2 Questions on Apostolic Succession

[JSmitty2005]

TNT:

Read St Francis de Sales - The Catholic Controversy.

It can be found online here:

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/fds/fds_index.html

Thanks to jim1130 for informing me of it availability online.

 

[JSmitty2005]

JSmitty2005:

Fredricks:

Orthodoxy?
sedevacantists?

Of course!

Actually, let me clarify. I had made reference to “false religions” and “the work of Satan.” Clearly such schisms are “the work of Satan.” However, because they hold to the Catholic Faith without drifting into heresy, they cannot be said to be “false religions.”

 

[Fredricks]

JSmitty2005:

Actually, let me clarify. I had made reference to “false religions” and “the work of Satan.” Clearly such schisms are “the work of Satan.” However, because they hold to the Catholic Faith without drifting into heresy, they cannot be said to be “false religions.”

How much of the Catholic faith must one hold to not be a false religion?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fredricks:

How much of the Catholic faith must one hold to not be a false religion?

The entire Catholic faith. From paragraph 2089 of the CCC:

Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Yay, 2000 posts! :dancing: :tiphat: :bounce:

 

[Eden]

JSmitty2005:

Yay, 2000 posts! :dancing: :tiphat: :bounce:

http://bestsmileys.com/fireworks/5.gif http://bestsmileys.com/dancing/14.gif

 

[TNT]

JSmitty2005:

The entire Catholic faith. From paragraph 2089 of the CCC:Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."Yay, 2000 posts! :dancing: :tiphat: :bounce:

Ummm, if I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox have a:
Primacy of the Papacy problem. (Refusal to submit is a lot different than denying the Supremacy of the Papacy).
Procession of the Holy Spirit problem. You know, “proceeds from the Father AND the Son”.
Purgatory problem.
Assumption of the Blessed Mother problem.

 

[JSmitty2005]

TNT:

Ummm, if I’m not mistaken, the Orthodox have a:
Primacy of the Papacy problem. (Refusal to submit is a lot different than denying the Supremacy of the Papacy).
Procession of the Holy Spirit problem. You know, “proceeds from the Father AND the Son”.
Purgatory problem.
Assumption of the Blessed Mother problem.

That’s not for you to determine. The Church has said that the Orthodox are in schism and not heresy. Any evidence to the contrary would be appreciated. Plus, don’t they believe in the Assuption? I thought that they just called it the “Dormition.”

 

[TNT]

JSmitty2005:

That’s not for you to determine. The Church has said that the Orthodox are in schism and not heresy. Any evidence to the contrary would be appreciated. Plus, don’t they believe in the Assuption? I thought that they just called it the “Dormition.”

That’s not quite what was said.
Look at Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia on the issues as well as wikipedia.

The heresy part no one speaks of in any definite way strictly for ecumenical politics.
I erred in the Assumption.…It is the Immaculate Conception (you know the Lourdes girl was sadly mistaken or worse), which they deny.
May I also add:
According to the Orthodox:
Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
That’s not schism, it’s heresy.
RE: Purgatory…The reason I say “a problem”:
The orthodox maintain:
An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.

 

[mtr01]

JSmitty2005:

Plus, don’t they believe in the Assuption? I thought that they just called it the “Dormition.”

Hijack on:

Yes, this is essentially true…we use different terminology to refer to the same event. If anything, the Orthodox have an “Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother problem” (to use TNT’s turn of phrase).

Hijack off (you may now resume your regularly scheduled posting).

 

[JSmitty2005]

TNT:

That’s not schism, it’s heresy.

I can understand your reasoning, but where does the Church teach it? I’ve always been told that the Orthodox are schismatic.

PS - Why doesn’t your signature show up, TNT? I like it.

 

[TNT]

JSmitty2005:

I can understand your reasoning, but where does the Church teach it? I’ve always been told that the Orthodox are schismatic.

PS - Why doesn’t your signature show up, TNT? I like it.

Why, Smitty, I have no idea what yur talkin about.

Re:Heretic
If I deny the Immaculate Conception am I a heretic?
If I deny the dogma of the Papacy, am I a heretic?
Their first act was schmatic, from then on, it went to denials that were heretical…after about 1400AD.

 

[lpm59]

Br. Rich SFO:

Well then there is something wrong with your list. Because there should be several gaps.

There are not only several gaps, but there are a couple of places where there are overlaps and there were two or three popes at the same time. But that’s not really what’s being talked about when the topic is apostolic succession.

I’m going to annoy a bunch of my orthodox Catholic brothers and sisters here, but (a) Jesus didn’t ordain any priests, (b) he didn’t ordain any bishops, (c) he didn’t ordain anybody that we know of. The apostles were venerated by the early church because they were Jesus’ “inner circle” - they heard him the most and knew him the best. They passed on what they saw and heard and experienced and others came to believe what they believed. And then more leaders were needed, and each new house church raised up their own leader so that the apostles get another church started. They called these leaders “episcopos” and we translate that “bishop”, but it sure didn’t mean what it means today!

Ordination (the laying on of hands, taking vows and anointing) wasn’t a part of becoming a bishop right away - that took at least 100 years after Jesus’ resurrection, and we really don’t know a whole lot about how it was done or what it entailed, and it’s very doubtful that even then apostolic succession was a true laying on of hands by one of the apostles - it’s really doubtful that it was or could have been regulated like that. What was important that the gospel that was preached was the gospel of the senior episcopos, and that it could be traced back to the oral tradition of the “new” written versions.

And don’t even get me started on the whole pope idea! Once Constantine made Christianity the state religion, the Church and the Empire started looking and acting so much alike that the Church lost most of its identity and the episcopos started looking more like a Roman pro-consel than a shepherd and acted more like a feudal lord than our Lord. And boy oh boy, the episcopos of Rome began to look and act just like Caesar, only Caesar wasn’t a god anymore and the episcopos of Rome got his own laws, courts, armies, palaces, throne, crown and courtesans and began being known as “Vicar of Christ”.

When Jesus comes back again, there are going to be some folks who are going to have a lot of trouble explaining what happened, I think…

May the peace that Jesus has given me be yours.

 

[JSmitty2005]

TNT:

Why, Smitty, I have no idea what yur talkin about.

I thought that I was pretty clear, but I’m looking for an official condemnation of the Orthodox drifting into heresy similar to that leveled against Luther.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fredricks:

Orthodoxy?
sedevacantists?

Orthodoxy? The work of Satan?

Pope Benedict XVI: "While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"
~ Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press.

Cardinal Kasper: speaking in a round-table session, said of Catholics and Orthodox: **"They are the one Church in different liturgical, theological, spiritual and canonical forms. These differences are legitimate.” **

The full text is here, message #1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76268

 

[mtr01]

lpm59:

I’m going to annoy a bunch of my orthodox Catholic brothers and sisters here

Well, I’m not annoyed, but I think your statement sends up a big red flag. You seem to be implying that you are not an orthodox Catholic (i would have to ask why). Be that as it may, I do see several misconceptions and errors in your statements, but since it is a little off-topic for this thread I will only brifly touch on them.

quote=lpm59 Jesus didn’t ordain any priests, (b) he didn’t ordain any bishops, (c) he didn’t ordain anybody that we know of.
[/quote]

This is innacurate. Jesus ordained Apostles. He gave one the “prime ministry”, gave all of them binding a loosing power, the power to forgive or reatain sins, and the power to consecrate the Eucharist…and He gave them the authority to teach in His name. We also see that they were given power to administrate His Church.

lpm59:

They called these leaders “episcopos” and we translate that “bishop”, but it sure didn’t mean what it means today!

If you haven’t read the writings of the early Church fathers, I would suggest doing so. For instance, in Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, Pope Clement cretainly seems to have an understanding of the office of bishop that is essentially the same as today, and he wrote it before 100 AD. Also, we have Ignatius of Antioch writing c. 110 AD that “where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church”.

lpm59:

Ordination (the laying on of hands, taking vows and anointing) wasn’t a part of becoming a bishop right away - that took at least 100 years after Jesus’ resurrection, and we really don’t know a whole lot about how it was done or what it entailed, and it’s very doubtful that even then apostolic succession was a true laying on of hands by one of the apostles - it’s really doubtful that it was or could have been regulated like that.

These statements are also innacurate. Laying on of hands in ordination is first seen in Acts where the Apostles ordained 7 deacons by praying and laying hands on them (Acts 6: 2-7). We also know that the Apostles were also given power to ordain priests as Tertullian states (c. 200 AD) "this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

lpm59:

And don’t even get me started on the whole pope idea! Once Constantine made Christianity the state religion, the Church and the Empire started looking and acting so much alike that the Church lost most of its identity and the episcopos started looking more like a Roman pro-consel than a shepherd and acted more like a feudal lord than our Lord. And boy oh boy, the episcopos of Rome began to look and act just like Caesar, only Caesar wasn’t a god anymore and the episcopos of Rome got his own laws, courts, armies, palaces, throne, crown and courtesans and began being known as “Vicar of Christ”.

In case you didn’t know, the Donation of Constantine (to which it appears you are referring) is a forgery. I respectfully suggest you brush up on your Church history. More specifically, in the early years after Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople, it was the Eastern patriarchs who exhibited ceasero-papist tendencies, not the Western Church.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mtr01:

You seem to be implying that you are not an orthodox Catholic (i would have to ask why).

They claim to be “American Catholic.” Whatever that means.

 

[Hegesippus]

Fr Ambrose:

Orthodoxy? The work of Satan?

Pope Benedict XVI: "While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"
~ Principles of Catholic Theology, Ignatius Press.

Cardinal Kasper: speaking in a round-table session, said of Catholics and Orthodox: **"They are the one Church in different liturgical, theological, spiritual and canonical forms. These differences are legitimate.” **

The full text is here, message #1
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76268

whoaaa. Fr. Ambrose sighting in the apologetics forum.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

whoaaa. Fr. Ambrose sighting in the apologetics forum.

Yes, I have permission from the Super Moderator to post in Apologetics. Somebody told me that Orthodoxy was being referred to as the Church of Satan, so I had to have a look at the thread.

 

[mosher]

Fr Ambrose:

Yes, I have permission from the Super Moderator to post in Apologetics. Somebody told me that Orthodoxy was being referred to as the Church of Satan, so I had to have a look at the thread.

Not satanic … just lacking.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mosher:

just lacking.

And this lacking was caused by the deceit of who? I would answer the father of lies, but maybe you have a different answer. Satan had his hand in the creation of all non-Catholic religions.