Saved by Faith alone?

[Starwarsfan2]

OK, so.

Olav did not support the reformation.

Some of the bishops under him did.

The Protestant Reformation was started by Luther (documented above).

SO because some bishops may have joined Luther, which is yet to be proven, there is legitimate apostolic succession?

That’s almost as bad as the Baptists’s story…

Just so you know, while a bishop has the backing of the office of the episcopate and authority to ordain priests and to concencrate Eucharist, he does NOT have authority to create doctrine or to create a church

There is legitimate AS not because they supported Luther , but because they were ordained in AS by other bishops

I agree that Baptist sucssesionism is ridiculous

As for creating doctrine you have proven nothing

Keep the faith my brother, Starwars

 

[mattp0625]

There is legitimate AS not because they supported Luther , but because they were ordained in AS by other bishops

I agree that Baptist sucssesionism is ridiculous

As for creating doctrine you have proven nothing

Keep the faith my brother, Starwars

No problem. I’ll wait for you to show documentation proving the office of the episcopate went from Peter to Linus to some bishops in Norway who supposedly followed the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century - even though their archbishop did not.

 

[JonNC]

-On the Baptist Church creating their own apostolic succession, similar to the method used by Lutherans to create the same:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

Baptist successionism (also known as “Baptist perpetuity”) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The tenet of the theory is that there has been an unbroken chain of churches since the days of John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, which have held similar beliefs (though not always the name) of current Baptists. Ancient anti-paedobaptist groups, such as the Montanists, Paulicians, Cathari, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Anabaptists, have been among those viewed by Baptist successionists as the predecessors of modern-day Baptists.[1]

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num3.htm

James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio, a Baptist himself and expert especially in Protestant Reformation history, wrote a book refuting the “baptist successionism” thesis, held fully or believed implicitly by many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals today,** most of whom have never checked any of the primary source documents but rely strictly on secondary sources and books by other anti-Catholic Fundamentalists.
**

This is not Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession involves the laying on of hands by a bishop.

Jon

 

[Starwarsfan2]

I apologize for getting us so far off topic

 

[JonNC]

-On the Baptist Church creating their own apostolic succession, similar to the method used by Lutherans to create the same:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism

Baptist successionism (also known as “Baptist perpetuity”) is one of several theories on the origin and continuation of Baptist churches. The tenet of the theory is that there has been an unbroken chain of churches since the days of John the Baptist, who baptized Christ, which have held similar beliefs (though not always the name) of current Baptists. Ancient anti-paedobaptist groups, such as the Montanists, Paulicians, Cathari, Waldenses, Albigenses, and Anabaptists, have been among those viewed by Baptist successionists as the predecessors of modern-day Baptists.[1]

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num3.htm

James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history for Cedarville College in Ohio, a Baptist himself and expert especially in Protestant Reformation history, wrote a book refuting the “baptist successionism” thesis, held fully or believed implicitly by many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals today,** most of whom have never checked any of the primary source documents but rely strictly on secondary sources and books by other anti-Catholic Fundamentalists.
**

As for Lutherans (I hope you don’t mind my using a Lutheran document, as opposed to Wikipedia):

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

24] The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. **Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. **25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

The bolded section makes clear that your charge that the Lutheran concept, practice, and understanding of AS is similar to that of the Baptist practice you present, is blatantly false.
Please do us the courtesy of asking us what we believe, teach, and confess, instead of trying to tell us. Our beliefs are clearly laid out in our confessions, leaving Wikipedia wholly and completely unnecessary.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

-On the Protestant belief, albeit mostly Baptists, Evangelicals, and nondenominationals, about the RCC’s trail of blood:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395851

landmarkmissionarybaptistarizona.com/resources/trail-of-blood.html

The “Trail of Blood” written by J.M. Carroll, was his skewed attempt to trace the history of the Baptists back to the time of Christ and thus prove that they were the original church. In order to do this, however, he had to attach the Baptists to various heretical groups down through history, many of which were condemned by the Catholic Church - some of which did not believe in the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. In this work he promulgated the idea that those** evil Roman Catholics purposefully persecuted the poor Baptists and deliberately burned all of their historical documents forcing them to hide in hovels until the reformation.** There are** so many historical errors, fallacies, and downright fabrications in his book**, that it’s difficult to see how anyone with Western Civ. 101 under their belt could take it seriously.

PS: I studied at a Baptist Bible College before becoming a pastor, which I did for about seven years. While I was at school there were rumblings because the teacher of church history was accused of teaching too much about monks, and cardinals, and bishops. The students were wanting “Trails of Blood”…fundamental, Bible-believing, blood-bought, soul winning Baptists…even if they were called by a different name. The President of the College got up one Sunday night at church and talked about the matter. He assured us that the next semester things would be different. There would be a much stronger emphasis on people who believed like us.

As you’ve been informed, this is nonsense, by the standards of virtually all non-Catholic western communions, and to imply that this is more than just fringe teaching, or part and parcel western non-Catholic Christians is calumny.

Jon

 

[SyroMalankara]

I thought Lutherans recognized presbyteral ordination as equally valid. Wasn’t that one of the reasons the ELCA-TEC agreements perturbed some of the highchurch wing of TEC and the low church wing of the ELCA?

 

[Bookcat]

Regarding Faith and Works in St. Paul

From Pope Benedict XVI

(Two audiences from the Year of St. Paul)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html (begins a bit down)

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;13642966]- On the Catholic Church determining the criteria for inspiration of scripture, choosing the books that were inspired, and acting as custodian of scripture:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

The Synod of Hippo refers to the synod of 393 which was hosted in Hippo Regius in northern Africa during the early Christian Church. Additional synods were held in 394, 397, 401 and 426. Some were attended by Augustine of Hippo.

The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. **First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon **while falling short of the Orthodox canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as Apocrypha). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending ratification by the “Church across the sea”, that is, Rome

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage

The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[5] **issued a canon of the Bible on 28 August 397. **The primary source of information about the third council of Carthage comes from the Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Africanæ, which presents a compilation of ordinances enacted by various church councils in Carthage during the fourth and fifth centuries. In one section of this code the following paragraph concerning the canon of Scripture appears.[6]

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: ****Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paraleipomena, Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. Because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.

None of these are ecumenical councils. They were local synods, not binding on the whole Church.

• On Luther’s attempt to change the canon 1,200 years later:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon

Luther did not include the deuterocanonical books in his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[4] He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of the Book of Esther from the canon to the Apocrypha, because without the deuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God.

The bolded his is false. I have a copy of Luther’s Die Bibel. Luther’s Die Bibel contained 74 books from its first publication in 1534 on. Every book of the typical western Bible he translated and included, with the addition of The Prayer of Manasseh.
His view of the DC’s was held by many, though not by a majority. Even during his life, contemporaries such as Cardinal Cajetan claimed that the DC books were not canon, citing St Jerome.

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Cajetan was a highly regarded Cardinal, and no ally of Luther. But here they held similar views, and both were permitted to do so.

continued

 

[JonNC]

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]
Source, other than Wikipedia. They are included as well, from 1521. When Luther speaks of his questioning of their canonicity, he is speaking of his own opinion, shared by many regarding numerous books, as far back as Eusebius.

“If Luther’s negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times”.[1] However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident “that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon”.[1]

Luther, like all other Catholics prior to Trent, had the liberty of opinion regarding the canon.
To restrict or condemn Luther’s right to his opinion is condemn many Catholics through the century, or else admit one has a different stand for Luther.

In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical.[6] In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.

However, Ryrie’s theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. …I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship."[7]

You bolded the most important part: “I do not hold…” That’s a statement of opinion, an opinion Catholics were at liberty to have prior to Trent.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I thought Lutherans recognized presbyteral ordination as equally valid. Wasn’t that one of the reasons the ELCA-TEC agreements perturbed some of the highchurch wing of TEC and the low church wing of the ELCA?

Yes, we do. And we cite the use of presbyter ordination by the Church prior to the Reformation era.
It is an exception, one used in the past, but it should not be the rule.

 

[JonNC]

Regarding Faith and Works in St. Paul

From Pope Benedict XVI

(Two audiences from the Year of St. Paul)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html (begins a bit down)

Keep posting this, Bookcat. I keep hoping the message will sink in on both sides.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

This is not Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession involves the laying on of hands by a bishop.

Jon

Yes, a bishop can ordain a priest.

Neither a bishop nor a priest has the authority to create a new church, new doctrine, or new canon.

Some bishops in Norway who supposedly broke with their archbishop to follow the reformation is hardly Apostolic succession

 

[steido01]

I thought Lutherans recognized presbyteral ordination as equally valid. Wasn’t that one of the reasons the ELCA-TEC agreements perturbed some of the highchurch wing of TEC and the low church wing of the ELCA?

Most all Lutherans do recognize presbyter ordination, yes. However, as our confessions state, it was never intended to become the norm. It is an extraordinary solution (with some historical precedent) to an unfortunate problem.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, a bishop can ordain a priest.

Neither a bishop nor a priest has the authority to create a new church, new doctrine, or new canon.

Some bishops in Norway who supposedly broke with their archbishop to follow the reformation is hardly Apostolic succession

They are most certainly bishops. they may ordain illicitly, but they can ordain validly.
You have to agree with that as a Catholic, else you must deny the valid ordinations of Orthodoxy, PNCC, and other Old Catholics, in opposition to Catholic teaching.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

None of these are ecumenical councils. They were local synods, not binding on the whole Church.

The bolded his is false. I have a copy of Luther’s Die Bibel. Luther’s Die Bibel contained 74 books from its first publication in 1534 on. Every book of the typical western Bible he translated and included, with the addition of The Prayer of Manasseh.
His view of the DC’s was held by many, though not by a majority. Even during his life, contemporaries such as Cardinal Cajetan claimed that the DC books were not canon, citing St Jerome.

Cajetan was a highly regarded Cardinal, and no ally of Luther. But here they held similar views, and both were permitted to do so.

continued

Yes, I know there are multiple versions of Protestant bibles, and I cannot account for all of them. There are plenty of neutral historical sources showing Luther going after the deuterocanonical books as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelations, etc.

The NT books were a target because they are problematic for Luther’s solas.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Yes, I know there are multiple versions of Protestant bibles, and I cannot account for all of them. There are plenty of neutral historical sources showing Luther going after the deuterocanonical books as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelations, etc.

The NT books were a target because they are problematic for Luther’s solas.

Except that they are included in his 1534 translation soo

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I know there are multiple versions of Protestant bibles, and I cannot account for all of them. There are plenty of neutral historical sources showing Luther going after the deuterocanonical books as well as Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelations, etc.

You and I don’t have to account for them. Different communions practice what they choose.
Yes, as I stated, Luther questioned the canonicity of these books. And he gives his reasons in his prefaces, which I have read. I have read his prefaces to the DC books, as well, and with the possible exception of 2 Macc, there is no mention of doctrine regarding these books. He actually explains his concerns about their canonicity. They are actually a pretty good read, even though I disagree with his conclusions regarding the canon.
And just like he had the right to his opinion, so do I.

Jon

 

[mattp0625]

You and I don’t have to account for them. Different communions practice what they choose.
Yes, as I stated, Luther questioned the canonicity of these books. And he gives his reasons in his prefaces, which I have read. I have read his prefaces to the DC books, as well, and with the possible exception of 2 Macc, there is no mention of doctrine regarding these books. He actually explains his concerns about their canonicity. They are actually a pretty good read, even though I disagree with his conclusions regarding the canon.
And just like he had the right to his opinion, so do I.

Jon

So create your own canon. You have the authority, right?

 

[mattp0625]

Except that they are included in his 1534 translation soo

There’s so many versions that I can’t keep track of them:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[13] In his translation of the New Testament, Luther moved Hebrews and James out of the usual order, to join Jude and the Revelation at the end, and differentiated these from the other books which he considered “the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation.”[14] His views on some of these books changed in later years, and became more positive.[15]

Luther chose to place the Biblical apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments. These books and addenda to Biblical canon of the Old Testament are found in the ancient Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. Luther left the translating of them largely to Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.[16] They were not listed in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, and in the 1534 Bible they were given the well-known title: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".[16] See also Biblical canon, Development of the Christian Biblical canon, and Biblical Apocrypha.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Bible

While from the Reformation, Protestants have usually excluded the Apocrypha from the canon, prior to the 1825 British and Foreign Bible Society decision most Protestant Bibles did include the Apocrypha within the same printed books. It was usually to be found in a separate section and sometimes carrying a statement to the effect that the Apocryphal books were non-canonical. A surviving quarto edition of the Great Bible, produced some time after 1549, does not contain the Apocrypha although most copies of the Great Bible contained the Apocrypha interspersed with the Old Testament books. A 1575 quarto edition of the Bishop’s Bible also does not have the Apocrypha. Subsequently, some copies of the 1599 and 1640 editions of the Geneva Bible were printed without the Apocrypha.[3]