Do any Protestant communities have valid Apostolic Succession?

[vsedriver]

In regard to representing Christ in the role of president of the Eucharist, why do you think non-Judean men are adequate representatives, of black or yellow men?

because they are still men. Just as the wine can be either red or white, it is still wine. but not grape juice.

I understand that because you consider the pronouncement of the Magisterium on this matter to be infallible, you are going to hang on here come hell or high water. But I trust you are aware that the sensus fidelium is clearly shifting on this matter, infallible pronouncement or not.

Sensus Fidelium? are you suggesting that the local churches will ordain women in spite of the teaching of the Magisterium? If the Magisterium is wrong then there is no point in having a Magisterium or dogmas or doctrines. We can have a freeforall church. Wait, we already have that. It’s called protestantism. Either the Holy Spirit guides the church or he doesn’t.

There has not been one Catholic Church in communion with the Pope attempt to ordain a woman. The only people who want it, either don’t understand how the sacraments were instituted or are only thinking about ‘fairness’ rather than Truth.

And the day is coming when this doctrine will be met with the same descendant silence that the doctrine concerning artificial birth control is now pretty much received.

Much of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality is poorly understood by the faithful. Our society is bombarded by the message that sex has nothing to do with children. It’s for pleasure. Children are a side effect or unexpected accident. Up until the late 50s and 60s everyone knew that sex produced children.

Many people ignore the Church’s teaching because they don’t really understand it, don’t think it applies to them, and have no trust in God. But the doctrine won’t change no matter how many people ignore it and go their own way.

Well we all have our burdens and inconsistencies to bear.

It’s not a burden or inconsistency to me. Pretty clear cut as far as I can see. The priest is the persona Christi and Christ is the bridegroom to his church. That basically rules out women priestesses. For sex to be a holy act as opposed to a sinful act it must take place within the covenant of marriage and be open to life. That means artificial birth control is a sin since it is not open to life.

 

[vsedriver]

Uneducated. No I suspect like a good number of well educated nuns and priests, they know and understand full well the teaching of the Magisterium on this matter but unable to make good sense of it, choose like a growing number of lay people, to, silently, dissent.

if they understood it they would have no reason to dissent. They dissent because they don’t like the outcome. It disagrees with the idea that men and women are interchangeable because interchangeability is the only true equality they can accept.

 

[Jotto]

I wish I had a time machine so I could ask Martin Luther’s opinion on the idea of Mary as “the feminine aspect of God”. I bet it would be quite interesting.

While he opposed making the doctrines obligatory for Christians, Luther himself affirmed both the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption.

 

[Jotto]

if they understood it they would have no reason to dissent. They dissent because they don’t like the outcome. It disagrees with the idea that men and women are interchangeable because interchangeability is the only true equality they can accept.

This may well be the case with some. But in my experience the notion that women as well as men bear the Imago Dei (Genesis) and the Pauline teaching that in Christ there is no female or male play a significant role as well as the notion that if women are worthy representatives of Christ in their daily lives (as the Church teaches) then it makes no sense why they are not capable of playing that same representative role in the gathered community serve as a more significant basis for this conviction.

 

[Jotto]

because they are still men. Just as the wine can be either red or white, it is still wine. but not grape juice.

"Sensus Fidelium? are you suggesting that the local churches will ordain women in spite of the teaching of the Magisterium? If the Magisterium is wrong then there is no point in having a Magisterium or dogmas or doctrines. We can have a freeforall church. Wait, we already have that. It’s called protestantism. Either the Holy Spirit guides the church or he doesn’t.

There has not been one Catholic Church in communion with the Pope attempt to ordain a woman. The only people who want it, either don’t understand how the sacraments were instituted or are only thinking about ‘fairness’ rather than Truth. Much of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality is poorly understood by the faithful. Our society is bombarded by the message that sex has nothing to do with children. It’s for pleasure. Children are a side effect or unexpected accident. Up until the late 50s and 60s everyone knew that sex produced children.

Much of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality is poorly understood by the faithful. Our society is bombarded by the message that sex has nothing to do with children. It’s for pleasure. Children are a side effect or unexpected accident. Up until the late 50s and 60s everyone knew that sex produced children.

Many people ignore the Church’s teaching because they don’t really understand it, don’t think it applies to them, and have no trust in God. But the doctrine won’t change no matter how many people ignore it and go their own way.

It’s not a burden or inconsistency to me. Pretty clear cut as far as I can see. The priest is the persona Christi and Christ is the bridegroom to his church. That basically rules out women priestesses. For sex to be a holy act as opposed to a sinful act it must take place within the covenant of marriage and be open to life. That means artificial birth control is a sin since it is not open to life.

Freeforall church = Protestantism? Certainly you must have a better understanding of the Protestant movement than that. The difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism in this regard is that in Protestantism, there is a mutual accountability between the teaching authority of the ordained and the laity. (The complaints found in some of the New Testament’s Pauline letter challenging congregations for falling away from Apostolic teaching were not only addressed to the pastoral leadership of those congregations but to the whole congregations in question.) This has also been the case within Roman Catholicism.

For instance at the Vatican II Council, when the assembled bishops were asked to vote on the acceptability of a particular doctrinal position, they were not asked ‘What do you believe?’ They were asked ‘What do the people of your diocese believe?’ In other words the sensus fidelium was taken into account. Now days, it appears to be the case that whatever the Magisterium in general and the Pope in particular proclaim is the truth regardless of what the people in the pews believe. If the actual faith and practice of the whole church had been taken seriously (not to mention the opinion of the Papal Commission assembled on the question), Humanae Vitae never would have been promulgated in its present form.

In summary while both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism affirm that the Spirit informs the Church from below as well as from above, the Roman Catholic Church generally functions in a manner that implies that the Spirit only informs the Church from the top down. The lack of accountability between bishops and presbyters and the people who they have been called to care for is not a little responsible for the serious problems the Roman Church has been having with sexually perverted leaders.

 

[Peter_J]

Hmmm, I’m wondering if you refer to women in the context of the priesthood of all believers, as “priestesses?” You know the way we used to, but no longer do, have a female noun for every career position that had a noun understood to denote a male, i.e. actor, actresses, host, hostess, And what do you do with the current translations of the Greek terms in the New Testament that are clearly male, i.e. “brethren,” when from the context it is clear that the writer has in mind all the faithful? (In this context, I find it painfully amusing that the authors of the current text of the daily Office do not hesitate to make the Magnificat gender neutral but in all the Biblical texts that are addressed to all the faithful, are happy to keep the male pronouns. Now what is that all about?

In regard to representing Christ in the role of president of the Eucharist, why do you think non-Judean men are adequate representatives, of black or yellow men? I understand that because you consider the pronouncement of the Magisterium on this matter to be infallible, you are going to hang on here come hell or high water. But I trust you are aware that the sensus fidelium is clearly shifting on this matter, infallible pronouncement or not. And the day is coming when this doctrine will be met with the same descendant silence that the doctrine concerning artificial birth control is now pretty much received.

Well we all have our burdens and inconsistencies to bear.

Re the word “priestess” … personally, I find it more troubling when people speak of churches “laying hands on hairspray” (rather than saying “ordaining women”).

 

[Jotto]

Re the word “priestess” … personally, I find it more troubling when people speak of churches “laying hands on hairspray” (rather than saying “ordaining women”).

Yes, I appreciate that. We all need to understand that there is a major difference in making clear why we believe a particular religious doctrine or practice is wrong and showing contempt for or making fun of another’s beliefs. But still I am curious. When on one of those occasions (which I assume is not all that often) you have heard a sermon or read an article given or written by an orthodox Catholic about the priesthood of all believers or God’s priestly people, have you ever heard or seen the women spoken of in that context as “priestesses?”

And in the context of the Eucharist, where if Vatican II is correct, the whole congregation - including the women present - are to be perceived as re-presenting the Body of Christ, do you find yourself mentally noting that Christ is present in the women about you in a different manner than in the men about you?

 

[JeffRFitz]

Lets look at logic.

If the Catholic Church accepts women priests, the Church would be in fact not be the Church founded by Christ.

For the Catholic Chruch to change Her teachings would mean that the consistency of the Chruch would end. Such a change would underline that the Catholic Church is not the legitimate vessel of the Truth that sails in this world fishing for souls of man.

 

[Jotto]

Lets look at logic.

If the Catholic Church accepts women priests, the Church would be in fact not be the Church founded by Christ.

For the Catholic Chruch to change Her teachings would mean that the consistency of the Chruch would end. Such a change would underline that the Catholic Church is not the legitimate vessel of the Truth that sails in this world fishing for souls of man.

Are you saying that the Church has never "changed} Her teachings? I trust you recall the “little argument” reported in the Book of Acts where the Church decided in contrast to what had been her practice, that it was no longer necessary to require Gentile men to be circumcised. The Church once tolerated slavery. Do we tolerate it anywhere now? The Church of the first two Centuries required that soldiers seeking baptism renounce their military commissions since the shedding of another’s blood was not compatible with Christian discipleship. In your life as a Catholic do you remember any sermons discouraging the young people in your parish from going to war?

It seems to me the Church has throughout the ages constantly changed her doctrine some changes in retrospect being done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, some being done in order to conform to the demands of the Powers-that-Be. I think we would do better to lift up the promise of indefectibility rather than the virtue of infallibility. For we have departed from the Way of Jesus in numerous ways but the Spirit sooner or later guides us back. While infallibility does not seem to have prevented our both teaching and practicing all kinds of heresy and abominations.

 

[vsedriver]

This may well be the case with some. But in my experience the notion that women as well as men bear the Imago Dei (Genesis) and the Pauline teaching that in Christ there is no female or male play a significant role as well as the notion that if women are worthy representatives of Christ in their daily lives (as the Church teaches) then it makes no sense why they are not capable of playing that same representative role in the gathered community serve as a more significant basis for this conviction.

All sacraments require proper form and proper matter. Holy Orders requires a male because that is how Jesus instituted the sacrament. The priest becomes the bridegroom of the church. How can a woman be a bridegroom?

 

[vsedriver]

Freeforall church = Protestantism? Certainly you must have a better understanding of the Protestant movement than that.

I was referring to the current protestant churches, where you can start your own church and pick and choose how you want to interpret scripture. It’s basically a ‘free for all’.

For instance at the Vatican II Council, when the assembled bishops were asked to vote on the acceptability of a particular doctrinal position, they were not asked ‘What do you believe?’ They were asked ‘What do the people of your diocese believe?’ In other words the sensus fidelium was taken into account.

that’s fine as long as they take into account whether the people in the diocese beliefs are based on a proper understanding and not an appeal to emotionalism.

Now days, it appears to be the case that whatever the Magisterium in general and the Pope in particular proclaim is the truth regardless of what the people in the pews believe.

That’s because many of the people in the pews aren’t well educated in the faith.

If the actual faith and practice of the whole church had been taken seriously (not to mention the opinion of the Papal Commission assembled on the question), Humanae Vitae never would have been promulgated in its present form.

On the contrary, Humane Vitae would have to have been written as it was. It was the only way to keep people from falling into grave sin which many have done. It’s a brilliant piece of theology and very prophetic.

In summary while both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism affirm that the Spirit informs the Church from below as well as from above, the Roman Catholic Church generally functions in a manner that implies that the Spirit only informs the Church from the top down. The lack of accountability between bishops and presbyters and the people who they have been called to care for is not a little responsible for the serious problems the Roman Church has been having with sexually perverted leaders.

I think you are confusing impeccability with infallibility. Dogma and doctrine can’t be changed just because the people in the pews think it should be changed. It is dogma and doctrine precisely because it is protected by the Holy Spirit.

As far as the sex scandals are concerned there was a lot of wrong thinking going on but most of that came from society at the time. It was going on in schools, athletics and other churches as well. That’s not an excuse, just an explanation. And has nothing to do with dogma and doctrine since even those guilty knew they were wrong and there was no written policy approving their actions. Sincere attempts were made to ‘cure’ these priests and many bishops followed the advice of the medical/psychiatric profession who said these men were cured. We now know better.

 

[vsedriver]

Are you saying that the Church has never "change[d} Her teachings? I trust you recall the “little argument” reported in the Book of Acts where the Church decided in contrast to what had been her practice, that it was no longer necessary to require Gentile men to be circumcised.

once again these are not doctrines but disciplines.

It seems to me the Church has throughout the ages constantly changed her doctrine some changes in retrospect being done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, some being done in order to conform to the demands of the Powers-that-Be. I think we would do better to lift up the promise of indefectibility rather than the virtue of infallibility. For we have departed from the Way of Jesus in numerous ways but the Spirit sooner or later guides us back. While infallibility does not seem to have prevented our both teaching and practicing all kinds of heresy and abominations.

I’d have to see real evidence of this and not just opinion. The church’s infallibility applies to faith and morals. Faith and morals do not change. If it was a sin yesterday it is a sin today. Eating meat of Friday, married priests, ladies wearing hats to Mass, all are disciplines that have changed but they are not doctrines.

Christ is not androgynous. He was male and he instituted a male priesthood that mirrored the old testament priesthood. This is not a slam to women. It is just not a role a woman can play anymore than grape juice can stand in for wine.

The Spirit preserves the deposit of faith in the Catholic Church. It is why so many have trouble with the Catholic Church. The teachings are not subject to personal opinion, wishes or desires. That’s why people leave the Catholic Church so that they can find a church that fits their idea of what the religion should be.

It comes down to this, If the Catholic Church is wrong in her teachings received from the Apostles through Apostolic Succession then every church is wrong and there is no way to have the whole Truth. And there for no Truth to find so there is no point in following any religion.

[/QUOTE]

 

[MaryT777]

To the poster commenting on sexually perverted Roman Catholic leaders could we leave that out of this thread.
Thank you.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Are you saying that the Church has never "change[d} Her teachings? I trust you recall the “little argument” reported in the Book of Acts where the Church decided in contrast to what had been her practice, that it was no longer necessary to require Gentile men to be circumcised. The Church once tolerated slavery. Do we tolerate it anywhere now? The Church of the first two Centuries required that soldiers seeking baptism renounce their military commissions since the shedding of another’s blood was not compatible with Christian discipleship. In your life as a Catholic do you remember any sermons discouraging the young people in your parish from going to war?

It seems to me the Church has throughout the ages constantly changed her doctrine some changes in retrospect being done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, some being done in order to conform to the demands of the Powers-that-Be. I think we would do better to lift up the promise of indefectibility rather than the virtue of infallibility. For we have departed from the Way of Jesus in numerous ways but the Spirit sooner or later guides us back. While infallibility does not seem to have prevented our both teaching and practicing all kinds of heresy and abominations.

Doctrine never changes. Our understanding of a doctrine may grow in time, but the doctrine remains the same. Now we cannot “understand” the doctrine and change it it better suit our personal belief. I hope you can agree on that. Priest being allowed to wed one day can happen because it is not a doctrine but simply a practice.
[/quote]

 

[GKC]

All sacraments require proper form and proper matter. Holy Orders requires a male because that is how Jesus instituted the sacrament. The priest becomes the bridegroom of the church. How can a woman be a bridegroom?

And valid intent, subject, and minister are also required.

GKC

 

[Jotto]

Doctrine never changes. Our understanding of a doctrine may grow in time, but the doctrine remains the same. Now we cannot “understand” the doctrine and change it it better suit our personal belief. I hope you can agree on that. Priest being allowed to wed one day can happen because it is not a doctrine but simply a practice.

Yes, I agree that when the Magisterium comes to value the accessibility of the People to the Eucharist more than a regulation that may well have served a good purpose when instituted but no longer does, that a married presbytery will once again become normative which not to say that that the ministry of celibate people will no longer have its place in the life of the Church.

But my friend rather than respond to the instances that I have cited which appear to be not developments but significant changes in doctrine, you have simply reasserted your premise. For the sake of mutual learning, it would have been helpful if you would attempt to show why the examples I cited were simply instances of doctrinal development a la
Cardinal Newman rather than basic changes in Church doctrine.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Yes, I agree that when the Magisterium comes to value the accessibility of the People to the Eucharist more than a regulation

Careful Jotto Methinks you just claimed to read the minds of generations of men who belong to a slightly different world-view than you

that may well have served a good purpose when instituted but no longer does,

Debatable, Jotto. Celibacy is the sacrifice of the good of the sexual life (i.e., marriage, family, children) for the good of God’s people.

that a married presbytery will once again become normative which not to say that that the ministry of celibate people will no longer have its place in the life of the Church.

Why would it become normative? And that’s nice of you to leave a place for celibate men in God’s Church. Very generous

 

[Jotto]

1AugustSon7:
A different worldview than mine? The worldview I am reflecting is that of thousands of Catholics who don’t understand why they must put up with “dry communions,” when there are ordained, married men around who would be delighted to provide them with the sacramental and pastoral care they yearn for if permitted to do so.

Debatable, Jotto. Celibacy is the sacrifice of the good of the sexual life (i.e., marriage, family, children) for the good of God’s people.

Yes indeed, and we can be thankful for all those men and women who have a genuine call to the celibate life. But to assume that all who are called to ministry are also called to celibacy, that assumption is not proving to be in the best psychological or spiritual interests of many a priest nor subsequently the communities that they serve.

Why would it become normative? And that’s nice of you to leave a place for celibate men in God’s Church. Very generous

Nice, no just a recognition that in our Lutheran and Episcopal communities as well as Roman Catholic communities such people are present and it is in their best interest as well as ours to give them the places in the life of the Church that God has called them to. As for normative, perhaps it’s not clear to you, but it is to most Catholics I talk to that if it were an option most of those who are priests or having been priests are now working at other vocations would choose marriage and ministry.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Nice, no just a recognition that in our Lutheran and Episcopal communities as well as Roman Catholic communities such people are present and it is in their best interest as well as ours to give them the places in the life of the Church that God has called them to. As for normative, perhaps it’s not clear to you, but it is to most Catholics I talk to that if it were an option most of those who are priests or having been priests are now working at other vocations would choose marriage and ministry.

Yes, one must recognize that among all Christians, only Roman Catholics require celibacy for priests.

 

[PRmerger]

Are you saying that the Church has never "change[d} Her teachings?

Yes.

Teachings have not changed. Disciplinary practices have.

I trust you recall the “little argument” reported in the Book of Acts where the Church decided in contrast to what had been her practice, that it was no longer necessary to require Gentile men to be circumcised.

That’s an example of disciplinary practice.

The Church once tolerated slavery. Do we tolerate it anywhere now?

But she never taught that slavery was good, and now it is bad.

The Church of the first two Centuries required that soldiers seeking baptism renounce their military commissions since the shedding of another’s blood was not compatible with Christian discipleship.

Source for this, please.
[/quote]