Provoo Communion Validates Anglican Orders

[Michael57]

We would contend the events were reversed, and that any rejection of Rome was a rejection of the corruption and abuses of the time.

Jon

And the result is still the same, no?

No unity of faith, no matter how much some wish it. Personally, I wish there was no disunity between any Christians.

And in that spirit of unity and desire for full communion, I went through RCIA.

 

[JonNC]

=Michael57;10976730]And the result is still the same, no?

Agreed

No unity of faith, no matter how much some wish it. Personally, I wish there was no disunity between any Christians.

Well, there’s more unity in some ways than we are sometimes willing to admit, but beyond that I share your wish.

And in that spirit of unity and desire for full communion, I went through RCIA.

May you be blessed in word and sacrament by that decision.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, the Lutheran Princes, Dukes, and other lords waged quite a war on Catholics and the Church when they followed Martin Luther’s ideas.

It was quite an opportunity for them to gain power, wealth, and control over church matters.

It was also quite a bloody period of persecution of Catholics, if not outright extermination of them. Sadly, at a time when the Turkish and Muslim powers were rising in the east.

Then there was the hunting down and killing of all things and people Catholic, especially the priests, in England after Henry and his daughter Elizabeth…

That’s just what I told the crowd at my Lutherans Are Evil Day party.

 

[Michael57]

Agreed

Well, there’s more unity in some ways than we are sometimes willing to admit, but beyond that I share your wish.

May you be blessed in word and sacrament by that decision.

Jon

Very true.

I have appreciated reading your posts in the past on other threads. You have a fine mind and good grasp of history.

And yes thank you, I have been blessed and continue to be. Thanks be to God.

 

[Michael57]

That’s just what I told the crowd at my Lutherans Are Evil Day party.

:dts:

Guess you missed the post about “earthly princes”…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There may be many things held in common belief between Lutherans and Catholics, but this is not one of them.

Wasn’t it Luther himself that rejected Rome?

Wasn’t he subsequently deemed a schismatic and expelled from the Catholic Church (that he rejected) along with all who followed him?

Luther was not a Bishop, so he could not ordain.

 

[Michael57]

Luther was not a Bishop, so he could not ordain.

Agreed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Aside from Germany, Lutheran monarchies followed the bishops without the political upheaval the Church of England experienced.

**"What made the Church of Sweden an evangelical-catholic church was to Archbishop Söderblom the fact that the Reformation in Sweden was a ‘church improvement’ and a ‘process of purification’ which did not create a new church. As a national church, the Church of Sweden succeeded in bringing together medieval Swedish tradition with the rediscovery of the gospel which the Reformation brought with it. Archbishop Söderblom included the historic episcopate in the tradition-transmitting elements. The Church of Sweden was, according to Söderblom, in an even higher degree than the Anglican Church a via media. —Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostol...lic_succession **

Any thoughts?

Unless Rome confirms, it doesn’t hold water.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I suspect the question relates to a lack of knowledge as to the unbroken Apostolic Succession, due to lack of specific information on early Popes, in the RCC generally. I could be wrong.

GKC

No that is correct. IIRC it is stated that Anglican Orders are not valid because absolute knowledge of “proper form and intent” were not present. So without knowing when certain early Popes were ordained / consecrated, we certainly do not know whether or not they used proper intent and form. It must at minimum called into question, but since the specific intent from the words is not known, because we do not have the words, then they must be disregarded. So, we have 2 scenarios.

1. That because we do not know for certain, the orders must be at least questionable, and likely not valid. Remember, this is the Pope. Not even the early Bishops who as well were ordaining new bishops. So, this uncertainty if held to the same standard of AC, would most likely be considered invalid. In this case, neither Anglican nor Catholic orders would be valid.
2. Or we agree, that because a Bishop in succession passed the succession down, there is a presumption of validity without proof of intent or form,other than acceptance of the succession by those who come afterwards. In this case, absolute certainty of form is disregarded. If disregarded in tradition, it could be disregarded by future generations, such as Anglican Orders in the 16th Century. Since those following the Anglican consecrations believed them to be valid, and at least a good number of Romans as well, hence “the need” for AC, that would in effect reach the same standard as the earlier Papal consecrations.

It seems the RC Church on the one hand wants to say certainty of intent must be upheld when applied to others, but not to us. Just raises an interesting question for discussion.

 

[GKC]

No that is correct. IIRC it is stated that Anglican Orders are not valid because absolute knowledge of “proper form and intent” were not present. So without knowing when certain early Popes were ordained / consecrated, we certainly do not know whether or not they used proper intent and form. It must at minimum called into question, but since the specific intent from the words is not known, because we do not have the words, then they must be disregarded. So, we have 2 scenarios.

1. That because we do not know for certain, the orders must be at least questionable, and likely not valid. Remember, this is the Pope. Not even the early Bishops who as well were ordaining new bishops. So, this uncertainty if held to the same standard of AC, would most likely be considered invalid. In this case, neither Anglican nor Catholic orders would be valid.
2. Or we agree, that because a Bishop in succession passed the succession down, there is a presumption of validity without proof of intent or form,other than acceptance of the succession by those who come afterwards. In this case, absolute certainty of form is disregarded. If disregarded in tradition, it could be disregarded by future generations, such as Anglican Orders in the 16th Century (and believed correct for the next 2+ centuries).

It seems the RC Church on the one hand wants to say certainty of intent must be upheld when applied to others, but not to us. Just raises an interesting question for discussion.

I think the first para would be more accurately worded, so as to say that the RCC concluded there was reasonable doubt on the intertwined issue of form and intent (though there were other factors beyond the theological involved). But I’ll leave the remainder to the locals to assess. I may say that no discussion of the Apostolic Letter I have ever seen (and I’ve seen a few, including what I consider the best, from both sides) takes this tack.

GKC

 

[pablope]

We would contend the events were reversed, and that any rejection of Rome was a rejection of the corruption and abuses of the time.

Jon

Still…no matter how you paint it Jon…or how you try to justify Luther’s actions…it was still a disobedience to authority.

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

When effecting reforms…should one follow the example of Luther or Catherine of Sienna?

Which example would truly serve the Church…Luther’s or Catherine’s?

 

[pablope]

Aside from Germany, Lutheran monarchies followed the bishops without the political upheaval the Church of England experienced.

**"What made the Church of Sweden an evangelical-catholic church was to Archbishop Söderblom the fact that the Reformation in Sweden was a ‘church improvement’ and a ‘process of purification’ which did not create a new church. As a national church, the Church of Sweden succeeded in bringing together medieval Swedish tradition with the rediscovery of the gospel which the Reformation brought with it. Archbishop Söderblom included the historic episcopate in the tradition-transmitting elements. The Church of Sweden was, according to Söderblom, in an even higher degree than the Anglican Church a via media. —Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostol...lic_succession **

Any thoughts?

Is Archbishop Soderblom the authority to determine what are valid orders what are not?

Did he do this on his own accord? If he did…then he disobeyed authority.

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

So what makes his actions valid?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

I think the first para would be more accurately worded, so as to say that the RCC concluded there was reasonable doubt on the intertwined issue of form and intent (though there were other factors beyond the theological involved). But I’ll leave the remainder to the locals to assess. I may say that no discussion of the Apostolic Letter I have ever seen (and I’ve seen a few, including what I consider the best, from both sides) takes this tack.

GKC

I had not heard it mentioned either. It is just something I’ve thought about and wondered if anyone else has, or after it being brought up has any thoughts about. Just interesting and a unique angle.

 

[GKC]

I had not heard it mentioned either. It is just something I’ve thought about and wondered if anyone else has, or after it being brought up has any thoughts about. Just interesting and a unique angle.

I can think of a point or two against it, but I’d wonder what others might say.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Still…no matter how you paint it Jon…or how you try to justify Luther’s actions…it was still a disobedience to authority.

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

When effecting reforms…should one follow the example of Luther or Catherine of Sienna?

Which example would truly serve the Church…Luther’s or Catherine’s?

As a teacher, I expect obedience to my authority in my classroom. This, of course, is reliant on me acting in such a way that deserves obedience.
I just don’t know that much about Catherine, but I wonder if her calls for reform had the potential for interfering with a revenue stream in the same way that Luther’s did. IOW, did the Church respond to Catherine differently based on different circumstances. I don’t know, but I will say that Luther and the reformers were not blameless, and neither was the leadership of the Church, all the way up to Pope Leo X.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Now, it is a matter of counting primate heads

 

[pablope]

As a teacher, I expect obedience to my authority in my classroom. This, of course, is reliant on me acting in such a way that deserves obedience.
I just don’t know that much about Catherine, but I wonder if her calls for reform had the potential for interfering with a revenue stream in the same way that Luther’s did. IOW, did the Church respond to Catherine differently based on different circumstances. I don’t know, but I will say that Luther and the reformers were not blameless, and neither was the leadership of the Church, all the way up to Pope Leo X.

Jon

Catherine’s involved schism, the location of the papacy…which involved the prestige and power associated with the papacy and where it was sited.

The point I was trying to make was…Catherine responded with love, humility, wisdom and prayers…she talked down to two popes, and bishops and cardinals…and won them over with her wisdom and humility. And it did not rise to the level of being excommunicated.

I was saying…should one follow the example of Catherine’s way?

As a teacher, I expect obedience to my authority in my classroom. This, of course, is reliant on me acting in such a way that deserves obedience.

I will cite a biblical example…Saul and David.

Saul had conspired to kill David. David did not dare touch Saul, did not dare kill him, even though he had oppurtunities to do so. David also slew the soldier the who reported to him that Saul had been slain when the soldier claimed he was the one who slew Saul.

Now…why did David act the way he did?

 

[Michael57]

Unbroken Lutheran primates. North Americans embracing apostolic succession from Sweden, Finland, etc

I doubt the Vatican would agree. They could declare the daytime sky paisley instead of blue and it wouldn’t make it so.

And I don’t think your second statement holds any water.

North Americans, as a group, probably know little to nothing about the alleged “apostolic succession from Sweden, Finland, etc” claims. And most Catholic North Americans would not accept the validity unless it was recognized by the Pontiff.

 

[JonNC]

=Michael57;10981759]I doubt the Vatican would agree. They could declare the daytime sky paisley instead of blue and it wouldn’t make it so.

I doubt the Vatican would agree, also. And while we as Lutherans would welcome recognition of our orders from Rome, as we recognize catholic orders, we actually don’t feel we need it to know that our orders are valid.

North Americans, as a group, probably know little to nothing about the alleged “apostolic succession from Sweden, Finland, etc” claims. And most Catholic North Americans would not accept the validity unless it was recognized by the Pontiff.

I would say this is generally true of the laity, and not unexpectedly so.
And as for North American Catholics, one should expect no less. Catholics should abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

Peter J;10976980:

That’s just what I told the crowd at my Lutherans Are Evil Day party.

:dts:

Well, I don’t exactly *like *to use sarcasm, but it can be the most appropriate response to some of the absurd attacks on Christians on the web.