Question for Lutherans

[Picky_Picky]

It’s more about finding these bishops that converted to Lutheranism after the archbishop was exiled.

It’s also about the forcible changeover perpetrated by a king as the church became Lutheran.

The combination of factors seem rather strange

The situation in Norway seems even stranger.

OK, that’s fair enough. If Catholic bishops did not survive the king’s actions, then we have a break in succession. This really isn’t my field, and I’m skating on thin ice here, but I’ll have a look for some evidence.

The forcible change looks horrible to us today, of course, but the interplay between church and state has been rocky from the beginning, so I don’t think that could invalidate succession for the Swedes any more than the Romans.

But I’ll look further.

 

[mattp0625]

OK, that’s fair enough. If Catholic bishops did not survive the king’s actions, then we have a break in succession. This really isn’t my field, and I’m skating on thin ice here, but I’ll have a look for some evidence.

The forcible change looks horrible to us today, of course, but the interplay between church and state has been rocky from the beginning, so I don’t think that could invalidate succession for the Swedes any more than the Romans.

But I’ll look further.

Agreed that monarchy played a role that doesn’t exist today, but for me it’s strange when this relates to the very origins of a church

 

[Picky_Picky]

Agreed that monarchy played a role that doesn’t exist today, but for me it’s strange when this relates to the very origins of a church

Yes, OK, although for the Swedes’ sake I should add that of course they don’t regard the Reformation as the origins of their church, any more than the Church of England regards Henry VIII’s Matter as the origin of hers.

 

[mattp0625]

It seems the succession of bishops in Sweden is a point of contention and focuses on the circumstances of one person, however one article does say that the line of bishops consecrated by the pope ended.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Magnus

Johannes Magnus was born in Linköping, son of the burgess Måns Pedersson and his wife Kristina Kruse. (His own later claims to be descended from a noble family named Store are unverified.)[1] Magnus was selected by Gustav I Vasa to become Archbishop, in 1523. As he was about to travel to Rome to be ordained, a papal bull from Pope Clement VII was received, stating that the previous Archbishop Gustav Trolle, who was at the time in exile abroad, should be reinstated. The papal bull declared the deposition of Trolle unlawful.

However, Gustav Trolle was deemed a traitor to the country, and Gustav Vasa could not reinstate him. Instead he ignored the papal bull and took it upon himself to install Magnus without papal acceptance. Before long, however, Johannes Magnus rebelled by declaring his discontent with the Lutheran teachings spread by the brothers Olaus and Laurentius Petri, under the supervision of King Gustav Vasa. The King then sent him off to Russia as a diplomat in 1526. Johannes Magnus was careful not to return home during that time, realizing that he was unwanted. Gustav Vasa appointed a new archbishop, Laurentius Petri, in 1531, and Johannes realized that his time as archbishop was over.

His brother, Olaus Magnus, had meanwhile travelled to Rome to explain the matter of Gustav Trolle to the Pope. In 1533 the Pope finished investigating the Trolle matter and decided that Magnus was the most appropriate successor, and Magnus travelled to Rome to be ordained. However, as Sweden now no longer took direction from the Vatican, both brothers remained in Italy for the remainder of their lives.

Magnus spent his time in Venice and Rome, where he wrote two historical works about Sweden: Historia de omnibus Gothorum Sueonumque regibus and Historia metropolitanæ ecclesiæ Upsaliensis, which are important for their historical information, but are also filled with tales that have no reliable foundation. After the death of Johannes in 1544, the line of Swedish archbishops consecrated by the Pope ended. He died in Rome.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentius_Petri

Laurentius Petri Nericius[1] (1499 – 27 October 1573) was a Swedish clergyman and the first Evangelical Lutheran Archbishop of Sweden. He and his brother Olaus Petri are, together with the King Gustav Vasa, regarded as the main Lutheran reformers of Sweden. They are commemorated by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on April 19.

At the Uppsala Council 1531, the Swedish King Gustav Vasa took the final step of breaking with the Roman Catholic Church, by personally appointing Laurentius as the new archbishop. On September 22 that year, Laurentius was consecrated archbishop by the Petrus Magni, Bishop of Västerås. Magni is said to have been ordained bishop in Rome, although this point is disputed, and by consecrating Laurentius the apostolical succession is said to be retained in Sweden, which was considered important. But although the consecration took place according to Catholic ritual, those who officiated at the consecration made a secret declaration that they were acting under pressure.[2]

Later that year Laurentius married Elisabeth Didriksdotter, a daughter of the King’s cousin[3] becoming the first Swedish archbishop to be married. His brother Olaus had already become the first priest to marry in 1525.

The king forbade Laurentius to interfere with the reformation plans. Laurentius wisely defended the autonomy of the Church against the various ideas of Gustav, such as his wish to abolish all bishops, while still steady advancing and promoting the ideas of the reformation texts within Sweden. His main contribution were his abundant writings which laid the foundation for the Swedish Church Ordinance established at the Uppsala Council 1571.

He was archbishop for 42 years, unparalleled in Sweden, and during his time he was often in conflicts with the monarchs. In 1539 his brother Olaus was sentenced to death by the King over some arguments, and Laurentius was among those forced to sign the death sentence. It has been disputed whether Laurentius was doing this because of a weak character or if he thought it better to formally obey so that he could continue to spread the reformation ideas. Olaus did eventually get pardoned in 1542, much due to his influential friends, but he was forced to keep a low profile, leaving the role of main reformator solely to Laurentius

 

[mattp0625]

This following indicates the consecration performed by Petrus Magni did happen, although this is disputed by the Catholic Church. The article then goes on to say that Petrus performed the consecration under fear for his life and later expressed regret for the action.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_Magni

In 1523 he was appointed bishop of the cathedral chapter in Västerås. A few months later, this choice approved by Pope Clement VII , who 1 May 1524 the year gave him the bishopric.

In 1524 years Petrus Magni returned to Sweden and took over the diocese of Västerås. During the period when he came to the country in the Kingdom of Sweden has been to reform the church in the spirit of national and reputation among the royal court and the clergy began to enjoy Lutheranism . After 1,523 years ambitious young King Gustav I Vasa , after breaking at the Diet in Strängnäs Kalmar Union , in order to strengthen his authority convened in 1527 Riksdag to Västerås, where he received from the states of Sweden agreed to create a state church and the introduction of the Reformation .

Petrus Magni like the rest of the hierarchy of the Swedish initially was against making the king the head of the Church of Sweden and Church reform. Even signed a secret document, which promised obedience to the Pope and the Catholic doctrine. Cringing fear for their lives bent but against authoritarian rulers. At the request of the king without the prior consent of the Holy See on January 6, 1528 years consecrated nominees for the Dioceses of Åbo , Skara and Strängnäs. A few days later, 12 January 1528 , he participated in the coronation of Gustav Vasa, who symbolically sanctioned the sovereignty of Sweden from Denmark.

In 1529, he took part in a national synod in Örebro . 22 of September 1531 , after the national synod of Uppsala, together with the Bishop of Strängnäs , Magnus Sommar consecrated the first Lutheran primate of Sweden, Archbishop Laurentius Petri Nericiusa.

After creating the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Sweden Petrus Magni he kept for life episcopal ministry. At the end of his life he felt bitterness due to participate in the reform of the Church of Sweden.

Apostolic succession passed in the years 1528-1531 by Petrus Magni Evangelical Lutheran Church of Sweden has been by the bishops of the denomination preserved to this day. Although the validity of the ordination in the Evangelical Church is being challenged, among others, by the Catholic Church , they are recognized by the Anglican Communion and dozens of other Protestant churches around the world. Today, a significant portion of the bishops of Anglican and Lutheran (mainly in Europe ) has ordained bishop line Petrus Magni given to them by the Church of Sweden.

 

[mattp0625]

The other bishop who took part in the consecration in question, Magnus Sommar, did convert to Lutheranism according to this article, but later joined a revolt against the king who imprisoned him and deprived him of his office. The article indicates Mangus was also consecrated by Petrus Magni.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Sommar (a bit broken due to translation)

Thoroughly educated humanist , a graduate of the University of Rostock . Since 1508 the chancellor Bishop of Strängnäs. In 1522 he was elected bishop. Initially an opponent of a national church in Sweden, the Diet in Västerås in 1527 the year set contrary to the religious policy of Gustav Vasa .

Later willing to make concessions. Broke with the Catholic Church , he converted to Lutheranism . But I never received the full confidence of the king. In 1536 he joined the opposition antykrólewską for which he was imprisoned and deprived of the bishopric.

His last years were spent in house arrest in the former convent of the Franciscan in Krokek.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Interesting stuff. We needn’t pay too much attention to the power struggles between King and Pope — that was par for the course in the Middle Ages. The statement about “the line of archbishops consecrated by the pope” probably means less than it seems: an archbishop does not need consecration by the pope to have valid orders, and apostolic succession can in any case pass through bishops other than archbishops. The stuff about the secret avowal is interesting (and the footnote goes to Geoffrey Elton and CUP, which is heartening). I don’t know enough about intent to judge the effect of that, but it doesn’t look good.

Interesting stuff. When I get a mo I shall look about, too.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Here’s an interesting work:

archive.org/details/ApostolicalSuccessionInTheChurchOfSweden

 

[GKC]

Interesting stuff. We needn’t pay too much attention to the power struggles between King and Pope — that was par for the course in the Middle Ages. The statement about “the line of archbishops consecrated by the pope” probably means less than it seems: an archbishop does not need consecration by the pope to have valid orders, and apostolic succession can in any case pass through bishops other than archbishops. The stuff about the secret avowal is interesting (and the footnote goes to Geoffrey Elton and CUP, which is heartening). I don’t know enough about intent to judge the effect of that, but it doesn’t look good.

Interesting stuff. When I get a mo I shall look about, too.

Intent caught my eye, too (being who and what I am), given that form and matter seemed covered . Elton and CUP would be a solid source, though solid sources can disagree. If intent could be demonstrated to have been other than* facere quod facit ecclesia *, and if the post consecration statement was accurate and constitutes a positive intent to the contrary, then one would have a reason to question valid sacramental intent in the consecration. On the part of Petrus Magni, at least. One would need more info on Magnus Somma if, (as I read it), he was a co-consecrator of Laurentius Petri Nericius.and included in the reference to “those who officiated”.

I dunno.Lutefisk is about my limit.

 

[mattp0625]

Here’s an interesting work:

archive.org/details/ApostolicalSuccessionInTheChurchOfSweden

“The Swedish Church owes her deliverance from Papal domination to Gustavas I”.

I stopped there

 

[Picky_Picky]

“The Swedish Church owes her deliverance from Papal domination to Gustavas I”.

I stopped there

Doesn’t sound exactly impartial, does it

Worth persevering with, though.

 

[Duane1966]

I’m not very familiar with how Catholics address priests of their church, Duane, so I might well be wrong, but it occurs to me that you might perhaps be a little in danger of crossing the boundary of respect and politeness. In particular, the form “so in other words” often introduces an unfortunate misdescription, and I would guess that such is the case here.

You are right. My choice of words could have been better.

P.s. Don’t let my telling you this one time that you are right go to your head. Just savor it, it may never happen again.

 

[GKC]

“The Swedish Church owes her deliverance from Papal domination to Gustavas I”.

I stopped there

Not how one does these things.

Press on.

 

[Picky_Picky]

The Wikipedia quote about the “secret declaration”, by the way, is a perfectly fair reference to a statement in the Scandinavian and Baltic chapter (by N.K.Andersen) of the Reformation volume of the New Cambridge Modern History (Elton, ed.)

In the same year, his brother Laurentius, thirty-two years old, was appointed archbishop. The immediate occasion for this was the king’s desire to celebrate his marriage and the crowning of the queen in as splendid a fashion as possible. As the pope supported the exiled Gustav Trolle, none of the Catholic bishops could accept the archbishopric. Therefore Gustavus Vasa had to choose an evangelical bishop, and he considered Olavus’s younger brother to be a suitable candidate. The consecration took place according to Catholic ritual, that is to say with the retention of the apostolic succession, although those who officiated at the consecration made a secret declaration that they were acting under pressure.

Whether the succession was in fact retained in this instance, given that declaration, seems dubious to me (but what do I know?)

 

[Picky_Picky]

You are right. My choice of words could have been better.

P.s. Don’t let my telling you this one time that you are right go to your head. Just savor it, it may never happen again.

Fair enough. Duly savoured. Thank you for your courtesy.

Picky

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Yup. I am aware of this and you are not telling me something I don’t know.

Your question, then, makes no sense to me frankly. Since you say you are aware of this, then you would know how the thesis you put forward about Luther would be regarded by most scholars in the field today, engaged on this particular point.

I realized you were making a general point, I just wanted to give you some background on the author

Why did you give a background that is not true, however? Declaring that someone is a priest formerly in Rome when he is actually a Roman seminarian who is not ordained? Making such a misrepresentation would be considered most problematic and consequential in Rome, I hope you realise.

In one instance you say that someone cannot fit the category, but then you admit that in rare instances they could.

Yet again, your critique makes no sense to me. What I said is that there are those of us who are Catholic (or, Lutheran or Anglican as the case may be) and who are quite faithful in adherence to their faith on the one hand but who, in their role as academics of whatever field, operate as academics according to the ethics and norms of their field and the criteria of the academy…not according to faith conclusions or according to confessional narratives.

That is critical and, actually, essential. Anyone who cannot do that – or who implies by the use of biased language that they may not actually be doing that in practice – is compromising their ability to be a part of and to make meaningful contributions to that particular field and in the academy in general.

If someone is a priori an apologist of today’s sort…no, they would not be invited by me to be engaged in a project that asks for the type of academic that I have just described.

The question is not only their own dispositions but also whether their conclusions or academic research or assertions can have the appearance of being compromised as demonstrated by, for example, language that they have employed in other publications indicative of a bias.

 

[mattp0625]

Not how one does these things.

Press on.

I am no expert, but I have experienced enough history from Protestant sources to know the right time to quit and move on.

“Papal domination” and deliverance from King Gustav smells a lot like “the pope is the antichrist”. Can I really expect an honest result here?

 

[Picky_Picky]

I am no expert, but I have experienced enough history from Protestant sources to know the right time to quit and move on.

“Papal domination” and deliverance from King Gustav smells a lot like “the pope is the antichrist”. Can I really expect an honest result here?

Oh no, the author’s an Anglican!

I also tripped on that bit about papal domination, but that meant I bore in mind the author’s prejudices as I proceeded. That’d be my advice, for what it’s worth. Anyway the little book (which is very extensively sourced) seems to me full of leads which are worth checking out. May take me a year or so …

 

[Picky_Picky]

Bear in mind, too, the date: 1880. Anglicans and Catholics weren’t necessarily as polite to each other in them thar days as they, mercifully, are today.

 

[GKC]

I am no expert, but I have experienced enough history from Protestant sources to know the right time to quit and move on.

“Papal domination” and deliverance from King Gustav smells a lot like “the pope is the antichrist”. Can I really expect an honest result here?

I am sorry to learn of this attitude. I’m up to page 28, though I’m off to do some shopping (and pick up a book) and will get back to it. It is, as Picky says, well documented and if you are going to stand on history, you need to read history in the round. Up to page 28, there’s nothing scary in this thing. If you want to argue with his thesis, you have to argue with the details, not the flowery dedication.

But if you only want to read history that comports with your preconceptions, you limit your credibility, as to your assertions. To know when and if you can expect an honest result, you need to read from all sides, and having an informed opinion on the subject, generally,make an educated assessment of any particular assertion, specifically. As of now, I’m pretty much* tabula rasa * on this subject (no mention of* lutefisk*, yet) and so I can’t make an informed assessment. But nothing in the body of the things raises any warning signs.

Personal opinion, of one who reads everything, on anything of particular interest.