[xzins]

See challenges to claims of Apostolic succession.

Legitimate arguments.

Since spiritual lineage is more important, than secular lineage, the Apostolic argument is important in the spiritual sense. We want to be in the teaching, doctrinal lineage of the Apostles.

That is truly Apostolic.

[Secret Agent Man]

Why does everyone get so worked up about ecumenism? There are real, legitimate reasons not to be in union with certain denominations.

What the current pope is saying is just a reiteration of the view they have always held. That is why discussing anything with the officials of the RCC as far as ecumenism goes, is worthless. Laypeople are a different matter.

[kosta50]

You keep on harping on this issue, X, because truth hurts.  The Pope's document is no different than Dominus Iesu from the year 2000. It says that Orthodox Churches are real churches but "lack" the fullness of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

We Orthodox agree, and state that the Western Church lacks the fullness of being in communion with the Eastern Patriarchs. Either way, the Church lacks unity. But that's not the same as saying that the Church in the west or in the east is not a real Church.

Our clergy is valid, our sacraments are valid, and apostolic succession is present, our Eucharist is Real Presence. We do not commune—within the Church—because we have not worked out full understanding of our dogmatic pronouncements. Communion is an expression of theological agreement and not means towards achieving one.

Whether you accept apostolic succession or not it makes no difference. Christ established one Church and it's none of the Protestant/Baptist man-made communities. We know that because we have the names of those who made them and the dates when they were made. Not a single one involves our Lord Jesus Christ, or goes back to 33 AD, except one both Greek and Latin, both catholic in scope and orthodox in faith, and both apostolic in authoirty.

• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.
• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.
• If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.
• If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.
• If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
• If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.
• If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.
• If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.
• If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.
• If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
• If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.
• If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

This makes the oldest non-Apostolic "church" about 550 years old, circa 1500 years after the Lord established His. Take your pick.

[aposiopetic]

From the offending document:

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I wonder how many today can claim Apostolic succession based on Peter’s rules.

Act 1:15 ¶ And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Act 1:16 Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

Act 1:17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Act 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Act 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Act 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

[TaxachusettsMan]

Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine.

Nice try on this one.

Despite the oaths he took at his consecration/ordination to the episcopacy, and despite the claims he made in the introduction to his Ordinal, Thomas Cranmer had no intention of continuing the priesthood or episcopacy as it had been known in England since the time of Augustine. Nor of continuing the Eucharist as it had been received either.

Otherwise, he would simply have translated the Pontificale Romanum and Missale Romanum of the time into English.

In fact, he wanted to change it so radically he devised rites which, while continuing to LOOK like the Catholic Rites, were changed in their essential formulae to make it very clear that the intention was a wholly new (and essentially different) kind of Eucharist, priesthood, and episcopacy.

Leo XIII reviewed all this and gave what is still the Roman Catholic Church's authoritative judgment on the matter in 1896, in the document Apostlicae Curae.

[Ransomed]

Hi xzins. It is my understanding that the three apostolic Churches of Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental all claim to be the Church that is in the right, but still holds the others to be apostolic but flawed Churches. Am I wrong about this? Also, do any of these three Churches hold the Anglican Church as being apostolic?

Freegards

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[Gamecock]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

What ecumenism?

Rome has never budging one inch on the Biblical truth of Sola Fide. Until they agree we are saved by faith alone we will never have one thing in common.

[N3WBI3]

"First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy."

Which is *very* strongly implied by scripture (Luke 3:8) Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy.

Again in the Bible Matt. 15:3-6, font color=red>"And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so."

[Gumdrop]

The biggest obstacle is the misleading reporting done by the main stream media who totally botched the report on this document. I cannot help believing it was done on purpose to cause division among Christians and rancor against the Catholic Church and against Pope Benedict XVI.

Many Catholics are angry with the Pope and for no reason at all except that they believe the stupid media.

My pastor wrote a short article on the subject which was printed in our local Catholic newpaper last week. It reads as follows:

Is There Grace Outside the Catholic Church?

So did the pope really say, as stated in the St. Cloud Times article (July 11, 2007) that “Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation?” Did he further insist as an article in the Star Tribune said (July 11, 2007), “that other denominations do not hold ‘the means to salvation’”?

Well, the very short answer is, No, the pope did not in any way say these things!

What these articles are referring to is a recently released document from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, with the approval of the Holy Father, entitled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church.” This very brief document simply attempts to answer five questions that the congregation says have arisen from the theological discussion on the nature of the Church following the decisive ... renewal of Catholic ecclesiology in the years since the Second Vatican Council.

In regards to the above quoted statements, what does this document actually say? To begin, it states very decisively that as Catholics we affirm “that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.” The document does not claim that there are no means of salvation in other Christian denominations, quoting the Second Vatican Council document, Lumen Gentium (8.2). Not only that, it makes clear that “there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’” found in them.

Finally, regarding other Christian churches, this new document restates Catholic teaching, again quoting the Second Vatican Council (Unitatis redintegratio 3.4) saying that they “are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

Though as Catholics we do indeed believe that in the Catholic Church is found all the means of grace Christ intended for his people, these means of grace are not entirely lacking in other Christian denominations and, in fact, these communities are used in many powerful ways by the Holy Spirit to bring people to salvation.

One has to wonder how those responsible for the articles quoted above could distort so badly the message of this short and rather clearly stated document. It can only be hoped that our brothers and sisters who share our faith in Christ, yet not fully within the Catholic Church, will take the word of the Church on what it believes and not the distortion offered in the secular media. [end of article]

So, I hope you readers will understand how badly the news media distorted the message. As a lifelong Catholic I have never been taught that persons outside the Catholic Church could not be saved. Likewise, my parents allowed my siblings and I to associate freely with persons of all faiths without discrimination. I will also say that throughout my life I have been edified by persons of other faiths who personify goodness and holiness in their daily lives. I think that everyone ought to respect persons for who and what they are and how they behave and not by labels.

[Petrosius]

I find it fascinating that Protestants will complain that a restatement of Catholic belief is somehow an attack on ecumenism; that the only true ecumenism is an acceptance of a Protestant ecclesialogy. In other words, the only way that Catholics are allowed to participate in ecumenical dialog is to become Protestant.

As to the question of the necessity of apostolic succession to be a true church, let us turn to the Scriptures themselves. First as a precedence we can see the hierarchical priesthood established by God in the Old Testament. While our Lord railed against the scribes and Pharisees, he never denied the authority of the Temple priesthood. Rather, he implicitly acknowledged their authority when he told the lepers to go to them. Even when he cleansed the Temple he did not question the authority of the priests to offer sacrifice but sought to purify the activity of the Temple. Indeed, the Holy Family fully participated in the Temple services. Thus an hierarchical priesthood per se cannot be antithetical to God's organization of the Church.

Now let us turn to the New Testament.

Did Jesus Christ establish an hierarchy among his followers?
Yes. A clear distinction can be made between the Apostles and the rest of the disciples.

Did these Apostles exercise any authority beyond that of the disciples?
Yes. They alone were possessed the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, forgive sins, anoint the sick and give the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Did the Apostles exercise this authority after our Lord's Ascension?
Yes. It was also to them that the Church recognized as its leaders.

Was the authority of the Apostles a true office that continued beyond the first Apostles?
Yes! The very first thing that the Apostles did when our Lord ascended into Heaven was to chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot.

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric (episkophe / episcopacy) let another take.

Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
(Acts 1:16-26)

This episcopal office would be divided into the offices of bishop, priest and deacon:

A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.
(1 Tim 2:1-10)

For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee: If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly. For a bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God.
(Tit 1:5-7)

How was this office transmitted to others?
By coöption through the laying on of hands. In other words from the top down from those who already possessed this office, not by an act of the gathered community.

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
(1 Tim 4:14)

For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.
(2 Tim 1:6)

For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.
(Tit 1:5)

Thus an ordained priesthood is a part of our Lord's constitution of his Church. Whatever they may possess, the Protestants do not possess the episcopacy/priesthood instituted by our Lord and handed down through the laying on of hands. They thus are acting contrary to the constitution of the Church as established by Jesus Christ and shown forth in the Scriptures. This is a strange position for those who claim sola scriptura.

[redgolum]

Sir, what is the point of this?

If you are honestly surprised in the recent statements from the Vatican, they you haven’t spent any time researching the RCC ecclesiology. By the very nature of their theology, they can not accept that any true Christian Church exists except for one that is in communion and ruled by the Pope. That is in effect, the basis for much of their theology.

Recently in the last 40 or 50 or so years, Rome has said that they are in impaired or partial communion with all those who have had valid Trinitarian baptism (which may or may not include those in Churches with valid Apostolic Succession). In effect, making non Catholic Christian part of the Catholic Church in some sort of way. As a Methodist, I suspect you have a similar doctrine of the Invisible Church.

That statement 40 years ago was news. This isn’t.

[Sloth]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

I hope so. Ecumenism is largely an evil movement.

[humblegunner]

Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

Pope drunk again ping.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[unspun]

How many miles out of Apostolicity are we?

Seems to me we’ve never left town.

“Apostle” is synonymous with “missionary.”

[MEGoody]

Well, the Pope has the right to his opinion, and I have the right to disagree.

[sauropod]

review

[hosepipe]

[.. Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." ..]

I have respect for that man.. at least he is HONEST..
Been the case for millenia.. At least he SAID IT..

What he said is earth shaking and should set the tone for conversation..
The daughters of the roman catholic church should KNOW IT..

So that the true church can distance itself.. from the RCC, the EO, and her/their daughters..