a-call-for-ecuminical-dialogue-between-catholics-and-protestants

[JonNC]

Yes. So ideally, a seeker will have to trace some reasons to transfer the authority/reasons for assent from Jesus → Apostles → Apostolic Successors. At that point one can assent to the Catholic Church plus all its teachings (Scripture, Traditions, Laws) etc.

Not if the successors create without benefit of ecumenical general council a universal jurisdiction.

One could use this model to assent to Orthodoxy, and frankly, have a stronger claim than the CC.

Additionally, apostolic successors does not necessarily mean Apostolic Succession.

Jon

 

[joe370]

I know you came to this conclusion, Joe, and as you know, in some ways, knowing you came out of Lutheranism, I kind of envy you.

Jon

:ideaon’t envy…convert…LOL…Just having a little fun…

 

[JonNC]

So ok. You have all these theological frameworks on the planet that claim knowledge on the Transcendent. Lutheranism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism etc.

The question for us is, which one is true. Now since this knowledge is Transcendent, it is obviously outside of direct verification. Hence the best we can do, or most reasonable we can become, is to analyze the founders of each of these faith and see if anyone gives reason to assent.

Once one has done that and found such a person (in both our cases, this person is Christ), we need to figure out how to learn what Christ taught. We live 2000 years after him. All we know of at this point is his authority proven by his death and resurrection. At least for the sake of living forever, he is our best bet.

But we need to know what he taught. The question for both you and me, is how do you go from Christ to the Bible, Book of Concord or Catholic Church. It is on this plain that I am discussing this issue. Not theology.

OK. You and I have a shared history until 1517 or thereabouts. 1530 might be a better date.
We agree on the first seven councils, the creeds. We agree for the most part on the canon of scripture, though we view the dueterocanon differently, based on how we deal with their historic disputed nature, and whether or not we accept Trent.

Go from there.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Not if the successors create without benefit of ecumenical general council a universal jurisdiction.

Perhaps there continues to be successors creating with the benefit of ecumenical general council via universal jurisdiction. Well, that was not a question; I know how you feel about that…

One could use this model to assent to Orthodoxy, and frankly, have a stronger claim than the CC.

 

[joe370]

OK. You and I have a shared history until 1517 or thereabouts. 1530 might be a better date.
We agree on the first seven councils, the creeds. We agree for the most part on the canon of scripture, though we view the dueterocanon differently, based on how we deal with their historic disputed nature, and whether or not we accept Trent.

Go from there.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

You gonna share any of that?

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

OK. You and I have a shared history until 1517 or thereabouts. 1530 might be a better date.
We agree on the first seven councils, the creeds. We agree for the most part on the canon of scripture, though we view the dueterocanon differently, based on how we deal with their historic disputed nature, and whether or not we accept Trent.

Go from there.

Jon

Actually no. We cannot get there to 1517. We must first ask where to go next after Christ. The error most of us make is the we make these jumps. If we cannot go anywhere or to any person after Christ, the system is already broken at 33 AD.

 

[JonNC]

Actually no. We cannot get there to 1517. We must first ask where to go next after Christ. The error most of us make is the we make these jumps. If we cannot go anywhere or to any person after Christ, the system is already broken at 33 AD.

Ok.

Jon

 

[joe370]

You gonna share any of that?

Jon

Nah…LOL…

 

[Eufrosnia]

Ok.

Jon

So any ideas how you went from Christ to the book of Concord or any particular thing you want to bring up as reasons for being Lutheran?

 

[JonNC]

So any ideas how you went from Christ to the book of Concord or any particular thing you want to bring up as reasons for being Lutheran?

Wait! Now you’re making the jump to the BoC, and me! Go back to 33 AD. Pentecost.
If I can’t jump you to 1530, you can’t jump me to 2012.

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Wait! Now you’re making the jump to the BoC, and me! Go back to 33 AD. Pentecost.
If I can’t jump you to 1530, you can’t jump me to 2012.

Jon

BoC? Why Pentecost? How do you know anything special happened on Pentecost?

My question is rather simple though. Assuming you saw the risen Christ. You know he is the genuine person you want to give assent to. What do you do next?

 

[JonNC]

Nah…LOL…

:bighanky:

Jon

 

[joe370]

BoC? Why Pentecost? How do you know anything special happened on Pentecost?

My question is rather simple though. Assuming you saw the risen Christ. You know he is the genuine person you want to give assent to. What do you do next?

You know, Eufrosnia, if we take the catholic church completely out of the history books (it never existed scenario…) then there would be no protestant churches and possibly no Bible. Regarding the second question, I chose to locate the historical church founded by Jesus, to which the apostles belonged. I think Jon feels the same way, but feels unsure as t where that church can be found, post east-west schism, i.e. is the catholic church the break-away church or is the eastern orthodox church the break-away church.

 

[Eufrosnia]

You know, Eufrosnia, if we take the catholic church completely out of the history books (it never existed scenario…) then there would be no protestant churches and possibly no Bible. Regarding the second question, I chose to locate the historical church founded by Jesus, to which the apostles belonged. I think Jon feels the same way, but feels unsure as t where that church can be found, post east-west schism, i.e. is the catholic church the break-away church or is the eastern orthodox church the break-away church.

Well two issues here. First is where do you go after Christ. This question must be answered with some logical reason to make the jump.

The way I see it, early Christians made this jump to the Apostles. Their reason? Christ was a Rabbi. Apostles were students. So it was natural for the Rabbi to pass down the knowledge to his students. So they assented to the Apostles. The Apostolic Successors were the students of the Apostles. Hence, assent was given to their successors in the same fashion. This sort of assenting is very common even today. Think of the University system of Professors and Phd students.

So yes, when we do this, we have no Bible or anything. We only accept those because the Apostolic Successors teach them as word of God.

Now as for the schism, it would also be a historical issue. Honestly, I would see Jon as within reasonable assent if he became Orthodox since they do have valid Succession.

But if he is critical, he can just turn to history. History is clear that Rome has primacy. There are council canons (if we just treat them as history) that clearly suggest the authority of Rome over all other patriarchs as opposed to being just another patriarchy. So the Orthodox had broken away from the authority of Rome. Since Rome teaches the concepts of infallibility they must be therefore binding on the entire church. The Orthodox, since they refuse to assent, have tarnished their communion in a certain way. But still are on reasonable grounds for accepting all of their faith i.e. Bible, Creeds, authority of their Patriarchs etc.

If you also look at the Orthodox argument against infallibility here as an aside, it is that history/Scripture does not explicitly indicate the existence of such a concept as infallibility. The problem here is that it does not matter if it is not direct. Once Rome speaks, using its authority, that is it. So the Orthodox are straying from the path in missing part of the important points about succession i.e. Rome always held primacy. The Orthodox came in to being when Constantinople tried to usurp this authority from Rome.

EDIT: It just occurred to me. I should have been more precise when I said all non-Catholic religions are bogus. To be more accurate, anything other than Catholic/Judaism/Orthodox have serious issues giving reason for assenting to their faiths. But Judaism and Orthodox can still defend their beliefs. They just have trouble accepting more truths from where they stand.

 

[joe370]

Eufrosnia;10111454]Well two issues here. First is where do you go after Christ. This question must be answered with some logical reason to make the jump.

The way I see it, early Christians made this jump to the Apostles. Their reason? Christ was a Rabbi. Apostles were students. So it was natural for the Rabbi to pass down the knowledge to his students. So they assented to the Apostles. The Apostolic Successors were the students of the Apostles. Hence, assent was given to their successors in the same fashion. This sort of assenting is very common even today. Think of the University system of Professors and Phd students.

So yes, when we do this, we have no Bible or anything. We only accept those because the Apostolic Successors teach them as word of God.

Wow, we think alike. In scripture we see apostolic succession: Timothy and Titus were ordained by Paul and they in turn were told to do the same, e.g. appoint presbyters in every town…Apostolic succession is so important to the unity of Jesus’ catholic church as well as doctrinal preservation.

" For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim 1:6)

" The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you." (Titus 1:5)
This shows an orderly structure of instruction and ordination from the very beginnings of the Church.

Now as for the schism, it would also be a historical issue. Honestly, I would see Jon as within reasonable assent if he became Orthodox since they do have valid Succession.

You read my mind!!! Valid Sacraments too, although they refer to them as mysteries, which was what the CC called them prior to adopting the Latin language.

But if he is critical, he can just turn to history. History is clear that Rome has primacy. There are council canons (if we just treat them as history) that clearly suggest the authority of Rome over all other patriarchs as opposed to being just another patriarchy. So the Orthodox had broken away from the authority of Rome. Since Rome teaches the concepts of infallibility they must be therefore binding on the entire church. The Orthodox, since they refuse to assent, have tarnished their communion in a certain way. But still are on reasonable grounds for accepting all of their faith i.e. Bible, Creeds, authority of their Patriarchs etc.

If you also look at the Orthodox argument against infallibility here as an aside, it is that history/Scripture does not explicitly indicate the existence of such a concept as infallibility. The problem here is that it does not matter if it is not direct. Once Rome speaks, using its authority, that is it.

Due to the ineffable guidance of the Holy Spirit e.g. John 14:16, John 16:13 etc…

So the Orthodox are straying from the path in missing part of the important points about succession i.e. Rome always held primacy. The Orthodox came in to being when Constantinople tried to usurp this authority from Rome.

That was the conclusion I came to as a former protestant. Perhaps, time permitting, you could share some early church father quotes regarding primacy? I have quite a few but would like to add to the list. Sounds like you have done a lot of research, just as I did.

 

[JonNC]

=Eufrosnia;10111454]
Now as for the schism, it would also be a historical issue. Honestly, I would see Jon as within reasonable assent if he became Orthodox since they do have valid Succession.

Interestingly, I hold the same standard to Orthodoxy. How can they claim that canon 6 of Nicea doesn’t imply Rome’s primacy? The issue, then, is authority, authority diminished by Schism between the patriarchates.

But if he is critical, he can just turn to history. History is clear that Rome has primacy. There are council canons (if we just treat them as history) that clearly suggest the authority of Rome over all other patriarchs as opposed to being just another patriarchy. So the Orthodox had broken away from the authority of Rome. Since Rome teaches the concepts of infallibility they must be therefore binding on the entire church. The Orthodox, since they refuse to assent, have tarnished their communion in a certain way. But still are on reasonable grounds for accepting all of their faith i.e. Bible, Creeds, authority of their Patriarchs etc.

Nicea, canon 6:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail,* that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also**. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.*
Where, in this, is supremacy, or even primacy of jurisdiction?
Further, where in any of the mutually agreed ecumenical councils, is primacy or supremacy established for the Bishop of Rome?

If you also look at the Orthodox argument against infallibility here as an aside, it is that history/Scripture does not explicitly indicate the existence of such a concept as infallibility. The problem here is that it does not matter if it is not direct. Once Rome speaks, using its authority, that is it. So the Orthodox are straying from the path in missing part of the important points about succession i.e.** Rome always held primacy**. The Orthodox came in to being when Constantinople tried to usurp this authority from Rome.

This is important, so the idea that it was assumed and therefore not mentioned is questionable. Where is this stated in a council? (Notice I didn’t ask for scripture.)

Jon

 

[Eufrosnia]

Wow, we think alike. In scripture we see apostolic succession: Timothy and Titus were ordained by Paul and they in turn were told to do the same, i.e. appoint presbyters in every town…Apostolic succession is so important to the unity of Jesus’ catholic church as well as doctrinal preservation.

" For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim 1:6)

" The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you." (Titus 1:5)
This shows an orderly structure of instruction and ordination from the very beginnings of the Church.

These are indeed some I use too . But I always have to make sure they sometimes understand that I am not doing Theology at that juncture as I quote but simply using it as a narrative. Because as soon as you quote Scripture, people tend to think its theology.

You read my mind!!! Valid Sacraments too, although they refer to them as mysteries, which was what the CC called them prior to adopting the Latin language.

Yes, and the beliefs themselves can be traced back the same way a Catholic would. Interestingly, the Orthodox have missing concepts, similar to the Jews rather than arbitrary concepts. Both can trace what they have to a point of reasonable assent. But they just have difficulty going the full mile and accepting everything.

At least that is how I have come to see it

Due to the ineffable guidance of the Holy Spirit e.g. John 14:16, John 16:13 etc…

Yes, but again, we have to be careful when using Scripture. Once we enter Theology, it is a never ending debate of interpretation. So I find that historical approach works best (quoting Church fathers and if available, secular sources) because then its not much of an interpretation issue. But those passages can certainly get the job done too

That was the conclusion I came to as a former protestant. Perhaps, time permitting, you could share some early church father quotes regarding primacy? I have quite a few but would like to add to the list. Sounds like you have done a lot of research, just as I did.

Well, to be honest, most of my work dealt with finding a reasonable approach itself. The biggest issue for me was in convincing my non-Catholic friends, especially Atheists to embrace Catholicism. There are of course those who are just not looking for the truth. Those you cannot help. But there are those who are looking/open but just can’t see reasons. Sometimes they ask valid questions and I found myself sympathizing with them. So it is a search for a way to convey reasons for embracing Catholicism that lead me down this path.

In this sense, I usually tend to quote from other compiled lists For one thing, I always forget them off the top of my head. Even the Apostolic Succession ones, I have the passages listed so I can quickly refer.

So the lists I used for Primacy are from these places

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#II

Look under the section “Primacy of the Roman See”. Those you might have already seen.

Oh and I also use these points (specifically when discussing with Orthodox)

catholicnick.blogspot.ca/2012/07/five-patriarchs-pentarchy-separating.html

catholicnick.blogspot.ca/2010/10/council-of-nica-proves-papacy.html

I find his blog very useful on this issue. The stuff he has on Canons is actually very useful (at least in my experience).

 

[joe370]

JonNC

Hey Jon, if the east and west were to mend fences and come together as one, once again, would you then embrace the idea that a genuine Eucharistic sacrifice offered up to the Father, takes place…?

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, said the LORD of hosts.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, if the east and west were to mend fences and come together as one, once again, would you then embrace the idea that a genuine Eucharistic sacrifice offered up to the Father, takes place…?

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, said the LORD of hosts.

I would embrace anything they said.

Jon