Buying office and Apostolic Succesion?

[phil19034]

OK, on that note - if the one giving the sacrament - say baptism - is wrong enough to get excommunicated, and the one receiving it is doing it with the same level of wrong motive - is it still valid?

If someone is baptized by an excommunicated priest, are they baptized?

If they did it for money, is it still valid?

Yes, an excommunicated priest can validly baptize. Even you, a lay person, can validly baptize a person. The bishop and priests are the ordinary ministers of Baptism, but any baptized Christian can baptize another validly.

Such an example would be an example of an illicit baptism, but it’s still validly.

I think you are getting validity mixed up with legality.

All the examples you provide in your posts are mostly examples of illicit Sacarments, not invalid ones.

The Holy Spirit is actually the power behind all the Sacarments. The humans are the ministers, but the Holy Spirit actually performs the miracles that are each Sacarment.

Jesus and His Church provided with with objective ways to know whether the Sacarments are valid or not. This was so we would not doubt the validity of the Sacarments. What good is going to Confession if you don’t know if it was a valid confession or not. What good is receiving the Eurcharst if you don’t know if you just worshiped God or Bread?

The things you mentioned are subjective factors. The only Sacarment where subjective factors can play a role is with Holy Matrimony, and that’s because BOTH the Bride and Groom are the ordinary ministers of that Sacarment. The Deacon, Priest or Bishop only facilitate. In all the other Sacarments, the Bishop and Priests are the ordinary ministers of the Sacarments (except Confirmation, where the priest is an extraordinary minister, Deacons are also extraordinary ministers of Baptism). This is why there is the decree of nullity process for Mariages that appear to be invalid. But none of the other Sacarments have such a process, because the remaining 6 are objective.

In matrimony, the vows are the key part of the Sacrament. No other Sacarment has vows. Holy Orders has promises that are made, but they are not vows and do not carry the same weight as the matrimonial vows.

So regardless of the legality of of the Sacarment, they are still valid if they follow the proper form.

I pray this is helpful.

God Bless

 

[Wesrock]

1 Timothy 5:22
“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.”

I would think buying and selling a sacred office or position would violate this.

Acts 8:20
But Peter replied, "May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!

Peter didn’t seem to like the idea either.

Do not be hast in the laying on of hands . . . Why? Because it creates a valid appointment. The sacrament happens. It’s precisely because ot creates a permanent mark that bishops are to choose carefully, because they can’t take it back. I see this quote as proof of validity.

 

[Markie_Boy]

Acts 8:20
But Peter replied, "May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!

Doesn’t Peter say God’s gift can not be bought? If both parties are in it for the wrong - is the gift really given? It’s God’s gift - not man’s.

 

[Wesrock]

Acts 8:20
But Peter replied, "May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!

Doesn’t Peter say God’s gift can not be bought? If both parties are in it for the wrong - is the gift really given? It’s God’s gift - not man’s.

It was the insult to God that God’s blessing could be bought. It never is. Whatever God gives is given freely. It is wrong to buy such things, but God’s action has nothing to do with whether or not it was paid for.

 

[Markie_Boy]

As I read Acts 8:20-21:

20
But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money.
21
You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God.

To me this says that someone that thought they bought the office and gift, really did not gain it - for their heart was not upright before God.

I just don’t see how one can deny this, as it’s so clear in scripture.

 

[Todd977]

Acts 8:20
But Peter replied, "May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!

Doesn’t Peter say God’s gift can not be bought?

Peter’s words need not be taken to mean that it is absolutely impossible to buy God’s gift; he may simply mean that it is morally impossible to buy God’s gift. In other words, it may possible to buy God’s gift but it is unethical to do so.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

As I read Acts 8:20-21:

20
But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money.
21
You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God.

To me this says that someone that thought they bought the office and gift, really did not gain it - for their heart was not upright before God.

I just don’t see how one can deny this, as it’s so clear in scripture.

Hi Markie. I wonder how we explain this, then:

Matthew 7:22-23New Living Translation (NLT)

22 On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ 23 But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’

I’m sure their hearts were not upright either, yet they seem to have this ability.

Not the individual that matters, it’s the office that stands always, no matter what.

 

[Wesrock]

As I read Acts 8:20-21:

20
But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money.
21
You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God.

To me this says that someone that thought they bought the office and gift, really did not gain it - for their heart was not upright before God.

I just don’t see how one can deny this, as it’s so clear in scripture.

No validity of a sacrament is being questioned in this passage. Peter just finds it morally reprehnsible to even try to do it.

 

[twf]

As I read Acts 8:20-21:

20
But Peter said to him, “May your money perish with you, because you thought that you could buy the gift of God with money.
21
You have no share or lot in this matter, for your heart is not upright before God.

To me this says that someone that thought they bought the office and gift, really did not gain it - for their heart was not upright before God.

I just don’t see how one can deny this, as it’s so clear in scripture.

St Peter does not confer the sacrament at all in this scenario. He refuses to do so. That was his right - so because the sacrament was not conferred of course Simon the magician had no share in the office. It is gravely sinful to “buy” holy orders and it is gravely sinful for a bishop to ordain a wicked man a bishop… Yet the sacrament still occurs for it is not dependent upon the holiness of the minister but rather upon Christ. A wicked man ordained a bishop may be damned in the end. He may not benefit from the graces he received, yet Christ is greater than the man’s sin and can still work through him. The succession continues. Someone once described it as a ray of sunlight passing through a cloud of dust. Is the sunlight less pure after it passes through the dust?
Can you imagine how horrible it would be for us as Catholics if we had to constantly doubt the validity of sacraments because we couldn’t be certain that the minister was sufficiently holy? Thankfully Christ IS sufficiently holy. All sacraments depend on Him not the human minister.
As noted earlier in this thread Jesus commands His disciples to obey even the corrupt and wicked Pharisees because they sat “on the Chair of Moses”. They had real authority from God even if they chose to abuse it. Look also at the high priest Caiaphas. He condemns Christ to death yet Scripture says he spoke “by the Spirit” by virtue of his office of high priesthood (see John 11:49-51).

 

[Markie_Boy]

St Peter does not confer the sacrament at all in this scenario. He refuses to do so. That was his right - so because the sacrament was not conferred of course Simon the magician had no share in the office. It is gravely sinful to “buy” holy orders and it is gravely sinful for a bishop to ordain a wicked man a bishop… Yet the sacrament still occurs for it is not dependent upon the holiness of the minister but rather upon Christ. A wicked man ordained a bishop may be damned in the end. He may not benefit from the graces he received, yet Christ is greater than the man’s sin and can still work through him. The succession continues. Someone once described it as a ray of sunlight passing through a cloud of dust. Is the sunlight less pure after it passes through the dust?
Can you imagine how horrible it would be for us as Catholics if we had to constantly doubt the validity of sacraments because we couldn’t be certain that the minister was sufficiently holy? Thankfully Christ IS sufficiently holy. All sacraments depend on Him not the human minister.
As noted earlier in this thread Jesus commands His disciples to obey even the corrupt and wicked Pharisees because they sat “on the Chair of Moses”. They had real authority from God even if they chose to abuse it. Look also at the high priest Caiaphas. He condemns Christ to death yet Scripture says he spoke “by the Spirit” by virtue of his office of high priesthood (see John 11:49-51).

If sacraments depend on Christ and not a human minister - why do you need priest?

It seems he told people to listen to what the Pharisees said from the Chair of Moses, because when they did this they were using the scriptures, which did have authority. But he said to not do what they do, because they didn’t practice what they preach.

I find it odd that someone would say you have to listen to a wicked person, who is even in conflict with God, because they have authority.

Apostolic succession is not clear in scripture, laying of hands yes, but the passing of the gifts given to the Apostles - I don’t see it. It seems based on man’s assumption.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

If sacraments depend on Christ and not a human minister - why do you need priest?

It seems he told people to listen to what the Pharisees said from the Chair of Moses, because when they did this they were using the scriptures, which did have authority. But he said to not do what they do, because they didn’t practice what they preach.

I find it odd that someone would say you have to listen to a wicked person, who is even in conflict with God, because they have authority.

Apostolic succession is not clear in scripture, laying of hands yes, but the passing of the gifts given to the Apostles - I don’t see it. It seems based on man’s assumption.

It was the Apostolic Church that gave birth(in a sense) to the scriptures.

Rejecting Oral Tradition/Church teaching, is rejecting the same vehicle that gave us the bible we hold today.

Not all Church teaching will be completely spelled out in the scriptures. But none of it will ever contradict it.

 

[twf]

If sacraments depend on Christ and not a human minister - why do you need priest?

It seems he told people to listen to what the Pharisees said from the Chair of Moses, because when they did this they were using the scriptures, which did have authority. But he said to not do what they do, because they didn’t practice what they preach.

I find it odd that someone would say you have to listen to a wicked person, who is even in conflict with God, because they have authority.

Apostolic succession is not clear in scripture, laying of hands yes, but the passing of the gifts given to the Apostles - I don’t see it. It seems based on man’s assumption.

That’s not what Jesus said. He didn’t say to listen to them because they quoted Scripture. He said to listen to them because they “Sat on the Chair of Moses”. What does “chair” in this context mean? What did it mean to a Jewish audience? Teaching authority. They had authority by virtue of their office, by virtue of sitting on “the chair of Moses.”.

Apostolic succession is strongly implied in Scripture even if it isn’t spelled out. Judas was succeeded in his apostolic ministry as one of the early Church’s first acts (see Acts 1). Throughout the Acts we see that the Apostles appointed “elders in every town” to govern the local churches on their behalf. We see St. Paul entrusted Sts. Timothy and Titus with authority, commanding them to appoint elders to govern with them. St. Paul commands St. Timothy to ensure a succession of teachers: and what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well. (2 Tim. 2:2).

I am sure you know Catholics reject the Protestant novelty of “sola scriptura”. Scripture itself does not teach that Scripture is our sole authority…in fact it says just the opposite: if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15, NRSVCE). St. Paul commands the early Church to hold fast to both written (Scripture) and oral traditions: *So then, brothers and sisters,[a] stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter. *(2 Thess. 2:15).
The Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of truth. When the early Church had theological conflicts, did they open the Scriptures and try to discern the truth? Nope. They convened an apostolic council and the decision of the apostles bound the whole Church (see Acts 15). If Scripture is your sole authority, how do you determine what constitutes Scripture? There is no inspired index. The New Testament you use only exists in its present form because the bishops of the Catholic Church, exercising their apostolic authority, declared it so. The early Church had no concept of “the Bible” in the modern sense of the word. Scripture was a loose collection of sacred texts that varied somewhat from place to place.
Are you familiar with St. Ignatius of Antioch? He was a disciple of the Apostle John. We have 7 of his letters which were written in the early 100s, shortly after the book of Revelation was written. He speaks very firmly on the topic of apostolic succession and the necessity of obeying the local bishop.

Regarding your first question, we need priests because Christ decreed it so! Christ doesn’t need human ministers for anything, but He chose to share His ministry with others. He chose to incorporate us into His mystical body. The Church is the mystical extension of the incarnation - it continues the work He began. Why doesn’t Christ personally appear before every man on earth and preach the Gospel? Because He decided He wanted to send us out in His place. All of us are called to share Christ with others. Those ordained in apostolic succession exercise a special ministry including forgiving sins on Christ’s behalf:

• Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”* (John 20:21-23).

 

[Markie_Boy]

Thanks all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think the protestant world is a lot of confusion, so I am looking and learning.

The thing that bugs me on this one is the idea that a ceremony or process would “work” even if the peoples hearts were wrong. It seems contrary to how Jesus taught, and says that it’s the ceremony or process that counts, not the heart.

 

[jlhargus]

Mark

 

[jlhargus]

521

Back when the office of bishop was at times purchased so I have read, wouldn’t this break a chain of apostolic succession?

Wow - that seems to go against scripture pretty clearly. Someone that would seek to buy or sell God given authority seems wicked to me. So a wicked person could lay hands on another wicked person, and that person has God given authority? I can’t agree with that.

Yes clearly, someone that bought or sold God given authority is wicked.

[Mt23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 **All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.]

[Jn11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 49 And one of them, named **Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;]

Authority resides in the office not in the holiness or lack thereof of the person holding the office. The Romans appointed and removed a High Priest as they wished. Annas, Caiaphas’s father in law, was removed by Rome and replaced with Caiaphas. It is highly likely money changed hands to keep the Office in the family.

[Jn18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13 And led him away to **Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. 14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.]

Remember King David, a prophet and king, he didn’t lose his authority when he committed adultery and had the lady’s husband killed. All unrepentant sinners will answer to God for their actions. The fact that some popes were sinners is confirmation of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who preserves the truth of the Gospel proclaimed by the Church.

 

[Fauken]

Thanks all for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I think the protestant world is a lot of confusion, so I am looking and learning.

The thing that bugs me on this one is the idea that a ceremony or process would “work” even if the peoples hearts were wrong. It seems contrary to how Jesus taught, and says that it’s the ceremony or process that counts, not the heart.

Well really, everyone’s heart is wrong (except Christ’s and Our Lady’s, of course). Yours, mine, Peter’s, Paul’s, Judas’, etc. Really, who are we to judge whose heart is more wrong? But Jesus still instituted a Priesthood. Jesus gave us imperfect mortal men this divine authority. And a Church he promised that the gates of Hell would not succeed against it. The beauty and the miracle of Holy Orders is that God takes the hands of a flawed, mortal man, and does something beautiful with them–baptism, confirmation, consecrating the Eucharist, all the sacraments.

God makes something good out of something evil. With Holy Orders, he makes something miraculous out of such an unworthy and flawed tool. Does this help you?

 

[Markie_Boy]

Helps a little. We are all sinners, but we are not all saved. I don’t see Peter and Judas in the same category.

I just don’t see anything in scripture, where a process or profession is valid, without the heart of at least the receiver in the right place. Often the state of the heart or faith seems the ONLY thing that makes the difference.

What I see the church saying is the process is valid, even if heart of both parties is totally wrong. This makes it about the ceremony, not the faith.

 

[Usagi]

Helps a little. We are all sinners, but we are not all saved. I don’t see Peter and Judas in the same category.

I just don’t see anything in scripture, where a process or profession is valid, without the heart of at least the receiver in the right place. Often the state of the heart or faith seems the ONLY thing that makes the difference.

What I see the church saying is the process is valid, even if heart of both parties is totally wrong. This makes it about the ceremony, not the faith.

I understand your concern, but as others have said the objective working of the sacraments is important to us as believers. It would be terrible if we regularly had to worry about the validity of our own baptism, or whether any given priest is validly ordained, or is validly confecting the Eucharist this week.

The faith and disposition of the minister and the recipient still matter in that they can be spiritually damaged rather than helped if they take part in the sacraments sacrilegiously, but by God’s grace and power the sacrament still does its main thing.

We actually do see examples of offices that persist through their holders’ sins in Scrripture, particularly in the Old Testament. Others have mentioned King David and Caiaphas, but perhaps the most enlightening example is King Saul. He was actively rejected by God in favor of David, who made war to depose him. Yet when a soldier killed Saul and came to David expecting a reward, David had the man executed for daring to lay violent hands on “the Lord’s anointed.” Even in his rival’s eyes, Saul’s God-given office persisted until the day he died.

 

[Markie_Boy]

We are getting closer. I can see the Saul reference. The only thing is he started right it seems and went wrong.

Is there anywhere that someone just started wrong and it was acceptable?

 

[Wesrock]

This is only my own thoughts, but I’m reminded of Elisha’s healing of Naaman the Syrian of leprosy in the Jordan. He was an enemy of Israel, and he doubted Elisha’s instructions on how to be healed, but at the urging of his servants he went and bathed in the Jordan as directed anyway, and it was efficacious despite his doubts and history as an enemy of Israel. It was only after his cure that he truly recognized the God of Israel and decided to serve him.

I don’t think it’s necessary to find explicit commands in scripture for everything. Apostolic succession is at least hinted at, and the testimony of the early Church on this matter and the sacraments is not inconsistent with what we find in scripture. If they say more where the scripture said a little less, but there is no conflict. I don’t see any reason to doubt them. They were closer. They were directly taught by appointed bishops and presbyters and appointed themselves by them. I give more credence to their testimony in harmony with the scriptures than I do to trying to figure out what the apostles did strictly from reading the Bible 1900 years later. I also don’t think anyone thinks Confession was always done kneeling in a private confessional booth. The Church did formalzie the process over time, there was some development in the form and practice of it, but the commission to forgive sins and to bind and loose goes back to Jesus himself, and was to continue after the apostles went to their long sleep by those they laid hands upon to appoint as bishops and presbyters.