Healed? Maybe. That’s not the same thing as unification. They are still separate entities.The Western Schism, if that is what you refer to, was within the RCC and later healed. The Church of Sweden traces its origins to English missionaries in the First Millenium. I am not sure why you keep introducing military efforts into the history of that church.
Cardinal O’Malley formulates it much better in his letter when he writes: “In our own day, Roman Catholic and Lutheran descendants of the 16th-century Church together have continued to be moved by the Holy Spirit”Right, and after schism, those churches became separated brethren that are not part of the RCC.
Semantics aside, all entities that claim apostolic succession trace their origins. None of their origins were backed by military efforts.
Agreed you can allocate blame to both sides.Cardinal O’Malley formulates it much better in his letter when he writes: “In our own day, Roman Catholic and Lutheran descendants of the 16th-century Church together have continued to be moved by the Holy Spirit”
The rupture works both ways. If you suffer a quadruple amputation, your limbs have suffered and are gone away…but you have lost something that is irreplaceable and that radically alters and redefines you in the most profound ways.
And as the Holy See has reiterated, the fault is not on one side. That premise was abandoned decades ago. There are individuals who will still want to chant it but Rome has disavowed it and therefore it cannot be sustained as a position that is Catholic…except in days long past and no longer subscribed to.
No one has said anything about eliminating historical facts.Agreed you can allocate blame to both sides.
I hear the mandates on ecumenism.
I am not certain that means historical facts are eliminated.
I understand the analogy and it’s true, but it can also be used in a different way that is just as true. When a limb is diseased, sometimes the only way to save the body is to remove the limbCardinal O’Malley formulates it much better in his letter when he writes: “In our own day, Roman Catholic and Lutheran descendants of the 16th-century Church together have continued to be moved by the Holy Spirit”
The rupture works both ways. If you suffer a quadruple amputation, your limbs have suffered and are gone away…but you have lost something that is irreplaceable and that radically alters and redefines you in the most profound ways.
And as the Holy See has reiterated, the fault is not on one side. That premise was abandoned decades ago. There are individuals who will still want to chant it but Rome has disavowed it and therefore it cannot be sustained as a position that is Catholic…except in days long past and no longer subscribed to.
Well…fortunately, that is not at all how the Holy See looks upon it…at least not for decades. And when it comes to Catholic positions, their opinion is the one that matters.I understand the analogy and it’s true, but it can also be used in a different way that is just as true. When a limb is diseased, sometimes the only way to save the body is to remove the limb
No. The Western Schism was between two factions of the RCC. They were healed within the RCC. They are not separate entities. You would do well to study the history of your own church.Healed? Maybe. That’s not the same thing as unification. They are still separate entities.
The Church of Sweden had a Catholic archbishop before forces of King Gustav took over and nationalized the church as Lutheran.
Luther didn’t exist in the first millennium
Sorry, but there are many eastern churches which are not in communion with the bishop of Rome.No. The Western Schism was between two factions of the RCC. They were healed within the RCC. They are not separate entities. You would do well to study the history of your own church.
I’m not sure if it is worth continuing in dialogue with you, but I’ll give it another try.
If you are considering apostolic succession to be simply the continuation of bishops in a see (as you have exemplified in the continuation of bishops in the see of Rome) then Sweden can demonstrate that. The fact that Luther is post-11th century does not influence this fact.
You’ll have to rephrase that in ways I can understand if you mean for me to understand it.Sorry, but there are many eastern churches which are not in communion with the bishop of Rome.
Sweden demonstrates that IF you include deposed Catholic bishops
I guess we cannot admit there were exiled Catholic bishops forcibly replaced by Lutherans, but that’s fine
Ok- eastern churches. Some are considered part of the RCC, some are not. Many eastern churches have even split within themselves several times over.You’ll have to rephrase that in ways I can understand if you mean for me to understand it.
Can you justify your fourth paragraph; and can you say why, even if that were true, that would end apostolic succession?Ok- eastern churches. Some are considered part of the RCC, some are not. Many eastern churches have even split within themselves several times over.
Sweden - there were Catholic bishops that were within the RCC.
The Protestant reformation happened.
King Gustav, sympathetic to Lutherans, seized the assets of the church and exiled the Catholic archbishop. At that point, there’s no more Catholic magisterium in Sweden.
The king then installed Lutherans as the new format of the national church. That’s the beginning of the Lutheran church in Sweden. No more Catholic bishops.
To me, when you exile an archbishop from one church, and install a new church by force, it does not reflect a succession.Can you justify your fourth paragraph; and can you say why, even if that were true, that would end apostolic succession?
Can you justify your last sentence, which seems at odds with the historical facts?
What you have established there is a reformation. You have not established that there was not a continuous presence of bishops within the Swedish dioceses.To me, when you exile an archbishop from one church, and install a new church by force, it does not reflect a succession.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_I_of_Sweden
He worked to raise taxes, end Feudalism and bring about a Swedish Reformation, replacing the prerogatives of local landowners, noblemen and clergy with centrally appointed governors and bishops. His 37-year rule, which was the longest of a mature Swedish king to that date (subsequently passed by Gustav V and Carl XVI Gustav) **saw a complete break with not only the Danish supremacy but also the Roman Catholic Church, whose assets were nationalised, with the Lutheran Church of Sweden established under his personal control. **
After Gustav seized power, the previous Archbishop, Gustav Trolle, who at the time held the post of a sort of chancellor, was exiled from the country. Gustav sent a message to Pope Clement VII requesting the acceptance of a new archbishop selected by Gustav himself: Johannes Magnus.
The Pope sent back his decision demanding that unlawful expulsion of Archbishop Gustav Trolle be rescinded, and that the archbishop be reinstated. Here Sweden’s remote geographical location proved to have a marked impact – for the former Archbishop had been allied with the Danish king, or at least was considered to have been so allied in contemporary Stockholm, and to reinstate him would be close to impossible for Gustav.
The king let the Pope know the impossibility of the request, and the possible results if the Pope persisted, but – for better or worse – the Pope did persist, and refused to accept the king’s suggestions of archbishops. At the time, incidentally and for different reasons, there were also four other unoccupied bishop’s seats, where the king made suggestions to the Pope about candidates, but the Pope only accepted one of the candidates. Because the Pope refused to budge on the issue of Gustav Trolle, the king, influenced by Lutheran scholar Olaus Petri, in 1531 took it upon himself to appoint yet another archbishop, namely the brother of Olaus, Laurentius Petri. With this royal act, the Pope lost any influence over the Swedish Church.
**
Gustav I’s breaking with the Catholic Church is virtually simultaneous with Henry VIII doing the same in England; both kings acted following a similar pattern, i.e., a prolonged confrontation with the Pope culminating with the king deciding to take his own decisions independently of Rome.**
Sorry agree to disagree.What you have established there is a reformation. You have not established that there was not a continuous presence of bishops within the Swedish dioceses.
Make up your mind, You contrasted Sweden with Rome because Rome had a continuous presence of bishops. You said that by your definition that represented apostolic succession. Now I say Sweden also had continuous presence of bishops, Gonna contest that, or what?
Don’t give me the stuff about kings and the like. Was there continuous succession of bishops, like that in Rome, or was there not?
I think you’re conflating the Great Schism of East-West to the Western Schism. You see, when multiple Popes are made by the same group of Cardinals at the same time, confusion ensues. Sometimes, the Catholic Church doesn’t even keep its house at the Vatican in the divorce. Or sometimes it does. Depends on who you ask. Odd thing, Papal history.Sorry, but there are many eastern churches which are not in communion with the bishop of Rome.
Patently false. Just ask Stephen VI, or Benedict VI, or one of the John XIV’s (I get them confused). Them’s just the one who we know were murdered. Don’t forget the Medicis, Borgias, et al. who scrambled in their own game of thrones. Oh, and the other forcefully-deposed popes: Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Martin IV.Rome does not have a forcible turnover to a different authority
The RCC didn’t become something else.Patently false. Just ask Stephen VI, or Benedict VI, or one of the John XIV’s (I get them confused). Them’s just the one who we know were murdered. Don’t forget the Medicis, Borgias, et al. who scrambled in their own game of thrones. Oh, and the other forcefully-deposed popes: Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Martin IV.
All had their power, in one way or another, forcibly turned over to another authority.
I thank God the office continues despite the sins of those in the office or Church, I thought that was the same in the Lutheran Church. The Pastor can be sinful as can be but the Sacraments he presides over remain valid if properly ordained.The RCC didn’t become something else.
The office of Peter reminded.
I am not expert on things Nordic, hence I speak tentatively. But, if, as I seem to be seeing here, there remained validly consecrated RC bishops in the Church of Sweden, who continued in their offices, and ordained/consecrated, as valid bishops do, that’s the succession. Subject to the idea of correction, of course.Sorry agree to disagree.
Rome does not have a forcible turnover to a different authority