Because from the Catholic perspective there’s no doubt.
Well Ben, it is conspicuous that the LCMS is one of the last hold outs among Lutherans to re-instate episcopacy and accept apostolic succession.
Recent popes like John Paul and Benedict actually went to Lutheran cathedrals to pay homage to the saints buried there. These holy sites didn’t stop being holy when the Church accepted Lutheranism.
I am not sure what you mean by Saints. Do you mean Saints declared by the Catholic Church? Then obviously there is nothing wrong with that, right?
Better to do it lack it then to do it incorrectly.Well Ben, it is conspicuous that the LCMS is one of the last hold outs among Lutherans to re-instate episcopacy and accept apostolic succession.
At least as it relates to whether a bishop is validly consecrated; teaching has little to nothing to do with it. Remember that ordination, in Catholicism, leaves an indelible mark that cannot be erased. Once a bishop always a bishop. A bishop who falls away from the faith in some manner is still a bishop. Any ordinations he performs would be illicit, but still valid. That’s why Rome has the concept of episcopii vagantes.
Honorius, " i, i, i," theres the i’s, the pride I told you would see in yourself
Ufam Tobie
Yes, I should have limited my comments to the ordination of a female bishop. You are quite correct that no one has control of the behavior of any particular bishop. However, if that behavior is counter to the Catholic faith, the bishop can be stripped of his faculties and excommunicated. The fact that he (or she, in this case) is ordained a bishop does not mean that the ordination is valid when the Church, who has the power to bind and loose, says it is not.
Because it is a non-issue. There simply is no succession and therefore not a lot to discuss.
Yes, St Brigitta, St Olav, St Erik, etc are canonized Catholic saints buried in Lutheran cathedrals. The point I am making is that Lutherans merely changed the name on the door of these old parishes/ cathedrals. The Mass was celebrated without stop from the time of these early European saints to the present. Lutherans have a rich heritage of maintaining the Catholic faith through the ages.
Then why are they called Lutherans? The fact that one takes over a church building, institutes its own set of beliefs in contradiction to the Church and places its name on the door does not mean it is maintaining the Catholic faith through the ages.
An excommunicated bishop, assuming he follows all sacramental requirements (valid form, intent, subject, matter) will still validly, if illicitly, consecrate/ordain. See Ott, p. 458.
This assumes that all other sacramental aspects are valid.
I doubt if that is accurate, with respect to teachings. Heretical bishops, if validly consecrated, do not loss apostolic succession and validly/illicitly transmit it it, assuming other sacramental factors are valid.
Because that’s what Catholics called them. I don’t see why some Catholics are so fond of arguing from labels (like the silly “Protestants are called Protestants because they protest” argument). It’s the old “give a dog a bad name and hang it” approach. You can do better.
The only sermon I’ve personally heard her preach was beautiful–it was about St. Theresa of Avila and the “salt and light” passage from the Sermon on the Mount.She had a “beautiful” sermon on St. Paul that echoes in my recent memory
I don’t see any reason to distinguish as you do between grounds for accepting Christianity and grounds for believing that Christianity has a particular content. It seems to me that it’s the same process. Obviously the more you accept, the clearer grounds you have for accepting more. But it seems to me that any experience of Christ has a particular content, which will shape one’s understanding of Christianity; and conversely the content of the Christian faith as one learns it will shape one’s understanding of the initial experience.
I would tend to be much more favorable towards the Orthodox view of infallibility. While I do not accept it, per se, it is more focused on an organic, rather than organizational infallibility. It applies to the entire People of God, rather than just individual prelates within the hierarchy or to conciliar meetings.
I do not wish to push forward the argument of infallibility from epistemology since as I said before, it is not something that I have thought of beyond a cursory examination of it.
Unfortunately, the Orthodox view is not as organic as you think in the historical sense. Historically speaking, most of the ancient heresies thrived in the “now Orthodox” part of the Church. The Church always looked to Rome to settle the matter.
