check out this anti catholic blog

[PerryJ]

Clements letter does show Aposotlic Succession.

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”

It is referring to the Apostles setting up the concept of succession

Below he also shows that God is working directly through them. They have authority over the Church. In this letter he states many times to be humble. As such he does refer to “we”.

"Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger"

 

[PerryJ]

Note also that when the Corinthians respond to Rome they state:

“the letter we received from your bishop Clement, which we still read regularly.”

Corinth acknowledges his authority as Bishop the leader of the Roman Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Clements letter does show Aposotlic Succession.

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry”

This shows that the apostles were the ones who began the ministry of the gospel through their preaching, teaching, and installation of ministers in the churches they founded. I have no disagreement with this. As stated in previous posts, the apostles are the foundation of the church. What that quote doesn’t say is that the apostles ordained ministers, and it’s necessary for those bishops to have ordained bishops and those bishops to have ordained bishops and on and on and on so that every bishop has to trace his ecclesiastical lineage to one of the apostles as taught by Rome, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. Nor does it show that the apostolic ministry, that is, the gifts given to the apostles, would be given to their successors. Nor does it state the reception of a single bishop within each city as is the form that Rome claims is dogmatic revelation.

Below he also shows that God is working directly through them. They have authority over the Church. In this letter he states many times to be humble. As such he does refer to “we”.

"Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger"

This shows the primacy of apostolic teaching to be that which God has given to the church through divine revelation. Of course violating that would be dangerous!

 

[johnnycatholic7]

If he was 24 yrs old and Catholic, you would say it without the sarcasm. Most of you on here are pretty much the same and it’s sad. If you only knew the saving power of Christ. Heck, if you only knew the Scriptures you supposedly read!

Actually I do know the Scriptures, not as well as you maybe and I’m not theologian. However, let me share my story with you. I’m a convert to Catholicism from baptist protestantism. I recently, for reasons I don’t really know had a major crisis of faith. I reverted back to protestantism. The preacher there, a wonderful man by the name of Edward Dixon inspired me to start reading the Scriptures prayerfully and often. So I started reading them, and let me tell you, the more I read of them the more I started to see the wisdom in truth in Catholicism. So I’m a Bible believein’ Christian, hence why I’m a Catholic.

 

[PerryJ]

This shows that the apostles were the ones who began the ministry of the gospel through their preaching, teaching, and installation of ministers in the churches they founded. I have no disagreement with this. As stated in previous posts, the apostles are the foundation of the church. What that quote doesn’t say is that the apostles ordained ministers, and it’s necessary for those bishops to have ordained bishops and those bishops to have ordained bishops and on and on and on so that every bishop has to trace his ecclesiastical lineage to one of the apostles as taught by Rome, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. Nor does it show that the apostolic ministry, that is, the gifts given to the apostles, would be given to their successors. Nor does it state the reception of a single bishop within each city as is the form that Rome claims is dogmatic revelation.

This shows the primacy of apostolic teaching to be that which God has given to the church through divine revelation. Of course violating that would be dangerous!

Do you take it as teaching or authority? From the letter I take it as both.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Do you take it as teaching or authority? From the letter I take it as both.

Both. There isn’t any question that the hierarchy of the church is authoritative. Scripture must have a context in which the doctrines it teaches plays out in the life of the Church. The anarchic forms of government that plague many neo-evangelical and non-denominational churches has always been repugnant to historic, Protestant, catholic Christianity. This is why Luther and other reformers were so aghast at the anabaptist movement. The corrective to tyrannical authority, such as it existed during the middle ages, is not anarchy.

The authority of called ministers is to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline. This does not belong to the laity. Pastors, elders, and teachers are called to do this. However, we do not hold that there is some mystical gift that is transferred to a pastor that a layman doesn’t have. If I were called to administer the sacraments, I could do this just as any other minister, but it is not my vocation, hence I don’t do it.

 

[mercygate]

Both. There isn’t any question that the hierarchy of the church is authoritative. Scripture must have a context in which the doctrines it teaches plays out in the life of the Church. The anarchic forms of government that plague many neo-evangelical and non-denominational churches has always been repugnant to historic, Protestant, catholic Christianity. This is why Luther and other reformers were so aghast at the anabaptist movement. The corrective to tyrannical authority, such as it existed during the middle ages, is not anarchy.

The authority of called ministers is to preach the word, administer the sacraments, and exercise church discipline. This does not belong to the laity. Pastors, elders, and teachers are called to do this. However, we do not hold that there is some mystical gift that is transferred to a pastor that a layman doesn’t have. If I were called to administer the sacraments, I could do this just as any other minister, but it is not my vocation, hence I don’t do it.

In Catholic-think, the word pastor would not be used here. We DO believe, consistent with all the historic, Apostolic Churches, that there is a “mystical gift” committed to the Apostolic Priesthood via the laying-on of hands for administration of the Sacraments. This is how Our Lord fuflfills the promise to the Eleven of sending “another paraclete” who will “guide you into all the truth.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

In Catholic-think, the word pastor would not be used here. We DO believe, consistent with all the historic, Apostolic Churches, that there is a “mystical gift” committed to the Apostolic Priesthood via the laying-on of hands for administration of the Sacraments. This is how Our Lord fuflfills the promise to the Eleven of sending “another paraclete” who will “guide you into all the truth.”

And we contend that no where in Scripture is this mystical gift mentioned or specifically communicated to anyone other than an apostle. The fulfillment of sending another paraclete was the Holy Spirit revealing God’s doctrine to them in their teachings which were committed unto writing.

Your post from before is longer, but I will work on responding to it when I get home from work

 

[mercygate]

And we contend that no where in Scripture is this mystical gift mentioned or specifically communicated to anyone other than an apostle. The fulfillment of sending another paraclete was the Holy Spirit revealing God’s doctrine to them in their teachings which were committed unto writing.

Your post from before is longer, but I will work on responding to it when I get home from work

Since the commission of these gifts to and through the Church in the way the historic Churches understand it went unchallenged for 1500 years, I submit that denial of the Apostolic understanding represents a deviant understanding of Holy Orders.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Since the commission of these gifts to and through the Church in the way the historic Churches understand it went unchallenged for 1500 years, I submit that denial of the Apostolic understanding represents a deviant understanding of Holy Orders.

An ancient interpretation does not mean the interpretation is necessarily correct. It could equally mean it was just wrong for a long period of time. And that is just assuming that the modern Roman Catholic doctrine is being projected 2000 years into the past.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And we contend that no where in Scripture is this mystical gift mentioned or specifically communicated to anyone other than an apostle.

What is the purpose of your ordinations? Isn’t it to confer some type of,authority?

The fulfillment of sending another paraclete was the Holy Spirit revealing God’s doctrine to them in their teachings which were committed unto writing.

Agreed, all revelations ceases. The seeds (Kerygma) of Christ’s Teachings were left with the Apostles and no one else. But our understanding of the Teaching develops, we are an organic living Church. Who has the authority to declare an interpretation as valid or heretic? Clearly there is a great deal of difference in interpretation, all claiming to use the same Scriptures. (See Reformed and Sola).

BTW, Reformed, you should start a new thread rather than change the topic of the thread if you want to start a new discussion.

 

[TriuneUnity]

What is the purpose of your ordinations? Isn’t it to confer some type of,authority?

Yes; but not to communicate some special spiritual ability that is closed off to the laity.

Agreed, all revelations ceases. The seeds (Kerygma) of Christ’s Teachings were left with the Apostles and no one else. But our understanding of the Teaching develops, we are an organic living Church. Who has the authority to declare an interpretation as valid or heretic? Clearly there is a great deal of difference in interpretation, all claiming to use the same Scriptures. (See Reformed and Sola).

The substance of that revelation is contained in Scripture. It isn’t available “in the church” apart from the source of apostolic doctrine. Otherwise, the church can simply pronounce anything it wishes to be apostolic teaching without any evidence to support it. Which we would contend Rome has done on numerous ocassions. Understanding develops, but the teaching doesn’t. This isn’t demonstrably true in Roman Catholic theology. What the Magisterium tends to do is pronounce a doctrine to have always been believed by the Church even if the evidence is to the contrary. I agree the Church has the authority to pronounce a doctrine to be against the apostolic faith. It just isn’t infallible when it does so.

BTW, Reformed, you should start a new thread rather than change the topic of the thread if you want to start a new discussion.

I haven’t; the topic so far has been completely malleable lol

 

[qui_est_ce]

Since the commission of these gifts to and through the Church in the way the historic Churches understand it went unchallenged for 1500 years, I submit that denial of the Apostolic understanding represents a deviant understanding of Holy Orders.

Those who denied Apostolic understanding excommunicated themselves from the Church and their Bishops had the duty to publicly declare their teaching as heresy.

 

[mercygate]

An ancient interpretation does not mean the interpretation is necessarily correct.** It could equally mean it was just wrong for a long period of time**. And that is just assuming that the modern Roman Catholic doctrine is being projected 2000 years into the past.

I understand that as a Protestant, you must come up with this kind of conclusion. You absolutely cannot – can not – view the Apostolic teaching as authoritative on these points.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I understand that as a Protestant, you must come up with this kind of conclusion. You absolutely cannot – can not – view the Apostolic teaching as authoritative on these points.

I don’t have to. I was granting that the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of bishops and apostolic succession began with the early church. Since I don’t accept that presupposition, I don’t have to say the church was wrong for 1500 years.

 

[mercygate]

I don’t have to. I was granting that the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of bishops and apostolic succession began with the early church. Since I don’t accept that presupposition, I don’t have to say the church was wrong for 1500 years.

I’ll take your word for it; I misunderstood your position. Before I was an Anglican, I would have rejected the entire IDEA of apostolic succession based on a non-apostolic reading of the New Testament. You’re smarter than I was.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’ll take your word for it; I misunderstood your position. Before I was an Anglican, I would have rejected the entire IDEA of apostolic succession based on a non-apostolic reading of the New Testament. You’re smarter than I was.

The question for us as Lutherans is not “is there succession in the church.” The question is “what is the succession based on.” For us, it is based solely on apostolic teaching and remaining faithful to it. If an individual bishop changes doctrine, teaches falsely, etc, they are not in any succession from the early church even if two hundred popes laid hands on him. He has invalidated his ministry.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Yes; but not to communicate some special spiritual ability that is closed off to the laity.

Ok, so for you ordination is not sacramental. It’s more like getting a doctrinal degree.

The substance of that revelation is contained in Scripture. It isn’t available “in the church” apart from the source of apostolic doctrine. Otherwise, the church can simply pronounce anything it wishes to be apostolic teaching without any evidence to support it.

No, it must be rooted in Scripture and Tradition.

Which we would contend Rome has done on numerous ocassions. Understanding develops, but the teaching doesn’t. This isn’t demonstrably true in Roman Catholic theology. What the Magisterium tends to do is pronounce a doctrine to have always been believed by the Church even if the evidence is to the contrary. I agree the Church has the authority to pronounce a doctrine to be against the apostolic faith. It just isn’t infallible when it does so.

If you don’t have Authority, you get chaos.

I haven’t; the topic so far has been completely malleable lol

Glad you’re so good-natured (must be the jello and coffee), but I was directing it to Reformed. I know you’re not Reformed

 

[TriuneUnity]

Ok, so for you ordination is not sacramental. It’s more like getting a doctrinal degree.

Ordination would be. Being called to a congregation is where the ministry actually starts though.

No, it must be rooted in Scripture and Tradition. If you don’t have Authority, you get chaos.

Tradition is not coinherent with authority. The problem with tradition from our perspective, is continuing tradition down through the ages is not promised to be inspired or infallible as Scripture is. Granted, oral preaching existed in the apostolic ministry and was inspired but we don’t have access to it outside of what is written in Scripture. We have no evidence other than the word of ecclesiastical officers that what they teach is, in fact, apostolic.

Glad you’re so good-natured (must be the jello and coffee), but I was directing it to Reformed. I know you’re not Reformed

Thank the Lord for small favors.

 

[mercygate]

The question for us as Lutherans is not “is there succession in the church.” The question is “what is the succession based on.” For us, it is based solely on apostolic teaching and remaining faithful to it. If an individual bishop changes doctrine, teaches falsely, etc, they are not in any succession from the early church even if two hundred popes laid hands on him. He has invalidated his ministry.

For us it is more nuanced.

Although a Priest or Bishop may be disobedient and a lunatic, a schismatic, or even a heretic, the sacramental grace of his Priesthood marks him indelibly, as baptism marks all of the faithful indelibly. He can no more be not-a-priest than we can be not-baptized. He may be inhibited from exercising his priesthood or even excommunicated but he remains a priest or a bishop: “Iuravit Dominus et non paenitebit: Tu es sacerdos in aeternam secundum ordinem Melchisidech.” (The Lord has sworn and will not repent: thou art a priest forever after the Order of Melchlizedek.) A Priest may wield his Apostolic gifts irresponsibly – look at all the splinter churches in the Anglican Communion that have “valid” but illicit Orders, having obtained them from vaganti bishops in the Apostolic lines – but if I am on the Titanic, he can receive my last Confession and pronounce absolution validly.

Succession for us is based on Our Lord’s fidelity to His Church, and not just on the fidelity of individual bishops to the Lord.