Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
LOL. There you go again...
“I simply don’t know about Lutheran Church as a whole (apostolic succession of Lutheran bishops, K). I heard an expression “Continuing Lutherans”; it is possible that they retained the apostolic succession as a sub-Church even to this day. Maybe Jo Kus knows more.”
I am pinging our brethren lightman and redgolum for their informed input on the apostolic succession of Lutheran bishops. My understanding is that there are, or were until recently, some in Scandinavia.
Yes. This is what I meant. It is just that Latin bishops do not ordain Orthodox priests and vice versa.
Lightman is evidently Gnostic as his name is not showing through...
The jurisdictions are divided as some bishops remained in communion with Rome and other didn't. But that doesn't affect the apostolic authoirty transmitted through aposotlic succession of the bishops.
Luther could not ordain anyone. Without a bishop, he was without apostolic authority. Priests do not have autonomous authority; they are bishop's lieutenants and work under the authority of one.
His 'church' is therefore not the Church but a man-made institution. By throwing out most of the sacraments, this institution made itself expressly heretical. Some renegade Scandinavian bishops who joined his movement much later basically joined heretics. their authority then is the same as that of Arian "bishops."
This is sad because the conservative Lutheran Church retains many of the elements of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Its atonment doctrine of ransom is that which is taught by the Orthodox Church from the beginning and throughout the Church until the 11th century, when Anselm's error took over in the west.
Just like the High Anglicans, the Lutherans probably stand the greatest chance of eventually rejoining the Church. That would be a great day in Christendom.
Are you saying that not ONE bishop has left the Church to become a Protestant? I find that rather difficult to believe.
Our theological disagreement is within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the one that was founded by Christ in 33 AD and passed on to his Apostles and their successors. It's not some home-grown variety
Oh, here comes that old chestnut again. "Our theology don't match, but, hey, that's OK. We still have the same boss, I think." Please.
The Church was not "ruled" by the Bishop of Rome. You got that all wrong. The Church operated and (the Orthodox Church still operates the same way it did for the past 2,000 years: by councils (apostolic gatherings); it's conciliar.
That's very nice but our Catholic friends make quite a point in reminding us the Pope is the head. You first tell us that Peter was the head of the Church and now you say its a council. Make up your minds. You're confusing us slow witted Protestants.
Oh, now we have two ruling bodies. Kind of like an amoeba. Then there are two denominations.
My reading of "Millers Church History" speaks to apostolic authority being a myth.. Jesus did not call Simon the first name Peter(as a nickname) he called him a rock.. metaphorically as an operator in the metaphor.. the church being rock upon rock.. starting from the cornerstone..
This metaphor getting skewed like the eat my flesh and drink my blood metaphor(Lords table) getting skewed all out of shape.. Its obvious these two metaphors are metaphors(to me/and others).. Stretching them to be literal makes them bizaar.. in the extreme.. Trans-substantiation is childlike and humorous in its skewing..
How on earth can "apostolic succession" be valid "for a while"? Either you can trace yourselves to the apostles or you can't. Validity, in my mind would not enter into the issue.
NO ONE on this planet can ordain anybody except as officers in a Club.. ONLY the Holy Spirit can ordain any one to/for anything spiritually.
No, Lutherans are not considered "Apostolic" because they cannot trace a line of ordained bishops to the Apostles like the Orthodox or even the Coptics. This includes the Anglicans, as well, although they make the claim they are Apostolic, English history shows there is no continuity between the great English bishops of the Catholic Church and the usurpers.
Regards
I defer to the posts of others that corrected me; this however, I can answer: apostolic succession requires two things: valid consecration and unity of doctrine. It is possible to consecrate a bishop or even a succession of bishops who drift into heresy overtime. At that point firther consecrations cease to be valid.
My understanding is that some of the Scandinavian synods (like the Finnish and Swedish) have apostolic succession. Most of the North American synods do not track it.
I’m going to let the reader handle that one topcat.
As far as our conversation goes, I see not much has changed since the dispensational thread so I’m going to leave it at that. I left the conversation on dispensationalism for a reason and I see that some still wish to broad-brush and attack it with untruths. We (dispensationalists) have dealt with BOTH the Old and New Testaments at length on other threads. You are aware of these threads because you were right in the middle of them. If our discussions didn’t answer any questions then they aren’t going to answer them now. But then again, I really don’t think the questions are posed with a sincere inquiry into knowledge but are posed with an agenda which already hates dispensationalism (and dispensationalists???) to the core. Sorry, not interested in playing the “gotcha” game tonight. Maybe some other time, but frankly my time is more valuable than that.
As to the ordinances, I answered all I care to answer there as well. I defined both and gave examples which were directly pertinent to Lord’s Supper and Baptism. You don’t like the answer so you re-ask the question. Sorry, asked and answered. I’ll let the reader decide there as well.
In closing, sit back and think for a moment of why this discussion is taking place. The vitriol against dispensationalism is as thick as I have ever seen on these threads. Why would that be? Because we are unbiblical? So you would claim. But if (and we aren’t) were were, what is the harm? Has it effected our evangelistic zeal? A HUGE number of evangelical Christians are indeed pre-tribulationists and dispensationalists. Evangelicals send out a slew of missionaries everywhere and Southern Baptists in particular have been key in the spread of the gospel. Has it effected our love for the Lord? To the contrary, it makes us love Him and long for Him even more! And it causes us to do what He always wanted us to, wait patiently and look for His coming. Does it keep us from the Scripture? No. We are avid readers of Scripture, both old and New Testament. Does it keep us from evangelizing Jews? Again, I know of no dispensationalist that teaches that Jews should not be evangelized. I’ve heard rumors, but I have heard denials of those rumors as well so again, I’d have to truly see it in the context of ALL of the writers writing before I would believe it and even then would reject that such was a teaching of dispensationalism.
So, as far as dispensationalism goes, again, dealt with. Not a profitable discussion. Don’t care to delve into it again at this point.
As far as the Ordinances go, if I am reading you correctly, you do not believe neglect of Lord’s Supper or Baptism will send a soul to Hell and that salvation is by grace through faith alone. As such, the Ordinances, or sacraments as you would call them, are secondary issues about which Christians can disagree. I believe that you and I find commonality in our soteriolgy as far as the doctrines of grace in salvation go. Then again, I could be surprised there as well.
All for now. B.
It is possible to consecrate a bishop or even a succession of bishops who drift into heresy overtime. At that point firther consecrations cease to be valid.
= = = =
So, does that mean, that after the orgies or some such earlier . . . the consecrations were not valid any longer, in the RC edifice?
Sounds like similar to what I was contending about Holy Spirit lifting His anointing . . .
I do not know the exact lineage of the Swedish Lutheran episcopacy, but it is sufficiently within the apostolic succession to have retired (in my opinion, apostate) Bishop Kristen Stendahl serve as one of the co-consecrators of the infamous (and, again in my opinion, equally apostate) Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, Vicky Gene Robinson.
The 1999 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)-Episcopal Church agreement "Called to Common Mission" (CCM) spells out a procedure for bringing all future ELCA Bishops into the apostolic succession through requiring at least 3 Bishops (either Lutheran or Episcopal) who are within the succession taking part in the elevation of new Bishops.
CCM has provoked a major backlash, particularly in the upper Midwest among congregations whose roots extend into the former American Lutheran Church. The Word Alone movement and its spinoffs all began in response to CCM. Too much to go into on a thread originally about the Nativity movie! This
When Luther established his 'church' there was not a single bishop with him. The bishop to whom Luther was subordinate certainly did not condone what Luther did.
Even if there was a bishop who was sympathetic to Luther's cause, he could not "hire" Luther for him. Bishops are autonomous and one bishop cannot interfere in the affairs of another bishopric.
And, taking it one step further, if such a bishop were to side with Luther, Luther would be his deputy and the bishop would be the final authority of that new 'church.'
Now, the renegade bishop would have apostolic authority by valid succession, but because of apostasy the apostolic office would die with him, so the new 'church' would still be without a valid apostolic succession.
Some Scandinavian bishops sided with Luther's movement later on, but their offices ended for the same reason.
Oh, here comes that old chestnut again. "Our theology don't match, but, hey, that's OK. We still have the same boss, I think." Please
First, what theological differences are there. One is Purgatory, one is Filioque, one is Immaculate Conception, original sin, and the extent and nature of papal primacy.
The Purgatory is a matter of semantics but it is not critical. The orthodox, contrary to what many say, believe in the intermediate state of the soul starting with the particular judgment at one's death (separation of soul and body), and the Final Judgment. The EOC has a slightly different view of what happens to those souls, but nonetheless we have commeroative services for them to "ease their discomfort."
As far as the Filioque is concerned, the Catholics believe exactly as we do but they concentrate on a different aspect of the procesison of the Spirit. Catholics could drop the Filioque in the Creed and continue to teach it because it is not theologically incorrect; just incomplete.
Immaculate Conception will be a tough nut to crack because it is tied to the other issue, the so-called 'original sin.' But, even here the Catholic side is not that far from the Orthodox teaching, because we see the OS as an effect of sin (our fallen mortal nature) and not sin itself; and the Catholics pretty much agree.
The Immaculate Conception is very important, and this will be a challenge. The fact that it is a dogma in the Catholic Church makes it immutable. So the only saving grace in the IC will be agreeing on some points. We believe that Mary was sinless and ever-virgin as the Catholics do. I don't believe it is theologically impossible to solve in an Œecumenical Council.
The issue of papal primacy/supremacy is under review. +BXVI has already returned the conciliar structure of the Church more in line with the pre-Schism paradigm. He is even willing to consider pre-Schism papacy as a staring point.
All this is not an issue of The Holy Trinity and Christiology, where the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are in complete agreement. These two, along with the proclamation of the Theotokos as the Mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, are essential dogmas of the catholic church and orthodox faith.
What is sought is a papal primacy that is acceptable to both without morphing and overtaking one or the other. once that is agreed, a general Council can tackle the remaining theological issues.
But what is important to understand is that our disagreements are within the Church. They can be resolved within the Church. the same is not true of other Christian groups outside the Church.
That's very nice but our Catholic friends make quite a point in reminding us the Pope is the head.
The Pope is the First Bishop in the Church, as far as honor and privilege goes. He is not the ruler of the Church any more than +Peter was the "ruler" of the Apostles. But he was senior and he was singled out. The extent and nature of that primacy is the subject of Catholic-Orthodox dialog.
You first tell us that Peter was the head of the Church and now you say its a council
+Peter was the senior Apostle, but the Apostles used a conciliar approach to the administration of the Church. The bishops do the same thing.
I think we already know how you feel about this. So, what are you going to do about it? Complain ad nauseum?
You don't recognize their authority? That's fine. Their pay is the same whether you do or don't. With 1.2 billion Cathlics and 300 million Orthodox recognizing their authority, I think your lack of recognition will not be noticed.
What I posted was a historical fact regarding Luther, not an opinion survey.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.