To my Orthodox Brethren

[The Liturgist]

That was up to his bishop. St John Maximovich was, I assume, applying the Canons strictly.

Indeed, @RileyG just so you know when the canons are applied strictly, which might be done based on the discernment of the bishop, they are said to be applied with akrivia, and otherwise they can be applied with oikonomia, or judicious relaxation, in order to avoid creating a stumbling block. For example, the early church received Arians by profession of faith with oikonomia because of the manner in which the Arian heresiarchs were put in charge of many churches after the legitimate bishops were exiled temporarily as in the case of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, or worse, and so a large number of laity and also many clergy who were in the process of formation during that time were mal-catechized. So there was a desire to prevent these people from going into schism, by getting them back into full communion, and thus they were restored, through oikonomia, by profession of faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity (I don’t know the liturgical specifics, but perhaps they were required to recite the Nicene Creed).

Conversely, I don’t know of any Orthodox bishop who would receive modern day neo-Arians like J/Ws via profession of faith.

 

[RileyG]

Indeed, @RileyG just so you know when the canons are applied strictly, which might be done based on the discernment of the bishop, they are said to be applied with akrivia, and otherwise they can be applied with oikonomia, or judicious relaxation, in order to avoid creating a stumbling block. For example, the early church received Arians by profession of faith with oikonomia because of the manner in which the Arian heresiarchs were put in charge of many churches after the legitimate bishops were exiled temporarily as in the case of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, or worse, and so a large number of laity and also many clergy who were in the process of formation during that time were mal-catechized. So there was a desire to prevent these people from going into schism, by getting them back into full communion, and thus they were restored, through oikonomia, by profession of faith in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity (I don’t know the liturgical specifics, but perhaps they were required to recite the Nicene Creed).

Conversely, I don’t know of any Orthodox bishop who would receive modern day neo-Arians like J/Ws via profession of faith.

I don’t know if any small o Orthodox Christian accepts JW or Mormon baptisms (modern Arians) as valid. I could be wrong though.

I am aware of one late Episcopal female priest who was NOT re-baptized by her bishop despite being baptized as LDS at age 8.

 

[jas3]

I know, but the point holds (unless Orthodox are to say that error is occurring wherever it is true, which doesn't work on Orthodox logic).

I don't understand what point you were making, though. Whether someone's baptism is considered valid or invalid has nothing to do with whether he was in the Church.

The deeper point is that Orthodox don't have any clear sense of what "in the Church" means. Talk to ten different Orthodox and you will get five different answers. Things like baptism and ordination are objective approaches to the question.

I disagree that they're objective approaches to the question. Catholics have a wide variation in their practice when it comes to baptism too. Someone who was raised Catholic and was given a Catholic baptism with the only defect in form being that the priest said, "we baptize you," instead of, "I baptize you," is considered to have an invalid baptism, but a Methodist convert who was baptized using the same "we baptize you" formula (as was done at the last Methodist church I attended) would presumably be accepted as having a valid baptism, and so would a Baptist convert whose baptism was performed by a preacher who specifically wanted to deny the Catholic/Nicene intent of baptism being a means of grace. And accordingly, there is just as much confusion among Catholics about what "in the Church" can mean, especially after Vatican II, which made the confusing statement that the Church "subsists in" the Catholic church (Lumen Gentium 1.8), a statement that has been interpreted to mean everything from a full-on Protestant "invisible church" ecclesiology to an effective restatement of historical Catholic teaching that the Church is identified with the Catholic church.

But do Catholics go around saying that, "We do not view Protestants as being in the Church"? I don't think so. Or rather, some do, but my question would equally fluster them.

That's why I qualified my statement by saying Catholics don't view Protestants as being normatively in the Church. That is, they may be "invisibly united" to the Church by some extraordinary means, but as far as has been revealed to us, there is only one Church, and it is a visible institution with identifiable bishops who are successors of the Apostles.

Nevertheless the ordination issue is not the same with Protestants, and that's important. Catholics recognize that Orthodox are different from Protestants because they have valid sacraments, and Orthodox who do not re-ordain Catholic priest converts are implicitly saying that Catholics have valid sacraments.

Sure, and this is an issue I'm not as familiar with, but from what I do know, I don't think either side views having valid sacraments alone as being sufficient to be in the Church, although I think views on this vary within each communion.

 

[zippy2006]

I disagree that they're objective approaches to the question. Catholics have a wide variation in their practice when it comes to baptism too.

It is objective in the sense that baptism signifies a form of membership. Whether a baptism has occurred is a different matter, but I have been focusing on cases where baptism is acknowledged to have occurred.

And accordingly, there is just as much confusion among Catholics about what "in the Church" can mean,

I disagree. There is confusion and ambiguity, but not nearly as much.

...especially after Vatican II, which made the confusing statement that the Church "subsists in" the Catholic church (Lumen Gentium 1.8), a statement that has been interpreted to mean everything from a full-on Protestant "invisible church" ecclesiology to an effective restatement of historical Catholic teaching that the Church is identified with the Catholic church.

First, note that Vatican II actually attempted to speak to the issue. That's a pretty significant advance on Orthodoxy. You can complain that Vatican II's statement wasn't perfectly clear, but at least Catholics have a statement.

Second, I don't find "subsists in" to be very complicated. I don't find there to be a great deal of disagreement among scholars. The acta are quite clear in this case. I could dig up an article for you, but any scholar who is in close contact with the acta will be reliable. There is even an official document on the matter.

Sure, and this is an issue I'm not as familiar with, but from what I do know, I don't think either side views having valid sacraments alone as being sufficient to be in the Church, although I think views on this vary within each communion.

For Catholicism Orthodoxy only lacks union with the Pope. Its Churches are real Churches, its sacraments are valid, etc. My point here is that the issue is much clearer for Catholics than for Orthodox. I am not going so far as to say that it is crystal clear.

 

[The Liturgist]

I am aware of one late Episcopal female priest who was NOT re-baptized by her bishop despite being baptized as LDS at age 8.

Yikes, that’s pretty bad.

 

[RileyG]

Yikes, that’s pretty bad.

She was actually a bishop of the Episcopal Church in Utah. She was never conditionally baptized. She passed away in 2021.

Carolyn_Tanner_Irish

 

[jas3]

It is objective in the sense that baptism signifies a form of membership. Whether a baptism has occurred is a different matter, but I have been focusing on cases where baptism is acknowledged to have occurred.

That's fair. If we limit the cases under consideration to just those where a baptism is acknowledged to have occurred, the question becomes, are Catholics usually received by profession of faith (which would imply a fully valid baptism), or by chrismation (which would imply a baptism with some defect), or by baptism (which would imply an invalid baptism)? I suspect the vast majority are by chrismation or baptism, but I don't know for sure.

First, note that Vatican II actually attempted to speak to the issue. That's a pretty significant advance on Orthodoxy. You can complain that Vatican II's statement wasn't perfectly clear, but at least Catholics have a statement.

I don't think it's just that it wasn't perfectly clear, I think it was intended to muddy the waters about the bounds of the Church to enable extreme forms of ecumenism. I'm fine with Orthodoxy not having that.

Second, I don't find "subsists in" to be very complicated. I don't find there to be a great deal of disagreement among scholars. The acta are quite clear in this case. I could dig up an article for you, but any scholar who is in close contact with the acta will be reliable. There is even an official document on the matter.

The document you cited says that there's a lot of controversy over the phrase:

"When G. Philips wrote that the phrase 'subsistit in' had caused ‘rivers of ink’ to be spilt, he would probably never have imagined that the discussion would continue for so long or with such intensity as to have provoked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to publish this present document....

The third question asks why the expression 'subsistit in' was used rather than the verb 'est'.

It is precisely this change of terminology in the description of the relationship between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church which has given rise to the most varied interpretations, above all in the field of ecumenism."

And it may be the case that there's a perfectly orthodox official interpretation of the phrase on paper, which I'm not sure if a commentary on a response from the CDF constitutes, but the fact remains that in practice Lumen Gentium has caused extensive confusion on this issue.

For Catholicism Orthodoxy only lacks union with the Pope. Its Churches are real Churches, its sacraments are valid, etc. My point here is that the issue is much clearer for Catholics than for Orthodox. I am not going so far as to say that it is crystal clear.

I understood @boughtwithaprice to be saying in #65 that there are not two Churches in the sense of the Church not "subsisting in" or existing in its fullness in two separate institutions, which from what I've seen is consistent with how the term "church" is used to refer to the Orthodox Church (as well as what you've stated here). In other words, even though you would say the particular churches within Orthodoxy are true churches, you would probably not say it's just as legitimate to be Orthodox as to be Catholic.

 

[zippy2006]

That's fair. If we limit the cases under consideration to just those where a baptism is acknowledged to have occurred, the question becomes, are Catholics usually received by profession of faith (which would imply a fully valid baptism), or by chrismation (which would imply a baptism with some defect), or by baptism (which would imply an invalid baptism)? I suspect the vast majority are by chrismation or baptism, but I don't know for sure.

Well, I don't know why chrismation would imply a defective baptism. It seems like it would imply a defective chrismation. A defective baptism would reasonably be remedied by baptism.

As far as I know, for Catholic converts chrismation is somewhat common but baptism is much less common. From the parish website of the conservative convert-priest, Josiah Trenham:

In addition, if the candidate hails from a Western Christian tradition, a copy of the catechumen’s Protestant or Catholic Baptismal Certificate must be provided (for economizable candidates).​

(source)​

That obviously entails that economia does not apply to every candidate, but it does show that even a conservative priest is accepting some baptisms, and likely Catholic baptisms over many other traditions.

I don't think it's just that it wasn't perfectly clear, I think it was intended to muddy the waters about the bounds of the Church to enable extreme forms of ecumenism. I'm fine with Orthodoxy not having that.

That strikes me as cynical and I don't think it is true. I actually think countries with high levels of Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, etc., sort of have to acknowledge that there is something substantially Christian about these groups. Additionally, many Orthodox theologians are moving in this exact same direction. If I recall correctly, the late Fr. Thomas Hopko even cited Lumen Gentium with approval on this issue.

That was my original point: an Orthodox Christian can say that Catholics are outside the Church or even that Catholic baptisms are invalid, but there is nothing particularly official about his claim. Tons of Orthodox contradict that opinion, and there is no formal teaching on the matter. The implicit teaching that I have found could easily be characterized, "The Church of Christ subsistit in the Orthodox Church."

The document you cited says that there's a lot of controversy over the phrase

Controversy, but I don't think any legitimate interpretive difficulty. That is, a lot of people have wielded that clause in ways that clearly contradict the sense of the Council Fathers themselves, as made evident through the acta. Controversy around a council is as old as Nicea. That's why we have acta, relata, etc.

Of course the concept itself is a bit complicated, but the silliness that gets attached to that clause is beyond the pale of interpretive license.

And it may be the case that there's a perfectly orthodox official interpretation of the phrase on paper, which I'm not sure if a commentary on a response from the CDF constitutes, but the fact remains that in practice Lumen Gentium has caused extensive confusion on this issue.

There is meticulous record-keeping that now occurs at Ecumenical Councils, generally referred to as the "acta" (acts) of the Council. It provides a court of appeal for hermeneutical questions:

Acta of the Second Vatican Council​

The Acta et Documenta and Acta Synodalia together make up the primary source material for Vatican II. Within its sixty-two volumes are contained the entire official record of the Council: the pre-conciliar vota, the preparation of the draft texts, the speeches and written submissions of the Fathers, explanations of amendments, and so on.​

(source)​

​

Every Council causes confusion. For most groups Councils are past events, simplistically envisioned as tidy, clear, unambiguous, etc. Catholics know better. That's basically the litmus test for a conciliar endeavor: "Is the confusion and controversy that this will inevitably cause worth it?" One can argue about the merit of conciliar acts, but confusion and controversy are a constant when a contentious matter is addressed.

I understood @boughtwithaprice to be saying in #65 that there are not two Churches in the sense of the Church not "subsisting in" or existing in its fullness in two separate institutions

I'm not sure exactly what he thinks. I would differ with both of you on different points in that exchange. For example, I would say that while of course neither group recognizes itself as schismatic, both groups do recognize a schism and express a desire for reunion under certain conditions.

In other words, even though you would say the particular churches within Orthodoxy are true churches, you would probably not say it's just as legitimate to be Orthodox as to be Catholic.

Yes, that's right. Because as I said earlier, Orthodoxy lacks union with the Pope, and is deficient in this. And there are plenty of Orthodox who recognize a deficiency in their own Churches insofar as the primacy of Peter is absent. Contrariwise, I think the majority of Catholic theologians would admit that Catholicism lacks synodality, and is deficient in this.*

But I took issue with prodromos' response, and I wonder how common such an opinion is, even within Orthodoxy. "The body is undivided, whole and complete, and you are outside of it." Again, then why do many of the Orthodox bishops recognize our baptisms and ordinations? I rebut that simplistic polemicism, even if it was enflamed by a simplistic ecumenism.


* Where the neologism "synodality" means something more historical than what has flown under that noun during Pope Francis' tenure.

 

[zippy2006]

Forgive me, but only those with an Orthodox phronema [...] are in a position to...

I hope I didn't come off too strong on this, but I see it as an illegal move. I think the idea that non-Orthodox are not allowed to opine and argue about Orthodoxy—to have a conception of "Orthodox logic"—is beyond the pale. I also think the dangers which accompany Constantinou's thesis are legion, but that's for another day.

I assume that you are repeating to me what you were often told yourself as a catechumen, which is understandable but nevertheless problematic.

 

[prodromos]

Well, I don't know why chrismation would imply a defective baptism. It seems like it would imply a defective chrismation. A defective baptism would reasonably be remedied by baptism

Defective isn't the right term. It's a baptism performed outside the Church. Chrysmation fills the form of baptism with Grace, effectively making it a Church baptism.

 

[RileyG]

Defective isn't the right term. It's a baptism performed outside the Church. Chrysmation fills the form of baptism with Grace, effectively making it a Church baptism.

So a valid water Baptism isn't necessary as long as they have a valid Chrismation from an Orthodox bishop?

I'm a BIT confused.

 

[prodromos]

So a valid water Baptism isn't necessary as long as they have a valid Chrismation from an Orthodox bishop?

I'm a BIT confused.

The chrysmation makes it a Church baptism.

 

[RileyG]

The chrysmation makes it a Church baptism.

Thanks for clarifying.

[It's late, and I must sleep. Goodnight]

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The chrysmation makes it a Church baptism.

Years back I did some study on this subject matter using Orthodox resources AND TERMINOLOGY. The ORTHODOX normally use the words "valid" and "efficacious" in distinquishing between Orthodox and non-orthodox baptism. Accordingly....to my memory....all baptisms of non-Orthodox Christian denomination are considered valid but not efficacious. Only baptisms with Chrismation are considered efficacious along with being valid.

 

[The Liturgist]

Years back I did some study on this subject matter using Orthodox resources AND TERMINOLOGY. The ORTHODOX normally use the words "valid" and "efficacious" in distinquishing between Orthodox and non-orthodox baptism. Accordingly....to my memory....all baptisms of non-Orthodox Christian denomination are considered valid but not efficacious. Only baptisms with Chrismation are considered efficacious along with being valid.

The primary exception to this involves the extremely close relations between the Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox churches of Antioch and Alexandria, respectively (Oriental Orthodox) and their Antiochian and Alexandrian Greek Orthodox (Eastern Orthodox) counterparts. And I support this, but there are reasons for regarding this as a special case. Indeed in Egypt the two churches tried to unite in the 19th century but were prevented by the Albanian Khedive, operating under the typically Ottoman doctrine of divide et impera - the Ottoman Empire and its successor states (such as Egypt, which was theoretically an autonomous principality that owed allegiance to the Sublime Porte in Constantinople, but was de facto a sovereign state, and had been since the Albanian Khedives seized power decisively in the early part of that century, around the same time the Janissaries were disbanded following a failed coup d’etat if memory serves) operated on the theory of dividing the population into ethnic groups called millets which were allowed to retain some limited control over their own internal legal affairs rather than submitting to Ottoman courts operating under Shariah law according to the Hanafi school of jurisprudence favored in Constantinople, or more severe fiqhs (schools of jurisprudence) in some of the provinces (such as the Hanbali and Maliki fiqhs in Arabia and Africa respectively) on the basis of ethnoreligious divides, with a religious leader sometimes serving as the ethnarch, such as in the case with the Greeks, or in other cases a separate ethnarch and religious leader (this was the case with the Assyrians and the Yazidis, which lacked formal standing as millets but nonetheless interacted with the Sublime Porte in the same way).

There is a very good Turkish show that one can watch for free on YouTube (probably for purposes of Propaganda) called The Magnificent Century, about the life of the man universally regarded as the greatest Ottoman Sultan, Suleyman the Magnificent, whose wife Roxlana (allegedly an apostate Orthodox, although more likely she was abducted at a very young age, just like the firstborn sons of Christians, under the incomparably barbaric system of Devshirme ) remains legendary for her beauty, and the show is rather good, and watching it reminds one of the strong emphasis the Ottomans put on family values, of the sort of family values that I find myself expecting to hear Nino Rota’s excellent score from The Godfather fade in at any moment as the Sultan mercilessly executes those he has been plotting against and those who have been plotting against him in his bid to impress upon Europe the justice and majesty of the Osman Bashi (the Ottoman Empire).

Indeed I would say its like The Godfather only the horses are in good health and being ridden by gleaming Pashas and their calvary and mounted archers, and the humans are being decapitated.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

This will take time to put together and I don't have a lot of free time. I may end up just linking to threads where this has been discussed before, but again, it will take me time to find those threads.

1 Peter 3:15

Sir, this is a matter of eternal importance. It is telling that the explanation escapes you. I am disappointed.

If asked why the Catholic Church is the Church, we refer to the words of Christ Himself, and we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church for further explanation. There is also Iraneus, Against Heresies, , which confirmed the Popes, then we have the Council of Florence where all Bishops agreed, except one, so the schism continued

I am just reviewing facts. I asked you to refer me to an act of God, yet you ask ask me to wait for CF threads? Are not these the words of men?

You say one bishop cannot lift excommunication, but apparently one Bishop can continue a schism, when unanimity is not the standard at any Council of the Church. If it was, Satan would just have to insert one of his tares into a council and fracture the entire Church. Correct?

You say doctrine does not develop, and I have agreed. How is it that the Chair of Peter was abandoned and the doctrine changed to the Chair of Peter is in all Bishops?

I did not ask for a CF thread or a lone Bishop from a 15th century council. I asked what act of God justifys your position? If you don’t know, then it is readily apparent that you are relying on the words of men. We have been told about the words of men

There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof…..

You should be able to do better than a CF thread.
This should not be an obscure topic

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Suleyman the Magnificent

Synopsis of a .ppt presentation I did in 2014. Every Lutheran who knows something of the history of the Reformation....knows about Suleiman. Emperor Charles had to protect Vienna as it was apart of the Hapsburg Dynasty. They need the help from Germans of the HRE to help defend Vienna. The Turks lay siege to Vienna from from 27 September to 15 October 1529 with over 100,000 men. They had to withdrawn due to long supply lines and continual harsh rainy weather.

After the withdrawal, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V faced two major problems. How to stop the advance of the Turks from over taking Vienna again within a religious fragmented empire, between mainly the Lutherans and the Old Church. And unity was needed between the Lutherans and Rome, to fend off another attack from lands he was responsible to defend as Emperor.

There were conversations and disagreements between Charles V and Pope Clement VII from December 1529 to January 1530 on how to resolve the Lutheran problem. Charles V favored a General Council to resolve the disputes between Germany and Rome.

A General Council was abhorrent to Pope Clement VII. Clement believed only he had the authority to call a General Council. The impression would be given that the Emperor had authority over the Church. Clement claimed to have sufficient authority to settle the disputes without calling a council. He wanted to avoid the public discussion of subjects of which he considered himself the sole judge. Clement wanted to judge Lutherans as heretics and for Charles V, as defender of the Church, to to enforce the Edict of Worms, and wipe out Luther, Lutheranism and associated written material once and for all. Clement knew Charles V had ample power to do so, after defeating the French and also sacking his precious Rome just a few years earlier.

In late February or early March of 1530, Emperor Charles moves to Innsbruck, Austria. The purpose of this move was invite German Princes and theologians and strike a deal on religious doctrinal disagreements, thereby avoiding a Diet. Charles wanted to settle the religious questions privately without giving the Protestants a fair and public hearing. All the princes had to do was to renounce their Lutheran beliefs, go back to the Old Faith with a promise that a future General Council would convene and their grievances addressed. All German princes, declined the invitation.

A compromise was worked out between Clement and Charles V. Instead of a General Council to be called a Diet would be announce.

• This meant that official transcripts didn’t need to be kept.
• Pope would not have to attend.
• Oral arguments would probably be the norm.
• Written documents need not be issued.
• Publication of documents could be suppressed.
• Substantial privacy of proceedings could be implemented.

Charles issues the edict for the Diet of Augsburg on with a fixed date of April 8 as the day of commence of the Diet. The Elector of Saxony, John the Steadfast, receives the edict on March 11, 1530. On March 14, John set a copy of the edict to Wittenberg university, to Luther, Melanchthon Justin Jonas and others, to draw up articles on those doctrines and ceremonies and practices which were in dispute. They were to report to the elector of Torgau on March 21, 1530 to have disputes written down, to be distributed so there would be less liable to misunderstanding. [Torgau Articles]

Practices corrected include:

• Administration of both elements in communion.
• Marriage of Priests.
• Correction of understanding the Mass. Justification of sinner does not come from preforming the act of a mass.
• Confession of sins; enumeration of sins is not necessary.
• Monastic Vows are not more pleasing to God than other vocations.

In March of 1530, John Eck writes “404 Articles” against the Lutherans and published them. In short, the Luther and his followers were accused of every historical heresy imaginable, especially being aligned with the Anabaptists and other radicals. As a result, Charles allowed more time for the Lutherans to respond but without publication of response. The Diet was moved to June 25. The problem the Lutherans faced is how to respond to this attack by Eck. Perhaps a confession like statement might be needed. A confession like document had never been written before in the history of Christendom.

April 16, 1530 Luther and Melanchthon and others arrive at the Castle of Colburg. From April 16 to late September, 1530 - Luther stays at Colburg. It is the nearest city to Augsburg within the Elector of Saxony province which could keep Luther safe. Luther is still under the ban of the Empire, and he was no peacemaker when it came to doctrinal issues and negotiations. He would not be safe in Augsburg. Melanchthon learned the Emperor not stand for a lengthy written statement. It must be brief, conciliar, and of temperate tone.

On June 15—The Emperor Charles V enters Augsburg. On June 22, the emperor requested the Protestants to have their Confession ready for presentation on Friday the 24th. However, on June 24, so much time had been taken up by Rome’s representatives dealing the the Turkish question, there was no time for the Lutheran Confession to be read. Both the Latin and German confessions prepared and but not delivered to the Emperor.

June 24 late afternoon. The Emperor proposed that the Confession be handed to him without being read. But the Protestants did not accept his proposal. Dr. Brück reminded the Emperor that a public reading had already been promised and insisted that the reading of Confession be allowed. Elector John of Saxony reminded the Emperor that on German soil the German language would be more fitting; so permission was finally granted to have the Confession read to the Diet the following day. In the afternoon of June 25, not in the Rathaus but in the lower hall of the Episcopal Palace, where not more than 200 people could be seated, Dr. Beyer read the German copy so clearly that those standing in the castle court could understand. Dr. Brück then handed both the Latin and the German copies to the Emperor. Then the Emperor forbade Lutherans from publishing it.

Rome's reaction was swift. John Eck began writing a Confutation. On July 13, 1530, The Confutation was presented to the Emperor, was 351 pages and so vile that immediately the Emperor rejected it and ordered it shortened and put in moderate tone. It was revised downward four times, from 351 to ultimately 31 pages.

In this last form it was acceptable to the Emperor and declared to be a sufficient refutation of all of the Protestant errors or heresies. On August 3, 1530, the emperor assembled the diet for the Confutation to be read not in the Rathaus but in the lower hall of the Episcopal Palace. After finishing Rome’s representatives exhorted the Lutherans to accept it. They refused. On August 5, Lutherans request a copy of the Confutation to in order to respond to accurate quotations. The emperor refused. Then the Emperor relented on condition, to accept it’s contents, not be copied or responded to. The Lutherans declined.

Fortunately, however, Melanchthon’s friend, Camerarius, had taken extensive notes during the reading of the Confutation, and on the basis of these notations and on what could be remembered, Melanchthon undertook the task of writing a reply, which we know as the Apology to the Augsburg Confession.
Melanchthon's reaction to the Confutation ‘All good men in our party seem calmer and firmer.… They know that among our adversaries there is no acquaintance with religion. The Confutation is childish and silly.… ‘

From August 5 to the closing of the Diet in September 1530, various committees tried to hammer out a compromise. On August 28, Luther called upon Melanchthon to stop the negotiations, “My dear Philip, you can do nothing more right in my opinion than to free yourself from these gross intrigues by saying you would give to God what belongs to God and to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor.… Deal in a manly way, and let your heart be comforted!” From August 5, 1530 onwards, Melanchthon begins to write his refutation of the Confutation called the Apology to the Augsburg Confession in which his moderate tone is absent.

For Rome and the Emperor, the Diet was a failure. For the Lutherans, it was of inestimable value; for it had given them the opportunity to confess publicly, freely, and boldly their common faith before the Emperor and to the German people. On September 23, Melanchthon and the Lutheran delegation left Augsburg, picked up Luther at Colburg, and on October 4, 1530 they came home to Wittenberg. In November 1530, the Augsburg Confession rolled off the presses in Wittenberg.

In April of 1531, the Apology to the Augsburg Confession was published in Wittenberg.

 

[The Liturgist]

Synopsis of a .ppt presentation I did in 2014. Every Lutheran who knows something of the history of the Reformation....knows about Suleiman. Emperor Charles had to protect Vienna as it was apart of the Hapsburg Dynasty. They need the help from Germans of the HRE to help defend Vienna. The Turks lay siege to Vienna from from 27 September to 15 October 1529 with over 100,000 men. They had to withdrawn due to long supply lines and continual harsh rainy weather.

After the withdrawal, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V faced two major problems. How to stop the advance of the Turks from over taking Vienna again within a religious fragmented empire, between mainly the Lutherans and the Old Church. And unity was needed between the Lutherans and Rome, to fend off another attack from lands he was responsible to defend as Emperor.

There were conversations and disagreements between Charles V and Pope Clement VII from December 1529 to January 1530 on how to resolve the Lutheran problem. Charles V favored a General Council to resolve the disputes between Germany and Rome.

A General Council was abhorrent to Pope Clement VII. Clement believed only he had the authority to call a General Council. The impression would be given that the Emperor had authority over the Church. Clement claimed to have sufficient authority to settle the disputes without calling a council. He wanted to avoid the public discussion of subjects of which he considered himself the sole judge. Clement wanted to judge Lutherans as heretics and for Charles V, as defender of the Church, to to enforce the Edict of Worms, and wipe out Luther, Lutheranism and associated written material once and for all. Clement knew Charles V had ample power to do so, after defeating the French and also sacking his precious Rome just a few years earlier.

In late February or early March of 1530, Emperor Charles moves to Innsbruck, Austria. The purpose of this move was invite German Princes and theologians and strike a deal on religious doctrinal disagreements, thereby avoiding a Diet. Charles wanted to settle the religious questions privately without giving the Protestants a fair and public hearing. All the princes had to do was to renounce their Lutheran beliefs, go back to the Old Faith with a promise that a future General Council would convene and their grievances addressed. All German princes, declined the invitation.

A compromise was worked out between Clement and Charles V. Instead of a General Council to be called a Diet would be announce.

• This meant that official transcripts didn’t need to be kept.
• Pope would not have to attend.
• Oral arguments would probably be the norm.
• Written documents need not be issued.
• Publication of documents could be suppressed.
• Substantial privacy of proceedings could be implemented.

Charles issues the edict for the Diet of Augsburg on with a fixed date of April 8 as the day of commence of the Diet. The Elector of Saxony, John the Steadfast, receives the edict on March 11, 1530. On March 14, John set a copy of the edict to Wittenberg university, to Luther, Melanchthon Justin Jonas and others, to draw up articles on those doctrines and ceremonies and practices which were in dispute. They were to report to the elector of Torgau on March 21, 1530 to have disputes written down, to be distributed so there would be less liable to misunderstanding. [Torgau Articles]

Practices corrected include:

• Administration of both elements in communion.
• Marriage of Priests.
• Correction of understanding the Mass. Justification of sinner does not come from preforming the act of a mass.
• Confession of sins; enumeration of sins is not necessary.
• Monastic Vows are not more pleasing to God than other vocations.

In March of 1530, John Eck writes “404 Articles” against the Lutherans and published them. In short, the Luther and his followers were accused of every historical heresy imaginable, especially being aligned with the Anabaptists and other radicals. As a result, Charles allowed more time for the Lutherans to respond but without publication of response. The Diet was moved to June 25. The problem the Lutherans faced is how to respond to this attack by Eck. Perhaps a confession like statement might be needed. A confession like document had never been written before in the history of Christendom.

April 16, 1530 Luther and Melanchthon and others arrive at the Castle of Colburg. From April 16 to late September, 1530 - Luther stays at Colburg. It is the nearest city to Augsburg within the Elector of Saxony province which could keep Luther safe. Luther is still under the ban of the Empire, and he was no peacemaker when it came to doctrinal issues and negotiations. He would not be safe in Augsburg. Melanchthon learned the Emperor not stand for a lengthy written statement. It must be brief, conciliar, and of temperate tone.

On June 15—The Emperor Charles V enters Augsburg. On June 22, the emperor requested the Protestants to have their Confession ready for presentation on Friday the 24th. However, on June 24, so much time had been taken up by Rome’s representatives dealing the the Turkish question, there was no time for the Lutheran Confession to be read. Both the Latin and German confessions prepared and but not delivered to the Emperor.

June 24 late afternoon. The Emperor proposed that the Confession be handed to him without being read. But the Protestants did not accept his proposal. Dr. Brück reminded the Emperor that a public reading had already been promised and insisted that the reading of Confession be allowed. Elector John of Saxony reminded the Emperor that on German soil the German language would be more fitting; so permission was finally granted to have the Confession read to the Diet the following day. In the afternoon of June 25, not in the Rathaus but in the lower hall of the Episcopal Palace, where not more than 200 people could be seated, Dr. Beyer read the German copy so clearly that those standing in the castle court could understand. Dr. Brück then handed both the Latin and the German copies to the Emperor. Then the Emperor forbade Lutherans from publishing it.

Rome's reaction was swift. John Eck began writing a Confutation. On July 13, 1530, The Confutation was presented to the Emperor, was 351 pages and so vile that immediately the Emperor rejected it and ordered it shortened and put in moderate tone. It was revised downward four times, from 351 to ultimately 31 pages.

In this last form it was acceptable to the Emperor and declared to be a sufficient refutation of all of the Protestant errors or heresies. On August 3, 1530, the emperor assembled the diet for the Confutation to be read not in the Rathaus but in the lower hall of the Episcopal Palace. After finishing Rome’s representatives exhorted the Lutherans to accept it. They refused. On August 5, Lutherans request a copy of the Confutation to in order to respond to accurate quotations. The emperor refused. Then the Emperor relented on condition, to accept it’s contents, not be copied or responded to. The Lutherans declined.

Fortunately, however, Melanchthon’s friend, Camerarius, had taken extensive notes during the reading of the Confutation, and on the basis of these notations and on what could be remembered, Melanchthon undertook the task of writing a reply, which we know as the Apology to the Augsburg Confession.
Melanchthon's reaction to the Confutation ‘All good men in our party seem calmer and firmer.… They know that among our adversaries there is no acquaintance with religion. The Confutation is childish and silly.… ‘

From August 5 to the closing of the Diet in September 1530, various committees tried to hammer out a compromise. On August 28, Luther called upon Melanchthon to stop the negotiations, “My dear Philip, you can do nothing more right in my opinion than to free yourself from these gross intrigues by saying you would give to God what belongs to God and to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor.… Deal in a manly way, and let your heart be comforted!” From August 5, 1530 onwards, Melanchthon begins to write his refutation of the Confutation called the Apology to the Augsburg Confession in which his moderate tone is absent.

For Rome and the Emperor, the Diet was a failure. For the Lutherans, it was of inestimable value; for it had given them the opportunity to confess publicly, freely, and boldly their common faith before the Emperor and to the German people. On September 23, Melanchthon and the Lutheran delegation left Augsburg, picked up Luther at Colburg, and on October 4, 1530 they came home to Wittenberg. In November 1530, the Augsburg Confession rolled off the presses in Wittenberg.

In April of 1531, the Apology to the Augsburg Confession was published in Wittenberg.

Now, just imagine having to live under the Turks with all of their evil, and that was the experience of the Orthodox.

Also, for reasons which should be evident, it was tragically impossible for Luther and Melancthon to directly communicate with the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (the existence of one of the Oriental Orthodox churches, I think the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, but possibly the Coptic or Armenian or Indian church; I am pretty sure it was not the Syriac Orthodox Church) church had made Luther realize that not all Christians were under the Pope or were supposed to be under the Pope but rather that there were distinct autocephalous churches, and the situation in Northern Europe was one where, if Rome had remained part of the Orthodox Communion, it seems likely that an autocephalous church would have been formed encompassing at least some of the German lands.

As a matter of pure fact, we know that more areas would have been Eastern Orthodox areas, since after the schism some Orthodox people such as the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Lithuanians and Carpatho-Rusyns were conquered by Roman Catholics. and in addition the competition between the Romans and the Byzantines to evangelize the Slavs (primarily in the Balkans, with the ecclesiastical no-man’s land corresponding to Bosnia, which had a schismatic church and was also home to the Gnostic Bogomils, unpleasant heretics related to the Paulicians of Bulgaria and Armenia*, and who were sometimes confused with the schismatic Church of Bosnia, and who also feature in many of the ahistorical narratives promoted by certain Restorationist denominations and the Landmark Baptists in an attempt to avoid having to admit their denomination exists only in reaction to the Roman Catholics and the Magisterial Protestants of the 16th century ) in the tenth and early eleventh century was one of the unpleasant realities of pre-schism area, when the Roman church had already started to exhibit noticeable differences from the Orthodox church (such as communion in both kinds becoming increasingly rare, with such communion initially restricted to the use of a glass straw called a fistula (this word now refers to a type of medical device derived from a glass straw, but I doubt any are still made of such material, unless perhaps it was the kind of extremely reinforced glass which is unfortunately quite rare and expensive, for example, in the DDR they manufactured glassware which was 15 to 20 times stronger than what we can buy at present, which along with the Aamer harpsichords, whose design predated the DDR, and certain cameras made by the East German half of the Carl Zeiss company at its original headquarters in Fulda, were among the small list of products made behind the Iron Curtain other than unique cultural items (such as the exquisite Bohemian overlay glass made in Czechoslovakia, and many other products; I could go on for hours about various arts and crafts of different Eastern European countries, some of which miraculously survived in production the Nazis, Communists, WWII and the closing and opening of the Iron Curtain - this had a particularly adverse effect on products made by Eastern European Jews, products made by certain ethnic minorities who were not exterminated but whose culture was not exactly respected, for example the Sorbian people, a Slavic population native to the region of Lusatia in the former DDR**) which I think is still made in Czechia) better than any competing product in the West).

* The last Paulicans were converted to Orthodoxy by I believe the Armenian Apostolic Church, possibly the Russian Orthodox Church, in the 19th century, making them the last surviving group of historical Gnostics in continuity with the ancient heretics, who considered themselves Christian; as a result, we have a partially intact surviving text of theirs, the Book of Keys, an examination of which would convince any objective reader of Nicene Christian persuasion that there is nothing in common between the Paulicans and their ilk and any congregation or denomination on CF.com considered Christian, but unfortunately when challenged with it those who have seriously bought into the alternative historical narrative such as Landmark Baptists will claim it is a forgery.

** There is in Texas a church in the town of Sorbin, populated primarily by people of Sorbian Lusatian ethnicity, a very beautiful LCMS parish under the patronage of St. Paul the Apostle.

 

[zippy2006]

The chrysmation makes it a Church baptism.

According to what source? And when is re-baptism required? Your answers here are not very informative.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I thought this thread would help with self reflection among christian groups to see that division is not in the will of God, but what has come is a hardening of those divisions along with a review of human history and not a review of the words of acts of God.
I can only liken this to the attitude of the older brother in the parable of the prodigal son. The elder son refused to join the celebration called by his father.

Some in the Orthodox faith say that the Catholic Church is not part of the Church. This seems to be the attitude among most if not all Protestant groups. They will not accept the Catholic Church mostly because of the Pope and what they call the institution. Meanwhile, in the modern world, the Catholic Church does her best to see other groups as Christian and endeavors to do the will of God.

What do we get? Nothing but derision. What were the arguments of the elder son? “I have done all you ask and gotten nothing, but for this one, you kill the fatted calf, put a ring on his finger and a robe upon him. How does this differ from orthodox and Protestant arguments against the Pope? The Pope wears Peter’s fisherman’s ring and has robes upon him. Sounds familiar

The only way that Orthodox and Protestant arguments work, is if the Pope is painted as heretic or antichrist. If it is admitted that the Pope is not Antichrist or a heretic, then much pride must be swallowed, the same as the elder son in the parable.

If you stubbornly maintain your position, then the blood of the saints and martyrs will speak against you. The Catholic Church is not the antichrist nor heretical, but Satan wants you to think that it is. Sure he put plenty of tares among the wheat to try and convince you; however, This is serious, this is the marriage supper of the Lamb. There is no place for jealousy or pride in God’s kingdom. The Spirit and the Bride say come, whosoever will, drink of the waters of life freely. God loves variety. His is not a dull and strict uniform event. All nations, tribes and tongues will be there. Will you?