Questions for Lutherans

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Lutherans also retained a practice of confession in their churches.

Article XXV: Of Confession.

1] Confession in the churches is not abolished among us; for it is not usual to give the body of the Lord, except to them that have been previously examined and absolved. And 2] the people are most carefully taught concerning faith in the absolution, about which formerly there 3] was profound silence. Our people are taught that they should highly prize the absolution, as being the voice of God, 4] and pronounced by God’s command. The power of the Keys is set forth in its beauty and they are reminded what great consolation it brings to anxious consciences, also, that God requires faith to believe such absolution as a voice sounding from heaven, and that such faith in Christ truly obtains and receives the forgiveness of sins. Aforetime satisfactions were immoderately extolled; 5] of faith and the merit of Christ and the righteousness of faith no mention was made; wherefore, on this point, our churches are by no means to be blamed. For this even our adversaries must needs concede 6] to us that the doctrine concerning repentance has been most diligently treated and laid open by our teachers.

7] But of Confession they teach that an enumeration of sins is not necessary, and that consciences be not burdened with anxiety to enumerate all sins, for it is impossible to recount all sins, as the Psalm 19:13 testifies: Who can understand his errors? Also Jeremiah 17:9 : 8] The heart is deceitful; who can know it? But if no sins were forgiven, except those that are recounted, 9] consciences could never find peace; for very many sins they neither see 10] nor can remember. The ancient writers also testify that an enumeration is not necessary. For in the Decrees, Chrysostom is quoted, 11] who says thus: I say not to you that you should disclose yourself in public, nor that you accuse yourself before others, but I would have you obey the prophet who says: “Disclose thy way before God.” Therefore confess your sins before God, the true Judge, with prayer. Tell your errors, not with the tongue, but with the memory of your conscience, etc. 12] And the Gloss (Of Repentance, Distinct. V, Cap. Consideret) admits that Confession is of human right only [not commanded by Scripture, but ordained by the Church]. 13] Nevertheless, on account of the great benefit of absolution, and because it is otherwise useful to the conscience, Confession is retained among us.

In the Small Catechism, it even goes as far as to say:

Confession embraces two parts: the one is, that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the confessor, as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that our sins are thereby forgiven before God in heaven.

P.S. Philip Melanchthon numbers absolution among the sacraments, along with baptism and communion, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

 

[Annie39]

Dueling url’s.

Supremacy, universal jurisdiction.

Jon

Since its super bowl Sunday and others in the house will be watching it I have time on my hands for a while and will attempt to give evidence for Supremacy, as for “universal jurisdiction” are you using that word to mean universal Bishop meaning that no other bishop has power and authority? If that is what you mean by universal jurisdiction I will be unable to find evidence for that because that is not the belief of the Catholic Church.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

I had copied some of a person named Dave’s work a few years ago and was about to post much of what he said but I wanted to give him credit so I searched the web lo and behold it is still there at this site.

itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/2005/03/unity-of-command-not-just-good-idea.html

this is quite the evidence and proves how angry God becomes when someone attempts to usurp the authority of the person whom He has chosen. Here is some more evidence

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11648191#post11648191

although one person writes “There is no logical nor patristic support for the Absolutist Petrine view. If I understand that statement I believe that I can find some quotes from the early Church to give evidence that this is not so. In my next post I plan to show evidence from the Early Church, Lord willing.

Annie

 

[Annie39]

It is necessary that I divide this next post into 2 because of the length. This is part 1

Ignatius of Antioch: Ignatius describes how he had prayed to be able to meet the Romans face to face. Although he asks for their prayers, he does not wish them to intervene to stop his impending martyrdom: be not an unseasonable kindness to me,? he implores them. [Romans IV, 1]

With the Romans, Ignatius used the language of supplication. Not as Peter and Paul do I command you, he wrote. They were apostles; I am a convict; they were free, I am a slave even now. [Rom. IV, 3]

The saint hoped that when the Roman Church spoke, she would be heeded. He wrote: You never envied anyone; you have taught others. My will is that what you have enjoined, in teaching others, may stand firm. [Rom. III, 1]

Irenaeus firmly opposed the heresy of Gnosticism, and wrote a lengthy work, Adversus Haereses, to refute it. Gnostics believed that man was perfected by a sort of secret knowledge-- gnosis, in Greek. Irenaeus refuted the contention that the apostles had taught any secret gnosis. The apostles taught no differently than their successors, the bishops; in fact, Irenaeus remarked, the apostles left to their successors ?their own place of teaching authority, suum ipsorum locum magisterii. [Adv. Haer. III, 3. PG 7: 848]

In view of this consideration, St. Irenaeus writes that in the Church, it is necessary to obey ...those who have the succession from the apostles, as we have shown, who with the succession of the episcopate have received the sure charism of truth, in accordance with the Father?s good pleasure: as for the rest, who stand aloof from the principal succession... we must consider them suspect, or as heretics, or of bad doctrine...? [Adv. Haer. IV, 26]

Instead of listing the succession of bishops in each apostolic church, Irenaeus gave a sort of short cut: the succession in the Roman Church. The saint wrote:

…because it would take too long, in this sort of book, to list the successions of all the Churches, by indicating the apostolic tradition and faith announced to mankind, which has reached our own time through successions of bishops, in the greatest, most ancient church known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, we confound all who in any way-- either for self-pleasing or vainglory, or blindness or evil teaching-- gather otherwise than they ought. For to this church on account of her more powerful principality it is necessary that every church convene, that is the faithful from all sides, in which, always, that which is the tradition from the apostles has been preserved by those who are from all parts. [PG 7: 848-9]
Continuing his train of thought, Irenaeus describes the earliest succession at Rome:
Having founded and built up the church, the blessed apostles entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement obtained the episcopate. He both saw the blessed apostles and conversed with them; their preaching was ringing in his ears and their tradition was before his eyes... In the time of this Clement no small dissension arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very forceful letter to the Corinthians, urging them to have peace, renewing their faith and announcing the tradition they had recently received from the apostles... Evaristus succeeded this Clement, and Alexander Evaristus, and then Sixtus was established sixth after the apostles. After him came Telesphorus, who gloriously endured martyrdom. Afterwards came Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherius, twelfth from the apostles who now has obtained the lot of the episcopate. In the same order and the same succession the tradition of the apostles in the Church and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is a most complete demonstration that it is one and the same life-giving faith which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles to this very day, and handed down in truth. [PG 7: 849-51]

 

[Annie39]

Part 2

Authority of the Bishop of Rome:

Sedition at Corinth

Clement intervened in a dispute in the Church of Corinth about the year 96. Members of the presbyteral college had been unjustly deposed, and the Roman Church, informed of these events, sent a lengthy letter which begins: The Church of God that sojourns at Rome to the Church of God that sojourns at Corinth... [Ed. Kirsopp Lake, The Apostolic Fathers, Harvard 1959, 1: 8]

The author warns the Corinthians against the sin of disobedience, and gives them this instruction about apostolic succession:

The apostles announced the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, was sent from God, and the apostles are from Christ: both of these things proceed in an orderly way by God?s will… They preached from district to district, and from city to city, and they appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who were going to believe… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife for the title of bishop. For this cause, therefore, since they had received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have been already mentioned, and afterwards added the codicil that if they should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry… *

The inference is clear: Christ is from God, the Apostles are from Christ, and the bishops and other sacred ministers, and even their successors, are from the apostles. To resist the Church?s legitimate ministers, then, is to resist God. Consequently, the letter has a warning for the dissidents:

You therefore, who laid the foundation of the sedition, submit to the presbyters, and receive this rebuke unto repentance, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be submissive, putting aside the boastful and the haughty self-confidence of your tongue... Receive our counsel, and there shall be nothing for you to regret... But if some be disobedient to the words spoken by him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no little danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin... you will give us joy and gladness if you are obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, and root out the wicked passion of your jealousy... And we have sent faithful and prudent men, who have lived among us without blame from youth to old age, and they will be witnesses between you and us. We have done this that you may know that our whole care has been and is directed to your speedy attainment of peace. *

In my next post I plan to show that a Bishop of Rome threatened to remove another Bishop for disobedience which will give evidence that the BoR has authority over other bishops.**

 

[Annie39]

This information is too long for one post again here is part 1

St. Zosimus I [417-418]

When Pope Innocent died in March 417, his successor, Zosimus, made a major change in the Church in Gaul. On March 22, he wrote to the bishops of Gaul, granting extraordinary privileges to Patroclus, bishop of Arles. “It has pleased the Apostolic See,” the pope wrote, that clerics of any rank coming to Rome from Gaul must have litterae formatae, canonical letters of recognition from Patroclus, otherwise they “absolutely cannot be received by us.” The pope added that he had informed all quarters of this order, “so that all regions may realize that what we establish is altogether to be observed,” warning: “if anybody attempts to violate these beneficially established constitutions, let him know that, of his own volition he is separated from our communion.” [PL 20: 642-3]

The next paragraph gave the metropolitan of Arles, “as he has always had,” authority regarding ordinations in three different provinces: the Viennoise, and First and Second Narbonnaise. Whoever dares to give or receive ordination in these provinces without the consent of the bishop of Arles is deposed from the priesthood, Zosimus declared, asserting that he was confirming immemorial privileges held by the Church of Arles since the time of Trophimus, a bishop sent from Rome, from whose mission, attributed to the most distant antiquity, the Catholic faith had spread throughout Gaul. [PL 20: 644-5]

For decades, Arles had been growing in civil importance; it had even become the seat of an imperial prefecture. In the ecclesiastical hierarchy, Arles belonged to the province of Viennoise, whose metropolis was Vienne. The Council of Turin [c. 400] had proposed an arrangement in which each city-- Arles and Vienne-- would share metropolitan rights over the cities closer to its immediate vicinity. Now, thanks to Pope Zosimus, the see of Arles had secured the primacy in Gaul. [Cf. Mansi 3: 861]

In September, the pope disciplined two bishops ordained without the approval of Patroclus. Writing to bishops throughout Africa, Gaul and Spain, Zosimus, citing numerous irregularities, announced that the bishops, Ursus and Tuentius, were illicitly ordained and could not be admitted to communion. [PL 20: 661-5]

When Hilary, bishop of Narbonne, wrote asserting his rights to ordain bishops in First Narbonnaise, the pope replied on September 26, 417. Citing the mission of St. Trophimus, Zosimus declared that the right to ordain bishops in Viennoise and First and Second Narbonnaise belonged to the bishop of Arles. Invoking the authority of the Apostolic See and his own recent “most evident definition,” Pope Zosimus, under pain of excommunication, deprived Hilary of the right of ordaining bishops in First Narbonnaise. [PL 20: 667-8]

Two other metropolitans incurred the pope’s displeasure: Proculus of Marseilles and Simplicius of Vienne. Zosimus wrote to their provinces in late September, outraged that Proculus, in denigration of the Apostolic See, had cited the authority of the Council of Turin and that Simplicius of Vienne had shown similar “impudence” by ordaining bishops in Viennoise. In the name of antiquity, for which the decrees of the Fathers required reverent observance, Pope Zosimus asserted that Proculus and Simplicius had violated the statutes of the Fathers and the reverence due to Trophimus, first metropolitan of Arles sent by the Apostolic See. On September 29, the pope wrote to Patroclus, reaffirming rights that Patroclus enjoyed in Gaul by the authority of the Apostolic See. [PL 20: 665 sq.]

In March 418, Pope Zosimus reaffirmed the extensive authority that Patroclus enjoyed “by pronouncement of the Apostolic See.” The pope also wrote to the clergy and people of Marseilles, entrusting them to the care of Patroclus until they received a new bishop. [PL 20: 673-5]

Meanwhile, answering a consultation from Hesychius, bishop of Salona, who in the pope’s words had called for “a precept of the Apostolic See,” Zosimus reminded him that candidates for orders, whether monks or laymen, must pass through the usual grades and canonical intervals. Surprised that the “statutes of the Apostolic See” had not reached Hesychius, Zosimus directed him to pass on these instructions to the bishops of the neighboring provinces, declaring that whoever ignored “the authority of the Fathers and of the Apostolic See” were subject to severe punishment, and even in danger of losing their rank. [PL 20: 670-73]

Some of the Roman clergy, evidently unhappy with the pope’s policies, had fled to the imperial court at Ravenna. On October 3, 418 Pope Zosimus wrote, threatening severe penalties against them. [PL 20: 679-80]

On November 16, 418, the pope wrote to reprimand the bishops of the African province Byzacena. Not only had lay people been allowed to be present in ecclesiastical trials, he complained, they had even acted as judges. The pope was amazed that the bishops could have shown so little respect for the honor of the episcopate. [PL 20: 683-6]

 

[Annie39]

Part 2

An Accusation Against a Bishop

St. Sixtus II was succeeded by Dionysius [259-268], in whose time a famous incident occurred with the bishop of Alexandria, also named Dionysius. The issue was the doctrine of the Trinity and the Sabellian heresy, which denies that there are really three distinct persons in one God.

Dionysius of Alexandria had written to certain churches of the Pentapolis against the Sabellian heresy, and certain Egyptian Christians forwarded the letter to the other Dionysius, bishop of Rome. The Egyptians accused their archbishop of doctrinal errors about the Trinity. Dionysius of Rome held a council and examined the letter. He found fault with the expression ?creature? applied to God the Son, and with the reluctance to apply the term homoousios, which means that the Father and the Son are of the same substance, ?consubstantial.?

Dionysius of Rome wrote to the churches of Egypt, making it clear that God the Son was homoousios, of one substance with the Father, and inviting his namesake, Dionysius of Alexandria, to explain himself. Dionysius of Alexandria responded in four books entitled, Refutation and Defense. A century later another bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, alluded to the incident in his work De Synodis, writing:

Certain individuals had accused the bishop of Alexandria before the bishop of Rome, for saying that the Son was made, and not one in substance with the Father. The Roman council had been greatly pained, and the bishop of Rome expressed the opinion of them all in a letter to his namesake. As a result, [Dionysius of Alexandria] wrote the book called Refutation and Defense… [PG 26, 769]