The role of the priest vs Protestant Pastor

[wisdomseeker]

Some Lutheran national churches claim Apostolic Succession. However, like the Anglicans, they lost it because they changed the definition of the priesthood.

The purpose of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is for the Holy Sacrifice. Lutherans deny that the Mass is a Sacrifice and also Lutheran ministers are not priests and so have no ability to consecrate the Eucharist, even if they were to do so apart from the true Mass (which is possible, but is a grave sin). So Lutherans may teach the “real presence” (although in a false way) but it does not mean that Lutheran bread and wine is the same as the Catholic Eucharist, there is no substantial presence of Christ there.

The reason for their denial is because our Lord will not allow them to have it. God made a promise to His Church and He is not going back on His Word like so many would like to it. they leave the Church and expect God to obey them. instead of them obey our Lord. God made a covenant with His Church, if anyone leave they broke the Covenant with God.

 

[JonNC]

Some Lutheran national churches claim Apostolic Succession. However, like the Anglicans, they lost it because they changed the definition of the priesthood.

The purpose of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is for the Holy Sacrifice. Lutherans deny that the Mass is a Sacrifice and also Lutheran ministers are not priests and so have no ability to consecrate the Eucharist, even if they were to do so apart from the true Mass (which is possible, but is a grave sin). So Lutherans may teach the “real presence” (although in a false way) but it does not mean that Lutheran bread and wine is the same as the Catholic Eucharist, there is no substantial presence of Christ there.

Welcome to CAF,

Yes, yes. I know the Catholic teaching regarding the validity of our orders and our sacraments. You do well to defend it, as it is your communion’s teaching. As you would expect, we respectfully disagree.

You might also want to consider the following:

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[GKC]

Welcome to CAF,

Yes, yes. I know the Catholic teaching regarding the validity of our orders and our sacraments. You do well to defend it, as it is your communion’s teaching. As you would expect, we respectfully disagree.

You might also want to consider the following:

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

Hi, Jon.

Fun, ain’t?

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon.

Fun, ain’t?

GKC

Oh, yes.

What’s most interesting is intensity with which some - admittedly on both sides - try to seek and enlargen the differences. I am often dismayed by the LCMS in this way, Rejecting the JDDJ, and not signing on to the recent “The Hope of Eternal Life” document regarding Purgatory, etc.

And then there are others, often time theologians, who are seeking closer unity.

It’s quite baffling, to be honest.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon.

Fun, ain’t?

GKC

I think you and I have wondered in the past why conservative Anglicans and conservative Lutherans don’t have a closer relationship. I’ve read Louis Tarsitano’s book “An Outline of an Anglican Life”, and found myself nodding affirmatively through much of it.

Jon

 

[GKC]

I think you and I have wondered in the past why conservative Anglicans and conservative Lutherans don’t have a closer relationship. I’ve read Louis Tarsitano’s book “An Outline of an Anglican Life”, and found myself nodding affirmatively through much of it.

Jon

I’m ready if you are.

GKC

 

[hn160]

I think you and I have wondered in the past why conservative Anglicans and conservative Lutherans don’t have a closer relationship. I’ve read Louis Tarsitano’s book “An Outline of an Anglican Life”, and found myself nodding affirmatively through much of it.

Jon

The problem with Anglicans, which ones are you talking about? There theology can be broad, shallow, and hazy. They were influenced by John Calvin especially in the Lord’s Supper.
Getting back two the two documents that the LWF signed with Rome, why would you want something that is flawed? Rome didn’t give an inch, at least they are true to their doctrines, that is more than the LWF is to the Lutheran Confessions. Especially when it supports women and homosexual ordinations.

 

[GKC]

The problem with Anglicans, which ones are you talking about? There theology can be broad, shallow, and hazy. They were influenced by John Calvin especially in the Lord’s Supper.
Getting back two the two documents that the LWF signed with Rome, why would you want something that is flawed? Rome didn’t give an inch, at least they are true to their doctrines, that is more than the LWF is to the Lutheran Confessions. Especially when it supports women and homosexual ordinations.

No kidding? There are varieties of Anglicans?

In that case, maybe Jon had an Anglican such as myself in mind.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus?

 

[JonNC]

=hn160;8032546]The problem with Anglicans, which ones are you talking about? There theology can be broad, shallow, and hazy.

In my post to GKC, I was used the adjective “conservative”. I was not referring to, for example, Episcopalians who tend toward the more liberal wing of Anglicanism. I was referring to folks like GKC who, by their words, reflect much of what we confess as Lutherans.

They were influenced by John Calvin especially in the Lord’s Supper.

I’ll bet you a cold, German longneck that GKC is not influenced by Calvinist Eucharistic thought.
Anglicans certainly have their issues with doctrine-drift. But then, so do we. They have TEC and we have ELCA. Obviously, you and I don’t wish to have our confessional Lutheran beliefs linked to liberalism.

Getting back two the two documents that the LWF signed with Rome, why would you want something that is flawed?

Flawed, or incomplete? I’ve read the document, and I’m still looking for something that contradicts the confessions. The LCMS repsonse seems to be based on their perception of what Catholics actually meant. IOW, inferring.

Rome didn’t give an inch, at least they are true to their doctrines, that is more than the LWF is to the Lutheran Confessions

.
Its interesting, because if you google the JDDJ, you will find plenty of Catholics that say the same in reverse, that the LWF didn’t give an inch, and Rome capitulated.

Especially when it supports women and homosexual ordinations.

So, because of their drifting from the confessions and scripture on one issue, we should reject everything they say? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I’m ready if you are.

GKC

Am

No kidding? There are varieties of Anglicans?

Motleyism.

We have it, too.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Am

Motleyism.

We have it, too.

Jon

Ah, of course. Motleyism. Le mot juste. I think I have heard of the idea.

GKC

 

[hn160]

No kidding? There are varieties of Anglicans?

In that case, maybe Jon had an Anglican such as myself in mind.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus, posterus traditus Anglicanus?

Take a good hard look at the Church of England, are they not Anglicians?

 

[GKC]

Take a good hard look at the Church of England, are they not Anglicians?

Sometimes irony is a failure.

Perhaps I have not been posting my catch-phrases often enough, of late. Can’t depend on my reputation, I suppose.

GKC, of the motley crew

 

[JonNC]

Sometimes irony is a failure.

Perhaps I have not been posting my catch-phrases often enough, of late. Can’t depend on my reputation, I suppose.

GKC, of the motley crew

To his defense, hn has probably not been here long enough to know those catch-phrases, or your reputation. Here’s hoping he sticks around.

Then again, a decline in posting of said catch-phrases may by part and parcel of motleyism.

Jon

 

[GKC]

To his defense, hn has probably not been here long enough to know those catch-phrases, or your reputation. Here’s hoping he sticks around.

Then again, a decline in posting of said catch-phrases may by part and parcel of motleyism.

Jon

True. Some Anglicans rest on their laurels. Others repeat themselves endlessly. Others assert Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1.

Just can’t generalize about Anglicans, generally.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

True. Some Anglicans rest on their laurels. Others repeat themselves endlessly. Others assert Trent, Session XIII, Canon 1.

Just can’t generalize about Anglicans, generally.

GKC

LOL.

Good chatting with you. I always enjoy your posts -your knowledge of apostolic succession, Anglicanism, etc. - and your charity.

Jon

 

[GKC]

LOL.

Good chatting with you. I always enjoy your posts -your knowledge of apostolic succession, Anglicanism, etc. - and your charity.

Jon

And I salute you, similarly.

GKC

 

[rinnie]

LOL.

Good chatting with you. I always enjoy your posts -your knowledge of apostolic succession, Anglicanism, etc. - and your charity.

Jon

Okay now good glad you brought this up. Now Jon here is where I am lost.

Now we agree that the Eucharist is indeed the actual body and blood of Christ.

Now here is where the I am lost part comes in.

According to scripture we are all called to do certain thng’s and have different gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit.

I am called to be a wife and and Mother and I indeed by my baptism have the power of the Holy Spirit.

But although I do have the power of the Holy Spirit given to me, I do not have the power to turn the bread and wine into Christ.

I must have the authority to do so, I believe we both agree on this. You nor I can do this.

But here is the lost part How can your Priest do that w/o the laying of hands given to him to do so by the Bishop? Or does he have this somehow?

 

[JonNC]

Okay now good glad you brought this up. Now Jon here is where I am lost.

Now we agree that the Eucharist is indeed the actual body and blood of Christ.

Now here is where the I am lost part comes in.

According to scripture we are all called to do certain thng’s and have different gifts given to us by the Holy Spirit.

I am called to be a wife and and Mother and I indeed by my baptism have the power of the Holy Spirit.

But although I do have the power of the Holy Spirit given to me, I do not have the power to turn the bread and wine into Christ.

I must have the authority to do so, I believe we both agree on this. You nor I can do this.

But here is the lost part How can your Priest do that w/o the laying of hands given to him to do so by the Bishop? Or does he have this somehow?

Hi rinnie,
The Lutheran COnfessions answer this better than I could. Now to be clear, there is language here that, at that time, is polemical against the Catholic bishops in Germany. They had refused to ordain pastors in the evangelical (Lutheran) parishes, so these parishes turned to divine law, hence:

And by the confession of all, even of the adversaries, it is clear that this power by divine right is common to all who preside over churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops. 62] And accordingly Jerome openly teaches in the apostolic letters that all who preside over churches are both bishops and elders, and cites from Titus 1:5f : For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest ordain elders in every city [and afterwards calls these persons bishops]. Then he adds: A bishop must be the husband of one wife. Likewise Peter and John call themselves elders [or priests] 1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1. And he then adds: But that afterwards one was chosen to be placed over the rest, this was done as a remedy for schism, lest each one by attracting [a congregation here or there] to himself might rend the Church of Christ. For at Alexandria, from Mark the evangelist to the bishops Heracles and Dionysius, the elders always elected one from among themselves, and placed him in a higher station, whom they called bishop; just as an army would make a commander for itself. The deacons, moreover, may elect from among themselves one whom they know to be active, and name him archdeacon. For with the exception of ordination, what does the bishop that the elder does not?

63] Jerome, therefore, teaches that it is by human authority that the grades of bishop and elder or pastor are distinct. And the subject itself declares this, because the power [the office and command] is the same, as he has said above. 64] But one matter afterwards made a distinction between bishops and pastors namely, ordination, because it was [so] arranged that one bishop should ordain ministers in a number of churches.

65] But since by divine authority the grades of bishop and pastor are not diverse, it is manifest that ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law [if a pastor in his own church ordains certain suitable persons to the ministry, such ordination is, according to divine law, undoubtedly effective and right].

66] Therefore, when the regular bishops become enemies of the Church, or are unwilling to administer ordination, the churches retain their own right. [Because the regular bishops persecute the Gospel and refuse to ordain suitable persons, every church has in this case full authority to ordain its own ministers.]

67] For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4:8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after Baptism then absolved the baptizer.

68] Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18:20: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, etc.

69] Lastly, the statement of Peter also confirms this, 1 Pet. 2:9: Ye are a royal priesthood. These words pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood.

bookofconcord.org/treatise.php

This was not unheard of in the Church, as Cistercian abbots, who were not bishops, were provided the power to ordain within their community as well, in the 1400’s.

Apostolic Succession is important, even desirable, as is shown by the Scandinavian Lutherans who maintained it, and the confessions that support it. But it is not required in order to have a valid proesthood.

Jon