Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[SyroMalankara]

And I agree. I was just pointing out what Luther actually said, which was, well, misrepresented by pablope. I myself agree that the keys reside in the Church, led by a bishop, as a successor of the apostles, cf. Matt 18:18. And that is how the Church of Norway is governed. No one can licitly perform priestly duties in the Church of Norway without the express permission of the bishop.

Considering that Superintendent Torbjørn Olavssøn Bratt, nephew of the last ordained Catholic bishop was appointed by the crown (I don’t think voted on or elected by clergy) nor ordained in the common manner (?) - how did the keys get passed?
And what of the other Lutheran bodies that do not hold the theology of the Norway Lutherans?

 

[steido01]

And what of the other Lutheran bodies that do not hold the theology of the Norway Lutherans?

Nipping this one in the bud. Father K doesn’t have to answer for those of us Lutherans who hold to a slightly different ecclesiology, no more than you need respond for Old Catholics.

Yet even in our case, the Lutheran Confessions are clear: “no one is to preach or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called” and ordained. (Augsburg Confession Article XIV)

Every Lutheran body, whether they hold to the traditional means of Apostolic Succession or consider Apostolic Succession to depend more on orthodox teaching than proper rites, recognize that it is the church that has the power to call and ordain for ministry. With regard to us Lutherans who practice presbyter ordination, it may help to think of it this way: each Lutheran pastor essentially is the local bishop.

 

[benjohnson]

And what of the other Lutheran bodies that do not hold the theology of the Norway Lutherans?

Let me be a little but blunt:

The North American synods lost their bishops due to various reasons - but primarily because of poverty. The northern European immigrants usually had nothing, and the German’s really had nothing - they were lucky to escape with their lives.

We had no cathedrals, no churches, a few bibles, and a few priests. Putting food on the table was tough - let alone importing a European bishop.

So frankly - we need bishops (not presidents or other titles) , but we’re content with the Grace that God has given us in these troubling times . And indeed, God’s grace is sufficient.

I’ll admit that The presbyter ordinations that mark our priests as called and ordained is not ideal, but it serves God as he would have us at this place and time. We are thankful.

Side note:

I’m also not convinced that our Synod would be served well by rushing into communion with those that have “ladybishops” - that would be another error to correct.

From a Cahtolic standpoint, our plight seems horrid and intolerable. From our standpoint, we are thankfully and gratefully for the Grace that God has given us poor sinners.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let me be a little but blunt:

The North American synods lost their bishops due to various reasons - but primarily because of poverty. The northern European immigrants usually had nothing, and the German’s really had nothing - they were lucky to escape with their lives.

We had no cathedrals, no churches, a few bibles, and a few priests. Putting food on the table was tough - let alone importing a European bishop.

So frankly - we need bishops (not presidents or other titles) , but we’re content with the Grace that God has given us in these troubling times .

It it’s sufficient.

Side note:

I’m also not convinced that our Synod would be served well by rushing into communion with those that have “ladybishops” - that would be another error to correct.

From a Cahtolic standpoint, our plight seems horrid and intolerable. From our standpoint, we are thankfully and gratefully for the Grace that God has given us poor sinners.

I’m not sure I completely understand. Are you saying that the NA Lutherans really hold the Catholic theology of the episcopate but lost it due to socio-political issues - e.g. priestless Old Believers in Russia; or that they do not hold that theology due to an earlier centuries-long estrangement from the traditional homelands; or something else?

I can’t see why cost would be a factor at any time, since it could be conferred freely on a married Lutheran crossing into the Americas. That wouldn’t necessarily be cost prohibitive, especially with one or the other Lutheran prince’s support.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Nipping this one in the bud. Father K doesn’t have to answer for those of us Lutherans who hold to a slightly different ecclesiology, no more than you need respond for Old Catholics.

Old Catholics do not con-celebrate with Eastern or Roman Catholics, so it is understandable - are there no NA Lutherans that are in communion/concelebrate/pastor swap/congregation mix with Norwegian congregations? Are there no other Lutheran bodies in Norway? Like a ‘free Lutheran’ group or some other denomination? Are they recognized?

Yet even in our case, the Lutheran Confessions are clear: “no one is to preach or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called” and ordained. (Augsburg Confession Article XIV)

That’s what my question is about, the meaning of these words. It is slightly different depending on the Lutheran communion. Is the difference immaterial within Lutheranism?

Every Lutheran body, whether they hold to the traditional means of Apostolic Succession or consider Apostolic Succession to depend more on orthodox teaching than proper rites, recognize that it is the church that has the power to call and ordain for ministry. With regard to us Lutherans who practice presbyter ordination, it may help to think of it this way: each Lutheran pastor essentially is the local bishop.

How can that be, when even the presbyter ordination Lutherans have someone titled bishop or it’s equivalent? Or perhaps not equivalent??

 

[KjetilK]

Considering that Superintendent Torbjørn Olavssøn Bratt, nephew of the last ordained Catholic bishop was appointed by the crown (I don’t think voted on or elected by clergy) nor ordained in the common manner (?) - how did the keys get passed?

Why did you add that little questionmark? Was it perhaps because you couldn’t find any sources that stated he wasn’t ‘ordained in the common manner,’ and expected me to do your homework? Nice try. And what does the appointment by the Crown have to say on validity? What, then, of ++Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury? He was appointed by the Crown, by His Majesty King Henry VIII, yet Rome acknowledged his appointment. (They weren’t ‘thrilled,’ of course, but they acknowledged him as the real and valid successor of ++William Warham.)

Note that appointment doesn’t mean ‘starting the selection process,’ but choosing a candidate from a list, and naming, appointing, or investing that candidate. Now, are you saying that there isn’t a single Roman Catholic, or Eastern Catholic bishop throughout history who wasn’t appointed by a ruler, either a King or an Emperor?

And what of the other Lutheran bodies that do not hold the theology of the Norway Lutherans?

As I’ve told others who have asked me that question, my answer is that they are lacking. They need succession.

 

[steido01]

Old Catholics do not con-celebrate with Eastern or Roman Catholics, so it is understandable - are there no NA Lutherans that are in communion/concelebrate/pastor swap/congregation mix with Norwegian congregations? Are there no other Lutheran bodies in Norway? Like a ‘free Lutheran’ group or some other denomination? Are they recognized?

Ah, I see what you’re asking. Well, it’s complicated. Father K will have some important things to add but, generally, the Lutheran bodies that practice presbyter ordination are generally not in communion with those that have ‘maintained’ AS, generally. Reasons being multiple. Partly for reasons Ben explained, and also because those Lutheran bodies that maintained AS also introduced novel things like ordaining women and blessing same-sex unions. Why should we “presby-style” Lutherans seek to find union with bodies which are, effectively, not Lutheran (apologies to Father K and the other faithful Lutherans who remain steadfast in those bodies ).

That’s what my question is about, the meaning of these words. It is slightly different depending on the Lutheran communion. Is the difference immaterial within Lutheranism?

All Lutherans understand the power to “rightly call” to be held by the church, in general. All Lutherans agree that by the time of the Reformation, this power was entrusted to the bishops to faithfully exercise. Most Lutherans hold that this power need not remain solely with a bishop (even if we’d prefer it). When the bishops refused to administer the Sacraments to the faithful, Lutherans pointed back to the fathers and the practice of the early church. From the Apology:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

How can that be, when even the presbyter ordination Lutherans have someone titled bishop or it’s equivalent? Or perhaps not equivalent??

These Lutherans recognize the need for ecclesial order and oversight (That, and we read the fathers). It’s that simple. “For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention.” Since each pastor is effectively the local bishop, the bishops/presidents/superintendents in today’s Lutheran synods are acting more akin to Catholic archbishops. All are technically bishops, some simply shepherd over a larger pasture.

 

[benjohnson]

I’m not sure I completely understand. Are you saying that the NA Lutherans really hold the Catholic theology of the episcopate but lost it due to socio-political issues - e.g. priestless Old Believers in Russia; or that they do not hold that theology due to an earlier centuries-long estrangement from the traditional homelands; or something else?

I would say that the confessional NA bodies would be comfortable with the Catholic understanding, but don’t view it as a necessity for correct theological reasons as well as practical reasons.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why did you add that little questionmark? Was it perhaps because you couldn’t find any sources that stated he wasn’t ‘ordained in the common manner,’ and expected me to do your homework? Nice try.

I don’t know where the little bit of attitude is coming from Reverend. I don’t read or write Norwegian nor know any English sources to begin to even start research on such a relatively hard-to-find subject. If you know something, please be kind enough to share. The question mark comes from there being a question in my statement.

And what does the appointment by the Crown have to say on validity? What, then, of ++Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury? He was appointed by the Crown, by His Majesty King Henry VIII, yet Rome acknowledged his appointment. (They weren’t ‘thrilled,’ of course, but they acknowledged him as the real and valid successor of ++William Warham.)

I haven’t been able to find who actually ordained Cranmer.

Note that appointment doesn’t mean ‘starting the selection process,’ but choosing a candidate from a list, and naming, appointing, or investing that candidate. Now, are you saying that there isn’t a single Roman Catholic, or Eastern Catholic bishop throughout history who wasn’t appointed by a ruler, either a King or an Emperor?

There’s probably hundreds, however, they were ordained by a bishop. Who ordained the earlier mentioned.

As I’ve told others who have asked me that question, my answer is that they are lacking. They need succession.

Is this your opinion, or the teaching of the Church of Norway? Are those ‘outside succession’ not treated as clergy? Do they celebrate alongside the Church of Norway clergy?

 

[Picky_Picky]

…]

I haven’t been able to find who actually ordained Cranmer.

…]

Certainly the King’s choice of Cranmer was approved by papal bull, and I have been told that he was consecrated by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter and St Asaph. He was burned at the stake under Mary Tudor.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Certainly the King’s choice of Cranmer was approved by papal bull, and I have been told that he was consecrated by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter and St Asaph. He was burned at the stake under Mary Tudor.

Thanks for that information. It seems he perjured himself or made oaths with his finger’s crossed – and hid his marriage from the Pope and the Pope’s representatives. Not exactly forthright from the get-go.

 

[GKC]

Certainly the King’s choice of Cranmer was approved by papal bull, and I have been told that he was consecrated by the bishops of Lincoln, Exeter and St Asaph. He was burned at the stake under Mary Tudor.

+Longland, +Vesey and +Standish, respectively.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

I don’t know where the little bit of attitude is coming from Reverend. I don’t read or write Norwegian nor know any English sources to begin to even start research on such a relatively hard-to-find subject. If you know something, please be kind enough to share. The question mark comes from there being a question in my statement.

If you didn’t know either way, why include the phrase at all? We have next to no information about him (as is also true of almost anyone in the middle ages), and none of the sources we have say anything about him no being ordained ‘in the common manner.’

I haven’t been able to find who actually ordained Cranmer.

I’m not sure who did. But he was acknowledged by Rome, as the real and valid successor of ++William Warham, even though he was appointed to the archbishopric by the Crown. You seemed to try to cast doubt on the orders of Torbjørn Olavssøn Bratt, because he was appointed by the Crown, and because he might not have been consecrated properly. (This ‘might’ is important, though, as it is based on your speculation, and not on any historical sources.)

There’s probably hundreds, however, they were ordained by a bishop. Who ordained the earlier mentioned.

But now you are changing tactics. You said this: “Considering that Superintendent Torbjørn Olavssøn Bratt, nephew of the last ordained Catholic bishop was appointed by the crown (I don’t think voted on or elected by clergy) nor ordained in the common manner (?) - how did the keys get passed?” You acted as if appointment by the Crown was wrong (why else would you add that sentence), and then added a sentence with a ‘question’ on his consecration.

Is this your opinion, or the teaching of the Church of Norway? Are those ‘outside succession’ not treated as clergy? Do they celebrate alongside the Church of Norway clergy?

To celebrate Mass in the Church of Norway, you must be ordained or have a express permission from the bishop (which is, in essence, the same). We follow St. Ignatius here.

 

[SyroMalankara]

If you didn’t know either way, why include the phrase at all? We have next to no information about him (as is also true of almost anyone in the middle ages), and none of the sources we have say anything about him no being ordained ‘in the common manner.’

the common manner being the manner that preceded this first non-Catholic one.

I’m not sure who did. But he was acknowledged by Rome, as the real and valid successor of ++William Warham, even though he was appointed to the archbishopric by the Crown. You seemed to try to cast doubt on the orders of Torbjørn Olavssøn Bratt, because he was appointed by the Crown, and because he might not have been consecrated properly. (This ‘might’ is important, though, as it is based on your speculation, and not on any historical sources.)

you misunderstand. The appointment for me is immaterial, I ask about the manner and order of consecration. An appointment recognized by the state does not necessarily mean recognition by the church (for ex. China)… My doubt stems from what I believed (correct me if I’m mistaken) is the norm for Lutheran practice - based on the common (?) US Lutheran practice - that an elevation to bishop is term and by election from among the peers. In addition, the title may only carry jurisdiction during the appointed term, after which the minister reverts back to his pastorate (although sometimes respectfully called bishop)

But now you are changing tactics. You said this: “Considering that Superintendent Torbjørn Olavssøn Bratt, nephew of the last ordained Catholic bishop was appointed by the crown (I don’t think voted on or elected by clergy) nor ordained in the common manner (?) - how did the keys get passed?” You acted as if appointment by the Crown was wrong (why else would you add that sentence), and then added a sentence with a ‘question’ on his consecration.

Appointment over the reformation principle of election for right order

To celebrate Mass in the Church of Norway, you must be ordained or have a express permission from the bishop (which is, in essence, the same). We follow St. Ignatius here.

so an ordained NA Lutheran pastor would be considered a layman if not ordained in accordance with Norweigen ordination praxis by a bishop in AS as CoN sees it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi. Could you elaborate further? If priest A went ahead and said mass anyhow, would it be invalid?

Valid but illicit.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And I agree. I was just pointing out what Luther actually said, which was, well, misrepresented by pablope. I myself agree that the keys reside in the Church, led by a bishop, as a successor of the apostles, cf. Matt 18:18. And that is how the Church of Norway is governed. No one can licitly perform priestly duties in the Church of Norway without the express permission of the bishop.

How can the keys “reside in the Church” when you previously cited Rev. 3:7 and claimed that they are in heaven with Jesus?

Was the Greek word for “you” singular or plural in Matthew 16:19? Or do you have a verse which gives me reason to believe that each of the apostles got his own key or keys?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is a married Catholic priest serving a diocese in South Carolina. He is a convert from Anglicanism.

Here is an exerpt from his latest blog:

Did I Become Catholic Because I Hate Women?
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/05/did-i-become-catholic-because-i-hate-women.html

1. 
   *]The Lord only chose men as his apostles - The Church cannot change what the Lord established. This is a matter of sacramental integrity and the church simply does not have the authority to change these things
   
   *]There is a God-given complementarity in the traditional imagery of male and female - The father in the church reflects the father in the family. The mother in the church represents the mother in the family. The female model of perfection is found in the Blessed Virgin–in motherhood and the conception, gestation and bearing of new life. Putting women in the “father” role is un natural and destructive
   
   *]This innovation is an obstacle to unity - The Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not allow women priests. For Anglicans to move forward on their own is a slap in the face to Catholics and Orthodox. Furthermore, the Anglican Church is a tiny minority compared to those two churches. This is not smart.
   
   *]The Bible and the Early Church have women ministers, but not women priests - There is scant evidence for women’s ordination in the history of the church. Where there was such an innovation it was condemned as heretical by the Church.
   
   *]Instead of Women’s Ordination we need a renewal of women’s religious orders - The saints of the past who were religious sisters were feisty and faithful. They were not weak women, but strong and dynamic servants of the church. The answer to the feminism problem is stronger nuns, not women priests.
   
   *]The Church should not simply bend according to the winds of cultural change It’s disastrous to adapt the church to every fashion in society. Best to hold fast in the storm and resist change because the person who weds the spirit of the age will soon be a widow.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Thanks for that information. It seems he perjured himself or made oaths with his finger’s crossed – and hid his marriage from the Pope and the Pope’s representatives. Not exactly forthright from the get-go.

Yep, he married her, although not everyone in holy orders has been so punctilious, I understand.

 

[KjetilK]

How can the keys “reside in the Church” when you previously cited Rev. 3:7 and claimed that they are in heaven with Jesus?

I wasn’t referring to Matthew, but to the similarities between Isa 22 and Rev 3.

Was the Greek word for “you” singular or plural in Matthew 16:19? Or do you have a verse which gives me reason to believe that each of the apostles got his own key or keys?

It was singular, but in Matthew 18:18, it is plural (here in RSV-CE): “Truly, I say to you ὑμῖν], whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (In the Greek text, there is only one pronoun in this verse.)

As for the singularity vs. plurality, I can recommend this peer reviewed article by Hans Kvalbein, a Norwegian Lutheran scholar: “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose,” found in The Formation of the Early Church, ed., Jostein Ådna (WUNT 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2005): 145-174. Kvalbein argues that Peter stand as the representative of the Church as a whole, but he acknowledges that the rock is Peter, and not his confession.

 

[KjetilK]

the common manner being the manner that preceded this first non-Catholic one.

So you have no knowledge of the serimony, therefore you assume that it wasn’t done properly?

The appointment for me is immaterial, I ask about the manner and order of consecration.

You brought it up. It backfired, and now you are trying to say that you really meant something else.

Appointment over the reformation principle of election for right order

so an ordained NA Lutheran pastor would be considered a layman if not ordained in accordance with Norweigen ordination praxis by a bishop in AS as CoN sees it.

Well, North America is a continent, so I can’t answer that. There are many Lutheran priest in the US who have been ordained by bishops. But yes, you have to be properly ordained to celebrate mass licitly and validly in the Church of Norway.