G
- Status
P
Peter_J
Guest
Ah, the famous “Anglo-Papalists”.
(Sad that we never seem to get one of them on this forum. 
)There have been been Catholic priests in history who were ordained outside of AS, as well,
the Cistercian abbots of the 1400’s as an example.
Jon
G
GKC
Guest
They are avibus raris and mainly live in Great Britain, I hear.Ah, the famous “Anglo-Papalists”.
GKC
S
steido01
Guest
Perhaps good places to start are this thread and this one. It may serve to clear any misunderstandings about why Lutherans do consider themselves as upholding the “apostolic” mark of the church catholic.
As to specific documentation, I won’t insult your intelligence with information easily found on the Google. None of my points are new news.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’m familiar with the case you’re talking about, but it is open to multiple interpretations. The one you favor, presumably, is that the pope gave the abbots permission to ordain, which they always had the ability to do. However, an alternate (AS) interpretation is that they didn’t have said ability until granted by the pope.
A
Annie39
Guest
I dealt with that months ago. I thought it was in a discussion with. Maybe not. I’ll try to get some time to look that up soon
G
GKC
Guest
As I understand it, they look a great deal like their cousins, the NO RCs.Oh I see.
Sadly, I lack the funding for an expedition, or I would go look for them.
GKC
A
Annie39
Guest
A
Annie39
Guest
Hi Jon,
It was not you that I had the discussion I guess. Below is the way that I replied to another poster.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12155255&highlight=monks#post12155255
Another thing. Where is the information that people base their assertion that monks ordained coming from? Documentation please?
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
In light of the Dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics, I don’t think it is a coincident that many Lutheran bodies such as the ELCA and ELCIC [Canada] have adopted/ restored apostolic succession in full communion with Anglicans.
Though every Lutheran will support presbyter ordination as valid historically, it is not the norm for most Lutherans. The LCMS ordains its pastors by a district president/ bishop but the president/ bishop is not in apostolic succession.
Lutherans have yielded to both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches on this point. Also since Finland and Sweden never broke apostolic succession, Lutheran holy Orders have never been questioned by Rome. And, in-fact, Catholics recognize such in the Dialogues.
Though every Lutheran will support presbyter ordination as valid historically, it is not the norm for most Lutherans. The LCMS ordains its pastors by a district president/ bishop but the president/ bishop is not in apostolic succession.
Lutherans have yielded to both the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches on this point. Also since Finland and Sweden never broke apostolic succession, Lutheran holy Orders have never been questioned by Rome. And, in-fact, Catholics recognize such in the Dialogues.
That’s the two I’ve heard, as well. Of course, the argument that they had the popes’ permission and therefore they were valid, results in the question, “is it the laying on of hands by the bishops, or the pope’s say-so that distinguishes apostolic succession”.
If a simple permission from the pope is all that is needed, then Pope Francis could conceivably declare all Lutheran presbyter ordinations (of males) valid and end the controversy.
Jon
A
Annie39
Guest
It must be a bishop. also all I can fin are assertions that this was allowed. I can find no proof. I can find proof in early Church History that even Bishops could not ordain without Papal mandate.
Annie
K
KjetilK
Guest
We do not have an archbishop. She has a sort of figure head position, which was created in 2012.
Yes, since it is codified in our Canon Law. If a female priest were to come to my parish and ask to celebrate the Eucharist on, say, a sunday, I could refuse to let her do that. It is probably the result of a compromise like the compromises made when the Church of England allowed female priests in 1992. If those compromises hadn’t been made, in the 1960s, there wouldn’t have been any female priests in the Church of Norway back then, but now there wouldn’t have been room for those who are opposed. Remember that the Church of Norway is an established Church, and thus have to take into consideration also ‘conservative’ (i.e. tradtional and classic) Christianity.
In fact one of the people who have fought strongest to keep these codes of practices in force is one of the female bishops, because, as she has said, if they were to be removed, there would be a mass exodus in her diocese of faithful priests and of the laity who actually goes to Church. She has said that in the small towns and villages, many are opposed, and they shouldn’t be forced. It is, in the end, a question of sacramental assurance.
Yes.
Yes. Not the way he is present in the Eucharist, anyhow.
No. And we do not have an archbishop.
K
KjetilK
Guest
First, where does she say this, and secondly, which churches were she talking about? As I’ve said countless times now, we have to take each particular Church on its own terms.
It follows logically. The Church of Norway lost its apostolic succession, but regained it from Anglican bishops who had regained it from Old Catholic bishops recognised as valid by Rome.
K
KjetilK
Guest
P
Peter_J
Guest
I wasn’t thinking so much in terms of the pope being the church’s head, but in terms of his being a bishop.
- Status