Episcopal Church and Church of Sweden in Full Communion

Somehow I missed this. It’s been a long time coming.

During a Liturgy of Thanksgiving on March 27, Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, primate of The Episcopal Church, and Archbishop of Uppsala Martin Modéus, primate of the Church of Sweden, signed a memorandum of understanding, establishing a full-communion relationship between the two churches.
​

Read the whole thing.

 

The Scandinavian Churches maintained Apostolic Succession. I don't know a lot about them and how they differ from other Lutherans though

 

My understanding is that they simply adopted the Augsburg Confession while keeping the existing ecclesiastical hierarchy intact, similar to what happened in England, but with far less controversy and certainly far less bloodshed. I don’t think the Scandinavians were as involved in the polemics with the Reformed that occurred in German-speaking lands, but my knowledge of the subject is minimal.

 

I thought the Swedish Lutheran church was the established church in Sweden, but it seems I'm not keeping up with the latest religious news from Sweden, since 2000. From Wikipedia

"The Church of Sweden was the state church of Sweden between 1527 when King Gustav Vasa broke all ties with Rome and 2000 when the state officially became secular. Much like in Finland, it does have a special relation to the Swedish state unlike any other religious organizations. For example, there is a special law that regulates certain aspects of the church[86] and the members of the royal family are required to belong to it in order to have a claim to the line of succession. A majority of the population still belongs to the Church of Sweden"

 

Deepening the mystery, I've read that the Church of Denmark explicitly broke the Apostolic chain by having one or more bishops consecrated by priests only. The most bloodshed of the Nordic Reformation I've heard of was the last Catholic bishop in Iceland losing his head.

Edit for detail: The priest who "consecrated" the Danish bishops was Dr John Bugenhagen, and he did this for eight bishops (7 in Denmark, 1 in Norway).

The Icelandic bishop was Jón Arason, who arrested and expelled many Icelandic Lutherans, was eventually captured with his two sons, all three of whom were beheaded in order to keep them from being rescued by Catholic sympathizers.

 

Interesting that RC bishops in Iceland didn't marry, but could have a partner. And children. So much for the RC "tradition of priestly celibacy".

 

The Wiki page names 2 other sons who survived to adulthood, and 2 daughters as well!

 

It seems like that was just the normal custom there at the time.

 

Well then, since it has become the custom for young people nowadays to 'shack up' instead of getting married, I guess that's all right, eh? If it was good enough for the RC priests, it must be good enough for the laity.

 

The point is that they weren’t being hypocrites.

 

That's your point. My point is that they were openly living immoral lives.

Since they presented themselves as teachers of morality (whom God holds to a higher standard), and since the RCC on the one hand taught against fornication but on the other hand appears to have been condoning a fornication lifestyle among their priests, that seems plenty hypocritical to me.

 

It’s difficult to see how. They were monogamous, faithful, and had children, which the father acknowledged and named as heirs. Whether they had a ceremony or a piece of paper from the State doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the moral quality of their actions. Their lives fulfilled the objective criteria for marriage. Is it not God that makes the union? And since that was the custom in that time and place, it would not have been seen as “immoral.” There is no analogue here to the tales of Renaissance papal courtiers who would have unacknowledged, unsupported, disinherited children by mistresses. I respectfully think your criticism is misplaced on this point.

 

In many areas where that was the local practice, they were even married in private ceremonies by other priests. The Church did not however publicly acknowledge the marriages and they were not legally binding. The Church did that in part so they wouldn't be legally bound to provide for the families, but mostly because of issues of inheritance of Church properties. Many bishops took it a step further and instituted off-the-books "women taxes", requiring the priest in question to set aside part of his stipend (sometimes matched by the bishop), or a set percentage of parish income that would be allocated for the care of the priest's family upon his passing.

 

Why am I not surprised. That is such a modern, progressive view of relationships. It ties in perfectly with the attitudes of so many young people today who think being married is outdated and unnecessary.

 

The height of hypocrisy. Priests thumbing their noses at the official stance of the denomination they allegedly submitted themselves to. Better if they had left the RCC, at least.

 

That’s very wide of the mark. I cited the three essential criteria of unity, indissolubility, and fertility, as they are presented in the current Catholic Catechism. Please explain what is “progressive” about that, or why being “progressive” is supposedly so horrible that simply labeling a person as such foregoes any need to engage in rational, evidence-based argument. (For the record, I am in fact not a “progressive” but rather a Burkean conservative.)

 

You mean like people calling themselves “Anglicans” yet promoting credobaptism, speaking in tongues, and premillennialism? Better if they had just become Pentecostals.

 

I don't know much about this Bishop, but it is possible that he did live what Rexlion would call an immoral life. Later he may have "seen the light" and became an RC bishop. You don't have to be a virgin to be an RC priest; just celebate while you are. If this is the case I applaud him for not putting aside his children.

Maybe Bishop Jon Arason and St Augustine (of Hippo) have similar life stories.

 

I shall decline to stoop to your level of baiting.

 

For someone who claims to not be a progressive, the word certainly produced a huge knee jerk from you.

For the record, I didn't call you a progressive in my earlier post, nor did I say anything about progressives. I merely was saying, the view that a marriage is not necessary for people to live together and have relations is, from a religious standpoint, a progressive view.

As for the notion that the RCC would sanction a priest's relationship with a woman or that it would be a legitimate marriage (merely on the basis of the 3 criteria you list), that is so laughable it hardly deserves a response.