It is pointless for Lutherans to claim episcopal succession (Бессмысленно лютеранам заявлять о епископском преемстве)

[Nagomirov]

I am not an English speaker, so through an online translator:

My message to one person who is interested in Lutheranism: "@centurion1067, for Protestantism, technical continuity does not play a special role, this is facilitated by the Protestant doctrine of universal priesthood. Well, Lutherans will tell you that they have episcopal succession inherited from the Scandinavian tradition of Lutheranism, but a rhetorical question arises: how do their bishops differ sacramentally from the laity, or are all sacramentally equal? If they are no different, then their ordinations are no different from those in the Baptist environment. Well, judge for yourself, if there is no sacramental difference between a bishop and a layman, if they are both equal by grace, then there is no point in chasing episcopal succession, anyway it will not differ in any way from Baptist ordinations. That is, if it is claimed that pastors and laity are equal by grace, if they are sacramentally equal, then episcopal succession in the Lutheran environment does not give any special feature. And if by grace, pastors are no different from lay people in a Protestant environment, then in fact, any pastoral ministry in a Protestant (!) environment is purely administrative, administrative service."

Lutherans do not have a priesthood. Even if there is an episcopal succession (technical succession of ordination), but if the understanding of the priesthood is changed, the matter of the Sacrament is thereby changed, which in turn leads to the invalidity of the Sacrament, and therefore to the termination of the succession. In addition, in the traditional Christian understanding, a priest makes a Propitiatory Sacrifice, and if Lutherans do not have a Propitiatory Sacrifice, if gifts remain a natural gift, then priests are not needed. There is a priest if there is a sacerdotal service - the offering of a Propitiatory Sacrifice. And since Protestants deny sacerdotalism, they do not have a sacerdotal priesthood.

Today, my answer to a person who is interested in Lutheranism is: "@centurion1067, I know this feeling that you have, it's called throwing. When something pulls, you are not sure about it, you get information that refutes it. Then time passes, and you calm down, and what is pulling begins to beckon again. And so you write to me that my answer did not come from the heart. My most important answer was written to you much earlier. What is the point of telling Lutherans about the same episcopal succession from the Scandinavian tradition, if according to their teachings, a bishop by grace is no different from a layman? Therefore, it turns out that this is an administrative ministry, and not a sacramental one, because the Lutheran bishop and presbyter have no sacramental superiority over the layman. Lutheran bishops and presbyters have only administrative superiority over the laity. Therefore, all these Lutheran ordinations are no different from Baptist ones. Further, another thing was also important, if in Lutheranism there is no Sacrifice, not a sacrifice of the gratitude of believers, as Lutherans like to say, but a Sacrifice in the truest sense, a Lamb on the Altar, then there is no sense at all in the priesthood. There is a priest only if there is a sacerdotal service - the offering of Sacrifice. And since Protestants deny sacerdotalism, they do not have a sacerdotal priesthood. That's up to you, but if I were you, I wouldn't chase after non-traditional teachings that originated in the 16th century. Well, let's not write to each other a hundred times."

 

[Nagomirov]

А теперь на русском:

Мое сообщение одному человеку увлёкшемуся лютеранством: "@centurion1067 , для протестантизма, особой роли не играет техническая преемственность, этому способствует протестантская доктрина всеобщего священства. Ну вот вам заявят лютеране о том, что у них есть епископская преемственность, унаследованная ими от скандинавской традиции лютеранства, но возникает риторический вопрос: как-то сакраментально отличаются их епископы от мирян, или все сакраментально равны? Если они ничем не отличаются, то их рукоположения ничем не отличаются от рукоположений в баптистской среде. Ну сами посудите, если между епископом и мирянином нет никакой сакраментальной разницы, если они оба по благодати равны, то никакого смысла и нет гоняться за епископским преемством, всё равно оно ничем не будет отличаться от баптистских рукоположений. То есть, если заявляется, что по благодати пастыри и миряне равны, если сакраментально равны, то никакой особенности не даёт епископское преемство в лютеранской среде. И если по благодати, пасторы ничем не отличаются от мирян в протестантской среде, то по факту, любое пастырское служение в протестантской (!) среде, это чисто административка, административное служение".

Священства нет у лютеран. Даже если есть епископская сукцессия (техническое преемство рукоположения), но если понимание священства изменено, изменена тем самым и материя Таинства, что в свою очередь ведет к недействительности Таинства, а следовательно и к прекращению преемства. Кроме того, в традиционном христианском понимании, священник приносит Умилостивительную Жертву, а если у лютеран нет Умилостивительной Жертвы, если дары остаются природно даром, то и священники не нужны. Священник есть, если есть сакердотальное служение - приношение Умилостивительной Жертвы. А раз протестанты отрицают сакердотализм, то у них и нет сакердотального священства.

 

[Nagomirov]

Сегодняшний мой ответ человеку, увлёкшемуся лютеранством: "@centurion1067, мне знакомо такое чувство которое у вас, называется оно метанием. Когда что-то тянет, вы в этом не уверены, получаете информацию, которая опровергает. Потом проходит время, и вы успокаиваетесь, и снова начинает манить то что тянет. И вот вы мне пишите, что мой ответ не прозвучал от сердца. Самый главный мой ответ, вам был написан гораздо раньше. Какой смысл говорить лютеранам о той-же епископской преемственности из скандинавской традиции, если по их учению, епископ по благодати ничем не отличается от мирянина? Поэтому и получается, что это административное служение, а не сакраментальное, потому что никакого сакраментального превосходства нет у лютеранского епископа и пресвитера перед мирянином. У лютеранских епископов и пресвитеров только административное превосходство перед мирянами. Поэтому все эти лютеранские рукоположения ничем не отличаются от баптистских. Далее, было ещё главным и другое, если в лютеранстве не приносится Жертва, не жертва благодарности верующих, как любят говорить лютеране, а Жертва в самом прямом смысле, Агнец на Алтаре, то вообще никакого смысла нет тогда в священстве. Священник есть, только если есть сакердотальное служение - приношение Жертвы. А раз протестанты отрицают сакердотализм, то у них и нет сакердотального священства. Дело ваше, но я бы на вашем месте не гонялся за нетрадиционными учениями, которые возникли в 16 веке. Ну и давайте не будем по сто раз писать друг другу".

 

[Nagomirov]

Therefore, no matter what the highest liturgy is in Protestantism, what's the use if there is no priesthood there.

Поэтому какая бы самая высокая литургия не была в протестантизме, а что толку, если там нет священства.

 

[Nagomirov]

Without the sacramental priesthood, it is impossible, it is impossible to perform the liturgy, the sacraments.

Без сакраментального священства невозможно, нельзя совершать литургию, таинства.

 

[Nagomirov]

This is what Catholics and Greek Orthodox and Oriental Christians think.

Так считают католики и греческие православные, и ориентальные христиане.

 

[Paidiske]

This was not directed to me, but I hope a reply from me will not be unwelcome.

I suspect there is something of a language barrier here, because some of the nuances of what is said I am not sure about, and I wonder if it is because the meaning is different in the original language. But perhaps we can try to share ideas nonetheless.

That said, from an Anglican point of view, I would suggest that there are other options besides there being a sacramental difference between a bishop and a lay person, and there being only an administrative difference (I would not wish to use the language of "superiority"). I might argue for an ontological difference; one brought about by the changed relationships in which one functions in ministry. That is, being a bishop changes one because of the differed and different relationality in which it places one. We are who we are as beings-in-relationship, and different relationships changes our identity. (I believe here I am echoing the sort of thinking about Christian ontology which one might find in Orthodox writers such as Zizioulas).

 

[Nagomirov]

This was not directed to me, but I hope a reply from me will not be unwelcome.

I suspect there is something of a language barrier here, because some of the nuances of what is said I am not sure about, and I wonder if it is because the meaning is different in the original language. But perhaps we can try to share ideas nonetheless.

That said, from an Anglican point of view, I would suggest that there are other options besides there being a sacramental difference between a bishop and a lay person, and there being only an administrative difference (I would not wish to use the language of "superiority"). I might argue for an ontological difference; one brought about by the changed relationships in which one functions in ministry. That is, being a bishop changes one because of the differed and different relationality in which it places one. We are who we are as beings-in-relationship, and different relationships changes our identity. (I believe here I am echoing the sort of thinking about Christian ontology which one might find in Orthodox writers such as Zizioulas).

It is important to take a historical view of how the Church always believed before the advent of Protestantism and how this faith, this tradition is preserved by historical churches (Catholics, Greek Orthodox, pre-Chalcedonian Orientals). Zizioulas suffers from personalism, and his modernism lies in personalism. Personalism can lead to triteism. The Holy Fathers (Fathers of the Church) did not think within the framework of personalism, they were not personalists.

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure that personalism is entirely out of place in Christian thought. Pope John Paul II is noted for his personalism.

 

[Nagomirov]

This was not directed to me, but I hope a reply from me will not be unwelcome.

I suspect there is something of a language barrier here, because some of the nuances of what is said I am not sure about, and I wonder if it is because the meaning is different in the original language. But perhaps we can try to share ideas nonetheless.

That said, from an Anglican point of view, I would suggest that there are other options besides there being a sacramental difference between a bishop and a lay person, and there being only an administrative difference (I would not wish to use the language of "superiority"). I might argue for an ontological difference; one brought about by the changed relationships in which one functions in ministry. That is, being a bishop changes one because of the differed and different relationality in which it places one. We are who we are as beings-in-relationship, and different relationships changes our identity. (I believe here I am echoing the sort of thinking about Christian ontology which one might find in Orthodox writers such as Zizioulas).

For me, the continuity of faith, the continuity of understanding, between the early generations of Christians and our generation is important. This continuity is preserved among Catholics, Greek Orthodox and ancient Eastern Christians (Oriental).

 

[Nagomirov]

I am not sure that personalism is entirely out of place in Christian thought. Pope John Paul II is noted for his personalism.

The Modernist.

 

[Nagomirov]

I am not sure that personalism is entirely out of place in Christian thought. Pope John Paul II is noted for his personalism.

Catholicism also has modernism, and there is traditionalism. John Paul and Francis expressed modernist ideas. Lubeck is also considered a modernist theologian, as is Chardin. This is as an example. In Catholicism, we must look for something that is closer to traditionalism, tradition.

 

[Paidiske]

From the outside, it's not clear to me that I should take seriously a Catholic position which says, "only pay attention to the Catholics whose opinions I prefer." Surely, if we are to take Catholicism seriously, we need to take the breadth and depth of it seriously?

 

[Nagomirov]

I am not sure that personalism is entirely out of place in Christian thought. Pope John Paul II is noted for his personalism.

Do you want a proven, good old classic, in which there is no modernism, in which only the traditional view is written. If this is Eastern Orthodoxy, then read the dogmatics of Metropolitan Makarii Bulgakov, the Catechism of Peter Graves, the Catechism of Filared Drozdov. If you want a classic Catholic view, a traditional one, read the classic textbooks on Catholic dogma by Sylvester Joseph Hunter and Joseph Pohle.

 

[Nagomirov]

From the outside, it's not clear to me that I should take seriously a Catholic position which says, "only pay attention to the Catholics whose opinions I prefer." Surely, if we are to take Catholicism seriously, we need to take the breadth and depth of it seriously?

It is important that there is no gap in the traditional understanding. Otherwise, it will be like with the advent of Protestantism, when there was a break with the historical, traditional understanding of what happened to Protestants.

 

[Nagomirov]

From the outside, it's not clear to me that I should take seriously a Catholic position which says, "only pay attention to the Catholics whose opinions I prefer." Surely, if we are to take Catholicism seriously, we need to take the breadth and depth of it seriously?

But for me, the most important thing, I opened the topic for this reason, is the preservation of the sacramental understanding, teaching, in traditional Christianity. Continuity of understanding of sacramentology. Among Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Orientals, it is understood identically, the same understanding.

 

[Nagomirov]

Bull of the Lion 13:

"To this essential defect of form is added the defect of intention, which is equally essential for the sacrament. The Church does not judge about a thought or intention (intention), as far as it, by its very essence, is something internal; but it must judge about it, as far as it manifests itself outside. So, if anyone, when performing and teaching the sacrament, reverently and according to the order uses matter and proper form, he is recognized for this very reason as having the intention to do what the Church does. This is the basis of the teaching, according to which the sacrament is really taught, even by a heretic or not baptized, as long as it is taught according to the Catholic order. On the contrary, if the rite is changed with the explicit purpose of introducing another one that is not accepted by the Church, and the one that she performs is rejected, and which, according to Christ's establishment, refers to the very essence of the sacrament; then it is obvious that not only does
the sacrament lack the necessary intention, but this intention is even contrary to the sacrament and destroys it."

 

[Paidiske]

Continuity of understanding of sacramentology. Among Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Orientals, it is understood identically, the same understanding.

Is it? My admittedly relatively inexpert understanding of the Orthodox position is that they would reject, or at least wish to correct, a Catholic sacramentology.

 

[Nagomirov]

Catholics, Greek Orthodox and ancient Eastern Christians (Oriental) do not recognize the ordination of Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans). The matter of the sacraments has been changed, their sacraments are not valid, are not valid. Lutherans have no sacramental difference between a pastor and a layman (λαϊκός), they are sacramentally equal, the same, the difference is only in administrative superiority. This is due to the Lutheran doctrine of the universal priesthood.

 

[Nagomirov]

Is it? My admittedly relatively inexpert understanding of the Orthodox position is that they would reject, or at least wish to correct, a Catholic sacramentology.

No, she is the same in understanding. In Russia, Catholic clerics who convert to Orthodoxy are accepted in their proper dignity, and their dignity is recognized. They are accepted through repentance, the third rank.