Since then, I don’t think the bishops from the Utrecht churches and the PNCC were forced to lay hands on Anglican (and by extension, Lutheran) bishops. Keep in mind that Rome categorizes the PNCC similarly to Eastern Orthodox, if I’m not mistaken.That’s great that they agree among each other.
They still installed their orders by force and by arresting the catholic bishops.
In terms of the RCC, unification with Lutherans would be great but does not seem likely.
I’ll take that to mean you see no difference between the division between Catholics and Baptists, and between Lutherans and Baptists. I agree.=mattp0625;13958658]I thought I answered quite plainly in the negative.
It isn’t a matter of first, Luther. Zwingli and the Anabaptists were contemporaries of luther, not following him. Calvin was never a follower of Luther. He was a Catholic, however.Yes, first Luther, then Zwingli against Luther, then Calvin, etc. etc., then Smyth protested them in regard to baptism.
I’m not sure it matters who the PNCC lay their hands on. Just because some Polish American priest was discontented does not mean he has apostolic succession or the right to ordain others, similar to Luther and Bugenhagen.Since then, I don’t think the bishops from the Utrecht churches and the PNCC were forced to lay hands on Anglican (and by extension, Lutheran) bishops. Keep in mind that Rome categorizes the PNCC similarly to Eastern Orthodox, if I’m not mistaken.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur395.htm
Jon
Except Catholics were not protesting or separating. Baptists were protesting the protest.I’ll take that to mean you see no difference between the division between Catholics and Baptists, and between Lutherans and Baptists. I agree.
It isn’t a matter of first, Luther. Zwingli and the Anabaptists were contemporaries of luther, not following him. Calvin was never a follower of Luther. He was a Catholic, however.
John Smyth was never a Luther follower, either.
Jon
The RCC holds that the PNCC has valid apostolic succession, hence valid orders, which allow the confection of valid/illicit sacraments. Including validly ordaining/consecrating. The same logic holds true for the OCs, providing, in all cases, that all other aspects of the sacramental action are valid…I’m not sure it matters who the PNCC lay their hands on. Just because some Polish American priest was discontented does not mean he has apostolic succession or the right to ordain others, similar to Luther and Bugenhagen.
Utrecht is clearly in a similar position Luther. Once you leave, you can’t claim you’re still the same thing.
Absolutely, but it does render less acute the problems that matt suggested some might think are associated with orders following the events of the reformation in Denmark and Norway, or at any rate it makes it possible to consider the events at the time of the Reformation less relevant to the status of orders in those countries today. However, there is, as you say, no reason to think that the RCC is moved to alter its view.I understand this reasoning, as you can well imagine. But while it is a change, there is no definitive reason to think it is a change that the RCC would recognize as affecting the basic issue of Orders, or apostolic succession.
Thanks. That was my point.The RCC holds that the PNCC has valid apostolic succession, hence valid orders, which allow the confection of valid/illicit sacraments. Including validly ordaining/consecrating. The same logic holds true for the OCs, providing, in all cases, that all other aspects of the sacramental action are valid…
Please name the bishop, and the church he belongs to, that links the Lutheran church to apostolic successionThe RCC holds that the PNCC has valid apostolic succession, hence valid orders, which allow the confection of valid/illicit sacraments. Including validly ordaining/consecrating. The same logic holds true for the OCs, providing, in all cases, that all other aspects of the sacramental action are valid…
The Swedish church has never lost succession. Since the Finnish church was part of the Swedish church, the same applies. Bishops of churches in the Porvoo communion lay hands at the consecration of bishops of the other Porvoo churches as determined in the original agreement:Please name the bishop, and the church he belongs to, that links the Lutheran church to apostolic succession
Again, the protest from which the term protestant comes was a formal protest at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It was a protest against civil authorities who were attempting to limit religious free exercise, much like the Catholic Church in America is involved in a protest against the HHS Mandate. In the attached picture, on the far right, is Bishop Lori, in front of Congress protesting. Next to him is LCMS President Harrison protesting with him.=mattp0625;13958748]Except Catholics were not protesting or separating. Baptists were protesting the protest.
The Baptist idea of “bible alone” is remarkably different than Lutheranism. Zwingli’s disagreement with Luther was over the Universal Church’s view of the real presence, which Luther held.Baptists and Calvinists follow “bible alone” which is not a Catholic doctrine. Guess who? Luther. Zwingli also protested Luther.
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur395.htmPlease name the bishop, and the church he belongs to, that links the Lutheran church to apostolic succession
So when King Gustav took over the assets of the RCC, exiled the existing archbishop in Sweden, installed his own bishop, and established the Lutheran Church as the national church, which bishops are those that were linked to valid apostolic succession ?The Swedish church has never lost succession. Since the Finnish church was part of the Swedish church, the same applies. Bishops of churches in the Porvoo communion lay hands at the consecration of bishops of the other Porvoo churches as determined in the original agreement:
porvoocommunion.org
I will not bore you with the history of the bishops of the Church of England.
Your points are cogent.Absolutely, but it does render less acute the problems that matt suggested some might think are associated with orders following the events of the reformation in Denmark and Norway, or at any rate it makes it possible to consider the events at the time of the Reformation less relevant to the status of orders in those countries today. However, there is, as you say, no reason to think that the RCC is moved to alter its view.
That’s fine that it’s different. They still protested the protest. They didn’t get bible alone from the RCC.Again, the protest from which the term protestant comes was a formal protest at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. It was a protest against civil authorities who were attempting to limit religious free exercise, much like the Catholic Church in America is involved in a protest against the HHS Mandate. In the attached picture, on the far right, is Bishop Lori, in front of Congress protesting. Next to him is LCMS President Harrison protesting with him.
The Baptist idea of “bible alone” is remarkably different than Lutheranism. Zwingli’s disagreement with Luther was over the Universal Church’s view of the real presence, which Luther held.
Jon
Some would argue that they did, but that’s beside the point. It wasn’t a protest! The Baptists did not protest the Lutherans. The Lutherans did not protest the Catholics. The Catholics and Orthodox didn’t protest each other. That’s not what the term protestant means. That’s not where the term protestant comes from.That’s fine that it’s different. They still protested the protest. They didn’t get bible alone from the RCC.
Not triumphalist, just truthful. God Bless, MemawThis is a triumphalist answer, something I believe Pope Francis as warned all of us against. I would also say that this kind of thinking leads no one closer to unity.
I couldn’t agree more. His one Holy Church, which you and I are both members of, is forever.
You’ve heard of the 95 Theses? They were an attempt to work within the Church to reform the corruption and abuses within the Church.
Who followed him? There were many who agreed with him, and stood with him, against the abuses within the Church. Hindsight tells us he could have done so in more effective, less bombastic ways.
Others, OTOH, had their own movements.
Amen!
Jon
The Swedish understanding is that the first Lutheran archbishop was consecrated by a Roman Catholic bishop.So when King Gustav took over the assets of the RCC, exiled the existing archbishop in Sweden, installed his own bishop, and established the Lutheran Church as the national church, which bishops are those that were linked to valid apostolic succession ?
1 Corinthians 13: 1-3:Not triumphalist, just truthful. God Bless, Memaw
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,[a] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
I didn’t know that, re:the Finns. Learning things is good.The Swedish understanding is that the first Lutheran archbishop was consecrated by a Roman Catholic bishop.
Incidentally I must apologise for an earlier error, when I said the Finnish church retained its succession from the time that it was part of the Swedish church. In fact I find the Finnish church lost succession in the 19th Century when all three of its bishops died at once – a nasty turn of luck. Succession has since, I believe, been restored.
So when King Gustav took over the assets of the RCC, exiled the existing archbishop in Sweden, installed his own bishop, and established the Lutheran Church as the national church, which bishops are those that were linked to valid apostolic succession ?
Peter G. Wallace, The Long European Reformation, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2012.Sweden’s Church remained partially reformed, as Catholic bishops and Lutheran superintendents served side by side. There was no Church ordinance, and Sweden would not sign the Augsburg Confession until 1593.