Questions for Lutherans

[Annie39]

What makes a Lutheran a Lutheran is membership in a Lutheran parish. What makes a Lutheran pastor a Lutheran pastor is ordination within the Lutheran Church. A line of ordinations back to Luther may or may not exist, but they would be presbyter ordinations. Luther was never a bishop.

Jon

No, I didn’t mean what makes a Lutheran a Lutheran but what makes the people ordained by other churches Lutheran. Where do the presbyters get their authority to ordain? Related, as far back as you can trace the ordinations, who gave that person or those people authority to ordain?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

No, I didn’t mean what makes a Lutheran a Lutheran but what makes the people ordained by other churches Lutheran. Where do the presbyters get their authority to ordain? Related, as far back as you can trace the ordinations, who gave that person or those people authority to ordain?

Annie

We’ve circled back around to my initial post. The power given to Peter, then the apostles and then Church by Christ Himself.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

In the Apology, it refers to: If* the pastors ***are good men, they will know how far it is of advantage to examine [the young and otherwise] inexperienced persons; etc.
So, obviously, the reference is to pastors, called and ordained.

The Church ordains. The various synods of Lutheranism have various practices regarding ordination. Some ordain within apostolic succession, others like the LCMS use presbyter ordination, but it is always done by the synod involved, hence, the Church.

Jon

Okay, so the Lutheran Church is The Church? Was there a Church prior to 1517? If so where was it found and was Luther’s ordination to the Priesthood valid?

Annie

 

[RileyG]

From the Smalcald Articles:

Jon

Ok. So, in a nutshell, you believe that our blessed savior gave his apostles to bind and lose sins like us Catholics do?

God Bless…

 

[JonNC]

Okay, so the Lutheran Church is The Church? Was there a Church prior to 1517? If so where was it found and was Luther’s ordination to the Priesthood valid?

Annie

No, the Luteran Church is not only and exclusively The Church, though we are certainly part of it. We confess it weekly - the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Which has its origin in Christ at Pentecost.
Since then the Church is found where the word is preached and the sacraments.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Ok. So, in a nutshell, you believe that our blessed savior gave his apostles to bind and lose sins like us Catholics do?

God Bless…

Sure

Jon

 

[Annie39]

No, the Luteran Church is not only and exclusively The Church, though we are certainly part of it. We confess it weekly - the one holy catholic and apostolic church. Which has its origin in Christ at Pentecost.
Since then the Church is found where the word is preached and the sacraments.

Jon

Was there a Church prior to 1517 and if so what was its name who was the head and which one had the keys and what people did the ordaining?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

Was there a Church prior to 1517 and if so what was its name who was the head and which one had the keys and what people did the ordaining?

Annie

I think I already answered this. The Church, started and headed by Christ Himself, has it origin at Pentecost. It has been called The Way, The Catholic Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Sadly, since that time, there have been schisms and divisions within the Church, an example of which is the sad division between our communions - both Christian, both part of the OHCAC.
In the early Church, local churches, using their presbyters, ordained. Later, bishops ordained. Both have been used through the centuries. For example, 100 years or so before the Reformation, Cistercian Abbots practiced presbyter ordination.
As for leadership, the Bishop of Rome has always had a primacy of honor within the entire Church.

I hope that answers your questions, Annie.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

I think I already answered this. The Church, started and headed by Christ Himself, has it origin at Pentecost. It has been called The Way, The Catholic Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Sadly, since that time, there have been schisms and divisions within the Church, an example of which is the sad division between our communions - both Christian, both part of the OHCAC.
In the early Church, local churches, using their presbyters, ordained. Later, bishops ordained. Both have been used through the centuries. For example, 100 years or so before the Reformation, Cistercian Abbots practiced presbyter ordination.
As for leadership, the Bishop of Rome has always had a primacy of honor within the entire Church.

I hope that answers your questions, Annie.

Jon

Hi Jon,
You: Sadly, since that time, there have been schisms and divisions within the Church, an example of which is the sad division between our communions - both Christian, both part of the OHCAC.

Me: If there are schisms and divisions what evidence do you have that they are all part of the One (one not several) Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is it just the fact that you recite the Creeds? Were the Arians part of that Church; are the Mormons part of that Church?
You: In the early Church, local churches, using their presbyters, ordained. Later, bishops ordained. Both have been used through the centuries. For example, 100 years or so before the Reformation, Cistercian Abbots practiced presbyter ordination.
As for leadership, the Bishop of Rome has always had a primacy of honor within the entire Church.Me: If you go to this url

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/113797/Power%20of%20Priests%20to%20Ordain

you can be brought up to speed on the your belief that Abbots practiced presbyter ordination.

You: I hope that answers your questions,

Annie.Actually it has caused me to think of many others but if you don’t care to continue perhaps another Lutheran would like to engage. There is much evidence in the Church that the successors of the Papacy had actual authority and am have early Church quotes to that effect if you would like for me to post them if you would like.

Annie

 

[Memaw]

In the Apology, it refers to: If* the pastors ***are good men, they will know how far it is of advantage to examine [the young and otherwise] inexperienced persons; etc.
So, obviously, the reference is to pastors, called and ordained.

The Church ordains. The various synods of Lutheranism have various practices regarding ordination. Some ordain within apostolic succession, others like the LCMS use presbyter ordination, but it is always done by the synod involved, hence, the Church.

Jon

Interesting, what is meant by apostolic succession to your beliefs? God Bless. Memaw

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;11660335]
Me: If there are schisms and divisions what evidence do you have that they are all part of the One (one not several) Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Is it just the fact that you recite the Creeds? Were the Arians part of that Church; are the Mormons part of that Church?

What evidence do you have that they are not? If I were to say that you “recite” the Creeds, I suspect you would take umbrage to the implication, as do I. We do not recite the creeds, we confess them. Therefore, we confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If Arians and Mormons were willing to confess the creeds, I’m sure they would shy from the Athanasian, then I could then think of them as part of the Church, without assuming God’s role in that way.

Me: If you go to this url

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/113797/Power%20of%20Priests%20to%20Ordain

you can be brought up to speed on the your belief that Abbots practiced presbyter ordination.

Although the Luth. symbols affirm the desire to retain the apostolic succession and hist. episcopate (Ap XIV 1, 5) only a few canonically consecrated bps. accepted the Reformation and, except in Swed., political and other considerations prevented them from transmitting the apostolic succession to the Luth. community. Lacking bps. to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Luths. appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally bps. and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bps. refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72). The succession of the ministry in the Luth. Ch. may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&t2=p

Annie. Actually it has caused me to think of many others but if you don’t care to continue perhaps another Lutheran would like to engage. There is much evidence in the Church that the successors of the Papacy had actual authority and am have early Church quotes to that effect if you would like for me to post them if you would like.

Annie, I am happy to engage anyone who wishes to dialogue in a friendly, charitable way, on any subject.
I have no doubt that the papacy had authority. The question is what kind, and how universal. In a way not too dissimilar from our Orthodox siblings, we see the early Church and councils not having a sense of supremacy, universal jurisdiction for the Bishop of Rome

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Interesting, what is meant by apostolic succession to your beliefs? God Bless. Memaw

From the same link as above:

Strictly speaking, the term describes the teaching of the E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC, Old Cath., Ch. of S India, and Swed. and certain other Luth. Christians that the ministry of their churches has come down from the apostles in an unbroken succession of bps. Of those named above, the Luths., the Ch. of S India, and some Anglicans regard the apostolic succession merely as a valuable symbol of continuity with the past, in a class with the creeds and the liturgy, and do not make it a test of the validity of a clergyman’s ministry. E Orthodox, Monophysite, Nestorian, RC and some Angl. Christians gen. regard it as necessary to the existence of the church and to the valid ministration of most sacraments; RCs make a special point of the succession of the bps. of Rome from Peter.

Jon

 

[Annie39]

What evidence do you have that they are not? If I were to say that you “recite” the Creeds, I suspect you would take umbrage to the implication, as do I. We do not recite the creeds, we confess them. Therefore, we confess the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If Arians and Mormons were willing to confess the creeds, I’m sure they would shy from the Athanasian, then I could then think of them as part of the Church, without assuming God’s role in that way.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=A&t2=p

Annie, I am happy to engage anyone who wishes to dialogue in a friendly, charitable way, on any subject.
I have no doubt that the papacy had authority. The question is what kind, and how universal. In a way not too dissimilar from our Orthodox siblings, we see the early Church and councils not having a sense of supremacy, universal jurisdiction for the Bishop of Rome

Jon

Jon,

In the url that I posted it denies that the Cistercians ordained priests. In the information that I read in the url that you posted it claims that Boniface IX, Martin V and Innocent VIII authorized Cistercian priests to ordain but they give no reference. The url that I posted denies that the Cistercians did this. Do you have references in Church History to back up the claim that the Cistercians priests ordained other priests?

BTW I plan to try to find the time to post the historical evidence that the Bisop of rome had authority over the other bishops. Since you acknowledge that BOR had some authority what authority do you believe that he does not have that the Catholic Church says he has?

Annie

 

[JonNC]

=Annie39;11660509]Jon,

In the url that I posted it denies that the Cistercians ordained priests. In the information that I read in the url that you posted it claims that Boniface IX, Martin V and Innocent VIII authorized Cistercian priests to ordain but they give no reference. The url that I posted denies that the Cistercians did this. Do you have references in Church History to back up the claim that the Cistercians priests ordained other priests?

Dueling url’s.

BTW I plan to try to find the time to post the historical evidence that the Bisop of rome had authority over the other bishops. Since you acknowledge that BOR had some authority what authority do you believe that he does not have that the Catholic Church says he has?

Supremacy, universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

Okay, so the Lutheran Church is The Church? Was there a Church prior to 1517? If so where was it found and was Luther’s ordination to the Priesthood valid?

Annie

We Lutherans view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church. If we didn’t we would have to find that church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Okay, so the Lutheran Church is The Church? Was there a Church prior to 1517? If so where was it found and was Luther’s ordination to the Priesthood valid?

Annie

Okay, so the Lutheran Church is The Church?

No. Only a small visible segment of it.

Was there a Church prior to 1517? If so where was it found and was Luther’s ordination to the Priesthood valid?

Anywhere the word was taught and the sacraments celebrated. It could be found all over the world including Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, Kiev, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.

Yes, Luther’s ordination was valid.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

He denied that priests had any power that laymen did not have.

Martin Luther is undoubtedly an outstanding figure in history. But, as I have explained it, the whole situation constituted the moment in history when one man could launch the tempest. Meantime, the immortal memory of Luther will become less and less pleasant as the facts concerning him become known. Those who idealize him can do so only by ignoring an immense amount of inconvenient information.

LUTHER AS A PRIEST

1. How much of his life did Martin Luther spend as a Catholic, and how much as a Protestant?

Martin Luther spent thirty-seven years as a Catholic, and twenty-six years as a Protestant. He was born at Eisleben, in Germany, on November 10, 1483. He declared that he had an unhappy childhood, and that in a mood of depression, driven by the brutality of his home and school life, he entered an Augustinian Monastery. There he was happy enough at first. He lived a fervent and strict life, and was eventually ordained a priest in 1507. But he had a neurotic temperament, probably the effect of an over-repressed infancy, and gradually became the victim of scruples and melancholy. He alternated between fits of complete neglect of his duties, and of violent penance for his infidelity. Nobody could regard him as a man of well-balanced judgment

But he obstinately persisted in his rebellion against the Church, and in 1520 was excommunicated by the Pope, being then thirty-seven years of age. At the Diet of Worms, in 1521, he is reported to have said, “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God.” But Protestant researches have proved the words unauthentic, and a mere legend. In 1525 he married Catherine von Bora, an ex-nun. He died on February 18, 1546.

 

[Memaw]

We Lutherans view ourselves as a valid continuation of the western church. If we didn’t we would have to find that church.

Your looking for it in the right place. God Bless, Memaw

 

[JonNC]

He denied that priests had any power that laymen did not have.

Martin Luther is undoubtedly an outstanding figure in history. But, as I have explained it, the whole situation constituted the moment in history when one man could launch the tempest. Meantime, the immortal memory of Luther will become less and less pleasant as the facts concerning him become known. Those who idealize him can do so only by ignoring an immense amount of inconvenient information.

LUTHER AS A PRIEST

1. How much of his life did Martin Luther spend as a Catholic, and how much as a Protestant?

Martin Luther spent thirty-seven years as a Catholic, and twenty-six years as a Protestant. He was born at Eisleben, in Germany, on November 10, 1483. He declared that he had an unhappy childhood, and that in a mood of depression, driven by the brutality of his home and school life, he entered an Augustinian Monastery. There he was happy enough at first. He lived a fervent and strict life, and was eventually ordained a priest in 1507. But he had a neurotic temperament, probably the effect of an over-repressed infancy, and gradually became the victim of scruples and melancholy. He alternated between fits of complete neglect of his duties, and of violent penance for his infidelity. Nobody could regard him as a man of well-balanced judgment

But he obstinately persisted in his rebellion against the Church, and in 1520 was excommunicated by the Pope, being then thirty-seven years of age. At the Diet of Worms, in 1521, he is reported to have said, “Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God.” But Protestant researches have proved the words unauthentic, and a mere legend. In 1525 he married Catherine von Bora, an ex-nun. He died on February 18, 1546.

Thanks. This relates to the thread how?

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Lutherans believe in ordination but deny that ordination must be from a bishop.

Part III, Article X. Of Ordination and the Call.

1] If the bishops would be true bishops [would rightly discharge their office], and would devote themselves to the Church and the Gospel, it might be granted to them for the sake of love and unity, but not from necessity, to ordain and confirm us and our preachers; omitting, however, all comedies and spectacular display [deceptions, absurdities, and appearances] of unchristian [heathenish] parade and pomp. 2] But because they neither are, nor wish to be, true bishops, but worldly lords and princes, who will neither preach, nor teach, nor baptize, nor administer the Lord’s Supper, nor perform any work or office of the Church, and, moreover, persecute and condemn those who discharge these functions, having been called to do so, the Church ought not on their account to remain without ministers [to be forsaken by or deprived of ministers].

3] Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us. For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.

For a partial rebuttal of this position, read energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/apostolic-succession-2-presbyterian-ordination/