Question for Lutherans

[Picky_Picky]

All I can say is if this were the circumstances of Peter or Linus I wouldn’t be too happy.

Just as well, then, that the Swedes think they go back to Peter and Linus, too.

 

[GKC]

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

I’m only on p. 34 of Nicholson (I hate lengthy electronic reading), but I’m tentatively forming a couple of semi-maybes. One would be as to how intent might still have been valid, in the consecration of Laurentius Petri (sort of the ++Parker of this case), even in light of the 1531 protest. And in your first link I find a statement that Laurentius might be considered irregularly but validly consecrated, It appears that the TABLET didn’t consider the degree of protest to constitute a suspiciously invalid sacramental intent, but only of a reluctance to perform that duty. Which, in performing, reluctantly, he intended to do what the Church did, in that action. I was sort of feeling around that idea, when considering Nicholson’s booklet, but I think it seems to be the thrust of the TABLET, too. Intent is always the first thing I think of.

Then comes Botvid Sunonis (sort of the analog for Barlow in this; the mystery bishop).

Of course, later on, it would appear that other opportunities to break the chain are alleged, and deal in the familiar invalid intent and form in the later ordinal, but I’m not there yet. In fact I’m going out to smoke a pipe.

So far,* lutefisk* continues to be not present.

 

[mattp0625]

Just as well, then, that the Swedes think they go back to Peter and Linus, too.

If that’s true, I suspect they were told the bishops just all decided to become Lutheran, as I’ve seen that narrative more than once

 

[Picky_Picky]

If that’s true, I suspect they were told the bishops just all decided to become Lutheran, as I’ve seen that narrative more than once

Take it easy, Matt, this is history: it rarely comes free of infection. If we were to go back through the lineage of your bishop, whoever he may be, we’d find some embarrassments. I’ve been told that even the Church of England, which obviously is the peak of perfection, has one or two moments in its history which one might prefer not to be reminded of.

Let’s just stick with the history for the moment, and do the polemics later.

Picky

 

[mattp0625]

Take it easy, Matt, this is history: it rarely comes free of infection. If we were to go back through the lineage of your bishop, whoever he may be, we’d find some embarrassments. I’ve been told that even the Church of England, which obviously is the peak of perfection, has one or two moments in its history which one might prefer not to be reminded of.

Let’s just stick with the history for the moment, and do the polemics later.

Picky

Sure embarrassments, but not in relation to the Church’s origins.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I’m only on p. 34 of Nicholson (I hate lengthy electronic reading), but I’m tentatively forming a couple of semi-maybes. One would be as to how intent might still have been valid, in the consecration of Laurentius Petri (sort of the ++Parker of this case), even in light of the 1531 protest. And in your first link I find a statement that Laurentius might be considered irregularly but validly consecrated, It appears that the TABLET didn’t consider the degree of protest to constitute a suspiciously invalid sacramental intent, but only of a reluctance to perform that duty. Which, in performing, reluctantly, he intended to do what the Church did, in that action. I was sort of feeling around that idea, when considering Nicholson’s booklet, but I think it seems to be the thrust of the TABLET, too. Intent is always the first thing I think of.

Then comes Botvid Sunonis (sort of the analog for Barlow in this; the mystery bishop).

Of course, later on, it would appear that other opportunities to break the chain are alleged, and deal in the familiar invalid intent and form in the later ordinal, but I’m not there yet. In fact I’m going out to smoke a pipe.

So far,* lutefisk* continues to be not present.

Yes, Laurentius Petri’s consecration looked iffy to us both on the grounds of intent at first, and I was surprised to see the Tablet brush the problem aside. But that is the common theme with the sources we’ve so far unearthed: they don’t make a big fuss about LP’s consecration.

No doubt the revised ordinal will prove the problem in Sweden as in England, in fact it would be surprising if that were not so.

 

[mattp0625]

Yes, Laurentius Petri’s consecration looked iffy to us both on the grounds of intent, and I was surprised to see the Tablet brush the problem aside. But that is the common theme with the sources we’ve so far unearthed: they don’t make a big fuss about LP’s consecration.

Yes, there appears to be quite a bit of downplaying.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sure embarrassments, but not in relation to the Church’s origins.

Remember that the CofS considers its origins to be with Christ, and its separation from your church to be a matter of reform. I don’t say they are necessarily correct (indeed I have no status in that kind of argument) but remember that “the Church of Sweden’s origins are in a royal coup” would be a matter not of historical fact but of interpretation (and polemic).

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes, there appears to be quite a bit of downplaying.

Yes, and surprisingly, but, interestingly, also in the Cambridge narrative and in the (Catholic) Tablet article.

 

[GKC]

Yes, Laurentius Petri’s consecration looked iffy to us both on the grounds of intent at first, and I was surprised to see the Tablet brush the problem aside. But that is the common theme with the sources we’ve so far unearthed: they don’t make a big fuss about LP’s consecration.

No doubt the revised ordinal will prove the problem in Sweden as in England, in fact it would be surprising if that were not so.

Yep.

 

[KjetilK]

I think the reason why the word protestant is becoming obsolete is because they have divided and divided so much especially over the past 50 years that they no longer want to be all put in the same basket.

No, the reason it has become obsolete is that people have started to use it to describe churches and Christians which/who were never called ‘Protestant(s)’ to begin with. Following the original meaning of the word, ‘Protestants’ was used only to describe the protestation from six princes of the Holy Roman Empire and rulers of fourteen Imperial Free Cities to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and his enforcement of the edict of the Diet of Speyer. Thus, it only referred to these twenty leaders, and perhaps the members of ‘their’ churches. As time has gone on, the meaning has been changed in ways that has now made it utterly obsolete. It has nothing to do with peple having ‘divided and divided so much.’ In its original meaning, Pentecostals, Calvinists and Evangelicals are NOT Protestant, and neither are Lutherans from countries were the Lutheran church was the majority.

It’s going to be hard to find a word to replace it and break a long standing habit of both Protestants and Catholics as well as government and societies use of it.

In Norway we manage pretty easily without it. The prevalence of the word seem like an American thing to me.

The protestant reformation started a chain reaction that has resulted in today’s protestant, situation.

Does that mean, also, that the Roman Catholic Church is to blame for the people of Ireland voting to introduce same-sex marriage or for the fact that if it hadn’t been for Roman Catholic voters, Barack Obama would probably not have been POTUS?

Maybe it’s time they take a long look at the history of Protestantism so they can be better informed.

And what is the story of this ‘Prostantism’ to which you refer?

So many protestant ministers that have come into the Catholic faith have said they paid very little if any attention to Christian History back to Christ.

Yes, but does that mean that I haven’t?

They just took it for granted what they were taught against the Catholic Church was correct.

Yes, there has been a lot of bigoted anti-catholicism in various Christian churches.

But I have studied Church history. To become a priest in the Church of Norway you need six years of University lever studies.

 

[steve_b]

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?

As I mentioned back in #218 , excommunication is a disciplinary action, not meant to be permanent but a wake up call. People don’t have to remain excommunicated. They can correct what put them in that position by reconciliation, and return to the Church. Luther obviously chose to remain excommunicated. Your questions are valid. His actions said everything about him, and continued to speak for him and what he started. If he didn’t mean to do what he did, he would have changed. Remaining in His actions spoke volumes

 

[Picky_Picky]

Church of Sweden

This book, by an American Anglican bishop, is packed with so much information about the Swedish church, its succession (including an actual line from the last Catholic archbishop to the archbishop at the time of writing), its ordinals etc – so much that my mind is boggled.

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89097231013;view=1up;seq=9

 

[Tomster]

No, the reason it has become obsolete is that people have started to use it to describe churches and Christians which/who were never called ‘Protestant(s)’ to begin with. Following the original meaning of the word, ‘Protestants’ was used only to describe the protestation from six princes of the Holy Roman Empire and rulers of fourteen Imperial Free Cities to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, and his enforcement of the edict of the Diet of Speyer. Thus, it only referred to these twenty leaders, and perhaps the members of ‘their’ churches. As time has gone on, the meaning has been changed in ways that has now made it utterly obsolete. It has nothing to do with peple having ‘divided and divided so much.’ In its original meaning, Pentecostals, Calvinists and Evangelicals are NOT Protestant, and neither are Lutherans from countries were the Lutheran church was the majority.

In Norway we manage pretty easily without it. The prevalence of the word seem like an American thing to me.

Does that mean, also, that the Roman Catholic Church is to blame for the people of Ireland voting to introduce same-sex marriage or for the fact that if it hadn’t been for Roman Catholic voters, Barack Obama would probably not have been POTUS?

And what is the story of this ‘Prostantism’ to which you refer?

Yes, but does that mean that I haven’t?

Yes, there has been a lot of bigoted anti-catholicism in various Christian churches.

But I have studied Church history. To become a priest in the Church of Norway you need six years of University lever studies.

“Lutheranism had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was itself the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.” - G.K. Chesterton

 

[GKC]

“Lutheranism had one theory that was the destruction of all theories; in fact it had its own theology which was itself the death of theology. Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, except an almost inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.” - G.K. Chesterton

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, 1st British edition, chap. VIII, p.232.

 

[Picky_Picky]

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, 1st British edition, chap. VIII, p.232.

With your friend Chesterton we never feel we should say: Come on, man, stop dawdling, put your foot on the gas!

 

[GKC]

Church of Sweden

This book, by an American Anglican bishop, is packed with so much information about the Swedish church, its succession (including an actual line from the last Catholic archbishop to the archbishop at the time of writing), its ordinals etc – so much that my mind is boggled.

babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89097231013;view=1up;seq=9

Mine often is such

And, Oh, joy!. More script to be read from a screen.

Unless I want to spent $15-$20 for my own copy.

 

[GKC]

With your friend Chesterton we never feel we should say: Come on, man, stop dawdling, put your foot on the gas!

Nope.

“On a great map like the mind of Aquinas, the mind of Luther would be almost invisible”. Chesterton, op.cit, p. 233

 

[Picky_Picky]

Mine often is such

And, Oh, joy!. More script to be read from a screen.

Unless I want to spent $15-$20 for my own copy.

Page 1, then page 59, then decide whether you think it’s worth any more attention.

 

[Tomster]

Nope.

“On a great map like the mind of Aquinas, the mind of Luther would be almost invisible”. Chesterton, op.cit, p. 233

And, “When he quoted a Scripture text, inserting a word that is not in Scripture, he was content to shout back at all hecklers: ‘Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!’ That is what we now call Personality. A little later it was called Psychology. After that it was called Advertisement or Salesmanship.” - G.K. Chesterton