Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, if you don’t mind. I highlighted in red, Paul’s strong statement about needing to lambast Peter head to head, face to face. The reason is that Paul wants the Early Church to know Peter’s importance that his behaviour might shake up the Faith negatively, since Peter also established Antioch, this was important to Paul to notify Peter. On top of that, Antioch was the place when followers of Christ were** first **called Christians.

MJ

And one other point…in Galatia, Paul’s own credentials were being questioned. Consequently, by pointing out his direct opposition to the head of the Church, Paul was demonstrating his own position in the Church to the Galatians.

 

[JonNC]

Jon…more animosity towards the pope…residual of the anti christ again…perhaps.

Be that as it may…may I suggest that you review acts 10 and 11…Pete had already pretty much decided the circumcision issue prior to the council.

I don’t recall making any statement of animosity against any pope. But if you think my saying Peter’s statement is more powerful if one views James in charge of the council is animosity, I honestly don’t know how to respond.

That Peter’s position on the subject was agreed to by the council is obvious, but not because Peter was in charge of the council.

Jon

 

[Dorothy]

Dear Protestants,

I am not a scholar, but do have this to say:

Bottom line…We love you in Christ, and we need to all be one in prayer and work for the glory
of our Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[JonNC]

Dear Protestants,

I am not a scholar, but do have this to say:

Bottom line…We love you in Christ, and we need to all be one in prayer and work for the glory
of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Amen, Dorothy. Thank you. This is a prayer I join mine to.

Jon

 

[Dorothy]

Amen, Dorothy. Thank you. This is a prayer I join mine to.

Jon

And Amen!

And may our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us all.

 

[KjetilK]

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.

If Rome has that kind of jurisdiction, yes.

 

[KjetilK]

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

Well, it is determined by four factors: valid minister, valid matter, valid form, and valid intention.

 

[KjetilK]

Oh…almost forgot.

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

Any thoughts?

It will have to wait, since you posted a lot, and since I have a job.

 

[KjetilK]

That’s the public line, anyway.

I didn’t know you were some conspiracy nut.

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

No, so what?

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.

Just because the public line was something else, it doesn’t mean that Bush wasn’t the one who was really behind 9/11.

 

[Picky_Picky]

That’s the public line, anyway. :roll eyes:

…

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.

I think that if an Anglican or Lutheran implied that your church was guilty of deception you might perhaps find such a suggestion impertinent and discourteous: you might at least expect some evidence to support such an assertion. Do you not think Anglicans and Lutherans might find your implication equally impertinent and discourteous?

anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/scand1951.html

Please read the above document, from an early meeting between representatives of the Church of England and other, Lutheran, churches, prominently the Church of Norway. Three points should be clear to you:

(1) The discussions with the Norwegians, which were among those to lead eventually to Porvoo, were conducted largely on the initiative of Canterbury, not on the initiative of the Lutherans as you have implied.

(2) The subject of joint consecrations was identified as the main problem arising in the discussions, with the CofE favouring them, and the Norwegians very hesitant. It is clear that the discussions are not part of a Norwegian plan to validate orders, and that joint consecrations are being advanced by the CofE, not the CofN. The Church of Norway makes clear that it believes it has Apostolic Succession as it defines it, and that it would resent any suggestion that it needed its succession completed or restored.

(3) The leader of the Anglican team at the discussions was Michael Ramsey. I would draw to your attention the fact that Dr Ramsey was esteemed in both Anglican and Catholic circles, and that any attempt to accuse him of deception would, I counsel, be counterproductive.

 

[GKC]

Nasty and Cynical? My oh my! (Never YOU of course, right?)

Actually I do believe that K cares a lot if Rome believes he has valid orders/ AS for he’s sure spending a TREMENDOUS amount of time on the issue.

I actually believe we’d be better off as Christians as a whole if everyone did stand around and wait for Rome to speak instead of get their Bibles out and form their own doctrine, faith and morals.

Mary.

I’ve spent a lot of time on the related subject of Apostolicae Curae. Roughly 16+ years, of reading, discussing, and book collecting. Because it was a subject that interested me, as a few others also do, and that energize my biblio-hobby. The only sense in which I could say I care about what Rome thought of Anglican orders is in the sense that it would be one thing that might make us move a little closer together, corporately. A step toward communion in the divided parts of the Church. As when the agreement of Bonn was reached. As when the Porvoo Communion was arrived at. As, in fact, when Lord Halifax and the Abbe Portal, way back in 1890, tried to open a door.

But it didn’t interest me in the sense that I worried about it, when I kneel at the rail to receive the Body and Blood. Maybe Fr. K. cares about the subject in the same sense that I do.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think that if an Anglican or Lutheran implied that your church was guilty of deception you might perhaps find such a suggestion impertinent and discourteous: you might at least expect some evidence to support such an assertion. Do you not think Anglicans and Lutherans might find your implication equally impertinent and discourteous?

anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/scand1951.html

Please read the above document, from an early meeting between representatives of the Church of England and other, Lutheran, churches, prominently the Church of Norway. Three points should be clear to you:

(1) The discussions with the Norwegians, which were among those to lead eventually to Porvoo, were conducted largely on the initiative of Canterbury, not on the initiative of the Lutherans as you have implied.

(2) The subject of joint consecrations was identified as the main problem arising in the discussions, with the CofE favouring them, and the Norwegians very hesitant. It is clear that the discussions are not part of a Norwegian plan to validate orders, and that joint consecrations are being advanced by the CofE, not the CofN. The Church of Norway makes clear that it believes it has Apostolic Succession as it defines it, and that it would resent any suggestion that it needed its succession completed or restored.

(3) The leader of the Anglican team at the discussions was Michael Ramsey. I would draw to your attention the fact that Dr Ramsey was esteemed in both Anglican and Catholic circles, and that any attempt to accuse him of deception would, I counsel, be counterproductive.

IIRC, the earlier roots of Porvoo were somewhere around 1938, with some contact between some Nordic Lutheran Churches and the CoE. Not sure about that.

++Ramsey was quite the man. His relationship with Paul VI was the last time it appeared that the RCC and the Anglican world might, just might, take a small step toward each other. Good man.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I didn’t know you were some conspiracy nut.

No, so what?

Just because the public line was something else, it doesn’t mean that Bush wasn’t the one who was really behind 9/11.

There are certainly a lot of public lines out there, and folks who are ready to explain was really was going on. On all sorts of subjects.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

IIRC, the earlier roots of Porvoo were somewhere around 1938, with some contact between some Nordic Lutheran Churches and the CoE. Not sure about that.

++Ramsey was quite the man. His relationship with Paul VI was the last time it appeared that the RCC and the Anglican world might, just might, take a small step toward each other. Good man.

GKC

Just before the war, yes, progress was made by the CofE and the Baltic churches. And serious work with the Church of Sweden started before the first war. Norway was later, I believe.

As to Dr Ramsey, I concur. And even if that small step didn’t happen, the warm relationship he had with the Pope has borne fruit in good Roman relationships with subsequent Cantuars, including, it seems, the evangelical Mr Welby.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dear Protestants,

I am not a scholar, but do have this to say:

Bottom line…We love you in Christ, and we need to all be one in prayer and work for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ!

:yup:

Thank you for saying this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, it is determined by four factors: valid minister, valid matter, valid form, and valid intention.

The real question, Kjetilk, is: WHO is qualified to make the final decision as to whether these four factors have been properly and adequately present throughout the course of history?

 

[pablope]

Well, it is determined by four factors: valid minister, valid matter, valid form, and valid intention.

I know these should all be present, Father K…by my question is the big elephant…“who”…so who, in your estimation, who would and should answer the question if you have valid orders or not?

 

[Dorothy]

:yup:

Thank you for saying this.

Thank you for the affirmation!

 

[KjetilK]

I know these should all be present, Father K…by my question is the big elephant…“who”…so who, in your estimation, who would and should answer the question if you have valid orders or not?

That is found by examining the evidence, lest there cannot ever be any confidence about anything.

You see it by examining the forms used, the matter used, the minister, and his intention (which is assumed when he does what the church does).

 

[pablope]

That is found by examining the evidence, lest there cannot ever be any confidence about anything.

You see it by examining the forms used, the matter used, the minister, and his intention (which is assumed when he does what the church does).

Then…“Who” should be making the examination of the evidence you speak of?

“Who”…would declare that after making the examination you speak of…“the forms used, the matter used, the minister, and his intention”…would come to the conclusion…that…which is assumed when he does what the church does)