Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[KjetilK]

So, the ordination of women fails one of Kjetilk’s four criterion?

I forgot to include recipient/subject, mostly because that isn’t included in the examination of sacraments qua sacraments. A validly consecrated host could be given to an invalid subject (like an unbaptised person or an animal).

 

[GKC]

I forgot to include recipient/subject, mostly because that isn’t included in the examination of sacraments qua sacraments. A validly consecrated host could be given to an invalid subject (like an unbaptised person or an animal).

Yep.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I think there are three questions here (GKC will correct me).

Q1: Are women valid subjects for ordination as priests? If the answer is “yes” then this branch of the discussion stops. If the answer is “no”, then no woman has valid priestly orders, and:

Q2: If a valid bishop carries out the ordination of an invalid subject, are his subsequent ordinations tainted with invalidity, even if they are of valid, male, subjects? If the answer is “yes”, then:

Q3: If a church permits as a matter of doctrine and order the ordination of women, are all its ordinations invalid, including those where a valid bishop, who is in an all-male succession, and who has never ordained a woman, ordains a valid male subject?

Ponderous.

Murky.

GKC

 

[commenter]

I think there are three questions here (GKC will correct me).

Q1: Are women valid subjects for ordination as priests? If the answer is “yes” then this branch of the discussion stops. If the answer is “no”, then no woman has valid priestly orders, and:

Q2: If a valid bishop carries out the ordination of an invalid subject, are his subsequent ordinations tainted with invalidity, even if they are of valid, male, subjects? If the answer is “yes”, then:

Q3: If a church permits as a matter of doctrine and order the ordination of women, are all its ordinations invalid, including those where a valid bishop, who is in an all-male succession, and who has never ordained a woman, ordains a valid male subject?

The problem with Q3 is “who speaks for the ‘church’”? If there is a conservative diocese in the TEC or C of E that is fully orthodox, wouldn’t they say “we are the church”? Are the groups - or rather the bishops themselves - in the continuum, part of the overall “Anglicanism Tradition church”? Or are they independent “churches” whose own consecrations and ordinations are not affected by what goes on in Canterbury or NYC?

Is Lutheranism a worldwide “church” that happens to have denominational subdivisions?
Or are ELCA or the Church of Norway independent entities, whose actions towards (occasional) invalid ordinations don’t affect the validity of what happens at LCMS?

Historically Catholics, Anglicans, and perhaps Lutherans and others regarded bishops not just as individual successors of the apostles, but that the college or “bench” of bishops were the successors of the unity or fellowship of the apostles. The tendency in the last 40 years is to de emphasize that aspect of episcopacy, and perhaps we have lost something.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The problem with Q3 is “who speaks for the ‘church’”? If there is a conservative diocese in the TEC or C of E that is fully orthodox, wouldn’t they say “we are the church”? Are the groups - or rather the bishops themselves - in the continuum, part of the overall “Anglicanism Tradition church”? Or are they independent “churches” whose own consecrations and ordinations are not affected by what goes on in Canterbury or NYC?

Is Lutheranism a worldwide “church” that happens to have denominational subdivisions?
Or are ELCA or the Church of Norway independent entities, whose actions towards (occasional) invalid ordinations don’t affect the validity of what happens at LCMS?

Historically Catholics, Anglicans, and perhaps Lutherans and others regarded bishops not just as individual successors of the apostles, but that the college or “bench” of bishops were the successors of the unity or fellowship of the apostles. The tendency in the last 40 years is to de emphasize that aspect of episcopacy, and perhaps we have lost something.

My ill-informed view is that Anglicans regard their bishops as bishops of the Church Catholic. But also that they would regard individual churches in the Anglican Communion (e.g. TEC or CofE) or outside it (e.g. the Anglican Catholic Church) as separate churches. But that dioceses of TEC or the CofE would not be regarded by Anglicans as separate churches unless, perhaps, they do a South Carolina. Whether anyone outside Anglicanism would find that helpful in deciding Q3 I somewhat doubt!

Murkier still and murkier.

 

[GKC]

The problem with Q3 is “who speaks for the ‘church’”? If there is a conservative diocese in the TEC or C of E that is fully orthodox, wouldn’t they say “we are the church”? Are the groups - or rather the bishops themselves - in the continuum, part of the overall “Anglicanism Tradition church”? Or are they independent “churches” whose own consecrations and ordinations are not affected by what goes on in Canterbury or NYC?

Is Lutheranism a worldwide “church” that happens to have denominational subdivisions?
Or are ELCA or the Church of Norway independent entities, whose actions towards (occasional) invalid ordinations don’t affect the validity of what happens at LCMS?

Historically Catholics, Anglicans, and perhaps Lutherans and others regarded bishops not just as individual successors of the apostles, but that the college or “bench” of bishops were the successors of the unity or fellowship of the apostles. The tendency in the last 40 years is to de emphasize that aspect of episcopacy, and perhaps we have lost something.

Various methods might be used to express various things. Here, Para 1, last proposition. Yes.

Para 3. Anglicans vary on the episcopacy, but yes, almost all will consider the concept of the episcopal bench to be normative. The next question would be who would constitute such a bench, and that’s going to depend a lot on who is in communion with whom and why or why not.

GKC

 

[GKC]

My ill-informed view is that Anglicans regard their bishops as bishops of the Church Catholic. But also that they would regard individual churches in the Anglican Communion (e.g. TEC or CofE) or outside it (e.g. the Anglican Catholic Church) as separate churches. But that dioceses of TEC or the CofE would not be regarded by Anglicans as separate churches unless, perhaps, they do a South Carolina. Whether anyone outside Anglicanism would find that helpful in deciding Q3 I somewhat doubt!

Murkier still and murkier.

s

Yes.

And a poster from across the blue who understand the issue of +Lawrence and the Dio of SC. Mirabile dictu.

SC is on a path to somewhere, and I bet I know where.

GKC

 

[Picky_Picky]

s

Yes.

And a poster from across the blue who understand the issue of +Lawrence and the Dio of SC. Mirabile dictu.

SC is on a path to somewhere, and I bet I know where.

GKC

“Understand” might be putting it a bit strong, “Knows something about” might be more like it, even if that’s less mirabile.

On a path to … aren’t they perfect for ACNA?

 

[GKC]

“Understand” might be putting it a bit strong, “Knows something about” might be more like it, even if that’s less mirabile.

On a path to … aren’t they perfect for ACNA?

Poster child, perfect fit. But one must await events.

GKC

 

[Peter_J]

The problem with Q3 is “who speaks for the ‘church’”? If there is a conservative diocese in the TEC or C of E that is fully orthodox, wouldn’t they say “we are the church”?

The Pope.

 

[Peter_J]

Indeed. And, considering how many Lutheran churches have, shall we say, gone the same way as the Anglicans, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if we someday see an “Ordinariate” ICWR made up of former Lutherans. (Not that I have any particular country in mind, but there are probably a dozen or so countries where it could conceivably happen.) The downside, of course, is that so many people have the impression that Ordinariates mean that Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism and the 1993 document Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past, and the Present Search for Full Communion no longer apply. (See also Cardinal Kasper’s clarification about Ordinariates.)

P.S. I mean when he said e.g.

“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. …] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”

 

[KjetilK]

The Pope.

Which, of course, is the heart of this discussion. Claims have been made that the Bishop of Rome have immediate and universal jurisdiction over all Christian faithful, and over particular self-governing (sui iuris) churches, including the appointment of bishops. That is a claim that needs to be backed up, and which I will feel free to reject until backed up by actual evidence (that goes beyond the primus inter pares function he has even in Eastern Orthodox theology).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Which, of course, is the heart of this discussion. Claims have been made that the Bishop of Rome have immediate and universal jurisdiction over all Christian faithful, and over particular self-governing (sui iuris) churches, including the appointment of bishops. That is a claim that needs to be backed up, and which I will feel free to reject until backed up by actual evidence (that goes beyond the primus inter pares function he has even in Eastern Orthodox theology).

Fr. Adrian Fortescue on the Expansion of Papal Jurisdiction

Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.

A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.

This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it costs but a few pennies. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects on Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion? (Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 35-36)

+++

This would a good book for you to read, Kjetil. :yup:

 

[commenter]

My ill-informed view is that Anglicans regard their bishops as bishops of the Church Catholic. But also that they would regard individual churches in the Anglican Communion (e.g. TEC or CofE) or outside it (e.g. the Anglican Catholic Church) as separate churches. But that dioceses of TEC or the CofE would not be regarded by Anglicans as separate churches unless, perhaps, they do a South Carolina. Whether anyone outside Anglicanism would find that helpful in deciding Q3 I somewhat doubt!

Murkier still and murkier.

The part in bold assumes the Anglican view that their individual bishops have apostolic succession. But how are they part of the college of bishops? In terms of actual ongoing fellowship and unity, it would seem they had developed an “Anglican-college” of bishops, in the C of E, for instance. Anglican mini-colleges developed in various countries, but at the time in union with each other. Now there are countless Anglican mini-colleges of bishops, all of which refute the authority of some others, with changes constantly.

How far can the bench be subdivided until it is no longer a bench? If a church in the Continuum has 3 bishops, who are in and out of fellowship with certain other mini-benches, is it still a bench at all? One can hope that the bishops of today grew up at a time when Anglicanism was a united worldwide fellowship of belief, so that common heritage - temporarily - still is a limited unifying factor among bishops in general.

By my count there have been 13,218 CAF threads about the apostolic succession of individual bishops, and darn few about the actual college of bishops, (as opposed to various people who, at the moment, are more or less in communion with each other); and the effect of isolation on the bishop.

The various processes of the past 50 years point to the need for a permanent office; someone who is a bishop, but also has a unique doctrinal and pastoral authority which he exercises in union with bishops. Those bishops in actual union (not just like-minded) with this bishop constitute the fullness of the apostolic college in our time. Other bishops may or may not have apostolic succession, but are not in the college of bishops.

 

[KjetilK]

The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy.

This is a claim, not an argument.

 

[KjetilK]

The part in bold assumes the Anglican view that their individual bishops have apostolic succession. But how are they part of the college of bishops? In terms of actual ongoing fellowship and unity, it would seem they had developed an “Anglican-college” of bishops, in the C of E, for instance. Anglican mini-colleges developed in various countries, but at the time in union with each other. Now there are countless Anglican mini-colleges of bishops, all of which refute the authority of some others, with changes constantly.

But the USCCB or the Scandinavian Bishops Conference is A-OK, right?

 

[Peter_J]

This is a claim, not an argument.

Interesting comment. I myself thought the same thing, quite a number of times, on the other thread where posters kept saying “The least convincing argument is” followed by something that’s not actually an argument.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline,

This is a claim, not an argument.

Matthew 16:18-19
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And now, a few words regarding those keys…I wrote this a few months ago, and I have presented it to you previously. You have never attempted a refutation of this argument.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Here are two questions that need to be answered:

1. Is Jesus a king?
2. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward?

You probably said “Yes” quickly to the first question, but you may have hesitated or even answered “No” to the second. Let’s take a look at what scripture and history tell us about the office of the Royal Steward.

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:20-22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking to Shebnah, an unfaithful steward serving King Hezekiah. God is telling Shebnah that he is about to be replaced by Eliakim, and this confirms the existence of the office, the key worn as a symbol of the office, and the continuation of the office in perpetuity – despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, but the successors of Peter have taken his place in the perpetual office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter to the office of Royal Steward granting him the authority to speak universally in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter could not teach error. God’s protection of His own flock by preventing the formal teaching of error in His name is referred to as “infallibility”.

**Therefore, if Jesus, our eternal king, established Peter as His first Royal Steward in a perpetual office, then despite the existence of other, lesser stewards (who have their own legitimate areas of authority), don’t Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, continue to serve in that office today? **

 

[commenter]

But the USCCB or the Scandinavian Bishops Conference is A-OK, right?

In the US there are state conferences, and a national conference, and I assume the same in Europe. But they all are appointed by the same pope, report to the same Vatican departments, follow the same Catechism and Code of Canon Law, and come to the same Pope every 5 years for their Ad Limina visits. They all came for Vatican II, and representatives from both places come for the same Synods regularly, sitting alongside each other.

A Scandinavian bishop may well have an office in the Vatican down the hall from an American bishop. A Scandinavian bishop could get assigned to the US, and an American get an assignment in Scandinavia. Both could serve in the same mission country. The USCCB does not supervise any bishop. Nor does the Pennsylvania conference; only Rome. Recent popes have fired bishops, who were not serving in the diocese of Rome, and over ruled other bishops, also not serving in Rome. Popes do that, but rarely. No national conference can do that. The fact that a bishop can belong to the California Conference, and to the USCCB, and perhaps other groups, does not affect his status as a member of the world wide college.

There clearly is an identifiable worldwide college of bishops in union with each other, because all are in union with the Holy See. Lots of people don’t like this college of bishops, but people agree on who is in it, and who isn’t. Bishops outside the college, whether identified as Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or other may have valid consecrations and do good ministry.

 

[KjetilK]

In the US there are state conferences, and a national conference, and I assume the same in Europe. But they all are appointed by the same pope, report to the same Vatican departments, follow the same Catechism and Code of Canon Law, and come to the same Pope every 5 years for their Ad Limina visits. They all came for Vatican II, and representatives from both places come for the same Synods regularly, sitting alongside each other.

A Scandinavian bishop may well have an office in the Vatican down the hall from an American bishop. A Scandinavian bishop could get assigned to the US, and an American get an assignment in Scandinavia. Both could serve in the same mission country. The USCCB does not supervise any bishop. Nor does the Pennsylvania conference; only Rome. Recent popes have fired bishops, who were not serving in the diocese of Rome, and over ruled other bishops, also not serving in Rome. Popes do that, but rarely. No national conference can do that. The fact that a bishop can belong to the California Conference, and to the USCCB, and perhaps other groups, does not affect his status as a member of the world wide college.

There clearly is an identifiable worldwide college of bishops in union with each other, because all are in union with the Holy See. Lots of people don’t like this college of bishops, but people agree on who is in it, and who isn’t. Bishops outside the college, whether identified as Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or other may have valid consecrations and do good ministry.

Yes, they are in union with Rome. So what? Why is it that being in communion with Rome is the be all and end all of being a valid and complete church? Why is it that the bishop’s conference of your particular Church (that is, the USCCB, if you live in the US) is not invalidated by not being in communion with, say, the bishops of the Russian Church?

The Church of Norway’s bishop’s conference is in complete union with the bishop’s conference in the Church of England, the Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Iceland, the Church in Wales, the Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church (in Portugal), the Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church Abroad, and the Lutheran Church in Great Britain.