Are Lutheran Holy Orders Valid?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 апр 2022
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is a discussion of the validity of ordinations within Lutheran churches. I discuss the role of the bishop vs priest in ordination and whether or not Luther had the ability to ordain as a priest.
![A Lutheran View of the Validity of Lutheran Orders [Narratio #2]](/img/1.gif)
Love this vid. The best part is Dr. Cooper's outfit. Its absolutely perfect
Amazing, but also I would like to add that that was in Germany, but in Sweden and other places, bishops were converted to Lutheranism so they performed fully valid ordinations, the most popular the church of Sweden.
Also I would add that there was bishops who supported the reformation, for ex the 2 ones who signed the book of Concord.
Yes but his main point is that bishops arent essential.
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. - John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
If you’re in North America, please go check out any of the churches available to you: OPC, PCA, Rpcna/Rpc, Urcna, or a canrc church
(These are conservative and actual Presbyterian churches)
If you can’t find one of the conservative presby churches then, maybe a Lcms Lutheran church.
If you are Scottish, I recommend the Free Church of Scotland and the APC.
(Different from the Church of Scotland)
If you’re English I recommend the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England & Wales and the Free Church of England
(Different from the Church of England)
Also online you can look up church finders for each of the groups, it will show you locations
@@hexahexametermeter🦙
@@matiasgamalieltolmosuarez790🦙
I'd like to say thank you for the amazing free content you make available to us, Dr. Cooper. For someone like me, a layperson, it is awesome to learn so much and to receive orientation on where to find answers to our questions. God bless you.
It's also worth mentioning that there were bishops who signed the Book of Concord. The Prince-Bishopric of Lubeck continued until 1803, when it was dissolved by Napoleon. Meanwhile, the Prince-Bishopric of Osnabruck alternated between Lutheran and Roman bishops until it was dissolved in the same year.
Smells like simony.
@@strugglingathome and how much has simony affected the Papacy?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 No, I'm not apologizing for the papal protestants either. Just impugning both you guys, that's all. XD
@@strugglingathome why does it smell like simony?
@@strugglingathome so any simony in the East?
In terms of the word "priest", it is simply the etymological descendant of the Anglo-Saxon 'priester', from the Latin 'presbyter', from the Greek 'presbuteros', for Elder. It is also the most common term used in European Lutheranism (qs well as the Book of Concord) for the second rank of the ministry.
It is really an exclusively English phenomenon that the term came to be more associated with the Latin 'sacerdos' and the notion of sacrifices/mediation, the "Priest-hood" of all Believers, et al... "Pastor" (shepherd, also Latin) is certainly a fine term for parish ministers but it really isn't synonymous with the term Presbyter (elder), so much as with Bishop (overseer), as exemplified in the fact that for a long time in German Lutheranism, Superintendents alone reserved the right to the term "pastor" and presbyters went by priest or minister or simply presbyter...
As long as the etymology is retained when we distinguish between the three offices, I think we're better off.
Oh look, another protestant subverting and larping as a Catholic. Bro, you are a PROTESTANT.
TYSM for this deep dive, Dr. Cooper! (would love to see another convo w/you & Pageau, too)
Thank you for laying this out. This was a fun video to watch and learn more about. I always knew our order of Ordination was solid, but don’t quite know how valid it was. Especially historically. On a side note, when you mention the development of the bishopric system and how it seems like it was geared toward addressing the needs of the church, I’d love to see a video done on that!
O man, here we go. I'm gonna take a shot (of espresso) if he mentions Piepkorn.
You'll be drinking lots of espresso.
Ya! 7 min in
@@vngelicath1580bro did you live???? I need an update 😂
Thank you for articulating this actually explains more to me about Luther‘s own hierarchy of hermeneutics when it comes to even his ideas of baptism and his understanding of Frederick the wise and Fredrick’s role in his own protection from the other authorities.
Some Lutherans, when they stopped being Catholic, didn't go very far away. This is an interesting Question. I am Catholic, and i would love it if we got back together with the Lutherans. All the Lutherans I know are pious and good people of faith.
faith in who?
@@donhaddix3770 God
@@erikriza7165 not biblical
@@donhaddix3770 What is not biblical?
@@erikriza7165 what the bible dos not reach
Nice video! VERY edifying!
As a Lutheran not from the US, I'm deeply sad that i can't access (or buy) Piepkorn's book, but from what I've read online he's a nice theologian!
If you find On the Church, it is well worth the price. He is the very definition of Confessional Lutheran.
@@Forever-tn7pe hoping that one day I'll read it :)
It was appropriate that you did not go down this trail in the conversation with Pageau as the two of you might not ever have come to some of the other valuable dialogue. I appreciate that you took the time to cover it in this second video. I found it helpful.
Dr. Cooper, thank you for this channel. Your videos have helped and inspired me in a time of doubt. I believe you are doing the Lord's work, helping lutherans and non lutherans alike. So valid holy orders or not, may your ministry be blessed ( not meant to imply I believe otherwise, but that people much smarter and more knowledgeable than me can wrestle with those questions).
Excellent. Yes, and as an Anglican I agree-Presbyterial succession is legitimate, especially in remarkable circumstances (the Reformation was one of those, where presbyters who held fast to the word of God were pushed out). I’m curious: do you think, then, that Presbyterians on the same ground have apostolic succession? And further, that non-denoms don’t have valid orders? I’m personally undecided on the latter question
Anglican here as well. I thought this episode was really interesting.
If I’m not wrong, Methodists used presbyterial ordination as well which would grant valid orders. I’m not studied on Presbyterianism, but I’m curious too. Either way, many Protestant groups would have valid orders given the use of presbyterial succession which was initially unexpected for me.
@@T-Cranmer I hope Jordan Cooper does more videos on this. A video responding to the issue of Presbyterianism succession in regards to the church of England and the Methodist, Congregationalists, and baptists that come from that.
Without divine right of bishops, then the single bishop of Rome hasn't always existed.
The issue of the bishops of Scandanavia and the bishops of England, the issue of the Ethiopian and Egyptian bishops would be important issues as well.
The lack of records of the 'three bishops' for modern Roman bishops succession lists, which apparently only go back to the 16th century would be something I hope that Jordan Cooper discusses.
I would be curious if Jordan Cooper would accept a valid or valid but less then ideal for Congregational ordination, either by Congregationalists or by Baptists?
I hope he would respond to the objections that the bishops in England or Scandanavia we're wrongly deposed by force or that the Roman line doesn't also has incidents of the Byzantine and German Emperor intervention.
@Mark Todd I'm pretty convinced that non denominational and Baptist churches just need to repent. They're essentially anabaptist
Excellent video. This is very timely and edifying for me personally right now. I'm getting pretty exhausted from hearing Rome and/or the East attempt to terminate virtually every dialogue with the accusation that we Confessional Lutherans are just rogue mavericks with no respect for Tradition™, and that Luther was just a narcissist who made himself his own pope. What I don't understand is why they don't see each other in the same manner regarding holy orders, since each of them thinks that the other departed from the One Church. Anyhow, solid work here. Thanks again.
Also, the dialogue with Jonathan Pageau was very good. One takeaway from the dialogue was the realization that for many in the East and Rome, and for that matter many Protestants, I really feel for them in that it seems they often can't come to terms with the beauty and simplicity of the pure Gospel due to their respective traditions. In my opinion, they often turn a gift into an unreachable struggle.
I mean the Orthodox Church definitely views the Catholic Church that way. It doesn’t work the other way around for obvious reasons.
I think a question we Confessional Lutherans need to seriously ask is, given our Confessions are clear that A) In terms of procedure: Episcopal succession/authority is the ideal structure that we should desire to preserve, but B) In terms of theory: Presbyteral succession is valid in an emergency (due to the unitary nature of the office)...
... Do we honestly think that emergency situations go on for 500 years? Why are we not more faithful to our confessions on regarding the historic form of episcopal polity as the superior/ideal to strive for restoring? Yes it's ultimately adiaphorous, but Confessional Lutherans insist on perserving (restoring) adiaphora in worship as a matter of confession, too. It all comes down to consistency in upholding our confessions.
Quite frankly, you will need a Bible verse for that assertion. I would like to see that verse if you have one, so I, too, could consider it.
I have seen my pastor ordained by other local pastors laying on their hands. This video is the first explanation I have had of that.
I have always enjoyed your comments.
@@roypanwitz9166 "let another take his bishopric"
THANK YOU for discussing this much needed topic! Now we need a Walther discussion follow up :)
Also, lol @ Shepherd of Hermas, that's exactly how I feel about it as well.
I furthermore argue that whether it’s the AALC or LCMS we have bishops. Having been part of events in both, the pastors and laity are not shy about calling their supervisors “bishops”.
Whether called a President or Presiding Pastor they are charged with oversight of life and doctrine and even the worship of the pastors who serve our parishes.
Yes, we definitely have bishops. The term itself doesn't really matter, as I think there's some flexibility in what specific label we give to the office. Further, the way we elect bishops democratically is actually closer to the Patristic model (read the story of Ambrose's election for example).
@@DrJordanBCooper I agree. I actually think the terms the AALC uses are the best. It keeps that tension that the Regional/ Presiding Pastor are still shepherds of a flock but they are also tasked with being the first among equals and have oversight over life and doctrine.
@@halo0360 do you know of any sources for the AALC developed using that language over a President?
@@janky2532 um….I do not off the top of my head. Bishop Lindbergh (first AALC presiding pastor) has a book called To Tell the Truth, you can find it on the AALC’s website. I believe he makes mention of this, but I’m not for sure.
Thank you so much for making this, this is a topic I've really wanted to see dealt with with more detail. Could you provide any information on how someone can be certain his/her Lutheran pastor was properly ordained? That is, are there structures in place to assure people that any given Lutheran pastor was validly ordained by someone who was validly ordained by someone who was validly ordained, etc.? One of my concerns has been that since the Lutheran church is split into many smaller, independent structures (for example, in the US there is LCMS, ELCA, NALC, AALC, and so on) there could be some pastors (or even organizations) that go unchecked and do not have a valid presbyterate. If a pastor moves from one group to another, is there a process to ensure his ordination was done validly?
This is interesting, because John Wesley would later use very similar arguments to Luther. He was an ordained priest, but when he became a teacher at Oxford University, Lincoln College, he began to say that he thought of “the whole world has his parish” (and a lot of Methodists miss this) By virtue of his appointment to be a teacher for the university.
He later argues that the presbyterial and Episcopal offices were synonymous in the earliest church, but came to be distinguished for the sake of good order, and on this basis he himself (though a presbyter) ordains clergy to launch the Methodist Episcopal Church after the unusual circumstances created by the American revolution when Anglican clergy, with their oath of allegiance to the king, were no longer administering the sacraments in America. But Wesley still retained the idea that the bishop was good for the order of the church, because he commended an Episcopal form of government to the Methodists in America. At first they were called general superintendents, but very quickly everyone began to call them bishops since they were clearly intended to continue the episcopate. Later debates between Anglicans and Methodist centered on whether Wesley’s acts were just irregular or actually invalid.
It’s also worth mentioning that all the apostles never set foot in a seminary
I could be wrong, but doesn't G. H. Gerberding refer the Internal Call to those qualities that St. Paul lists as qualifications for those who desire the Office of Overseer? In other words, the Internal Call is not entirely a desire, but can, in fact, be validated by whether or not a man possesses the qualifications St. Paul says are requisite for those who would be ordained?
Great presentation. Two questions: 1) Does a candidate need to be a deacon before they are ordained a presbyter in the Lutheran churches? 2) When Dr Cooper mentioned the ALC Bishop, did he mean they have Bishops in episcopal succession in the ALC, or are they Bishops in the sense of presbyters made Superintendents? And Is that a life office or a temporary position?
PLEASE PLEASE do more on this! Going through the church fathers and the evidence that presbyters can ordain other presbyters.
Jordan is forced to argue that presbyterial ordination is valid. If they aren’t, than he’s out of a job. Self preservation causes people to endorse nonsense.
@@mosesking2923 did you watch the video? There is a lot more evidence then he touched on.
1.Can a validly ordained pastor, ordained by the Holy Spirit, can they rebuke another pastor for heretical views, such as Arianism?
2. Can a validly ordained pastor, ordained by the Holy Spirit, rebuke a 'bishop' for heretical views, such as Arianism?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 there is no such thing as being “ordained by the Holy Spirit.” It simply doesn’t exist. Every single ordination carried out in the New Testament is through the laying on of hands by other bishops, beginning with Mathias in Acts 1.
@@mosesking2923 so when the Scripture says that the Holy Spirit made them overseers, what does it mean?
@@mosesking2923 actually in Acts 1, Matthias does not have laying on hands by bishops. That isn't in the Greek text.
Dr. Cooper, I've watched this video 3x now, and I finally think I grasp your argument.
Premise 1: Martin Luther was validly ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. So we know he could trace his lineage back to the Apostles.
P2: At times in Church history, the church allowed priests to ordain other priests.
P3: Therefore, a bishopric is not absolutely necessary to ordain. It is good, but not divinely willed.
P4: Therefore, Martin Luther could ordain other priests. And the Lutheran "Holy Orders" would be valid and licit.
As in the book of Timothy, those priests could even convoke to consecrate "elders" or "overseers" - i.e., a bishop - to handle ordinations going forward. This would all be valid so long as those appointed remain faithful to apostolicity.
(The main source of apostolicity is Scripture)
You then have sort of a second part of the argument. You spend time arguing that "episcopoi" and "presbyteroi" are often used interchangeably in Scripture and in historical accounts. They appear to be one office with two names, not two separate offices, in the first century and a half or so, at least.
This seems to be necessary to say that "whatever a bishop could do, a priest also possessed the grace to do."
It's actually not as simple of an argument. But I guess the bottom line is that with a Lutheran church, you get apostolic succession because Luther possessed both physical lineage and apostolicity.
Am I following your train of reasoning?
Luther was excommunicated.
Recently, Michael Lofton released a RUclips short on why he couldn't become Protestant and he based it on the idea of lacking Apostolic Succession. I started looking into the validity of Holy Orders for Lutherans (I'm LCMS) and found this video to be very timely! Of course, Melanchthon tackles this from the other angle in "The Power and Primacy of the Pope."
Yes I think Lofton made several errors.
The biggest error Apostolic Succession people make is not understanding the invisible nature of the Church. We don't get a contiguous church from a guy who is a Bishop patting your head and saying "yer a Bishop now, Harry".
For one thing, that doesn't even begin to make sense. We know that some priests, bishops, pastors, and I'll say it -- popes -- were not actually born again Christ followers. Jesus said that the wheat and chaff, and the goats and the sheep are intermingled. So if some Bishops are actually goats and not actually part of Christ's Body, how could they possibly transfer church authority to a believer?
Maybe that's why there's nothing about Apostolic Succession in the Holy Scriptures. The whole idea is fabricated and untenable. The true church is held together by Christ's power, not an infallible organization here on Earth.
Yet, Jordan won't debate Michael for some reason.
@@dp34576 Neither Lofton or Cooper are obligated to debate anyone. They have different platforms with different motives and both ought to be respected in this regard.
@@dp34576 I don't think Jordan is a debator. One can have a good case and not be someone who is gifted in public debates. Lots of scholars don't debate on the Internet.
Thank you for another interesting lecture.
Does apostolic succession fit in here somewhere? Ordinations can be retracted, nullified, but apostolic succession seems more final to me.
Thou art a preast forever.
Hello I am new to lutheranism I been to a few services on zoom due to coivd I am really enjoying it I really feel comfortable there and they are a amazing group of people I am also involved with a baptist group and there just as good as the lutheran church I use to be a catholic but I left catholicism due to the priest scandals I feel much comfortable in a protestant church
Welcome!
Do you think you could do a video specifically talking about the democratic election of bishops and just the general authority of the church? That's the one thing that's been messing with my mind recently.
Amazing video. But now I'm wondering if this argument implies that most of the evangelical denominations in the world have valid ordinations, even presbyterians, baptists and congregationals. I imagine that the only churches that wouldn't have valid ordinations would be those that don't have beggined through a validly ordained presbyter that had separated from his former denomination (i.e. churches founded by a random guy that felted an inner call but was not ordained). Anyway, I sincerely would love a video on this subject, cause I stayed very curious.
Many denominations have given up ordination altogether. Others have the congregation ordain without other presbyters. They wouldn't count.
@@Mygoalwogel What you mean by give up ordination? As to the congregation order, I agree, I'm not counting them. I'm talking about the denominations that started with a validly ordained presbyter that separed from his former denomination and you can trace that all the current presbyters have received their ordinations from validly ordained presbyters, and this retrospectively remounting to the founder of the denomination.
@@lucaslxma I mean the frequent case where a kid goes to Bible college and then starts his own house church with nobody to actually ordain him.
@@Mygoalwogel Ah, that's a problem. Not valid, of course. But I am not counting that cases.
Good stuff: How can I find the book of piepkorn? Can you give me a title?
You should definitely have the conversation with dr John Vervaeke over nominalism and Luther. You should also have a conversation with Paul Vanderklay, and Brett Salkeld over Aquinas, Luther and Calvin‘s understanding of the Eucharist.
Luther did not (much to the fake story told by John Gerstner and RC Sproul) even come close to agreeing with Calvin. You might be surprised to learn that Luther quoted Aquinas in defense of the real presence, at the end of his life in his Brief confession concerning the Sacrament. He also taught that if the priest can’t tell you that what he holds in his hand is the very Body of Christ, do not take communion from him. Luther disagreeing with transubstantiation on the basis of terminology was not a denial of the miracle of the change, as he himself said many times he considered the problematic terminology a very minor error, but he agreed with the reality behind the words, that Christ is there whether our senses perceive Him or not.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness Brett is a Catholic theologian and he wrote a book over Transubstantiation I have not read the book but from what I gather Brett understand of Luther’s view may be off and that’s why I want the conversation for better understanding of everyone’s view to be made clear. I also would like to know we’re consubstantiation came from if it is not a Lutheran view.
@@j.harris83 I could spend a long time answering but Dr. Cooper gives a good explanation here: ruclips.net/video/2OiXBqjeJfg/видео.html
@@j.harris83 aside from listening to that link of Cooper’s video, I would say find a copy of Luther’s Great confession from 1528 and his brief confession from 1544. His work on the sacrament from 1519 is also useful, but most of the people who talk about Luther’s view have only ever really read the Babylonian Captivity and maybe the proceedings at Marburg. A lot happened between 1520 and 1529 and when someone gets to Marburg, it’s like the end of a conversation. Most of Luther’s side of the conversation is “That these words still stand firm against the fanatics, This Is My Body,” and his Great Confession, previously referenced. If someone reads all these, what you tend to find is that Luther’s opposition to transubstantiation is that it is an unprovable theory that is a good explanation, but should not be required dogma. It would be simpler to just say that it is the Body and Blood of Christ and stop trying to figure out “how” it is so, just believe it. That’s why he says in multiple works he considers it a small error. The error is an enforced explanation of a mystery that’s beyond explanation in his mind.
Another amazing presentation Dr Jordan Cooper Another enlighten though providing content. However I do have a quick question. As you may know I am currently reading the works of Martin Luther. When Luther said live by the bible alone. What was he mean. ✝️✝️✝️
Thank you for this !!
Does the Lutheran view of Holy Orders and Apostolic succession differ much from that of the Methodist perspective of someone like Wesley? He seems to appeal to the same Fathers, noting that in places like Alexandria presbyters were involved in ordination for two hundred years prior to the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius, citing Jerome (Letter CXLVI). Wesley was also said to have been ordained by an Orthodox Bishop and reasoned that it would be improper for him or anyone else to administer sacraments unless it was by the right of tracing back their own ordination to the apostles.
Dr. Cooper: the Council of Ancyra's 13th canon has πρεσβυτέρους πόλεως in the accusative, which suggests (to my eyes) that the canon forbids country-bishops from ordaining priests or deacons in general, but definitely not priests in the city, without the permission of their metropolitan, rather than the prohibition applying to country-bishops and to city-priests.
Great video!
We did a recording of an excellent Piepkorn work on this topic! Check it out here: ruclips.net/video/-0w1TtfTIlU/видео.html
Big fan! You guys are doing good work.
There are many many ancient and medieval practices that one could look to to validate one’s position. However, what carries weight is not what was done in some places, or even pervasively for a period of time. Rather, it’s what was settled upon and sanctioned as **the** practice of the whole Church. In the end, after much deliberation and even “experimentation,” only the Bishop can perform the sacrament of ordination. This particular sacrament (ordination) is a prime example where there is no disagreement between East and West, on how and by whom it is performed.
What is that noise in the background?
I hope you live forever King.
Imma dumb Babtist 🤪 but find the comments from both sides of the Trad divide entertaining. Thanks for the video! (Podcasts preferred.)
When Lutherans are ordained by bishop/president/superintendent (whatever the office), do other presbyters join in the laying on of hands? - I am really curious about the receiving of orders "transferred" from outside of a Lutheran body. Is such a person always re-ordained? - Here is a scenario on which I would love to hear your view:
A denomination that has "valid presbyterial succession orders" accepts the orders of someone transferring from another denomination. That person eventually is elevated to the office that administers ordination. Ordinands are called, educated, examined by a board of presbyters and elected to orders by that board and their entire diocese/district/synod (whatever term). They are ordained by the superintendent (whatever office) with other presbyters (in valid succession) joining in with the laying on of hands. - However, when one begins to actually trace the orders of the one ordaining, one discovers that, at some point, it "disappears" (records cannot be found and it is just as likely that those orders would have originated in a, say, Baptist manner as it is that they may have come from a succession of presbyters).
Is such a situation ever possible within Lutheran circles? And, would those ordinations, then, be considered invalid, because the line could not be traced?
I know you can't answer every question, but I would appreciate your thoughts.
In terms of the receiving of previously ordained men, Piepkorn in his essay says that it is the default practice of the Lutheran Church to merely call and examine them for colloquy.
When men in the Lutheran Church are ordained, it is to the "Office of the Holy ministry of Word and sacrament in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church... In the name of the father...." Thus, there really is no such thing as a "Lutheran Pastor", there is a Christian Pastor (catholic Priest) serving in the Lutheran Church.
Therefore, we would regard any other (validly ordained) Christian minister -- regardless of denomination -- to be the same, with the same rights and responsibilities, same Holy Spirit conferred in ordination, etc. The only consideration is whether they need to receive additional theological training before they should be _allowed_ to serve in the Lutheran jurisdiction of the ONE Church.
I've never understood the argument that there could ever be a situation where a self-appointed man would ever be in a position to ordain anyone else. The church at large would intervene and regularize his ministry before they allowed the event to proceed.
@@vngelicath1580 , thank you for your reply. The example expressed above is one in which the person received into the denomination had orders through another denomination. However, as one traced it back, the historical records simply disappear. There is no way to determine where that line leads. It may lead to a valid succession, or it could lead to a congregational ordination, at some point. There is no way to tell. (The ordination in question is traced back to a point that would precede the formation of the particular denomination.) - In other words, as far as was known at the time, the orders were received by one denomination from another denomination. It is just that, once one takes the line back prior to the formation of that denominations, the records have been lost.
To answer your initial question, yes - pastors in the surrounding area (circuit) lay hands on the newly ordained.
@@toddstepp5545 A congregational ordination isn't a thing and should be reconciled as soon as the man has the opportunity. If it's a desert-island scenario, than either A) the congregation all dies and that's the end of that "line", or B) they make it back to the broader church -- in whatever form, denominational or otherwise, but where there are other clergy -- and the community fills in what's lacking through a proper ordering.
That's all I meant to say. I suppose if there are anti-clerical Baptistic groups in a man's lineage it becomes less clear (although most non-cult Christian groups regard formal clerical ordination to be a necessity for functioning as a minister, so it should get fixed at some point). I guess this is another reason why independent congregationalism is dangerous.
In either case, yes, all ordinations are presided over by a single minister (the liturgical "bishop", be he a pastor, church president, or actual bishop) with the assistance of the local clergy of the region. It isn't completely clear whether all the clergy are conferring a collective act of ordination or whether the single presider alone ordains and the presbytery merely lays hands for a post-ordination blessing, but that's our practice all the same.
@@toddstepp5545 At the same time, ordination -- while performed by a single man (bishop) or group (presbytery) -- is an act of Christ through the cooperation of the whole church...
... Christ confers the ministry through his whole people in every time and place, thus the notion of a direct tactile link of episcopal palm to presbyteral forehead through which the power of the Holy Spirit flows exclusively is an overly superstitious way of thinking. Christ isn't merely present in the Apostolic Succession of bishops such that if the line is broken the church is lost in that place, rather Christ is present in the Church itself and even if the link is missing in one spot of the ordination chain or another Christ can restore what's lacking in the Church's ministers.
Ordination is not a magical touch, but a rite that culminates the communitarian act of calling a man from the general priesthood into the special priesthood through the Church's leaders (bishops and/or presbytery), where the laying-on of hands serve as the symbolic means of designating the man to receive the Holy Spirit and commital of the sacred ministry from the Assembly (clergy and lay) -- not from the bishop as a lone figure (nor from the congregation alone as though the ministry were democratic).
I'd love to hear your take on the so-called "wandering bishops." It seems historically very odd (and kinda funny). Might make for interesting content. Thanks as always
Wandering Bishop here ☺️
Excellent. As a Syrian Christian from Kerala, India, there is also a similar incident in Indian Church History. The Church in India which followed an East Syrian Rite came under Roman influence from 1498 with the arrival of the Portuguese to India. A faction (which later entered into communion with the Syriac Orthodox church) broke away from this in 1653 (Oath of the Bent Cross). In the same year, 12 priests ordained their archdeacon as a bishop who was able to ordain other priests. However the ordination of this bishop was only regularized in 1665 with the arrival of a Syriac Orthodox bishop from Jerusalem. I guess this is a bit similar to what happened in the reformation.
Wouldn't the ordinations of the Church of Sweden be valid from a Catholic perspective?
By "Syrian Christian" do you mean former Assyrian Church of the East or former Oriental Orthodox?
@@Mygoalwogel well both East and West Syriac liturgical traditions are in India now. East Syriac rite is of the Assyrian Church of the East. While West Syriac rite is Oriental Orthodox - of the Syriac Orthodox/Malankara Ortho Church.
@@Mygoalwogel Oriental Orthodox..There are very few members of the Assyrian Church of the East left in India unfortunately...
@@abrahamtim782 Thanks.
@@Mygoalwogel Interestingly the Catholic Church through it's Eastern Catholic churches has both the East Syriac rite and West Syriac rite w/ them and in India. Syro-Malabar Church (East Syriac rite) and Malankara Catholic Church (West Syriac rite). A vast majority of the Church of the East members in India became Catholic in the 16th century (the Syro-Malabar Cath Church).
I’d like another video on this topic.
38:26 I think you mean "bishop is synonymous with priest" not "bishop is interchangeable with deacon."
Oh yes, that is certainly what I meant.
@@DrJordanBCooper I just don't want our opponents jumping on that.
Well, Orthodox Bishops are also deacons and priests. Their holy orders are not renounced when they are further ordained.
That's a good point. The Lutheran scholastics certainly saw the diaconate as another name for the ministry, but I think it's clear (and Loehe demonstrates this) that deacons were clearly a distinct office established alongside the presbyter-bishops as per Acts, the Didache, and the earliest writers.
Right off the bat amazing sweater. Brooks Brothers again?
Thanks! This one is Spier and Mackay.
@@DrJordanBCooper very nice! If I recall, this site has good prices on half canvassed suits as well. I’ll have to explore.
First a minor point: I don't think you should call your conference supervisors "bishops," since the connotation compared to the usage in episcopal (including RC and EO) churches is quite different. It can only add confusion. Lutheran polity is basically congregational, with some quasi-presbyterian themes.
More important question: Luther claims (in the address to the German Nobility) that in dire circumstances a group of laity can ordain a new clerical class from scratch. It appears Lutherans never invoked this clause, that I am aware of, but it would be interesting to have heard you comment on it.
A year has gone by, have you done something else on this subject?
Can you respond to Augustine Institute chanel videos made on Luther and Reformation?
What did they say that you object to?
Very good. Thanks.
Have you heard of the Rev. Joshua Sullivan.
Lutherans not having bishops is more of an American or German phenomenon. In other parts of the world (Sweden), the historic episcopate was retained.
Never met the Swedish Lutheran bishop my friend has talked about, but I’ve heard she’s nice.
@@strugglingathome yeah communism killed them capitalism corrupted them
@@strugglingathome _was_ retained, not necessarily _is_
At the time of the Reformation (and for several centuries thereafter) the Church of Sweden was not only understood to be the most "high church" of the Lutheran provinces, but was simultaneously regarded as the gold-standard of Lutheran scholastic Orthodoxy.
That stream of Lutheranism gets a bad rep, but its noble heritage is worth honoring in any case (the Mission Province thankfully continues to guard that now-flickering flame).
Until they started ordaining women.
Finnish Lutheran church also has bishops. Sadly, one of them is a woman though so we’ve become heterodox in that regard
Can you do a debate with James white?
The thing is... ruclips.net/video/TBigNIOSVhU/видео.html
where’d you get that sweater?
Spier and Mackay.
So what happened to the priesthood of all believers?
Lutherans in Europe also use the term priest.
What style sweater is this?
Cricket sweater
Where can I find the Peacorn (?) essay you were reading from?
This has happened more than once in the Orthodox Church, where a group of validly ordained priests, most often in response to some form of perceived corruption in the Church, got together and collectively consecrated a bishop for themselves and their movement.
**Never worked and never works.**
That’s why there must be a minimum of 3 bishops to consecrate a new bishop. This is the very early canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church.
Priests can perform every sacrament **except** ordination/consecration.
Hi, Another interesting exposition. I think that the Catholic Church, and maybe the Orthodox as well, believes that there are Lutheran ministers today who have been ordained legally as they can trace their ordination back to a Catholic bishop who could trace his own ordination back to those who could trace their own ordinations to a man who could ordain men to be priests because of a valid line of Apostolic Succession. That's the issue here. To bring in the fact that Luther had the equivalent of a Ph.D. in theology does not really bear on the but I had never heard of Luther ordaining a man to the priesthood. Preaching is one thing, ordination another. There's no problem teaching unless he falls into heresy., which he seems to have done in stating that many of the Catholic and Eastern Christian bishops did not support his views on the Solas. No problem so far. Everyone knows that the "Lutheran Church" has splintered over the centuries. That brings us to the present day. The founder of the LCMS, Reverend Walther, was not ordained as a bishop, The narrower question is what proof do you have that LCMS ministers are legally ordained? Are there any LCMS bishops? Thanks.
Am I correct in assuming that Dr. Cooper views Martin Luther's charism to ordain priests as stemming initially and emanating externally from his own ordination as a priest by a Catholic bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Is the latter the same ecclesial personage that Luther addresses at the end of his last book Against the Roman Papacy, An Institution of the Devil, composed one year before his death in 1545 with these words? "I would not dream of judging or punishing you, except to say that you were born from the behind of the devil, are full of devils, lies, blasphemy, and idolatry; are the instigator of these things, God's enemy, Antichrist, desolater of Christendom, and steward of Sodom" (Quoting from Luther's Works, Volume 41, page 363).
Some in the east say that the Roman church started in1054.
And you believed them.
Don't say, they say. Give what you yourself can stand by. Do you think Catholic Church began in 1054?
JC is a Lutheran that I like to listen to. I myself have converted from Norwegian Lutheran-Evangelical (State) Church to Roman Catholicism. So I was interested to hear how JC defended the apostolic succession. Taking a step back from all the details, I feel we're left with: ML was validly ordained, and some priests have ordained other priests in the past. I think it is a little thin, to be honest. How many excommunicated priests have ordained priests in the past? There is a lot of talk about the Church evolving the priestly role over the years, but to what degree is this really an argument, given that Luther rejects the Church as a valid hierarchy? I find it a little bit of circular reasoning to argue that ML was validly ordained, so therefore he can reject the Church that ordained him. In a way, it doesn't matter so much whether or not he was validly ordained - since those that ordained him were a corrupt and fallen church? And ML himself did perhaps not travel extensively, but it took a meager 15 years from ML to appear in Worms until Norway and Denmark were forcefully converted by a king to Lutheranism. It was not like priests in Norway converted one by one. The history of the spread of Protestantism was in many cases by force.
1.Sorry, are you unfamiliar with the use of force against the Saxons or 2. the Latin Patriarchate in Constantinople?
3. Or the crusade against the kingdom of Bohemia?
4. The use of force was common in the middle ages and also for Rome. The Papacy had its own army and still has its own military force. The Papacy called for crusades, right?
5. If you study histories of the Reformation, you will see that conversion was through preaching of the Word. Can you prove otherwise?
6. if you disagree with kings and emperors being involved in religion, you may have quite a bit of trouble with the Papacy, since he is still a temporal ruler of Vatican city, right?
7. And apparently you are unaware that Emperor's used to select popes, and the Pope acknowledged the Emperor as his superior?
8. After all, Scripture says HONOR the Emperor. How can that be if the Papacy is supreme over the EMPEROR?
9.
Is there some particular event in the Reformation history you are thinking of? It's hard not to think of a parallel that the Papacy promoted and approved of.
10. You say 'Church' with a capital C, but how are you defining that word?
11. Do you think ordination is something God the Holy Spirit does or something *only* men do?
12. If pastor was ordained by an Arian bishop, can he reject Arianism?
13.if you have a problem with Scandanavia, do you have a problem with Queen Mary of England?
14. Or the Sun King of France?
15. What about the billeting of French troops in the homes of Reformed Christians?
16.Or the persecution of professing Christians under Mussolini that the Papacy recent apologized for?
17. Or the Saint Barthemlow's Day Massacre, when tens of thousands of men, women and children were killed by mobs of angry Romanists in Paris and throughout France, which by celebrated by the Papacy with a special coin, special celebrations, and a special painting?
18. The painting that *still* is in the Vatican, celebrating the massacres? Why doesn't your organization take it down?
18. Neither the Reformed not Lutherans are claiming that the church ceased to exist. The particular church of Rome is not the universal church, right?
19. Since the Papacy didn't always exist, and the church existed before the Papacy, correct?
20. I think your response is assuming a certain definition of 'The Church.' you need to define that and prove that is true, right?
21.
When did the Papacy ordain ML?
21. Scripture always tells the truth, but pastors/elders/bishops can error, as Acts 20 teaches and the Arian crisis illustrates, right?
22. Particular churches, including the church of Rome can error, as Revelation chapter to 3 teaches, right?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Hey there. You seem to derail a little, I won't spend too much time answering strawman arguments. We can talk about many problems with the Catholic Church, no doubt, but that does not answer the questions I had about ML One of my points was that JCs argument about ML simply sticking to Wittenberg is not very relevant, since soon his church was spread to Scandinavia through use of force. By your argument, it may sound like you're ok with that, as long as the Catholics are worse?
I don't see that either England or Norway, Denmark or Sweden converted by the Word as you say. I am not aware that Emperors selected popes as a general rule, but many things have happened over 2000 years. I understand attack is sometimes the best defense, but I really don't see how it applies in this case.
@@mortensimonsen1645 I think you may have misunderstood me. I made it easier to read and labeled the 22 questions.
Can you try answering the questions I asked you?
You do realize you have opened up a whole can of worms that goes all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity, Dr. Cooper? 😉 Loved the discussion (from a Reformed Baptist)!
Tennis instructor outfit
One hour? Hope you can offer a short summary...
It was actually my intention to record a short video, but I had too much to say on the subject.
A short summary would be useless for forwarding to Papists.
@@Mygoalwogel LOL Papists...I recommend this channel to all my friends who are remotely Christian but besides it being demanding it is just too long to watch for most which is sad. Luckily we still have Ask the Pastor and Pastor Wolfmueller and Higher Things for modern people with shorter attention spans. Personally I can't watch many 1 hour videos, and Long for truth and Pastor Roseborough and kozar all make long videos. So I just subscribe to Fighting for the Faith and this and ATP and Higher Things and even so I can't watch all
Perhaps listen to it in sections? This is what I do when videos go beyond a half hour.
Ok, yeah I hear that.
It's an interesting discussion, but totally unimportant. I can't imagine that Jesus gives a flying fig leaf about apostolic succession, or being a bishop for that matter.
You can kind of tell from the short pithy answers that a lot of people who are just saying "mUh BisHOp" right off the bat haven't actually taken the time to watch the video for the explanation.
This is a very interesting topic. I would just like to make a couple of comments from the point of view of a lay Orthodox Christian. You say that a priest may ordain other priests, if they have been given authority to do so. Who gave Luther this authority? The point is that the person doing the ordination has received the authority to ordain from a higher authority than himself. He cannot simply take it upon himself to perform ordinations. The real question upon which this issue turns, however, is the validity of Roman orders. Orthodox Christians neither affirm nor deny the validity of their orders (while they deny the validity of ours, as I understand it). Therefore we can not affirm the validity of Lutheran or other orders which are based on an assumption of the validity of Roman orders. Only bishops in apostolic succession who teach the Orthodox Christian faith are recognized by the church as having the authority to ordain priests. Thank you for a very interesting video.
Can you please do a video of Luther's anti-Semitism and the killing of Anabaptists/Baptists etc? These are issues I have with Lutheranism tbh and having a hard time with why it even happened.
Love your channel, mate!
- A Reformed Baptist
I need help with this. The liberal Lutherans just gave a grovelling apology to the anabaptists a couple years ago for cruel persecution. I can't find any evidence that this actually happened, though I don't really doubt it. Cassiodoro de Reina, the primary Spanish Reformer, fled Spain to England where he feared the death penalty for being accused of homosexuality. He then fled to Geneva and watched his compatriot Servetus burn. When the coast was clear he fled to Germany. The authors of the Formula of Concord asked for his confession of faith. He gave it and they declared it inadequate and some said heretical. He feared the worst, but all they did was give him a house to live in. Eventually he became Lutheran through his own studies. As an old man he was the first to translate the Bible into Spanish and became the Superintendent (Bishop) of all Romance Language parishes in the Lutheran principalities.
I'm a pastor now because the church is invisible. Fite me.
Lol my friend did this on one of those cheesy internet sites. He now calls himself ordained.
A lot of this stuff is what has attracted me to Orthdoxy
@@brotherbroseph1416 I could never be a part of a group that says God-breathed Scripture is not inerrant and infallible.
While it's tragic that people do their own thing and get it wrong, that's to be expected, and doesn't mean that God can't elect anyone, anywhere, at any time He so chooses.
You didn't watch the video either.
What is it that makes the ordination thing so important? I mean, I like it, as it keeps people together, but I can't really see it in the Bible as anything but some corrupted version of what was going on with the OT priests. But if we inherited that, then only Levites would be eligible I guess. Seems to me by NT texts that it's based on the belief in Jesus as Son of God and Him therefore being the Messiah, and not some special ritual. Though some ritual is of course inevitable, as any organization will always need some way to determine succession of offices, regardless of whether or not God requires that.
You don’t need to see it in the Bible, it was what the apostles did and set up. We have plenty of evidence of this.
All of this is very interesting. I suppose if you are Lutheran, having a "valid" pastor perform the sacraments is important. Whether Lutherans accept the ordinations from other denominations is purely arbitrary. Christ accepted all to come to Him. To keep others away from ordination and the sacraments is a fairly unchristian legalistic thing to do. If you are concerned that a non lutheran might not understand the true significance of the sacraments, not to worry. God is big enough to take care of that problem.
The validity of the sacraments come from the Word of God, the pastor administers the sacraments as a point of good order and on behalf of the congregation.
@@DavidCotePhotography Where is the Scriptural support for that statement?
Augustana V and XIV limit the (public) use of the Word of God to the Office of the Ministry. The position you describe (functionalism) assumes that a congregation somehow possess the Word of God prior to and apart from the ministry. That veers close to the Enthusiast heresy, not to mention flatly contradicting the Lutheran Confessions.
It is lamentable that the LCMS reads into every conversation on the Office of the Ministry its conflict with Martin Stephan rather than following Scripture alone.
One of my history Professors in college said that after awhile, Luther set himself up as a sort of "Protestant Pope."
No
And another mouth on top of a neck with no eyes to watch, ears to hear, or brain to consider.
It might have been a better idea to write out this message, rather than to deliver it ex tempore. Your delivery seens rather scattershot and almost incoherent at times, and there is no reason that this text has to be delivered in such an haphazard way. Certainly, Anglicans will regard your delivery as rather panicked and awkwardly makeshift, and there is no need at all for the Lutheran view to seem so tenuous. It is, rather, those who are rigidly episcopalian to account for their narrow view of supervisory role in the Church, ancient or modern.
Father Martin repudiated his formal vow of celibacy and moved in with an ex-nun. It’s a bit fantastic to us Catholics that he should subsequently claim the authority to ordain priests. What if a Catholic priest did that today? A big raspberry from me would be one consequence.
Anyone is entitled to speak out against the sale of indulgences, or in modern times to comment upon papal knighthoods for Their Excellencies Rupert Murdoch and Lilianne Ploumen. Nobody is entitled to live a sinful life of their own based on pseudo-justifications.
Not even Catholics reject the ordination made by EXCOMUNICATED bishops like the Orthodox and Anglicans (if it is a male bishop ordained by another male bishop, of course).
Luther didn't sin when he chose to break his vow of celibacy. This vow was only made because it was/is part of the canonical law of the Roman Catholic Church, and it was/is to this day crystal clear that this law is adiaphorous, made to maintain order and not by divine institution, and it could be revoked at any time by the See.
I've encountered many arguments against the reformers ordinations but this is new to me, no Roman apologist or polemicist has ever seriously considered this, with all respect.
@@guilhermeioshuabelmont7326 Catholics do reject Anglican ordinations on the grounds of no intention to ordain a sacrificial priesthood. Where there is such an intention, as with the Orthodox or Old Catholics, they do accept the ordination. However Father Martin was never a bishop. He took a vow of celibacy of his own free will. If he subsequently broke it, no doubt some clever theologian can justify it, but what sort of impression does it make on us laymen?
@@david_porthouse Sorry for my confusion about the Anglicans.
About Luther, he would not break his vow of celibacy have him not been excommunicated from the Roman Church.
The thing is: since he was not answering anymore to an adiaphorous law instituted by the See for the sake of good order that prohibited priests to marry, he simply had no need to keep his celibacy vow. This is not a matter of doctrine of faith. The celibacy in the Roman Church is fully acknowledged as an institutional law for good order, not an essential part of the Christian observances. So, when he was expelled from the body that instituted that rule, he simply didn't need to follow it. Even if his break of celibacy vow is a sign of a "sin", well, we're not defending Martin Luther infallibility in his behavior and acts, it's quite the opposite. The fact he boldly and justly defied what the Church was practicing at that time based on the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Olds doesn't make him sinless. His theology is observed only when it is in accordance with the bible and apostolic tradition.
About the fact he was not a bishop, well, Jordan B Cooper's video gives answers to that and I'm definitely not the right person to say about that.
@@guilhermeioshuabelmont7326 Father Martin took a vow of celibacy as a regular clergyman. Then he broke it. There will always be some smart theologian to explain it away.
As a Catholic, I wonder how anyone could validly ordain any Protestant. Pope Leo XIII ruled infallibly, I think, that Anglican ordinations are sacramentally invalid. If he's right, after an Anglican bishop ordains anyone, the ordained person will still be a layperson. The Anglican denomination now includes "priestesses." If the Catholics are right, no woman can become one because sacrament won't make her a priestess. Catholics believe that a sacramentally valid ordination permanently marks the ordinand's soul. You'll always be a priest if you become one. since the mark will stay on your soul. Even a defrocked man remains a priest.
No.
Short answer… no. Show me your bishop.
you didn't watch the video either, did you?
@@dave1370 you don’t go to a church with a bishop (that traces back to the apostles) either, do you?
No, they aren't.
smacks of catholic nonsense, not the bible.
This is a lutheran video blud
@@thebjdjlcraft7535 still smacks
@@donhaddix3770 This is targeted against catholics bruh
@@thebjdjlcraft7535 so?
@@thebjdjlcraft7535 so?
Sorry, break with Rome, break with Apostolic Succession. No Apostolic Succession, no valid sacraments. The Truth does not change because we can no longer stomach it.
Rome disagrees with you. They accept the succession of Union of Utrecht Catholic Church, Union of Catholic Apostolic Churches, Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church, Genuine Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church, Russian Old-Orthodox Church, ‘Nikonite’ Russian Patriarchate, Pomeranian Old-Orthodox Church, Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia, Old Calendar Orthodox Church, ‘New Calendar’ Church of Greece, Oriental Orthodox Church, Malankara Mar Thoma Syrian Church, Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East.
Rome broke with us, we didn’t excommunicate ourselves. Oops
Amen!
@@Athabrose Are you kidding?lol
@@ryanscottlogan8459 Nope, lol
Of course not valid anymore! Excommunicated already ! Different beliefs as well.
Yet another mouth on top of a neck with no eyes to watch, no ears to hear, and no head to think.
You didn't watch the video, did you.
The problem with protestantism is that it lacks authority on any basis in terms of its interpretation of matters and is solely based on one's own reasoning which is very much glorified circular reasoning and arrogant as well as each person who calls themselves Christian now automatically thinks they are the standard bearer of truth for the faith.
You clearly didn't get the video.
@@Mygoalwogel yep either a troll or just ignorant.
@@Mygoalwogel
My comment wasn't really made at directly what was in the video to begin with so I understand that, but hopefully my comment might be addressed or at least prayed about and meditated on anyway. God bless.
Lutherans aren't Protestant then
@@j.g.4942
Oh Lutherans are protestant, they definitely fit the description I outlined
INVALID indeed.
Another mouth that didn't watch the video.
You didn't watch the video, did you.
@@dave1370 I watched bro.
No bishops. Short answer. No
Sorry, but yes we do. There’s no argument that we absolutely need bishops to have valid ordinations. We can argue preference and good order but not validity.
He addresses this in the video. Watch the video.
Any ordination w/o Apostolic Succession is invalid. You do not have Apostolic Succession and thus answer is quick and easy - your clergy are clowns pretending to be clergy.