Question for Lutherans

[GKC]

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

I’m up to page 18. I’ll make it.

And, truth be told, a $20 copy is nothing out of the ordinary, to feed my …mmm…hobby. A little surprising to see the availability of the title, though.

 

[GKC]

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

Op. cit, pp.234-235.

 

[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

Matt:

I’m sick of the Swedes and their bishops, but I have come to some sort of conclusion.

First some caveats. As I said at the start, this is not my field. I did study history, but not to any particular distinction: I am certainly not an historian. I have no expertise in the history of the Church, the late Middle Ages, or Scandinavia. If I have any more than general historical knowledge it is of the events that led to the meeting of Blücher and Wellington on the field of Waterloo.

Secondly, all I have done is look at a handful of secondary sources trawled from the ether.

Nonetheless I have reached some degree of confidence in my own mind that, unless contrary evidence surfaces, we have no reason to doubt the Swedish claim that there was a succession from bishop to bishop by laying on of hands that began before the Reformation and continued through and after it.

It is true that Dr Nicholson and Dr Lundström and Dr Williams might be said to have an emotional investment in this outcome, but there seems no reason to question their diligence or honesty; moreover *The Tablet * might be said to have an emotional investment the other way, yet its article agrees with them. Even more significantly, there seems to me to be no inconsistency between them and the short narratives in Wallace or the *New Cambridge Modern History *. All the sources visited, then, have supported the conclusion that the succession by laying on of hands continued through the period.

Of course it is possible, as we have seen in the past, for doubts to be raised as to the validity of the transmission of orders because of possible faults of form or intent, or the two entwined, but at that point I feel the waters rising and fear that I may be getting out of my depth. As to the matter of laying on of hands, however: belief in that seems solidly grounded.

 

[GKC]

Matt:

I’m sick of the Swedes and their bishops, but I have come to some sort of conclusion.

First some caveats. As I said at the start, this is not my field. I did study history, but not to any particular distinction: I am certainly not an historian. I have no expertise in the history of the Church, the late Middle Ages, or Scandinavia. If I have any more than general historical knowledge it is of the events that led to the meeting of Blücher and Wellington on the field of Waterloo.

Secondly, all I have done is look at a handful of secondary sources trawled from the ether.

Nonetheless I have reached some degree of confidence in my own mind that, unless contrary evidence surfaces, we have no reason to doubt the Swedish claim that there was a succession from bishop to bishop by laying on of hands that began before the Reformation and continued through and after it.

It is true that Dr Nicholson and Dr Lundström and Dr Williams might be said to have an emotional investment in this outcome, but there seems no reason to question their diligence or honesty; moreover *The Tablet * might be said to have an emotional investment the other way, yet its article agrees with them. Even more significantly, there seems to me to be no inconsistency between them and the short narratives in Wallace or the *New Cambridge Modern History *. All the sources visited, then, have supported the conclusion that the succession by laying on of hands continued through the period.

Of course it is possible, as we have seen in the past, for doubts to be raised as to the validity of the transmission of orders because of possible faults of form or intent, or the two entwined, but at that point I feel the waters rising and fear that I may be getting out of my depth. As to the matter of laying on of hands, however: belief in that seems solidly grounded.

You have done yeoman’s work.

 

[Picky_Picky]

You have done yeoman’s work.

Thank you, sir. Yeoman stock, you see. Well, villein stock, perhaps.

 

[KjetilK]

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

A big problem here is that you referring to Luther as if he has some kind of ecclesial authority in my Church (the Church of Norway, or of Denmark-Norway before 1814), such that we have to follow his every word. That is not, and never had been, the case. Luther has never had any immediate authority in my Church. Luther was not a bishop, and the only text of his that is normative in the Church of Norway is his Small Cathechism. And only because the bishops adopted it as a confession. We don’t follow the entire Book of Concord.

I’m pretty sure I have said so before many times. I am in fact confident that I’ve said so to you, Tomster, many times.

 

[MaryT777]

A big problem here is that you referring to Luther as if he has some kind of ecclesial authority in my Church (the Church of Norway, or of Denmark-Norway before 1814), such that we have to follow his every word. That is not, and never had been, the case. Luther has never had any immediate authority in my Church. Luther was not a bishop, and the only text of his that is normative in the Church of Norway is his Small Cathechism. And only because the bishops adopted it as a confession. We don’t follow the entire Book of Concord.

I’m pretty sure I have said so before many times. I am in fact confident that I’ve said so to you, Tomster, many times.

You have said it many times but we also have confessional Lutherans posting. Therefore it’s difficult to come to a definitive thought on what the Lutheran Doctrine per se is.

Some teaching women ordination,abortion, homosexual relations, homosexual ordination is ok. Some signing the JDDJ such as the LWF some not signing it such as the Confessional Lutherans, LCMS, WELS, etc. Some following the teachings of the Concord book that the pope sits in the seat of the AntiChrist and some not

Mary…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The messages are not reportable in that the content is not inappropriate – I actually did have that happen with a user named Bookcat and a moderator named Robert Bay resolved that for me so that this Bookcat has never tried again to contact me. The messages are either the debating people, with their wish to debate, or the scrupulous, with their scrupulosity.

After having dealt with the issues I have, I have little interest in prolonged conversations with people like D James or Steve B who have no clue as to what they are attempting to talk about. I have written diocesan policy…I have worked on theological dialogue. If either of them had made it to my classroom, they would not have survived long.

It’s like Vico with his marriage remark…this was a subject I lectured on at the graduate school level. When I answer a question, I am not saying what I “think” or what “seems” to me…I am giving the answer. In Eastern theology, the intervention of the priest is essential. I wouldn’t have had the appointments I held if I were not an expert.

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?

 

[JonNC]

You have said it many times but we also have confessional Lutherans posting. Therefore it’s difficult to come to a definitive thought on what the Lutheran Doctrine per se is.

Some teaching women ordination,abortion, homosexual relations, homosexual ordination is ok. Some signing the JDDJ such as the LWF some not signing it such as the Confessional Lutherans, LCMS, WELS, etc. Some following the teachings of the Concord book that the pope sits in the seat of the AntiChrist and some not

Mary…

It has been said by numerous Lutheran that Luther held no position of authority in any Lutheran group, other than that of influence.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

Matt:

I’m sick of the Swedes and their bishops, but I have come to some sort of conclusion.

First some caveats. As I said at the start, this is not my field. I did study history, but not to any particular distinction: I am certainly not an historian. I have no expertise in the history of the Church, the late Middle Ages, or Scandinavia. If I have any more than general historical knowledge it is of the events that led to the meeting of Blücher and Wellington on the field of Waterloo.

Secondly, all I have done is look at a handful of secondary sources trawled from the ether.

Nonetheless I have reached some degree of confidence in my own mind that, unless contrary evidence surfaces, we have no reason to doubt the Swedish claim that there was a succession from bishop to bishop by laying on of hands that began before the Reformation and continued through and after it.

It is true that Dr Nicholson and Dr Lundström and Dr Williams might be said to have an emotional investment in this outcome, but there seems no reason to question their diligence or honesty; moreover *The Tablet * might be said to have an emotional investment the other way, yet its article agrees with them. Even more significantly, there seems to me to be no inconsistency between them and the short narratives in Wallace or the *New Cambridge Modern History *. All the sources visited, then, have supported the conclusion that the succession by laying on of hands continued through the period.

Of course it is possible, as we have seen in the past, for doubts to be raised as to the validity of the transmission of orders because of possible faults of form or intent, or the two entwined, but at that point I feel the waters rising and fear that I may be getting out of my depth. As to the matter of laying on of hands, however: belief in that seems solidly grounded.

Unless previously uncovered facts are proven false, agree to disagree.

I doubt that King Gustav exits the scenario.

It’s a similar scenario in Norway as well.

 

[steido01]

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

Ugh. Are you familiar with the pope who took the name Benedict XVI?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Unless previously uncovered facts are proven false, agree to disagree.

I doubt that King Gustav exits the scenario.

It’s a similar scenario in Norway as well.

Tell me, at which point or points do you see that succession of the laying on of hands being broken? Because I’ve been unable to discover it.

 

[Tomster]

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

It sounds like the good doctor was staking a claim to some type of authority here doesn’t it?

 

[Tomster]

A big problem here is that you referring to Luther as if he has some kind of ecclesial authority in my Church (the Church of Norway, or of Denmark-Norway before 1814), such that we have to follow his every word. That is not, and never had been, the case. Luther has never had any immediate authority in my Church. Luther was not a bishop, and the only text of his that is normative in the Church of Norway is his Small Cathechism. And only because the bishops adopted it as a confession. We don’t follow the entire Book of Concord.

I’m pretty sure I have said so before many times. I am in fact confident that I’ve said so to you, Tomster, many times.

Ah, the old schism within a schism situation. I think I have mentioned that to you as well. (Without a satisfactory explanation about it from you I might add.)

Wow, I thought that Lutherans are those Protestants who followed the teaching of Martin Luther as expressed in distinctive confessions contained in the Book of Concord.

You don’t follow the entire Book of Concord? Wouldn’t some Lutherans disapprove of that position?

 

[mattp0625]

Tell me, at which point or points do you see that succession of the laying on of hands being broken? Because I’ve been unable to discover it.

We have been through that.

 

[steido01]

Ah, the old schism within a schism situation. I think I have mentioned that to you as well. (Without a satisfactory explanation about it from you I might add.)

Wow, I thought that Lutherans are those Protestants who followed the teaching of Martin Luther as expressed in distinctive confessions contained in the Book of Concord.

You don’t follow the entire Book of Concord? Wouldn’t some Lutherans disapprove of that position?

Yes, which is why it’s important to understand Lutheranism rightly as a diverse movement and see each communion in its own right rather than pretend it to be some single, unified, monolithic church a la “Protestantism.”

And Luther is not who we follow. Nor do we necessarily follow his teachings. We follow Christ, preach Him crucified, and express it through our creeds and confessions.

 

[mattp0625]

Yes, which is why it’s important to understand Lutheranism rightly as a diverse movement and see each communion in its own right rather than pretend it to be some single, unified, monolithic church a la “Protestantism.”

And Luther is not who we follow. Nor do we necessarily follow his teachings. We follow Christ, preach Him crucified, and express it through our creeds and confessions.

Through the lens of Luther and the creeds he invented.

 

[steido01]

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

Wonder what Chesterton would say to Benedict XVI, now that “Luther was right… to translate [alone],” according to the pope emeritus. Catholics continue to attack this, yet it is clear from anyone who speaks any bit of German or English, that the word ‘alone’ belongs in that translation.

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119.html

As for this so-called “claim to authority,” isn’t it rather obvious that Luther is simply being facetious toward an adversary who claims to literally hold all power – both spiritual and temporal? Not even Luther believed that he was authoritative - that’s the whole point of this sarcastic comment! One fights corrupted, fiat power through mockery. This is exactly what Luther did here. He threw the Catholic line of the time right back at Rome. ‘Roma locuta est…’

 

[steido01]

Through the lens of Luther and the creeds he invented.

Luther was not solely responsible for our confessions. Many were composed and even literally penned by others. If you refuse to see this, you are no student of history, and I’m not sure this thread is a good use of anyone’s time.

 

[Picky_Picky]

We have been through that.

I think not, but you are clearly no longer interested.