Why do orthodox Lutherans reject epjscopacy?

[GKC]

It was interrupted when they entered into apostasy, as it was declared at Trent.

Also, I’d be interested to see the sources of your claim.

I am not sure that is the case, as to loss of apostolic succession, per Ott, p.358. What does Trent say on the subject?

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Interesting that Lutherans regard Anglicanism as “reformed”.

 

[Indifferently]

As for the Thirty Nine Articles, they only need be interpreted in their literal, grammatical sense. EJ Bicknell wrote a good book on them.

 

[GKC]

As for the Thirty Nine Articles, they only need be interpreted in their literal, grammatical sense. EJ Bicknell wrote a good book on them.

A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. If one is interested in them.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Interesting that Lutherans regard Anglicanism as “reformed”.

Generally, I don’t think the label fits, though as GKC would remind us, it depends on the Anglican.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Generally, I don’t think the label fits, though as GKC would remind us, it depends on the Anglican.

Jon

Doesn’t fit me very well, as far as that goes.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am not sure that is the case, as to loss of apostolic succession, per Ott, p.358. What does Trent say on the subject?

GKC

In my electronic version Ott covers Baptism on this Section. Not sure if that’s what you would like to bring into the discussion. I am referring to valid ordination. Once and ordained Priest, Bishop, etc leaves the Church and denies Its teachings, that person has excommunicated himself and is no longer within the bossom of the Church, thus setting himself apart from Apostolic Succession.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Here’s a quote from the Provoo Communion regarding apostolic succession in the Church of Sweden [also applies to some other Lutheran churches in Europe].

**
“What made the Church of Sweden an evangelical-catholic church was to Archbishop Söderblom the fact that the Reformation in Sweden was a ‘church improvement’ and a ‘process of purification’ which did not create a new church. As a national church, the Church of Sweden succeeded in bringing together medieval Swedish tradition with the rediscovery of the gospel which the Reformation brought with it. Archbishop Söderblom included the historic episcopate in the tradition-transmitting elements. The Church of Sweden was, according to Söderblom, in an even higher degree than the Anglican Church a via media. —Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement”**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Lutheran_claims_to_apostolic_succession

 

[GKC]

In my electronic version Ott covers Baptism on this Section. Not sure if that’s what you would like to bring into the discussion. I am referring to valid ordination. Once and ordained Priest, Bishop, etc leaves the Church and denies Its teachings, that person has excommunicated himself and is no longer within the bossom of the Church, thus setting himself apart from Apostolic Succession.

No, try the section on the sacrament of Holy Orders, specifically the subsection (5): “The Dispenser of the Sacrament of Order”. Where you will find "Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (senta. certa). It is for this reason that the RCC considers the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (where this is still appropriate) and the PNCC to possess valid, if illicit, orders.So one would have to know about the Lutherans in question than merely that they were schismatic, excommunicated, or such.

GKC

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No, try the section on the sacrament of Holy Orders, specifically the subsection (5): “The Dispenser of the Sacrament of Order”. Where you will find "Every validly consecrated bishop, including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops can validly dispense the Sacrament of Order, provided he has the requisite intention, and follows the essential external rite (senta. certa). It is for this reason that the RCC considers the Orthodox, the Old Catholics (where this is still appropriate) and the PNCC to possess valid, if illicit, orders.So one would have to know about the Lutherans in question than merely that they were schismatic, excommunicated, or such.

GKC

I got it. Thank you. It is on page 457 on my version.

It makes reference to Dezinger:

855 [DS 1612] Can. 12. If anyone shall say that a minister who is in mortal sin, although he observes all the essentials which pertain to the performance or conferring of the sacrament, neither performs nor confers the sacrament: let him be anathema.

860 [DS 1617] Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the baptism, which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema.

Reading from Ott’s references in this section, it leads me to the Summa Theologica - Supplementum Q. 38, Art. 2

WHETHER HERETICS AND THOSE WHO ARE CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH CAN CONFER ORDERS?

Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect, which is the conferring of grace. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion. [Emphasis mine] (This is right before the Replies to the Objections).

What I believe is being said here is that, those who have been conferred the sacrament by validly ordained Bishops, who are separated from the Church, do not need to be re-consecrated when they enter in communion with the Church again. In as they remain in sin against the Church they do not confer the necessary grace because of this state of sin.

Hmmm, very interesting. I need to read more.

 

[GKC]

I got it. Thank you. It is on page 457 on my version.

It makes reference to Dezinger:

855 [DS 1612] Can. 12. If anyone shall say that a minister who is in mortal sin, although he observes all the essentials which pertain to the performance or conferring of the sacrament, neither performs nor confers the sacrament: let him be anathema.

860 [DS 1617] Can. 4. If anyone shall say that the baptism, which is also given by heretics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism: let him be anathema.

Reading from Ott’s references in this section, it leads me to the Summa Theologica - Supplementum Q. 38, Art. 2

WHETHER HERETICS AND THOSE WHO ARE CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH CAN CONFER ORDERS?

Wherefore others said that even those who are cut off from the Church can confer Orders and the other sacraments, provided they observe the due form and intention, both as to the first effect, which is the conferring of the sacrament, and as to the ultimate effect, which is the conferring of grace. But this again is inadmissible, since by the very fact that a person communicates in the sacraments with a heretic who is cut off from the Church, he sins, and thus approaches the sacrament insincerely and cannot obtain grace, except perhaps in Baptism in a case of necessity. Hence others say that they confer the sacraments validly, but do not confer grace with them, not that the sacraments are lacking in efficacy, but on account of the sins of those who receive the sacraments from such persons despite the prohibition of the Church. This is the third and the true opinion. [Emphasis mine] (This is right before the Replies to the Objections).

What I believe is being said here is that, those who have been conferred the sacrament by validly ordained Bishops, who are separated from the Church, do not need to be re-consecrated when they enter in communion with the Church again. In as they remain in sin against the Church they do not confer the necessary grace because of this state of sin.

Hmmm, very interesting. I need to read more.

That is, that they confer valid, but illicit orders, provided that other sacramental factors are valid, sacramental intent being assumed to be valid (facere quod facit ecclesia if other factors are demonstrably so, absent some method allowing a determinatio ex adiunctis) as to intent.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

Generally, I don’t think the label fits, though as GKC would remind us, it depends on the Anglican.

Jon

Prior to the Oxford Movement the Anglicans were very Calvinist and Reformed.

 

[GKC]

Prior to the Oxford Movement the Anglicans were very Calvinist and Reformed.

Not uniformly, even then. But it was the Oxford/Tractarian movement, followed by the Ritualist movement, that moved the CoE doctrinally away from the more reformed side.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Not uniformly, even then. But it was the Oxford/Tractarian movement, followed by the Ritualist movement, that moved the CoE doctrinally away from the more reformed side.

GKC

I like the tractarians. Not so the Ritualists, and even less so the third wave, to which we often give a rather rude name in these oarts.

 

[GKC]

I like the tractarians. Not so the Ritualists, and even less so the third wave, to which we often give a rather rude name in these oarts.

Ok.

How do you stand on the Caroline Divines?

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

Ok.

How do you stand on the Caroline Divines?

GKC

Big fan. I love Archbishop Laud’s1637 Scots Prayer Book. Pity the Scots didn’t like it though…

 

[GKC]

Big fan. I love Archbishop Laud’s1637 Scots Prayer Book. Pity the Scots didn’t like it though…

I’m fond of them too. And, of course, I use the descendant of the 1637, weekly.

We are a fair representation of the historic range of Anglicanism.

GKC

 

[Indifferently]

I’m fond of them too. And, of course, I use the descendant of the 1637, weekly.

We are a fair representation of the historic range of Anglicanism.

GKC

What’s your view on the English 1928 Book? It’s abit different from the American one, but I rather like it.

 

[GKC]

What’s your view on the English 1928 Book? It’s abit different from the American one, but I rather like it.

I can’t say I’ve ever seen one. Likely it’s on line.

GKC

 

[andrewstx]

I like the tractarians. Not so the Ritualists, and even less so the third wave, to which we often give a rather rude name in these oarts.

What is the third wave? I have not heard that expression.