Reformation Question, let's look at this

  • Thread starter Thread starter ralphinal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steadfast said:
Yes. A lot of Bishops joined Luther.

The issue of how the very early Lutheran church was governed is interesting. They had bishops and the day to day government of the church was more or less overseen by them but doctrinal issues were generally resolved in council or synod by these bishops along with (and usually led by) leading scholars.

This led to what has become the actual form of Church government among Lutherans: a sort of Presbyterian/Episcopal mix.

Lutherans still have Bishops (they may not be called Bishops, they may be called District Presidents), but they have very little actual authority (except in the LCMS where the current Synodical President seems to have quite a lot of power, but that’s another discussion).

Generally, American Lutherans believe that Church government is an adiaphoron; i.e. it is a matter of liberty and practicality and that it can evolve and change to fit the needs of the church.

This view has had unfortunate consequences but there is actually some consensus among us as to how we govern ourselves, we all do tend to do it more or less the same way.

The Swedish Church claims an apostolic succession but to be honest, Sweden is a very secularized country and the church isn’t much more than a cypher. I would prefer a church that actually taught and guided people and could claim the adherence of Christians run by pastors in council than an aging edifice full of shiny baubles and fancy vestments that everyone ignored.

And this is, IMO, at the root of so much of this discussion. We tend to miss the forest for the trees, as though the main point of the church were smells and bells and men in pointy hats and not the care of the flock and the making and nourishing of disciples.

This isn’t to say you can’t do both, but I just don;t see much of both being done. It seems to be one or the other.
Click to expand...
So why the shift from an episcopacy to the system now? Anglicans have no issue calling them Bishops.
 
notsmart said:
I am no supporter of Henry, but to be fair- at that time it was very common for decrees of nullity (forgive me if there was another word in use at that time more appropriate) to be given, for little reason at all. In fact, this was another one of the “abuses” that Luther likely was not very happy to see.
They made him wait for an incredibly long time to find out what the “verdict” would be in his case. Meanwhile, many people were getting them for a “song” = $$$

He, who had “proven” himself and who was royalty, was not patient to sweat it out for the final say on the matter. He felt wronged, and we can’t say he was just trying to cause trouble, when in fact, he would have wished for nothing more than to have the official okay.

Again, I am no supporter of Henry- history bears out what a horrid man he was. But, it is not right to make him into more of a monster than he was.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, this is historically accurate, though there are myriad details that can be explicated. Henry was playing the game according to the rules, and fully expected to receive what he needed. It was commonplace.

Two excellent books on the matter: J. J. Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII, and H. Kelly’s THE MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII, the latter for mind-boggling details.

And yes, it was called a decree of nullity.

GKC
 
notsmart said:
Again, not to justify his actions, but in this instance he would be no different than the people around him blatantly breaking vows they took in the Latin Rite.
Click to expand...
Nobody here will even want or try to justify ‘the people around him blatantly breaking vows they took in the Latin Rite’.
notsmart said:
At least he did not have a hidden mistress and illigitamate children, and at least he got married even if outside the church to a former nun.
Click to expand...
I think we’ve got more than a handful of discussions on these forums regarding bad popes. Go read those … get it out of your system … then come back to this thread to discuss the deformation.

It does no good at all to try and justify or minimize Luther’s actions by comparing him to other bad men. It doesn’t help your case or the discussion in general. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as it were.

michel
 
ralphinal said:
So why the shift from an episcopacy to the system now? Anglicans have no issue calling them Bishops.
Click to expand...
My guess would be that it has a lot to do with Sola Scriptura and a peculiarly Lutheran implementation of it.

Episcopacy is unknown to Scripture though a Presbyterial form is at least implied.

It being an adiaphora though, Lutherans have not just jettisoned it like the Reformed, rather they have allotted it a place both in history and in practice while recognizing at the same time that it is neither biblically mandated nor always even a very good idea…monarchies aren’t always, this is why they have been modified and in many cases superceded.
 
Steadfast said:
My guess would be that it has a lot to do with Sola Scriptura and a peculiarly Lutheran implementation of it.

Episcopacy is unknown to Scripture though a Presbyterial form is at least implied.

It being an adiaphora though, Lutherans have not just jettisoned it like the Reformed, rather they have allotted it a place both in history and in practice while recognizing at the same time that it is neither biblically mandated nor always even a very good idea…monarchies aren’t always, this is why they have been modified and in many cases superceded.
Click to expand...
If the system is not Biblical, what was the system that the Apostles had when running the early CHurch? It seems a lot like it. Smaller, local Churches that had an Apostle over them.
 
ralphinal said:
If the system is not Biblical, what was the system that the Apostles had when running the early CHurch? It seems a lot like it. Smaller, local Churches that had an Apostle over them.
Click to expand...
Well it certainly wasn’t an episcopacy, it was an “apostolarchy” I guess if I may be permitted an on the spot neologism.

The bible doesn’t make any distinction between an elder and a bishop.

I think anyone who is sensitive to history understands why episcopacy arose and I, for one, see clearly that it was a good and necessary outgrowth of that “apostolarchy” but to go from there to the conclusion that it is divinely ordained and mandated is a huge stretch.
 
Steadfast said:
Well it certainly wasn’t an episcopacy, it was an “apostolarchy” I guess if I may be permitted an on the spot neologism.

The bible doesn’t make any distinction between an elder and a bishop.

I think anyone who is sensitive to history understands why episcopacy arose and I, for one, see clearly that it was a good and necessary outgrowth of that “apostolarchy” but to go from there to the conclusion that it is divinely ordained and mandated is a huge stretch and to assume that it may not therefore be changed or modified comes very close to being an offense against the second commandment since it ascribes to God’s Name a purpose and word that He nowhere indicates.
Click to expand...
Ok. If the Early Church was set up in this way, can we assume that it is how Christ wanted it? No other group of Christians showed such a connection to the Holy SPirit. Why can’t this be seen as God’s will?

I am not advocating any abuses, just the system
 
ralphinal said:
Ok. If the Early Church was set up in this way, can we assume that it is how Christ wanted it?
Click to expand...
That would have to be established. To use an extreme example, can it be said that because the church harbored a slew of pedophiles that this is how Christ wanted it? Or any other bad or questionable thing that has happened in the church since Pentecost?

I would argue that Christ did not establish a structure for the church beyond calling and sending Apostles who would in turn educate and select men to teach their doctrine after them.

It’s really not safe to go past that on this subject IMO.
ralphinal said:
No other group of Christians showed such a connection to the Holy SPirit. Why can’t this be seen as God’s will?
Click to expand...
It can and has been argued that in many cases today churches which entirely eschew the “tyranny of bishops” show a greater “connection to the Holy SPirit” than do many churches led by men who purport to be successors to the Apostles.

I don’t see what this accomplishes and in the period we are discussing, episcopacy had already been established. Unless you are arguing that it was established because of this unique and superior “connection”.

But wouldn’t that be begging the question?

I know you believe that if you’re Catholic.

We disagree.
 
Steadfast said:
That would have to be established. To use an extreme example, can it be said that because the church harbored a slew of pedophiles that this is how Christ wanted it? Or any other bad or questionable thing that has happened in the church since Pentecost?

I would argue that Christ did not establish a structure for the church beyond calling and sending Apostles who would in turn educate and select men to teach their doctrine after them.

It’s really not safe to go past that on this subject IMO.

It can and has been argued that in many cases today churches which entirely eschew the “tyranny of bishops” show a greater “connection to the Holy SPirit” than do many churches led by men who purport to be successors to the Apostles.

I don’t see what this accomplishes and in the period we are discussing, episcopacy had already been established. Unless you are arguing that it was established because of this unique and superior “connection”.

But wouldn’t that be begging the question?

I know you believe that if you’re Catholic.

We disagree.
Click to expand...
And we will continue to disagree. I just wonder if have a true heirarchy of leadership isn’t better. What keeps the populace from being swayed by society instead of staying faithful? How can you be sure that what is happening with some Episcopalians won’t happen with anyone else?
 
Steadfast said:
Well it certainly wasn’t an episcopacy, it was an “apostolarchy” I guess if I may be permitted an on the spot neologism.

The bible doesn’t make any distinction between an elder and a bishop.
Click to expand...
Exactly! In the early church, every priest was a bishop.

Later on the church also appointed some men as priests but not as bishops.

This is a far cry from saying that there weren’t any bishops in the early church.
 
Then of course there is the whole question of whether ministers of the Gospel should even be called priests.

The word is, of course, a truncation of “presbyter” but in common use has more in common with the ideas of ‘hieros’ (Gk) or “qohen” (Hb); i.e. a consecrated person associated with a sacred place and who offers sacrifice to a diety there.
 
Steadfast said:
Then of course there is the whole question of whether ministers of the Gospel should even be called priests.

The word is, of course, a truncation of “presbyter” but in common use has more in common with the ideas of ‘hieros’ (Gk) or “qohen” (Hb); i.e. a consecrated person associated with a sacred place and who offers sacrifice to a diety there.
Click to expand...
Sounds like there should be no objection then!
 
Pastor, elder, minister, etc. all are representative of the biblical idea.

“Priest” is not.
 
cazayoux said:
there are no new sacrifices in the catholic church.
The mass is participation in that ONE sacrifice of His.

michel
Click to expand...
There is no “participation” in that sacrifice. It was done for us by Christ alone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top