Protestant Ordination - By what authority?

[Angainor]

cjaubert:

I did not use the word “whim,” you did. Regardless, that’s not the point. If the church members’ vote is, for whatever reason, “We want Clarence to be our pastor and we permit him to consecrate the Eucharist,” then, as I understand it, Clarence may now consecrate the Eucharist. If, six months later, the church members then change their mind (for whatever reason) and decide that Clarence is not doing his job well (using whatever criteria they want), and they vote him out, is he now forever unable to consecrate the Eucharist until some other church decides to vote him in again OR until he unilaterally decides to start his own new church? If so (and I think this is what you are saying), does this truly make any sense to you?

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, and yes it makes sense to me. If Clarence starts his own church then subsequently proceeds to show lack of respect or even abuse of the Sacraments then Clarence will be gravely sinning. The Lutheran Church will not be responsible for his actions. Clarence will be responsible for his own actions. The whole point of ordaining and calling process for pastors is to ensure proper administration of the Sacraments.

cjaubert:

As for the Supreme Court, do you truly believe that the framers of the Constitution should have just written the document and given it to the people with the instructions, in effect, “Here you go, guys, figure it out on your own”?

Well… yes as a matter of fact.
“Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yolk has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? …the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it… It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free.” - James Madison

cjaubert:

What would happen in that instance (i.e., without a Supreme Court) if Betty thinks it is okay sell child pornography because it is not specifically prohibited in the Constitution, but Gladys thinks it is not okay? How would that dilemma ever get resolved?

Without getting too deep into Constitutional Theory: not every case is a Supreme Court issue. The constitution says very little on what should be considered crimes and what the punishment for those crimes should be. States and local communities set their own criminal code.

Having said that, I think your real point is that we need some court somewhere to settle these kind of disputes. A court’s authority comes from the law. If there is (and I certianly hope there is) a law against child pornography in Betty’s state, then the Judge has authority to “throw the book” at Betty. Just look at that figure of speech. “The book” in question is a law book. It is the law that holds the authority.

Furthermore, Betty is granted the right to be heard by a jury of her peers. Why? It is Betty’s peers who judge the law and whether Betty broke the law.

cjaubert:

Would Gladys and her friends who agree with her just get mad and start a new country and write their own Constitution? (I presume you get the analogy…)

Under certian circumstances, yes. Higher Law gives people the right to throw off their government. Those circumstances have been excellently described here.

 

[cjaubert]

Akanke:

I have chosen to reference the Church of the Nazarene since I was raised in it for 24 years as a pastor’s daughter. etc…

With all due respect, is this email response by the pastor real? His explanation hardly constitutes a “thus saith the Lord” proclamation. Further, how can one, with a straight face, rely on scripture as this gentleman does, but, at the same time, deny the stunning clarity of John 6? The answer is, HE IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER. THE CORRECT ANSWER IS, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY BY WHICH PROTESTANTS ORDAIN PEOPLE.

 

[cjaubert]

Angainor:

Yes, you hit the nail on the head, and yes it makes sense to me. If Clarence starts his own church then subsequently proceeds to show lack of respect or even abuse of the Sacraments then Clarence will be gravely sinning. The Lutheran Church will not be responsible for his actions. Clarence will be responsible for his own actions. The whole point of ordaining and calling process for pastors is to ensure proper administration of the Sacraments.

Once again, you beg the question: Who decides that Clarence is showing a lack of respect, and what do they use to make that determination? If it is the Bible, and if the Bible is so clear, then wouldn’t you say that every single vote on every single such issue would be 100-0? I mean, if the Bible is so clear, it would be impossible for Lutherans to disgree, isn’t that correct? More importantly, as for Clarence and his grave sinning, who is to make this determination? After all, it’s Clarence’s church - he started it!!

Angainor:

Under certian circumstances, yes. Higher Law gives people the right to throw off their government. Those circumstances have been excellently described

It isn’t the point that people have the right to attempt to overthrow their government. The point is, is it wise (responsible, reasonable, agreeable, smart, etc.) to have a community that just continues to splinter every time there is a disagreement? Or, is it better to have a governing body (oh, like, say, the Church) to resolve disputes to keep the community together?

With respect, me thinks you are boxed into a corner and don’t want to admit that this Lutheran position makes no sense when stretched to its rather absurd conclusion…

 

[StCsDavid]

Angainor:

I have serious problems with the authority of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to declare what it is that the US Constitution says and have their word be law that everyone must follow—especially when their declarations are clearly at odds with the plain text. Authority should lie with the Constitution itself, which is the contract between the people and their government. I believe in the “rule of law”.

If you compare the trouble I have with the authority of SCOTUS with the trouble I have with the authority of Catholicism…

Great analogy. I do understand your position better. So in your view, the Catholic authority has interpreted Christ’s teachings to fit the individual preferences of this or that pope depending upon the time. I disagree, but for the sake of argument, how is that any different then what Luther or Calvin or Joseph Smith did?

 

[Angainor]

Kay Cee:

When I read this question, I couldn’t wait to see Angainor’s answer since I’ve often wondered about this myself.

I see in the Bible where Jesus says He is going to build His Church, but I don’t see anywhere in the Bible where permission is granted to anybody else to begin a church.

Angainor, why did you ignore this question?

I didn’t exactly ignore it. I was intrigued by StCsDavid’s question about Lutheran respect for authority in general and decided to answer that question. Plus all the questioning along the lines of authority and “permission” (in scare quotes) were starting to wear me down. I hoped a (not so) subtle comparison between SCOTUS authority and Papal authority would go far enough to explain my position.

I’m still reluctant to explicitly answer the question. The wording of it is stacked against me. I would first have to untangle some presuppositions inherent in the question.

StCsDavid:

Who gave Luther “permission” to start his own church, or did he just strike out on his own and do it, or do you posite that he simply reverted back to doing it the way it was supposed to be done in the first place?

For simplicity’s sake, let me put it this way.

Luther realized that Catholicism had been doing it wrong for quite some time. Luther first made an effort to try to get Catholicism to see where it was wrong so it could change. We could debate how sincere this effort was but let’s move on…

When Luther realized that Catholicism would not change, he decided he couldn’t be responsible for it. A man is ultimately responsible for his own actions so he decided he was going to do it right, with the help of God, to the best of his ability, and guided by God’s Word.

Strictly speaking, the Church established by Jesus never went anywhere. The Church is understood to be the communion of all believers.
“Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” - Matthew 18:19-20

Yes it is true that The Lutheran Church was established as a result of this. The Lutheran Church can be thought of as a club of like-minded people who have agreed to hold themselves responsible for their own affairs, to do it right with the help of God, to the best of their ability, and guided by God’s Word.

 

[Angainor]

cjaubert:

With respect, me thinks you are boxed into a corner and don’t want to admit that this Lutheran position makes no sense when stretched to its rather absurd conclusion…

You do make it hard to ignore you.

cjaubert:

Once again, you beg the question: Who decides that Clarence is showing a lack of respect, and what do they use to make that determination?

Well… God decides. It’s as simple as that. The Lutheran Church is responsible for itself. It can’t be expected to know exactly when Clarence crosses the line into grave sin. The Lutheran Church does what it can, guided by God’s Word, to the best of its ability to ensure that it does not come close to crossing that line. If it ever does, God will judge it.

cjaubert:

It isn’t the point that people have the right to attempt to overthrow their government. The point is, is it wise (responsible, reasonable, agreeable, smart, etc.) to have a community that just continues to splinter every time there is a disagreement? Or, is it better to have a governing body (oh, like, say, the Church) to resolve disputes to keep the community together?

I would not presume to ask a governing body to take responsibility for me and my salvation. I will take responsibility for myself, I will with the help of God and to the best of my ability, obey God’s command the best as I understand it.

 

[Angainor]

StCsDavid:

Great analogy. I do understand your position better. So in your view, the Catholic authority has interpreted Christ’s teachings to fit the individual preferences of this or that pope depending upon the time. I disagree, but for the sake of argument, how is that any different then what Luther or Calvin or Joseph Smith did?

In Luther’s case, he was taking responsibility for himself (here I stand, I can do no other). He did try to convince others that he was right by appealing to the authority of the Word of God, but did not claim authority of his own. I assume Calvin and Joseph Smith to be similar, but my knowledge of them is more limited.

 

[Akanke]

cjaubert:

With all due respect, is this email response by the pastor real? His explanation hardly constitutes a “thus saith the Lord” proclamation. Further, how can one, with a straight face, rely on scripture as this gentleman does, but, at the same time, deny the stunning clarity of John 6? The answer is, HE IS NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO ANSWER. THE CORRECT ANSWER IS, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY BY WHICH PROTESTANTS ORDAIN PEOPLE.

I wasn’t meaning to support the general editor of the Church of the Nazarene. My final statement should have clarified that. You are exactly right, there is no answer because they have no authority. I wonder how this thread continues in search for an answer for this.

 

[StCsDavid]

Angainor:

In Luther’s case, he was taking responsibility for himself (here I stand, I can do no other). He did try to convince others that he was right by appealing to the authority of the Word of God, but did not claim authority of his own. I assume Calvin and Joseph Smith to be similar, but my knowledge of them is more limited.

So for Luther, the Word of God (sacred scripture) was the final authority? But doesn’t that limit God to just the written word? What about the spoken word Christ gave to His apostles and deciples that they carried on and expressed in what we Catholics know as sacred tradition. Where in scripture do we find Christ instructing us to use only the Bible as our sole authority?

 

[Kay_Cee]

Angainor:

I didn’t exactly ignore it. I was intrigued by StCsDavid’s question about Lutheran respect for authority in general and decided to answer that question. Plus all the questioning along the lines of authority and “permission” (in scare quotes) were starting to wear me down. I hoped a (not so) subtle comparison between SCOTUS authority and Papal authority would go far enough to explain my position.

I’m still reluctant to explicitly answer the question. The wording of it is stacked against me. I would first have to untangle some presuppositions inherent in the question.For simplicity’s sake, let me put it this way.

Luther realized that Catholicism had been doing it wrong for quite some time. Luther first made an effort to try to get Catholicism to see where it was wrong so it could change. We could debate how sincere this effort was but let’s move on…

When Luther realized that Catholicism would not change, he decided he couldn’t be responsible for it. A man is ultimately responsible for his own actions so he decided he was going to do it right, with the help of God, to the best of his ability, and guided by God’s Word. Strictly speaking, the Church established by Jesus never went anywhere. The Church is understood to be the communion of all believers.

I certainly never meant to word a question in a way stacked against you, and I didn’t use quotes around the word *permission. *It’s just that this is something I have often wondered about.

My point is that people do found other Churches that are not in communion with the Catholic Church. If we were all in communion with each other, wouldn’t we believe the same things? Wouldn’t we be one Church? I agree with you that the Church established by Jesus never went anywhere, but some of its members certainly did–they left! Luther claimed sola fide and sola scriptura, which means we are certainly not like-minded believers.

I am very uncomfortable with, as you say, Luther’s idea that “he was going to do it right.” How did he know he was doing it right? Where does scripture give him permission to be the judge of that?

I think Catholics have a big problem with someone claiming a thing like sola fide without a God-given authority to do so. I think they have a big problem with Calvin’s ideas on predestination without Calvin having a God-given authority to proclaim that these ideas are correct. Do you see why we keep talking about authority?

 

[Angainor]

StCsDavid:

So for Luther, the Word of God (sacred scripture) was the final authority? But doesn’t that limit God to just the written word? What about the spoken word Christ gave to His apostles and deciples that they carried on and expressed in what we Catholics know as sacred tradition. Where in scripture do we find Christ instructing us to use only the Bible as our sole authority?

I was really referring to the Word of God, The Word that became flesh. Some of which is revealed in Holy Scripture.

 

[Angainor]

Kay Cee:

I am very uncomfortable with, as you say, Luther’s idea that “he was going to do it right.” How did he know he was doing it right? Where does scripture give him permission to be the judge of that?

In the end, we all have to do what we think is right. What value would there be for Luther to remain Catholic if he thought they were all wrong?

As Christians we are called to witness the Good News. We do what we can to convince others of the truth of the Gospel, but in the end other people’s salvation is between them and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I would never dream of declaring my word to be authoritatively correct on any matter involving God’s dominion. Truth does not lie with me. I frankly resent that another human being (save Jesus) would declare such a thing.
Kay Cee:

I think Catholics have a big problem with someone claiming a thing like sola fide without a God-given authority to do so. I think they have a big problem with Calvin’s ideas on predestination without Calvin having a God-given authority to proclaim that these ideas are correct. Do you see why we keep talking about authority?

You must also do what you think is right. I’m quite sure no Lutheran has claimed God-given authority on the subject of sola fide or any other subject. They may have tried to convince you of the independant truth of sola fide.That is all a Christian can hope to do is witness to the truth as they belive it to be. The Holy Spirit works from there.

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

It seems to me that Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 16; Gaudium et spes 22; Nostra Aeta 3) and the writings of John-Paul II (*Crossing the Threshold of Hope) *andCardinal Ratzinger (God and the World), make every allowance for the salvation of non-Catholics and even non-Christians. I’m sure that this is due to some unconcious or mystical affiliation with the Catholic Church. Perhaps you can explain what V2 and the former Pope and Prefect intended in their writings.

Peace

They do not contradict the doctrine of the faith. All salvation is through the Catholic Church. Christ created one church, the Catholic Church. If a person is saved, it is through the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed it in Dominus Jesus.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Of course I don’t. The point is to establish that Eucharists are possible at all without Bishops.

“Let that be deemed a proper56 Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.”

This is basically a Protestant position. This basically says that a Eucharist administered by a bishop is deemed proper. It really says nothing about Eucharists not administered by Bishops. It doesn’t really rule that they could be proper also.

In a Protestant church the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is entrusted to a Pastor. The Lord’s Supper administered by a Lutheran Pastor is deemed proper. We do not claim all other celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are improper.

It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Ignatius to the Smyrnians

So, you are basically hoping that the Lord will accept a sacrifice that is offered apart from the bishops as being good and valid. Ignatius calls it unlawfull and it seems that he also doubts its validity in this passage, meaning there is no true presence.

The meaning of the statement you quote is that only those that are under the permission of the bishop are valid Eucharists. The point is not to declare the validity of those in comunnion with the bishop. The point of this chapter of Ignatius’ epistle is to tell the people to do nothing apart from the bishop. Anything in oposition to the bishop is in oposition to Christ. That is the point. It is declaring the invalidity of the sacrament outside the communion of the bishops. To say that it does not mention a Eucharist that is not in communion with the bishop is pointless because the whole point of his statement is to declare the unproperness of those outside the bishops.

Of course you deem your Eucharist proper, but the problem is you are apart from the bishops, and according to Ignatius it is improper.

It is amazing how you insist on staying apart from the bishops.

 

[EA_Man]

jimmy:

They do not contradict the doctrine of the faith. All salvation is through the Catholic Church. Christ created one church, the Catholic Church. If a person is saved, it is through the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed it in Dominus Jesus.

This answer is insufficient to the question.

The import of statements by the current and recently deceased popes recognizes the possibility of salvation of individuals that have no contact whatsoever with the RCC. Buddhists and others are identified by Cardinal Ratzinger as possibly having salvation.

How can this be squared with traditional Catholic Orthodoxy?
How does a Buddist gain salvation if they are never joined to the Catholic Church through Profession or Baptism?

Please be specific.

Thanks.

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

This answer is insufficient to the question.

The import of statements by the current and recently deceased popes recognizes the possibility of salvation of individuals that have no contact whatsoever with the RCC. Buddhists and others are identified by Cardinal Ratzinger as possibly having salvation.

How can this be squared with traditional Catholic Orthodoxy?
How does a Buddist gain salvation if they are never joined to the Catholic Church through Profession or Baptism?

Please be specific.

Thanks.

I don’t know how God chooses to go about these things neither does anyone else.

Whether a budist or muslim has salvation, I do not know, but it comes through the Church. There is one true Church, not many. That would be reletavism. There is one way to salvation and that is through Christ, Christ offers salvation through His Church.

The Church has always taught a “Baptism of Desire”. It can be seen in the council of Trent, the catechism of the council of Trent, and many of the church fathers including St. Ambrose. Through a persons desire to be a part of the Truth, they may be made a part of It. How great of a desire is needed, no one knows but God. Whether it need be explicit or just implicit, only God knows.

The Church is a mystical body as well as a physical body. If someone is saved, they are introduced as part of the Church. All people in heaven are Catholic, whether they were when they died or not. This is not a relitivistic statement, I am not saying that it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic. I am talking about the truth of Catholicism and how deep it goes. I am saying the the Church is throughout all of time, both heaven and earth.

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

This answer is insufficient to the question.

The import of statements by the current and recently deceased popes recognizes the possibility of salvation of individuals that have no contact whatsoever with the RCC. Buddhists and others are identified by Cardinal Ratzinger as possibly having salvation.

How can this be squared with traditional Catholic Orthodoxy?
How does a Buddist gain salvation if they are never joined to the Catholic Church through Profession or Baptism?

Please be specific.

Thanks.

The current pope and the late pope both affirmed the teaching of orthodox Catholicism. They both affirmed that there is one true Church. The last pope did say there are degrees of truth in other faiths, but they are only true in so far as they conform to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.

 

[adventistnomore]

Well… its funny.

All Seventh-day Adventists believe an ordained minster must be ordained by aother ordained minister. I believe the pracvtice of ordinaning new ministers was first introduced among Adventists through a Methodist who embraced Adventism through the 18540s/1850s. Most Adventist ordinations could be traced to that one individual and the men he ordained, (though many other Adventist leaders in the 1840s were already pastors from Methodism or Christian connection (an extinct sect)).

Therefore, one could create “succession” traced along Adventist > Methodist > Anglican > Catholic lines. (If it were not that Protestant holy orders aren’t valid.)

 

[EA_Man]

jimmy:

The current pope and the late pope both affirmed the teaching of orthodox Catholicism. They both affirmed that there is one true Church. The last pope did say there are degrees of truth in other faiths, but they are only true in so far as they conform to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.

So how does a Buddist, who has never professed Jesus Christ as his savior nor been baptized receive salvation?

There’s one True Church. Super.
Please identify how the above mentioned Buddist is attached to it.

Thanks

 

[EA_Man]

jimmy:

I don’t know how God chooses to go about these things neither does anyone else.

Whether a budist or muslim has salvation, I do not know, but it comes through the Church. There is one true Church, not many. That would be reletavism. There is one way to salvation and that is through Christ, Christ offers salvation through His Church.

The Church has always taught a “Baptism of Desire”. It can be seen in the council of Trent, the catechism of the council of Trent, and many of the church fathers including St. Ambrose. Through a persons desire to be a part of the Truth, they may be made a part of It. How great of a desire is needed, no one knows but God. Whether it need be explicit or just implicit, only God knows.

The Church is a mystical body as well as a physical body. If someone is saved, they are introduced as part of the Church. All people in heaven are Catholic, whether they were when they died or not. This is not a relitivistic statement, I am not saying that it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic. I am talking about the truth of Catholicism and how deep it goes. I am saying the the Church is throughout all of time, both heaven and earth.

So Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Protestants are really Catholic? Do they know that?

Thanks