Question for Lutherans

  • Thread starter Thread starter StGeorgesSquire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Picky_Picky said:
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.)

Whether the succession was in fact retained in this instance, given that declaration, seems dubious to me (but what do I know?)
Click to expand...
Indeed. Or I. That would be a point to ponder.
 
Picky_Picky said:
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.
Click to expand...
I tried to focus on names we already have.

It indicates that the succession of Bishops from the Roman line was broken. I know we already discussed that point, but it establishes we are talking about something outside of the RCC.

Bishop Sommar appears to have been “used” and was “incarcerated”.

It also indicated that the king was “seriously concerned to preserve” a Lutheran apostolic succession which Rome claimed to have alone. He “caused” the consecration of various bishops.

I also enjoyed this bit:

“The Archbishop’s consecration, however, was not performed with Popish superstitious ceremonies, but with the Word of God and prayer, and the laying on of hands…not purchased from Rome of the Pope at the cost of a heavy contribution from the clergy but was provided by way of the King’s free bounty”.

And this seemed interesting:

"These two prelates, however, were required by the King to transmit the Apostolic Succession to the new bishops and archbishops-elect… The two bishops executed their protest dated …1531…commencing, “We Magnus Sommar of Strengnas and Peter of Westeras… the document declares the irreconcilable hostility of the signatories to the Lutheran system and their unchanged loyalty to the Roman Church as supreme; it describes the persons about to receive consecration as the Archbishop and other bishops who are now intruded; it pleads, in excuse for compliance with the command of the King, We are compelled and forced, and this only by oppression and fear to consecrate bishops, a thing which we exceedingly deplore.”

The author then goes on to state that the role of the King as administrator of such matters was the norm at the time of the Reformation and that some of the bishops involved (not certain which bishops?) did not have knowledge that something may have changed with the consecrations, so they accepted the procedures as any Roman clergy would have.
 
mattp0625 said:
I tried to focus on names we already have.

It indicates that the succession of Bishops from the Roman line was broken. I know we already discussed that point, but it establishes we are talking about something outside of the RCC.

Bishop Sommar appears to have been “used” and was “incarcerated”.

It also indicated that the king was “seriously concerned to preserve” a Lutheran apostolic succession which Rome claimed to have alone. He “caused” the consecration of various bishops.

I also enjoyed this bit:

“The Archbishop’s consecration, however, was not performed with Popish superstitious ceremonies, but with the Word of God and prayer, and the laying on of hands…not purchased from Rome of the Pope at the cost of a heavy contribution from the clergy but was provided by way of the King’s free bounty”.

And this seemed interesting:

"These two prelates, however, were required by the King to transmit the Apostolic Succession to the new bishops and archbishops-elect… The two bishops executed their protest dated …1531…commencing, “We Magnus Sommar of Strengnas and Peter of Westeras… the document declares the irreconcilable hostility of the signatories to the Lutheran system and their unchanged loyalty to the Roman Church as supreme; it describes the persons about to receive consecration as the Archbishop and other bishops who are now intruded; it pleads, in excuse for compliance with the command of the King, We are compelled and forced, and this only by oppression and fear to consecrate bishops, a thing which we exceedingly deplore.”

The author then goes on to state that the role of the King as administrator of such matters was the norm at the time of the Reformation and that some of the bishops involved (not certain which bishops?) did not have knowledge that something may have changed with the consecrations, so they accepted the procedures as any Roman clergy would have.
Click to expand...
Yep, jolly stuff, isn’t it?

I’ve had a quick read through and I think I can see where I need to check and where I need to understand better, but I want to go through it again with a pen and piece of old-fashioned paper. If I may, I’ll come back when I’ve followed the trail (if I live that long).
 
GKC said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is quite a bit of false history from various Protestant denominations. I understand your point, but for the most part it’s fairly easy to anticipate:

Certain Baptists have their own succession theories because they agree with certain practices of the Cathars and Waldensians

Certain Evangelicals believe the Catholic Church evolved out of paganism only after Constantine made Christianity legal - despite the fact there were traceable bishops ordained by Peter and Paul in Antioch and Rome since the beginning.

The author here asserts that it was OK for the King to dictate consecration and “preserve succession”.

Etc, etc.
 
Father Ruggero…and everyone else…very interesting thread. Learning so much, grateful for the cordial discussion. SO many times in CAF these things devolve before we can learn.
I would have told you in a PM, but your inbox is full. I imagine many like to thank you for your scholarly additions to various threads. 👍

Back to the thread. Sorry for the sideline, folks. :cool:
 
mattp0625 said:
There is quite a bit of false history from various Protestant denominations. I understand your point, but for the most part it’s fairly easy to anticipate:

Certain Baptists have their own succession theories because they agree with certain practices of the Cathars and Waldensians

Certain Evangelicals believe the Catholic Church evolved out of paganism only after Constantine made Christianity legal - despite the fact there were traceable bishops ordained by Peter and Paul in Antioch and Rome since the beginning.

The author here asserts that it was OK for the King to dictate consecration and “preserve succession”.

Etc, etc.
Click to expand...
Yep, that stuff stands out for you. Thing is, does bias in Catholic authors stand out for you as clearly?
 
Picky_Picky said:
Yep, that stuff stands out for you. Thing is, does bias in Catholic authors stand out for you as clearly?
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps not, but as far as I can tell there isn’t a need to fabricate much. Most of the history seems pretty substantiated.
 
mattp0625 said:
Well, perhaps not, but as far as I can tell there isn’t a need to fabricate much. Most of the history seems pretty substantiated.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Joint Commission has addressed this in From Conflict to Communion. Biased histories were assuredly present on all sides. I have posted more extensively elsewhere in this thread on the subject of histories past and present.

18. Research has contributed much to changing the perception of the past in a number of ways. In the case of the Reformation, these include the Protestant as well as the Catholic accounts of church history, which have been able to correct previous confessional depictions of history through strict methodological guidelines and reflection on the conditions of their own points of view and presuppositions. On the Catholic side that applies especially to the newer research on Luther and Reformation and, on the Protestant side, to an altered picture of medieval theology and to a broader and more differentiated treatment of the late Middle Ages. In current depictions of the Reformation period, there is also new attention to a vast number of non-theological factors—political, economic, social, and cultural. The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
Actually, the Joint Commission has addressed this in From Conflict to Communion. Biased histories were assuredly present on all sides. I have posted more extensively elsewhere in this thread on the subject of histories past and present.

18. Research has contributed much to changing the perception of the past in a number of ways. In the case of the Reformation, these include the Protestant as well as the Catholic accounts of church history, which have been able to correct previous confessional depictions of history through strict methodological guidelines and reflection on the conditions of their own points of view and presuppositions. On the Catholic side that applies especially to the newer research on Luther and Reformation and, on the Protestant side, to an altered picture of medieval theology and to a broader and more differentiated treatment of the late Middle Ages. In current depictions of the Reformation period, there is also new attention to a vast number of non-theological factors—political, economic, social, and cultural. The paradigm of “confessionalization” has made important corrections to previous historiography of the period.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, we can establish a history from Peter and Paul to Linus, through the Synod at Hippo, etc, to present the case that the RCC was present from the beginning of the church’s history, developed the canon, believed in the real presence, etc.
 
mattp0625 said:
Generally speaking, we can establish a history from Peter and Paul to Linus, through the Synod at Hippo, etc, to present the case that the RCC was present from the beginning of the church’s history, developed the canon, believed in the real presence, etc.
Click to expand...
The question to which I was responding concerned a bias on the part of the Catholic authors. There is an acknowledgment from the Holy See that affirms that there has been such a bias in the past. It is not to be tolerated in the present era, of course. Any deliberate bias should be rejected today.
 
mattp0625 said:
There is quite a bit of false history from various Protestant denominations. I understand your point, but for the most part it’s fairly easy to anticipate:

Certain Baptists have their own succession theories because they agree with certain practices of the Cathars and Waldensians

Certain Evangelicals believe the Catholic Church evolved out of paganism only after Constantine made Christianity legal - despite the fact there were traceable bishops ordained by Peter and Paul in Antioch and Rome since the beginning.

The author here asserts that it was OK for the King to dictate consecration and “preserve succession”.

Etc, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree. And reading history in the round helps sort this kind of thing out.

And considering that a schism in itself wouldn’t affect the transmission of valid succession, that the King was dictating it wouldn’t either. Assuming all other factors were equally valid. At page 29, I can’t say whether that seems likely or not. But I applaud you for reading on into it.
 
GKC said:
I agree. And reading history in the round helps sort this kind of thing out.

And considering that a schism in itself wouldn’t affect the transmission of valid succession, that the King was dictating it wouldn’t either. Assuming all other factors were equally valid. At page 29, I can’t say whether that seems likely or not. But I applaud you for reading on into it.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Dictating against the bishop’s own wishes with threat of harm? It feels debatable.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
…
Click to expand...
Okay Father, Luther did not intend to start a new Church in the beginning, he only wanted to reform it. But that raises these questions in my mind that I hope you can answer:

1.) Since in the end he totally rejected indulgences, what leads you to believe that eliminating the sale of indulgences would have been enough for him?

2.) He only kept two sacraments, why should people believe that another crisis would not have ensued on the issue of sacraments even after the elimination of the selling of indulgences?

3.) Would not the issue of his view of sola scriptura lead to the same results?

4.) If he only wanted to reform the Church, why did the one he start look radically different than the one he was trying to reform?

5.) I realize this is speculation, and you do not like to do that, but…do you think dialogue on the issues would have been enough for him, if the Church did not eliminate indulgences, priestly celibacy, calling the Mass a sacrifice…?

6.) If the Church had reformed around the lines that Luther wanted, would that not be a radical change from the way the Church had looked for 1500 years? And would that not in essence be a new Church, since the reforming of it would have been a radical change to what She had been?
 
Interestingly, this article from the Tablet (of 1911, when it was all a subject of debate in England) suggests the consecration of Laurentius Petri was irregular but not invalid:

archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/29th-april-1911/8/canterbury-and-upsala

and here is Doctor Lundström telling Anglican bishops in 1911 about apostolic succession in the CoS, with ref to the Rev Mr Nicholson’s book (which he confirms the contents of, but somewhat sniffily).

anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/conference19092.html
 
Picky_Picky said:
Interestingly, this article from the Tablet (of 1911, when it was all a subject of debate in England) suggests the consecration of Laurentius Petri was irregular but not invalid:

archive.thetablet.co.uk/article/29th-april-1911/8/canterbury-and-upsala

and here is Doctor Lundström telling Anglican bishops in 1911 about apostolic succession in the CoS, with ref to the Rev Mr Nicholson’s book (which he confirms the contents of, but somewhat sniffily).

anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/conference19092.html
Click to expand...
All I can say is if this were the circumstances of Peter or Linus I wouldn’t be too happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top