2 Questions on Apostolic Succession

[Eden]

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.

“Somebody told me” - You mean we have spies amongst us?!

Please.

You know the Orthodox Church was not called the “Church of Satan” in this thread. Thanks for the amusing hyperbole though.

 

[mosher]

JSmitty2005:

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.

Be careful not to deny secondary causality in your argumentation.

Of course “ol horny head” has a hand in things but he is weak compared to the freedom of man. In this instance ignorance is the greater villain in the story of the East and West division.

 

[jim1130]

lpm59:

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.

Peace be with you.

This has been addressed before so please visit this Web site: bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm “The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession” (this was prepared in response to an anti-Papal essay).

This Web site will address:

Apostolic Succession
Bishops and Presbyters
The Succession List of St. Irenaeus
Primacy and Authority of Peter
Authority to Bind and Loose
Early Evidence: St. Clement of Rome
More Early Evidence: St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Dionysius
Primacy of Peter in the (Early Church) Fathers
Polycarp (Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the Apostle John) and the early Bishops of Rome

This sites also have links to additional sites for you to visit.

“St. Cyprian on the Church and the Papacy” bringyou.to/apologetics/num44.htm

The Church Always Had Monarchical Bishops: A Response to James White (“YES, VIRGINIA, THE CHURCH HAS ALWAYS HAD MONARCHICAL BISHOPS” (A Merciful Response to James White’s “Roman Catholic Apologists Practice Eisegesis in Scripture and Patristics”) bringyou.to/apologetics/a80.htm

Enjoy the read

Peace.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

“Somebody told me” - You mean we have spies amongst us?!

Please.

You know the Orthodox Church was not called the “Church of Satan” in this thread. Thanks for the amusing hyperbole though.

I have had a look at what JSmitty wrote and he called Orthodoxy “the work of Satan.” So I don’t think that what I said was particularly hyperbolic and nor do I agree with you that it is amusing in the slightest.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fr Ambrose:

I have had a look at what JSmitty wrote and he called Orthodoxy “the work of Satan.” So I don’t think that what I said was particularly hyperbolic and nor do I agree with you that it is amusing in the slightest.

Fr., please refer to post 21 to see what I was saying. I never used such a term as “Church of Satan.” It is of your invention. Plus I think you have others like TNT that you should be more worried about.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JSmitty2005:

Fr., please refer to post 21 to see what I was saying. I never used such a term as “Church of Satan.” It is of your invention.

You said that Orthodoxy is “the work of Satan.” Don’t play word games now and pretend that you were misunderstood in your intention.

 

[JSmitty2005]

You said that Orthodoxy is “the work of Satan.” Don’t play word games now and pretend that you were misunderstood in your intention.

My words were: “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.’”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

JSmitty2005:

My words were: “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.’”

Sorry, but you clearly said that Orthodoxy is a “false religion.”

Message No. 16, by you:

In fact, all false religions are the work of Satan - Judaism, Freemasonry, Islam, Protestantism, etc.

In message No. 17 Fredricks queries you if that includes Orthodoxy:

Orthodoxy?
sedevacantists?

And in message No. 18 you reply:

Of course!

 

[Fredricks]

This was not actually the answer I thought JSmitty would give. Some of the rhetoric around here about groups that are not Catholic came as a surprise to me when I first signed on to this forum. I also think it is inconsistent with what I have read about your last two Popes and some of their statements.
Granted, I have not studied the writings of these men extensively though.
Its funny, I go to one of the most conservative churches I know and I have never heard the division I hear from some on this forum.
I expect it respectfully, from Church of Christ, many Jehovah Witnesses, some Baptists and Pentecostals. Some I will add, not all.

I do not expect it from the majority of Christendom; Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, African American denominations like National Baptists, or the denomination I belong to.

It has just been very surprising.
I do disagree with quite a bit of Catholicism, and some parts of Orthodoxy, but the works of Satan?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fr Ambrose:

Sorry, but you clearly said that Orthodoxy is a “false religion.”

Message No. 16, by you: In message No. 17 Fredricks queries you if that includes Orthodoxy:And in message No. 18 you reply:

Maybe there’s a reason that 3 posts later I clarified myself without anyone else’s prompting.

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.”

Can I get any clearer, Father? I would think that you would agree that in the schism between East and West that Satan had his hand in it.

 

[Eden]

Fr Ambrose:

I have had a look at what JSmitty wrote and he called Orthodoxy “the work of Satan.” So I don’t think that what I said was particularly hyperbolic and nor do I agree with you that it is amusing in the slightest.

Again - please. The fact that Satan worked to split the Church and succeeded does not mean that JSmitty called the Orthodox Church the “Church of Satan”. Show me the post in which JSmitty says the following: “The Orthodox Church is the Church of Satan”. Can’t? Of course not. Your post claiming such a thing is hyperbole.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fredricks:

it is inconsistent with what I have read about your last two Popes and some of their statements.

Maybe some of the rhetoric of the last two popes was inconsistent with the Church’s previous stance. :ehh: Or at least some of their statements have been quite ambiguous and very susceptible to a wide range of interpretation. You must also remember that not every word out of the pope’s mouth is infallible or even Church teaching. They can and do err, but never when teaching universally. Also, Vatican II didn’t change any doctrines. In fact, it hardly dealt with doctrine.

 

[Eden]

Fr Ambrose:

Sorry, but you clearly said that Orthodoxy is a “false religion.”

No he didn’t. He did not say Orthodoxy is a false religion. Read it again:

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."

He clarified his response well before Fr. Ambrose arrived; not to mention the fact that “work of satan” and “church of satan” are not synonymous.

What JSmitty is saying is that the Eastern Orthodox are in Schism and the Catholic Church is the True Church.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

I do disagree with quite a bit of Catholicism, and some parts of Orthodoxy, but the works of Satan?

Really? It’s surprising to you that a Catholic would say that the breakaways from the True Church are the work of satan? God is not the author of division and confusion! He founded ONE Church.

 

[Fredricks]

Maybe some of the rhetoric of the last two popes was inconsistent with the Church’s previous stance. :ehh: Or at least some of their statements have been quite ambiguous and very susceptible to a wide range of interpretation.

Fascinating. A wide range of interpretation? Sounds…like…
Thank you for your answer though. Are you, I do not know how to ask this, of any traditional type group or just a disgruntled Catholic in full communion with Rome? Just trying to figure you out. You get what I am asking even if I am not phrasing it right I hope.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fredricks:

Fascinating. A wide range of interpretation? Sounds…like…
Thank you for your answer though. Are you, I do not know how to ask this, of any traditional type group or just a disgruntled Catholic in full communion with Rome? Just trying to figure you out. You get what I am asking even if I am not phrasing it right I hope.

I’m a Catholic in union with Rome and faithful to the Church’s Tradition. You (and others) may find it surprising, but I attend a Novus Ordo Mass. However, I’m extremely concerned about ecumenitis. The pontiff and prophet Pius X warned us that it was coming and it has. Also, the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church has taken quite a blow from the “spirit of Vatican II.” The Church is in probably the roughest shape since Arian. She needs our prayers.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Has anyone noticed that there’s a glitch in the quote function?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Eden:

Really? It’s surprising to you that a Catholic would say that the breakaways from the True Church are the work of satan? God is not the author of division and confusion! He founded ONE Church.

I suppose you are right. The traditional teaching of the Popes through the centuries is that Orthodoxy is the work of Satan (although this has been said much less since Vatican II.) In the words of Pope Gregory XVI: “False religions worship the Devil.”

From his encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio written in 1832.

 

[Eden]

Fr Ambrose:

I suppose you are right. The traditional teaching of the Popes through the centuries is that Orthodoxy is the work of Satan (although this has been said much less since Vatican II.) In the words of Pope Gregory XVI: “False religions worship the Devil.”

From his encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio written in 1832.

So, you are not going to acknowledge the fact that JSmitty did not call the Orthodox “the Church of Satan” or that he clarify his statement before you arrived to state that Orthodoxy is not a false religion? You are just going to attack the papacy instead of admitting you were incorrect about what he said?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Fr Ambrose:

In the words of Pope Gregory XVI: “False religions worship the Devil.”

From his encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio written in 1832.

Is this available online?