Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[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.

[xzins]

The eccumenical arguments of this article are certainly part of the article, but the good part is the discussion of apostolicity.

I can see why there’d be disappointment in the RCC holding forth in discussion as if they were saying one thing when actually they had their fingers crossed behind their backs.

Yet, the good part is that the RCC’s claims stand on pretty shaky grounds. As the good book says, “If you think you stand, take heed lest you fall.”

[Gumdrop]

“Yet, the good part is that the RCC’s claims stand on pretty shaky grounds”

Ridiculous. It is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church can actually trace it’s leadership (i.e. the priests and bishops) back to the apostles. Or were you referring to something else?

Regarding ecumenism - it’s a good thing to have dialogue, but it is not a good thing to ignore facts. One ought to seek the truth, not just what seems the easiest form of religion.

On the other hand, the Pope did not say that other Christian denominations were without merit. And, contrary to many erroneous people’s beliefs, the Catholic Church does not think all Protestants are going to hell, or that all Catholics are bound for heaven. The Pope restated the Catholic belief that many graces come from various congregations. Yet, the church’s stance has always been that the RCC has the fullness of the faith as handed down from the apostles. Since the church has no army to hit people over the head or coerce anyone into joining it, no one should feel threatened by this statement.

[xzins]

Who ordained the Apostle Paul?

[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.

[xzins]

Read the 3 underlined points above.

[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.

[kosta50]

Read the 3 underlined points above.

I did. The fact is the Church has been around for 1500 years before Protestants came on stage and established their "churches," citing their personal interpretation of the Bible (which bible?) as correct. Nice try.

If you are going to use historical evidence as a source of doubt than begin with Exodus, and all of Torah for that matter. Don't stop there: there is no original copy of any of the apostolic or Old Testament writings. They are all copies of copies.

[kosta50]

xins HATES when you supply facts....he just doesn’t like to deal with such. Don’t waste your time

Truth hurts, and I can understand that. The elements of what constituted the Church for the last 2,000 years is lacking in Protestant/Baptist communities. Unfortunately, for the last 40 or so years of ecumnism they have gotten accustomed to being "included" in this syncretistic falsehood that took over the western world and a sad but obvious "protestantization" of the Catholic Church for some time after the Vatican II.

[P-Marlowe]

• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded Chirst.
• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by Christ.
• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by Christ.
• If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was founded by Christ.
• If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was founed by Christ.
• If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by Christ.
• 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 Christ.
• If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, your religion was founded by Christ
• If you worship with the Salvation Army, your religion was founded by Christ.
• 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 was founded by Christ.

[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.

[P-Marlowe]

Oops, strike that reference to Jehovah’s witnesses.

[Alamo-Girl]

The Spiritual succession is the only one that matters.

The Apostles should have learned that decisively when Cornelius and family received the Holy Spirit before Peter finished talking or baptizing him.

While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. - Acts 10:44

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? - Acts 11:15-17

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. - Acts 15:7-9

And again, when Christ selected Paul, personally and in power on the road to Damascus. And the method whereby Paul received the Gospel:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:11-19

[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.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Who ordained the Apostle Paul?***

Here is an interesting question I often ask people. “How many times was the Apostle Paul shipwrecked? Most say once in Acts. They forget that Paul says he was shipwrecked three times.

2Cr 11:25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

That is three times before he was shipwrecked in Acts. This shows me that Paul was not resting on his laurels between his 3 missionary journeys but had many more journeys not recorded. Who knows how many other churches he founded without us knowing about them.

[Col Freeper]

Truth hurts, and I can understand that. The elements of what constituted the Church for the last 2,000 years is lacking in Protestant/Baptist communities. Unfortunately, for the last 40 or so years of ecumnism they have gotten accustomed to being "included" in this syncretistic falsehood that took over the western world and a sad but obvious "protestantization" of the Catholic Church for some time after the Vatican II.

Oh my!

This kind of "warm, welcoming, we care about you and your salvation" post should definitely bring the whole Protestant/Baptist communities flocking back to the Catholic Church quickly.

Is this really how you wish for Catholics to present themselves to Protestants/Baptists?

Could you define for me what you feel will be the result if these Protestant/Baptist communities fail to "return to" the Catholic Church?

[Col Freeper]

Hi Alamo-Girl.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Jesus spend a fair amount of time and energy trying to get the existing Jewish hierarchy to recognize that they were wrongly focused on their robes, the best seats in the Temple/Synagogue, etc., (what I would call expected human behavior in any human generated hierarchy) and thusly not doing the Lord's work? (my paraphrasing).

I guess I don't understand why the apparent effort of some, to trace lineage back through humans takes precedence over a relationship with Jesus.

Considering that humans are just as fallible now as they were then, is it possible that perhaps the same human mistake the Jewish leadership was making back then was replicated by some under Jesus's New Testament gospel?

For humans, tracking lineage, historical investigations, etc., can be heady stuff, but it doesn't seem to me that this would be what Jesus would wish us to focus on to save our souls and follow his plan for us.

(Using your post as a jump off point to ask these questions.)