Present Day Lutheran-Catholic Relations

[Randy_Carson]

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.)

Yes, it is singular. Jesus is speaking to Peter alone when He distributes the keys.

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.

The authority of the Eleven is conveyed in a more local context. Having assigned the authority to open and shut the outer city gates by the conveyance of His keys to Peter ALONE, Jesus now assigns the other apostles the authority to “bind” and “loose” in the inner buildings and rooms.

IOW, while Peter has the overall authority and responsibility, the Eleven have authority over smaller, local matters, and their authority derives from Peter’s. Here is the context:

Matthew 18
15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

Notice that Jesus is speaking about a small matter…a disagreement between two believers that is an internal matter in the church. In this context, Jesus conveys authority upon the other apostles. But there are no keys handed out or promised. They have already been promised to Peter.

Yes, Peter is the rock…not his confession. You are so close to Catholic…but shackled to a local hierarchy which ordains women…something you do not believe possible.

Swimming the Tiber must look more and more attractive.

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, it is singular. Jesus is speaking to Peter alone when He distributes the keys.

Yes, but it doesn’t say what Peter is in this context. In the article to which I referred, “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17-19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose,” Norwegian Lutheran scholar Hans Kvalbein argues, on exegetical and historical grounds, that Peter represents the Church, and that the binding and loosing is about the forgiveness of sins, specifically. I’m not so sure about that last part, as it goes against the majority view amongst exegetes,* but the question remains this: Is Peter here Peter qua Apostle or Peter qua disciple (Christian)?

One interesting English language article can be found in a Norwegian journal on Theology: “Jesus’ Promise for His Church that “the Gates of Hades Will Not Prevail against it”” (Matt 16:18c)” (Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke, Vol. 78:3–4, 2007): 186–206. Ådna starts his article thus:

A few years ago I had the privilege of publishing an excellent article by Professor Hans Kvalbein entitled “The Authorization of Peter in Matthew 16:17–19: A Reconsideration of the Power to Bind and Loose”. In this article Kvalbein concentrates on Peter as the disciples’ representative in formulating the confession of Jesus as the Messiah as well as on the interpretation of verse 19 about the power to bind and loose. Contrary to the prevalent interpretation that Peter is granted the authority to make binding halakic decisions on what is prohibited and permitted, Kvalbein understands the power to bind and loose as the power to retain and forgive sins, granted to the whole church (cf. Matt 18:18).

So Kvalbein makes two points: (1) Peter represents the disciples (i.e. Christians), not the Apostles; and (2) ‘binding and loosing’ refers to forgiveness of sins, specifically. I’m not so sure about the latter,* but the former seems well argued. Of course one could say that this is compatible with a Roman Catholic understanding, as the Pope is seen as the leader of the disciples (Christians), and not just the hierarchy, but it is not exclusively compatible with a Roman Catholic understanding.

• For this, see Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of his Prophetic Mission (Cambridge University Press 2011): 78-84. The most relevant pages, 78-80, are available through Google Books.

 

[GKC]

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

An observation I have occasionally made.

GKC

 

[SyroMalankara]

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

Yes, since the ceremony entails certain loyalty oaths and submission, and other pre-reformation principles that would not make sense for a reformist to carry through. BTW, did I use the word ‘improper’ – or ‘common’ (by Catholic and pre-reformation standards)?

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

What exactly is the backfire? If you’d like to keep the interesting tidbits of Norway’s reformation history to yourself, have at it. At this point I am finished discussing this topic, at least with you.

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.

This is the common practice among the majority of Lutherans in North America:
In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (ELCIC), the largest Lutheran Church bodies in the United States and Canada respectively and roughly based on the Nordic Lutheran state churches (similar to that of the Church of England), bishops are elected by Synod Assemblies, consisting of both lay members and clergy, for a term of 6 years, which can be renewed, depending upon the local synod’s “constitution” (which is mirrored on either the ELCA or ELCIC’s national constitution).

…

Although ELCA agreed with the Episcopal Church to limit ordination to the bishop “ordinarily”, ELCA pastor-ordinators are given permission to perform the rites in “extraordinary” circumstance. In practice, “extraordinary” circumstance have included disagreeing with Episcopalian views of the episcopate, and as a result, ELCA pastors ordained by other pastors are not permitted to be deployed to Episcopal Churches (they can, however, serve in Presbyterian Church USA, United Methodist Church, Reformed Church in America, and Moravian Church congregations, as the ELCA is in full communion with these denominations). The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), the second and third largest Lutheran bodies in the United States and the two largest Confessional Lutheran bodies in North America, do not have a bishop as the head of the church or middle jurisdiction, practicing a form of congregationalism similar to the United Church of Christ. It should also be noted that the second largest of the three predecessor bodies of the ELCA, the American Lutheran Church, was a congregationalist body, with national and synod presidents before they were re-titled as bishops (borrowing from the Lutheran churches in Germany) in the 1980s.

An example of what understand the comon Lutheran practice in NA to be:

jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/111700/met_4637666.html#.VUt18vlVhBc

Lutheran Bishop William Trexler of Jacksonville is resigning as leader of more than 200 Evangelical Lutheran congregations in Florida and the Bahamas.

Trexler, bishop of the Florida-Bahamas Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has chosen not to run for re-election in May when his six-year term ends. Instead, he’s accepted an offer to become pastor of First Lutheran Church in Norfolk, Va.

In his Oct. 23 resignation letter to member churches, the 56-year-old said he made his decision with reluctance, as well as relief, because the position was taxing.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I should tell you that the system described is not “similar to that of the Church of England”, where bishops are not elected by assemblies, nor are their terms limited except by retirement age.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I should tell you that the system described is not “similar to that of the Church of England”, where bishops are not elected by assemblies, nor are their terms limited except by retirement age.

So more like the polity of the Episcopal Church, USA or the Church of South/North India. Although, I believe the parentheses was in regard to the existence of state churches.

 

[Picky_Picky]

So more like the polity of the Episcopal Church, USA or the Church of South/North India. Although, I believe the parentheses was in regard to the existence of state churches.

Not exactly. I think that TEC has bishops elected by diocesan conventions. I’m not sure about the Indian churches, but I believe they have elections of some sort. The CofE does not elect bishops (except in the formal sense that the chosen candidate is elected by the cathedral canons). CofE bishops are chosen by a commission, chaired by the archbishop of the province, containing clergy and lay members elected at national and diocesan level. The Queen then nominates the approved candidate for election by the canons.

EDIT: Sorry, you mean the Lutherans have a polity more similar to TEC’s or the CSI/CNI. My apologies. That may well be so.

 

[steido01]

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), the second and third largest Lutheran bodies in the United States and the two largest Confessional Lutheran bodies in North America, do not have a bishop as the head of the church or middle jurisdiction, practicing a form of congregationalism similar to the United Church of Christ. It should also be noted that the second largest of the three predecessor bodies of the ELCA, the American Lutheran Church, was a congregationalist body, with national and synod presidents before they were re-titled as bishops (borrowing from the Lutheran churches in Germany) in the 1980s.

Syro, would you mind sharing this source? If someone’s comparing Confessional Lutheranism to the UCC, there’s a pretty darn good chance they haven’t any idea what they’re talking about.

Regarding the ol’ ALC, they weren’t totally congregational. No Lutheran body ever has been. Ecclesial oversight is necessary, as local congregations are not the only manifestation of the church. Jon was ALC growing up. He’d be a good point of reference here.

 

[GKC]

Not exactly. I think that TEC has bishops elected by diocesan conventions. I’m not sure about the Indian churches, but I believe they have elections of some sort. The CofE does not elect bishops (except in the formal sense that the chosen candidate is elected by the cathedral canons). CofE bishops are chosen by a commission, chaired by the archbishop of the province, containing clergy and lay members elected at national and diocesan level. The Queen then nominates the approved candidate for election by the canons.

EDIT: Sorry, you mean the Lutherans have a polity more similar to TEC’s or the CSI/CNI. My apologies. That may well be so.

Yes, as to TEC. And elections are “consented to” by the collective Bishops, afterward. Or not.

GKC

 

[SyroMalankara]

Syro, would you mind sharing this source? If someone’s comparing Confessional Lutheranism to the UCC, there’s a pretty darn good chance they haven’t any idea what they’re talking about.

Regarding the ol’ ALC, they weren’t totally congregational. No Lutheran body ever has been. Ecclesial oversight is necessary, as local congregations are not the only manifestation of the church. Jon was ALC growing up. He’d be a good point of reference here.

Sure:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop#Lutheranism

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, since the ceremony entails certain loyalty oaths and submission, and other pre-reformation principles that would not make sense for a reformist to carry through. BTW, did I use the word ‘improper’ – or ‘common’ (by Catholic and pre-reformation standards)?

Are these loyalty oaths and submissions - presumably to the Pope - part of what validates an ordination or consecration?

What exactly is the backfire?

The point about appointment. If it wasn’t important to you, why did you include it?

If you’d like to keep the interesting tidbits of Norway’s reformation history to yourself, have at it.

What have I ‘kept to myself’? There is nest to no information available on that man, which is also true of almost every Bishop back then, and almost every Bishop before Napoleon.

At this point I am finished discussing this topic, at least with you.

That’s up to you. Just remember that this is a forum of debate, not a forum of agreeing with you.

This is the common practice among the majority of Lutherans in North America…

OK. That is not how we do it. And, as in the Church of England (and in the Roman Catholic Church), the terms are limited by either retirement age, death, or gross misconduct.

As a Lutheran in the Church of Norway, I don’t see the Lutheranism part to be that important. It is the equivalent of Byzantinism. The important part is to be part of the historic Church of Norway, just like a Russian Byzantine is Byzantine because he wants to be part of the historic Church of Russia.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Are these loyalty oaths and submissions - presumably to the Pope - part of what validates an ordination or consecration?

No. But it may affect who the consecrator is, since anyone loyal to the pope would say no (or be killed, deposed, or whatever)

The point about appointment. If it wasn’t important to you, why did you include it?

because one of the oppositions mentioned against the Catholic appointment of bishops by reformers usually includes that lack of lay/priest/etc participation in the selection.

What have I ‘kept to myself’? There is nest to no information available on that man, which is also true of almost every Bishop back then, and almost every Bishop before Napoleon.

ok

That’s up to you. Just remember that this is a forum of debate, not a forum of agreeing with you.

Insinuating malicious motive is considered a violation of debate decorum, unless there has been some sort of pattern on my end. I’ve never discussed Norwegian Lutheranism (or the established Church of Norway, as you call it) to any depth so there is no pattern. As to agreeing with me, I haven’t stated anything to agree upon, I’m still asking questions regarding the Church of Norway. I can’t ‘debate’ what I know next to nothing about.

OK. That is not how we do it. And, as in the Church of England (and in the Roman Catholic Church), the terms are limited by either retirement age, death, or gross misconduct.

How does this episcopal polity reconcile itself with Luther’s personal lack of episcopal ordination (yet he ordained, at least according to the Lutheran understanding)?

As a Lutheran in the Church of Norway, I don’t see the Lutheranism part to be that important. It is the equivalent of Byzantinism. The important part is to be part of the historic Church of Norway, just like a Russian Byzantine is Byzantine because he wants to be part of the historic Church of Russia.

You mean a Russian Byzantine would not argue that his Byzantine praxis is of utmost importance, should the Church change? I think many would - Old Believers were killed for their insistence on the pre-Nikonian (preGreek) Rites. I don’t think most anyone I know that have done an in-depth study would primarily choose ‘historic’ over orthoPraxis and Liturgical continuity. Both in one body would be ideal, but we live in a fallen world.

 

[steido01]

Sure:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop#Lutheranism

Ah, yes. Good ol’ Wikipedia. That Wiki didn’t include a source, so I took the liberty of correcting it. And adding a source.

 

[KjetilK]

No. But it may affect who the consecrator is, since anyone loyal to the pope would say no (or be killed, deposed, or whatever)

But why assume that it did? It didn’t in England.

because one of the oppositions mentioned against the Catholic appointment of bishops by reformers usually includes that lack of lay/priest/etc participation in the selection.

Well, the problem seems to be that you may be projecting American Lutheranism on that of Northern Europe. I don’t think lay persons or priests have to be part of the election of a bishop. They can be, of course, which we also see throughout Church history.

Insinuating malicious motive is considered a violation of debate decorum, unless there has been some sort of pattern on my end. I’ve never discussed Norwegian Lutheranism (or the established Church of Norway, as you call it) to any depth so there is no pattern. As to agreeing with me, I haven’t stated anything to agree upon, I’m still asking questions regarding the Church of Norway. I can’t ‘debate’ what I know next to nothing about.

OK. Sorry. I have become used to a couple of debaters here who have a tendency to Google something online about Norway or the Church of Norway, and then use that as a ‘proof’ against me (even though they don’t understand what is being said). I have, for example, been informed by one of them that since Norway have had socialist (or rather social democrat) governments, then the Church of Norway is somehow socialist. Of course I can relax now, since our current government is run by the Conservative party and a libertarian party. (The last one I could live without, to be honest.)

How does this episcopal polity reconcile itself with Luther’s personal lack of episcopal ordination (yet he ordained, at least according to the Lutheran understanding)?

He didn’t ordain anyone here. And if he did, they didn’t have valid orders.

You mean a Russian Byzantine would not argue that his Byzantine praxis is of utmost importance, should the Church change? I think many would - Old Believers were killed for their insistence on the pre-Nikonian (preGreek) Rites. I don’t think most anyone I know that have done an in-depth study would primarily choose ‘historic’ over orthoPraxis and Liturgical continuity. Both in one body would be ideal, but we live in a fallen world.

No, that is not exactly what I meant. I believe rites, liturgies, and traditions to be of utmost importance. But the particular Church comes before its rite.

 

[KjetilK]

Ah, yes. Good ol’ Wikipedia. That Wiki didn’t include a source, so I took the liberty of correcting it. And adding a source.

On the picture to the right, of Danish bishops, you see one Norwegian one (the one without the round collar thing). He is the bishop who ordained me.

 

[Peter_J]

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?

On forums that I have experience with, that’s a common shorthand for "or so I believe, though I’m not 100% certain.

 

[KjetilK]

On forums that I have experience with, that’s a common shorthand for "or so I believe, though I’m not 100% certain.

Yes, but there is not historical record of his ordination at all. It doesn’t exist anymore, AFAIK.

Which is also true of most bishops back then.

 

[JonNC]

Syro, would you mind sharing this source? If someone’s comparing Confessional Lutheranism to the UCC, there’s a pretty darn good chance they haven’t any idea what they’re talking about.

Regarding the ol’ ALC, they weren’t totally congregational. No Lutheran body ever has been. Ecclesial oversight is necessary, as local congregations are not the only manifestation of the church. Jon was ALC growing up. He’d be a good point of reference here.

Nope. I was raised LCA. The LCA, and AFAIK, the ALC did have a “middle jurisdiction”, as does the LCMS.
That said, the LCMS is rather congregationalist, more than I’d prefer. The LCA and later ELCA were/are more hierarchical.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Nope. I was raised LCA.

Oops!

The LCA, and AFAIK, the ALC did have a “middle jurisdiction”, as does the LCMS.

:yup:

That said, the LCMS is rather congregationalist, more than I’d prefer. The LCA and later ELCA were/are more hierarchical.

:sad_yes: I think it’s worth noting that the form of church governance used by a particular body doesn’t necessarily dictate whether the faith is rightly upheld.

 

[JonNC]

:sad_yes: I think it’s worth noting that the form of church governance used by a particular body doesn’t necessarily dictate whether the faith is rightly upheld.

Indeed. Polity is adiaphoron, but I see the weaknesses of uber-congregationalism, just like there are weaknesses in a hierarchical structure.

Jon