority to bind or loose “whatever” here on earth. However, if Peter does have real authority, then Rome’s judgment is anything but immaterial.

You have placed yourself under the authority of a bishop who, by virtue of the fact that he is not in full communion with the head of the Church - the successor of Peter, has no real authority himself. Human authority, sure…from the state and your decision to grant it willingly to him over you. But God-given authority?

 

[KjetilK]

Forgive me, but I asked two questions.

And I answered both with the same answer.

Yes, there can be many reasons…including some which you may not have considered?

Perhaps. But you better ask THEM about that.

As for whether that is immaterial, your view certainly sounds like the attitude one would take if the successor of Peter does NOT have the authority to bind or loose “whatever” here on earth. However, if Peter does have real authority, then Rome’s judgment is anything but immaterial.

Yes, if.

You have placed yourself under the authority of a bishop who, by virtue of the fact that he is not in full communion with the head of the Church - the successor of Peter, has no real authority himself. Human authority, sure…from the state and your decision to grant it willingly to him over you. But God-given authority?

This is a claim, not an argument.

 

[GKC]

And we amateurs benefit from your willingness to share much of what you have painstakingly learned.

Us having to tolerate the occasional feeble pun is well worth the trade off, for the wisdom gained.

Feeble?!?!

But recall, with only a few exceptions (i,e., by internet posting standards) I’m an amateur myself. Or, as I often say, I’m not an authority, I’m an opinion. Sometimes a highly informed and well read opinion, standing on a stack of relevant books, granted, but that’s about it.

But you are very kind to say that.

Except for the feeble part. I must try harder, obviously

GKC

 

[KathleenGee]

GKC, yes, bishop most likely stated they were authentic but invalid…how many sacraments do the Anglicans have? The Lutherans have baptism and christening…anything else?

 

[GKC]

GKC, yes, bishop most likely stated they were authentic but invalid…how many sacraments do the Anglicans have? The Lutherans have baptism and christening…anything else?

Depends on which Anglicans you ask, and also depends on whether you mean in Anglican eyes, or RC eyes.

I say Anglicans have 7 sacraments, though some Anglicans only recognize 2 of them. The RCC would say that Anglicans have 2 sacraments, but not the two some Anglicans recognize.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

GKC, yes, bishop most likely stated they were authentic but invalid…how many sacraments do the Anglicans have? The Lutherans have baptism and christening…anything else?

What sacraments you have is not tied to what you believe you have, but to the validity of matter, form, minister, and intent.

Many Protestants who believe in sacraments believe they have two – baptism and the Eucharist. According to Roman Catholic belief, however, they do have two sacraments, but not those two but baptism and Holy Matrimony. Any valid marriage between two baptised persons is a sacramental marriage.

So if you have validly ordained bishops and validly ordained priests, you have, or can have, valid baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, ordination, Holy Matrimony and Extreme Unction (dependent not on ‘denominational ties’ but on the validity of matter, form, minister, and intent).

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.

 

[GKC]

What sacraments you have is not tied to what you believe you have, but to the validity of matter, form, minister, and intent.

Many Protestants who believe in sacraments believe they have two – baptism and the Eucharist. According to Roman Catholic belief, however, they do have two sacraments, but not those two but baptism and Holy Matrimony. Any valid marriage between two baptised persons is a sacramental marriage.

So if you have validly ordained bishops and validly ordained priests, you have, or can have, valid baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, confession, ordination, Holy Matrimony and Extreme Unction (dependent not on ‘denominational ties’ but on the validity of matter, form, minister, and intent).

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.

We think a great deal alike, you and I.

GKC

 

[Thorolfr]

What sacraments you have is not tied to what you believe you have, but to the validity of matter, form, minister, and intent.

I don’t think that most American Lutherans think that apostolic succession is necessary to have a valid minister or valid sacraments. According to an LCMS article on apostolic succession:

Strictly speaking, the term describes the teaching of the E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC, Old Cath., Ch. of S India, and Swed. and certain other Luth. Christians that the ministry of their churches has come down from the apostles in an unbroken succession of bps. Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry. E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC and some Angl. Christians gen. regard it as necessary to the existence of the church and to the valid ministration of most sacraments; RCs make a special point of the succession of the bps. of Rome from Peter.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

But I’m sure that apostolic succession is perhaps important for some European Lutherans and certainly for some Anglicans.

 

[GKC]

I don’t think that most American Lutherans think that apostolic succession is necessary to have a valid minister or valid sacraments. According to an LCMS article on apostolic succession:

Strictly speaking, the term describes the teaching of the E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC, Old Cath., Ch. of S India, and Swed. and certain other Luth. Christians that the ministry of their churches has come down from the apostles in an unbroken succession of bps. Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry. E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC and some Angl. Christians gen. regard it as necessary to the existence of the church and to the valid ministration of most sacraments; RCs make a special point of the succession of the bps. of Rome from Peter.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

But I’m sure that apostolic succession is perhaps important for some European Lutherans and certainly for some Anglicans.

Yep.* Esse*, not merely bene esse.

GKC

 

[pablope]

I don’t think that most American Lutherans think that apostolic succession is necessary to have a valid minister or valid sacraments. According to an LCMS article on apostolic succession:

This is not in accord with how the Church, since its birth, has understood the importance of AS.

This seems more like an attempt to rationalize their lack of apostolic succession…to say it is not important…to make oneself feel good and to de-emphasize the need for AS.

 

[steido01]

This is not in accord with how the Church, since its birth, has understood the importance of AS.

This seems more like an attempt to rationalize their lack of apostolic succession…to say it is not important…to make oneself feel good and to de-emphasize the need for AS.

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. See: Cistercian Abbots.

It’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.