Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mesl4 said:
Now, as I looked more deeply, I was not able to find any real evidence for these ideas above. On the contrary, I found more evidence for apostolic succession being Biblical and Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was key (Ch 44-48?) when he spoke of the apostles choosing successors. It just makes me so hesistant since Paul warned of wolves “not sparing the flock.” I just wonder if we can trust the Pope/leaders since like the other guys above said, the infallibility thing makes it really tricky. It leaves no room for just doing what your conscience tells you is right.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a chain of leadership that starts in the NT-at the same time there are leaders in the NT who don’t live up to the Apostolic standard-as mesl4 says, we are told be careful of wolves, to work out our own salvation and John praises those believers in 3 John who do not support Diotrophes’ dictatorial practices.

It seems the transition to a monarchical episcopate was an “error” that exacerbated the potential for an unspiritual leader to abuse those under his care with no fellow overseers to rein in his misbehaviour.
 
mesl4 said:
I can’t speak for all Protestants, but having grown up in non-Catholic christian churches, and have been pretty into it/evangelical the past 15 yrs or so, here’s my 2 cents:
Click to expand...
Thanks for joining the discussion. We’ve had a dearth of real Protestants here for what I tought would be a perfect topic to air the issues.
mesl4 said:
They know their Bible, and their tradition of their spiritual upbringing (though they’d NEVER say that or even think that), but they haven’t really thought about where or when an apostasy would have occured. They just see the way of the RCC and how institutionalized it is, and how different it seems from that message of Jesus. I think if they thought about it, like I did at first, they would just say there had always been a remnant of faithful, like in the OT, but power hungry people took over and got more power from the Empire, until the Church and Government were so intertwined that rules and power became too important.
Click to expand...
This is well said. The impression I get is that Protestants are of the general opinion that something is fishy with Catholicism even if they can’t quite figure out where things went wrong. (As I noted earlier, or maybe in another thread, pointing to Constantine is historically problematic for Protestants.)
mesl4 said:
Now, as I looked more deeply, I was not able to find any real evidence for these ideas above. On the contrary, I found more evidence for apostolic succession being Biblical and Clement’s letter to the Corinthians was key (Ch 44-48?) when he spoke of the apostles choosing successors. It just makes me so hesistant since Paul warned of wolves “not sparing the flock.” I just wonder if we can trust the Pope/leaders since like the other guys above said, the infallibility thing makes it really tricky. It leaves no room for just doing what your conscience tells you is right.
Click to expand...
Catholics will never admit it but the truth is that apostasy and apostolic succession are not mutually exclusive.
 
mesl4 said:
I just wonder if we can trust the Pope/leaders since like the other guys above said, the infallibility thing makes it really tricky. It leaves no room for just doing what your conscience tells you is right.
Click to expand...
The Church imposes nothing on you. 🙂 The Church proposes, and each person uses faith and reason to determine if what the Church proposes, is what Christ proposes.

The Church is authoritative, not authoritarian.

🙂

I was in the same spot as you are, a year ago. This one was a hurdle for me as well.

God bless you as you discern where He is leading you.

Rebecca
 
RebeccaJ said:
The Church imposes nothing on you. 🙂 The Church proposes, and each person uses faith and reason to determine if what the Church proposes, is what Christ proposes.

The Church is authoritative, not authoritarian.

🙂

I was in the same spot as you are, a year ago. This one was a hurdle for me as well.

God bless you as you discern where He is leading you.

Rebecca
Click to expand...
This is interesting-could you elaborate a bit more? The responses from many Catholics seem to suggest more of a “my way or the highway” sort of church.

What do you see as the proper response if one doubts that one of the Church’s propositions originated with Christ? Sort of a “Catholicism is mostly right” point of view.
 
Non_Serviam said:
This is interesting-could you elaborate a bit more? The responses from many Catholics seem to suggest more of a “my way or the highway” sort of church.

What do you see as the proper response if one doubts that one of the Church’s propositions originated with Christ? Sort of a “Catholicism is mostly right” point of view.
Click to expand...
No, that I would not be understanding something. That has been my experience.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The Church imposes nothing on you. 🙂 The Church proposes, and each person uses faith and reason to determine if what the Church proposes, is what Christ proposes…The Church is authoritative, not authoritarian.
Click to expand...
It’s always good to see someone who reconizes that distinction.
 
RebeccaJ said:
The Church imposes nothing on you. 🙂 The Church proposes, and each person uses faith and reason to determine if what the Church proposes, is what Christ proposes.

The Church is authoritative, not authoritarian.

🙂
Click to expand...
That’s not what I’ve seen. I’m in RCIA and was told that at confirmation, I will be asked if I believe or agree w/all the docrtines of the church. For that reason, I cannot be RC unless I DO agree w/them all. The 4 Mary dogmas must be believed. I am able to say, “Those dogmas are possible, but I can’t say for sure since only God knows.” but that would not be acceptable to the RCC. Same with confession to a priest as the only way to obtain forgiveness for mortal sins. So far, I don’t believe this is true, so I would not be able to be RC. If those things are NOT true, I don’t want to be RC, that’s why I’m carefully studying. The only reason I’d convert is if it’s true that I wont be forgiven w/out a priest’s absolution.
 
mesl4 said:
That’s not what I’ve seen. I’m in RCIA and was told that at confirmation, I will be asked if I believe or agree w/all the docrtines of the church.
Click to expand...
I was baptized and confirmed last Easter. No one asked me these questions.

Though, on my own, I would not have been baptized if I did not believe the Church teaches what is correct. During Lent, I spent a lot of time praying, fasting, and searching my own conscience, asking God to guide me. There were a few personal items that I had to get straight, things that no one would know about ever, but I didn’t want to be baptized with any lingering “doubts”.
For that reason, I cannot be RC unless I DO agree w/them all. The 4 Mary dogmas must be believed. I am able to say, “Those dogmas are possible, but I can’t say for sure since only God knows.” but that would not be acceptable to the RCC.
Click to expand...
🙂 I understand! msl4, I guess I approached it differently. I accept that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. I accept that the Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit. I didn’t come to this acceptance over night. And it is not something that I can say Wednesday I didn’t believe this, Thursday I did. It was an integral part of my conversion.

I accepted the “4 Mary dogmas” because I didn’t find them unacceptable. There is nothing in those doctrines that caused me to run screaming from the pew. It took me the longest time to say prayer one to Mary, and I still pray far more to Jesus than any Saint. But I like knowing she is there and that she is our Star, a guiding light to her Son. I carry a small Rosary around with me everywhere. The error I see sometimes, with some Catholics, is that they get to Mary and stop…gotta keep going where she is guiding us to! Her Son. This is the same for the Marian dogmas. These teachings do not exist on their own, you have to take them to where they lead: Jesus Christ.

Experience has taught me that the Marian dogmas are correct. And that is one thing I believe is important. I don’t have faith for the sake of having faith. Our faith is experienced.
Same with confession to a priest as the only way to obtain forgiveness for mortal sins. So far, I don’t believe this is true, so I would not be able to be RC. If those things are NOT true, I don’t want to be RC, that’s why I’m carefully studying. The only reason I’d convert is if it’s true that I wont be forgiven w/out a priest’s absolution.
Click to expand...
Confession is scripture based and also found in all of the ECF writings. This was important to me, as I wanted to know that the Sacraments have a solid apostolic foundation. Confession is one of the things that most certainly does.

I didn’t want to accept this myself, because I didn’t want to do it. I spent decades not believing in sin, let alone a belief that you confessed such a thing. I have a hard time, still, working up the will to tell someone stuff I don’t tell anyone. But, I believe it is a correct teaching.

I expressed this to the deacon in our RCIA once, and he said that it is very normal for adult converts. For my own experience, this is another part of our faith that is experienced. There is no way for me to convey to you the graces that come through this Sacrament. But they are, very literally, astounding.

It is a Sacrament of healing, not of condemnation.
 
mesl4 said:
I can’t believe there are no responses! I’m a wavering Protestant…up and down heading towards Catholicism. This question if for me what it all boils down to. What happened between the apostles and Clement or Ignatius? I can’t seem to find that missing link which makes me hesitant. Maybe there was some rapture or some crazy end of the world thing that happened at the time of the last apostles’ death…the "last martyr " of Revelation and that was when Satan was released to deceive the nations. This is my fear of why there doesn’t seem to be any link in that “mini dark age” you refer to. So if someone can help, that would be great!
Click to expand...
“Between the Apostles and Clement or Ignatius?” Clement writes during the lifetime of John. Ignatius was evangelized by John and writes 20 years after his death. So there’s no “between.” Clement was ordained by Peter. Again: no “between.”
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Thanks for joining the discussion. We’ve had a dearth of real Protestants here for what I tought would be a perfect topic to air the issues.

This is well said. The impression I get is that Protestants are of the general opinion that something is fishy with Catholicism even if they can’t quite figure out where things went wrong. (As I noted earlier, or maybe in another thread, pointing to Constantine is historically problematic for Protestants.)

Catholics will never admit it but the truth is that apostasy and apostolic succession are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Just to get technical here, “apostasy,” in Catholic parlance, refers to the denial of Jesus Christ. It kind of narrows the discussion.
 
mesl4 said:
That’s not what I’ve seen. I’m in RCIA and was told that at confirmation, I will be asked if I believe or agree w/all the docrtines of the church. For that reason, I cannot be RC unless I DO agree w/them all. The 4 Mary dogmas must be believed. I am able to say, “Those dogmas are possible, but I can’t say for sure since only God knows.” but that would not be acceptable to the RCC. Same with confession to a priest as the only way to obtain forgiveness for mortal sins. So far, I don’t believe this is true, so I would not be able to be RC. If those things are NOT true, I don’t want to be RC, that’s why I’m carefully studying. The only reason I’d convert is if it’s true that I wont be forgiven w/out a priest’s absolution.
Click to expand...
Confession is the BEST part! And it’s deeply scriptural. And it’s liberating beyond belief.

But we converts do have to meet a very high standard. Took me a LONG time to step up to the plate. Ultimately, Consent is all that is required. I was still groggy about the finer points of the Marian dogmas * when I stood up and said "I believe and profess all that the Catholic Church proposes . . . " but I had finally achieved enough confidence in the Church to know that the Church was a lot smarter than I am. The Church had won every other battle I tried to fight (all of 'em: the papacy, apostolic succession, confesson, the Real Presence, sacraments . . . Once I concluded that the Church IS Christ’s Church, I could accept my remaining doubts as MY problem, not a problem with the Church.*
 
mercygate said:
Just to get technical here, “apostasy,” in Catholic parlance, refers to the denial of Jesus Christ. It kind of narrows the discussion.
Click to expand...
Ok, but I don’t think that’s what Protestants meant by it but since no Protestants have stepped forward to defend the Great Apostasy it’s pretty academic here.
 
mesl4 said:
Same with confession to a priest as the only way to obtain forgiveness for mortal sins.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, when I was in confession a while back I was told that the CC no longer takes this view. That was news to me but I didn’t take the occassion to discuss it with him.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Interestingly, when I was in confession a while back I was told that the CC no longer takes this view. That was news to me but I didn’t take the occassion to discuss it with him.
Click to expand...
It is the only NORMATIVE way. There are escape clauses. But Confession is the way it’s done barring extraordinary circumstances, like the plane is going down and there’s no time.
 
mercygate said:
It is the only NORMATIVE way. There are escape clauses. But Confession is the way it’s done barring extraordinary circumstances, like the plane is going down and there’s no time.
Click to expand...
Yes, that I have heard before. But the priest was not referring to that. He was referring to simple contrition. In this case I had made it clear to him that I regretted the particular choice long before I formally confessed it to him. For what it’s worth.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Yes, that I have heard before. But the priest was not referring to that. He was referring to simple contrition. In this case I had made it clear to him that I regretted the particular choice long before I formally confessed it to him. For what it’s worth.
Click to expand...
If it was not a mortal sin, confession was not required. But this is off topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top