Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bubba_Switzler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mesl4 said:
Of course. The question for Protestants is what is “The Church”? We don’t (at least the ones I’ve gravitated to) think the Church is a visible institution.
Click to expand...
For us, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, on earth and in Heaven. The “visible institution” is only the mechanism by which the whole is visible and functional. It is the incarnational aspect of the Mystical Body. Jesus had a physical body as well as His divine Personhood. So has His Church.
I’ve been studying what the RCC teaches, reading the cathechism and ECFs for over a year now. My RCIA class is not very helpful.
Click to expand...
I wish we did not hear this as often as we do. My experience was the same.
This forum is the most helpful, along w/the Catechism. But the Cathechism does teach that for mortal sins the only way to be forgiven is through a priest, or “perfect contrition” which means you intend to go as soon as able. This is all based on the priest then. So, as a Protestant, I would not be forgiven since I don’t believe in “priest only confession.”
Click to expand...
Ask the Boss to open your heart. I don’t want to sound like a Mormon ("See if you don’t feel the ‘burning in the bosom’) but this really IS a deeply personal encounter with Christ Himself. I can talk myself black in the face but it will not convey the essence of the experience: PEACE beyond all understanding. Yes. I had peace in my personal commitment and my personal contrition when I was not Catholic. But the incarnational aspect of the Sacrament is indescribable.
 
mercygate said:
What’s so great about not being forgiven by God directly? Nobody but God forgives sins. He does not leave the room. But He gave us one another as a sign of Communion. I find that most people who object to Confession, if pressed, are scared to death to speak their sins out loud in the presence of another sinner – perhaps a sinner worse than themselves.
Click to expand...
Actually, I like confessing. I wish I could go w/out being confirmed just in case it’s true that only the priest can forgive me for Christ. I’m a open book most of the time. In my Christian background, like you mentioned below, we do like to confess to eachother. But it is not because we don’t think we’ll be forgiven otherwise (if only confessing to GOd and repenting), but because it is healthy for our soul and makes us feel better and often helps us not do it again.
Yet many non-Catholics, recognizing the scriptural mandate to “confess to one another,” have adopted their own person-to-person form of confession they call “accountability partners.” Fellowship in the Body is how Christ mediates today – how He applies the Blood of Sacrifice.
Click to expand...
HOw do we know that Jesus didn’t mean this priestly duty to be passed to all believers, not just priests? There is plently of scriptural evidence for that. “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,” “judge not or you will be judged” “confess your sins to one another” (not just priests), etc.
 
mesl4 said:
Actually, I like confessing. I wish I could go w/out being confirmed just in case it’s true that only the priest can forgive me for Christ. I’m a open book most of the time. In my Christian background, like you mentioned below, we do like to confess to eachother. But it is not because we don’t think we’ll be forgiven otherwise (if only confessing to GOd and repenting), but because it is healthy for our soul and makes us feel better and often helps us not do it again.
HOw do we know that Jesus didn’t mean this priestly duty to be passed to all believers, not just priests? There is plently of scriptural evidence for that. “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,” “judge not or you will be judged” “confess your sins to one another” (not just priests), etc.
Click to expand...
The Apostolic Churches reserve the power of the keys to Priests because only to the Eleven did Our Lord say "Whose sins you forgive . . . "
 
mesl4 said:
But the other verses were to everyone.
Click to expand...
But the specific charism for declaring the forgiveness of sins is given only to the Eleven. My forgiving my enemy is not the power to declare that God has forgiven him. If I fail to forgive him, does God refuse forgiveness? I’m sure you see the difference.
 
mercygate said:
But the specific charism for declaring the forgiveness of sins is given only to the Eleven. My forgiving my enemy is not the power to declare that God has forgiven him. If I fail to forgive him, does God refuse forgiveness? I’m sure you see the difference.
Click to expand...
but the other verses indicate another means of forgiveness. So, if I am a forgiving person, and don’t hold grudges, God will forgive me and be merciful to me (without needing a priest to declare this to me perhaps?), and if I a a vengeful or not-forgiving person, God will be that way towards me .
 
mesl4 said:
but the other verses indicate another means of forgiveness. So, if I am a forgiving person, and don’t hold grudges, God will forgive me and be merciful to me (without needing a priest to declare this to me perhaps?), and if I a a vengeful or not-forgiving person, God will be that way towards me .
Click to expand...
Why would you want to avoid the one, certain means Our Lord Himself committed to His Apostles. The Greek grammar is absolutely clear: Whose sins YOU forgive they ARE forgiven. Everything else is about how we live in forgiveness. This one specific passage is about how it is obtained.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Can you recommend a good book that covers the period 65-110AD?

We had a modest handful of actual Protestants post in this thread and mostly the dismiss the idea that Protestants (still) subscribe to the Great Apostasy theory. The prevailing opinion these days is in favor of including Catholicism within a nebulous Christian commonwealth (though, apparently, Catholics are still on their way to hell for believing in salvation by works).
Click to expand...
You are not defined by what you say or think but by what you do! If you truly have faith then it will show by actions aka work. Catholics do not believe that they are saved by works but by faith and faith is shown by our fruits aka works or actions. Its pretty simple understanding unless one is blind or carelless to the truth. PS what is a zen catholic anyways? are you catholic or not?
 
jake23 said:
You are not defined by what you say or think but by what you do! If you truly have faith then it will show by actions aka work. Catholics do not believe that they are saved by works but by faith and faith is shown by our fruits aka works or actions.
Click to expand...
I think actually both Catholics and Protestants overstate their differences on this. I’ve read several current Protestant theologeans who have moved toward the Catholics understanding and Catholic theologeons have lately made more of an effort to explain works in terms of faith. (I’ll leave it to purists to argue whether that is a change in Catholic dogma.)
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Can you recommend a good book that covers the period 65-110AD?
Click to expand...
The challenge will be to find a single book that focuses on such a narrow time frame. However, the good news is that you can find the writings of the Apostolic Fathers that I mentioned online for free. Try www.newadvent.org.

One small book that will give you a good overview of the ECFs is The Fathers of the Church by Mike Aquilina.

Juergens also has a three-volume set with quotes arranged by topic which is quite good.
 
Randy_Carson said:
The challenge will be to find a single book that focuses on such a narrow time frame. However, the good news is that you can find the writings of the Apostolic Fathers that I mentioned online for free. Try www.newadvent.org.
Click to expand...
New Advent is organized by subject. It’s not organized by timeline.
Randy_Carson said:
One small book that will give you a good overview of the ECFs is The Fathers of the Church by Mike Aquilina.
Click to expand...
This looks promising though it seems from one of the reviews that it is 33AD to 300AD (Jesus to Constantine):

amazon.com/Fathers-Church-Expanded-Mike-Aquilina/dp/159276245X
Randy_Carson said:
Juergens also has a three-volume set with quotes arranged by topic which is quite good.
Click to expand...
Same problem as New Advent, I think.
 
does anyone know of other Christian writings from the ECF timeframe? Other than the usual Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. Some things that make me wonder about a Great Apostasy, are that the only Christian writings I’ve found are those that the RCC has approved. Are there others not approved, but that are not thought to be forgeries? Like maybe from other groups of Christians that were not part of the big church? I believe it is Clement who mentions those gathering “in unauthorized meetings.” Who? What were their practices?
 
mesl4 said:
does anyone know of other Christian writings from the ECF timeframe? Other than the usual Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. Some things that make me wonder about a Great Apostasy, are that the only Christian writings I’ve found are those that the RCC has approved. Are there others not approved, but that are not thought to be forgeries? Like maybe from other groups of Christians that were not part of the big church? I believe it is Clement who mentions those gathering “in unauthorized meetings.” Who? What were their practices?
Click to expand...
Actually, if you browse the list on this site given earlier:

earlychristianwritings.com/

You’ll find that many are of questionable reliability, e.g. purport to be written by Paul but historians doubt it.

One cearly non-Christian source is Josephus but he mostly covers the wars between Judea and Rome.

One group that Christians outside the Church was the gnostics and their writings have been preserved.

Another, the Ebionites, did not leave much behind, though many hesitate to call them Chrisitians.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
And what defines the Church? Can Protestants claim to be the Church? Mormons? The Catholic Church defines itself by Apostolic Succession.
Click to expand...
I think it is more proper to say that theChurch is defined as the Bride of Christ. Unity in that One Body of Christ depends upon adherance to the Truth - Teaching of Jesus. While it is the charge of those in the Apostolic succession are charged to preserve this, they are part of the teaching of Jesus, not the Source of it.
 
guanophore said:
I think it is more proper to say that theChurch is defined as the Bride of Christ. Unity in that One Body of Christ depends upon adherance to the Truth - Teaching of Jesus. While it is the charge of those in the Apostolic succession are charged to preserve this, they are part of the teaching of Jesus, not the Source of it.
Click to expand...
Of course, of course. But this is just a round-about way of saying that Catholics believe that you know who is telling the truth by their Apostolic Succession. There is no other test of truth in Catholicism whereas Protestants, for example, refer to the Bible to support their claims.

How, for example, do I know that it is true that the CC is the “bride of Christ”? How do I test that claim?
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
Of course, of course. But this is just a round-about way of saying that Catholics believe that you know who is telling the truth by their Apostolic Succession. There is no other test of truth in Catholicism whereas Protestants, for example, refer to the Bible to support their claims.

How, for example, do I know that it is true that the CC is the “bride of Christ”? How do I test that claim?
Click to expand...
Please do not suggest that Catholic teaching stands apart from Scripture. It hurts to roll my eyeballs up that far in my head. 😛

If “the” church is the Bride of Christ (2 Cor 11:2), then it must be identifiable. For us, the rationale is like this: Who has the paper trail? Who has the history? Who has continuity and consistency of teaching? The answer to those two questions is that the Apostolic Churches all have credible, identifiable lineage.

Catholics narrow the field a little by noting Jesus’ promise to build His church (not “the” church but “my” church) upon “this rock” – Peter. (Don’t run down the rabbit trail that Peter is not the rock; the Greek grammar simply will not support the claim.) For us, where Peter is, there is the core of Christ’s earthly Church. His Bride. Of course, for us, “the church” extends into the next world, encompassing all the blessed who have gone before us.
 
mercygate said:
If “the” church is the Bride of Christ (2 Cor 11:2), then it must be identifiable. For us, the rationale is like this: Who has the paper trail? Who has the history? Who has continuity and consistency of teaching? The answer to those two questions is that the Apostolic Churches all have credible, identifiable lineage…
Click to expand...
This was exactly my point. Now I don’t believe that Apostolic Succession is proof against error but neither to do I believe it counts for nothing.
mercygate said:
Catholics narrow the field a little by noting Jesus’ promise to build His church (not “the” church but “my” church) upon “this rock” – Peter. (Don’t run down the rabbit trail that Peter is not the rock; the Greek grammar simply will not support the claim.) For us, where Peter is, there is the core of Christ’s earthly Church. His Bride. Of course, for us, “the church” extends into the next world, encompassing all the blessed who have gone before us.
Click to expand...
“Bride” is, of course, a theological metaphor (one among many). At other times Catholics claim that the Church is (the body of) Christ.

Modern Protestants seem to take the position that the church is the broader body of Christians which, of course, would include those who have substantial theological differences with the Pope and those who claim Apostolic Succession.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top