Question for Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter StGeorgesSquire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StGeorgesSquire said:
I thought Lutherans had bishops too?
Click to expand...
Sort of…

European Lutherans have bishops that are part of the Apostolic Succession, and some American Lutherans bishops (who are really elected presidents of their local synod) have receive the Dutch Touch and Polish Poke from the Episcopal church.

The bad news is that those Bishops tend to support homosexual marriage, priestesses, distributing the eucharist the the un-baptised, love Marty Haugen hymns, and drink decaf coffee.

The other types of American Lutherans that are more confessional tend to want Apostolic Succession but understand that Apostolic teaching comes first, and aren’t willing to water down their theology to get touched and poked. Sadly, the confessional Lutherans also have their problems - hence JonNC, with great reason, jumping ship to a more stalwart Anglican church.

I’d hate to use the term “it’s complicated” as I think that’s been trademarked by GKC.
 
Picky_Picky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Consecrated by the exiled Catholic archbishop? The exiled archbishop’s bishops? Why would they even do this ? Confused.

I would think a name would be important if that was your only link.

Either way, don’t they have a female now?
 
mattp0625 said:
Consecrated by the exiled Catholic archbishop? The exiled archbishop’s bishops? Why would they even do this ? Confused.

I would think a name would be important if that was your only link.

Either way, don’t they have a female now?
Click to expand...
As my quote from Wallace showed, Catholic bishops remained. But as to their current archbishop, yes she is a woman. As GKC pointed out earlier in this thread, form, matter, intent and subject have to be valid, as well as a valid consecrator, to effect valid ordination.
 
Picky_Picky said:
As my quote from Wallace showed, Catholic bishops remained. But as to their current archbishop, yes she is a woman. As GKC pointed out earlier in this thread, form, matter, intent and subject have to be valid, as well as a valid consecrator, to effect valid ordination.
Click to expand...
So no names? Ok.

Sorry, but I was told the same story about Norway with some unnamed bishops, only to find it was really Johannes Bugenhagen and military forces

So far, I see the same pattern with King Gustav in Sweden.
 
mattp0625 said:
So no names? Ok.

Sorry, but I was told the same story about Norway with some unnamed bishops, only to find it was really Johannes Bugenhagen and military forces

So far, I see the same pattern with King Gustav in Sweden.
Click to expand...
As my quote from Wallace showed, there was no sudden complete rupture. Catholic bishops remained.

I am sorry that my knowledge of individual Scandinavian clergymen of the early modern period is not sufficiently strong from me to name the consecrators, plus background, for each bishop. I couldn’t do that for the Church of England, and I doubt if you could do that off the top of your head for the Church of Rome.
 
Picky_Picky said:
As my quote from Wallace showed, there was no sudden complete rupture. Catholic bishops remained.

I am sorry that my knowledge of individual Scandinavian clergymen of the early modern period is not sufficiently strong from me to name the consecrators, plus background, for each bishop. I couldn’t do that for the Church of England, and I doubt if you could do that off the top of your head for the Church of Rome.
Click to expand...
When it comes to apostolic succession I can. There is a list starting with Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement. There is nothing about a hostile military takeover or unnamed bishops or arresting the existing bishops.
 
mattp0625 said:
When it comes to apostolic succession I can. There is a list starting with Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement. There is nothing about a hostile military takeover or unnamed bishops or arresting the existing bishops.
Click to expand...
And you can tell me now who consecrated each of them bishop?
 
mattp0625 said:
Yes. Each is listed in historical order. Peter the apostle was succeeded by Linus, all the way to Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
OK, who consecrated St Lucius I bishop?

Although I’m not sure there is much benefit to this exercise.
 
benjohnson said:
Sort of…

European Lutherans have bishops that are part of the Apostolic Succession, and some American Lutherans bishops (who are really elected presidents of their local synod) have receive the Dutch Touch and Polish Poke from the Episcopal church.

The bad news is that those Bishops tend to support homosexual marriage, priestesses, distributing the eucharist the the un-baptised, love Marty Haugen hymns, and drink decaf coffee.

The other types of American Lutherans that are more confessional tend to want Apostolic Succession but understand that Apostolic teaching comes first, and aren’t willing to water down their theology to get touched and poked. Sadly, the confessional Lutherans also have their problems - hence JonNC, with great reason, jumping ship to a more stalwart Anglican church.

I’d hate to use the term “it’s complicated” as I think that’s been trademarked by GKC.
Click to expand...
Ben,
I think you are safe to use “it’s complicated” as GKC had only trademarked “motley”
🙂
Mary.
 
JonNC said:
Let me understand. Your definition of Protestant

that *orders *and sacraments are invalid. Can you provide a source for that definition?
Click to expand...
Jon,

mind if I make a few comments?

As you know, for Catholics, the answer to that question has to come from how the Catholic Church regards the issue.

Which Protestant sacraments other than baptism does the Catholic Church consider valid?
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...aptism-does-the-catholic-church-consider-vali
J:
By the way, Anglicans had nothing to do with the “Protestant” reformation,
Click to expand...
Henry VIII, incensed by Pope Clement VII’s refusal to grant him an annulment of his marriage, repudiated papal authority and in 1534 established the Anglican church with the king as the supreme head.
J:
and many of the so called Protestant churches didn’t either.
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of this?

The Problems with Primitivism
J:
Lutheran and Anglican priests* go through extensive seminary training*, so that isn’t a marker for Protestant either.
Click to expand...
Good to the first point! 👍

However, to the 2nd point

extensive seminary training, isn’t what makes an ordination valid. The key to validity of ordination, like any sacrament, is matter and form. Both need to be there. And the point being, in this case, the one doing the ordaining, must be in valid apostolic succession, to pass that succession on to another, and then everything must be done according to correct form. Otherwise one’s ordination isn’t ALL they think it is.

Q: your religious affiliation tag line has changed. Are you now an Anglican?
 
Picky_Picky said:
OK, who consecrated St Lucius I bishop?

Although I’m not sure there is much benefit to this exercise.
Click to expand...
Whoever was pope at the time would have been the link.

There is a rather significant point.

Friend, you might need to really think about this so called apostolic succession in the churches of Sweden and Norway.
 
=steve b;13959160]Jon,
Click to expand...
mind if I make a few comments?
Click to expand...
As you know, for Catholics, the answer to that question has to come from how the Catholic Church regards the issue.
Click to expand...
You know, Steve, I always appreciate your comments, even when we disagree. 👍

I always defer to my Catholic siblings when it comes to Catholic teaching.
Which Protestant sacraments other than baptism does the Catholic Church consider valid?
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...aptism-does-the-catholic-church-consider-vali
Click to expand...
Yes, I knew this, because neither Baptism nor marriage requires ordained clergy.
Henry VIII, incensed by Pope Clement VII’s refusal to grant him an annulment of his marriage, repudiated papal authority and in 1534 established the Anglican church with the king as the supreme head.
Click to expand...
Correct, Steve. My point was that the protest took place on the continent, at the Diet of Speyer in 1529. Henry was called to Rome a little after, as I recall. The entire issue is 30,000-40,000 “protestant” denominations thing.
Are you thinking of this?
Click to expand...
The Problems with Primitivism
Click to expand...
Certainly in part. Restorationists, and even some of the later movements.
Good to the first point! 👍
Click to expand...
However, to the 2nd point
Click to expand...
extensive seminary training, isn’t what makes an ordination valid. The key to validity of ordination, like any sacrament, is matter and form. Both need to be there. And the point being, in this case, the one doing the ordaining, must be in valid apostolic succession, to pass that succession on to another, and then everything must be done according to correct form. Otherwise one’s ordination isn’t ALL they think it is.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is the Catholic view. Hopefully, I didn’t say anything to misrepresent Catholic teaching.
Q: your religious affiliation tag line has changed. Are you now an Anglican?
Click to expand...
Long story. PM me if you’re interested.

Jon
 
mattp0625 said:
Whoever was pope at the time would have been the link.

There is a rather significant point.

Friend, you might need to really think about this so called apostolic succession in the churches of Sweden and Norway.
Click to expand...
So, no name. OK.

If it’s just a list of bishops, the Church of Sweden can certainly offer that. It’s easily available on the Internet.
 
Picky_Picky said:
So, no name. OK.

If it’s just a list of bishops, the Church of Sweden can certainly offer that. It’s easily available on the Internet.
Click to expand...
It’s proving a succession from the apostles of Christ

Bugenhagen, Luther, and King Gustav don’t count 👍
 
mattp0625 said:
It’s proving a succession from the apostles of Christ

Bugenhagen, Luther, and King Gustav don’t count 👍
Click to expand...
I really do understand the theory, you know. Proof is difficult in matters of history, though. Even the early bishops of Rome have some little wrinkles of doubt about them. Mostly with history it is a question of showing what is most likely.

As to the Swedish succession, that doesn’t rely on Johannes Bugenhagen, or Martin Luther or King Gustav. Why you should have a problem with it, I can’t think. If for some reason you feel the need to be convinced, I’m sure the Church of Sweden will be happy to help.

I’m not sure Pope Francis is too convinced of the Swedes’ apostolic succession, but that won’t stop him going there for the commemoration of the Reformation. His approach seems an adult, constructive way of dealing with the present separated state of the churches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top