Burden of proof here falls on the first one who sank to ad hominem, which you continue in in this post.
It’s a papal bull. You find it.
Do Lutherans save themselves?
- Thread starter NoelFitz
- Start date
- Status
It’s a papal bull. You find it.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Declaring a source you used as lacking credibility is an ad hominem? Unless you can substantiate your claim with a credible source, your claim fails.
Yes. You attacked the source on an unrelated topic.
You attacked the source irrespective of the information. That’s ad hominem.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Your source promulgates the Pope as being the anti-christ!!! You are not your source, you are better than your source. I’ll take any chance I can get to denounce that source.
Your source promulgates the Pope as being the anti-christ!!! You are not your source, you are better than your source. I’ll take any chance I can get to denounce that source.
[/quote]
And a Catholic pope claimed that he had control over the salvation of “every human creature”.
I’ll take any chance to call that opposed to Christ.
I’ll denounce, and have in the past, the use of the term anti-Christ. Are you willing to denounce the statement that one must be in communion with the pope to be saved?
[/quote]
And a Catholic pope claimed that he had control over the salvation of “every human creature”.
I’ll take any chance to call that opposed to Christ.
I’ll denounce, and have in the past, the use of the term anti-Christ. Are you willing to denounce the statement that one must be in communion with the pope to be saved?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I’m done here. You’re not being fair to this discourse. Peace!
This thread is about Lutherans saving themselves, not whether an abbot can ordain, yet we have an argument between JonNC and AugustTherese, who disagree with each other, with over 15 posts
I note the following in CAF from ad_Ordinem (Jan 2016):
Theologians aren’t agreed on this question. Ludwig Ott has the following to say in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 459:
_[M]ost theologians, with St. Thomas, hold the opinion that a simple priest cannot validly administer these [diaconate, presbyterate], even with plenary power from the Pope. But there are grave historical difficulties with regard to this opinion: Pope Boniface IX … by the Bull “Sacrae religionis” on the 1st of February 1400, conferred on the Abbot of the Augustine Monastery of St. Osytha at Essex (Diocese of London) and his successors, the privilege of administering to those subject to them both the Minor Orders and those of the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood. The privilege was withdrawn on 6th February, 1403, on the instance of the Bishop of London. But the Orders conferred on the ground of the privilege were not declared invalid…
Unless one wishes to assume that the Popes in question were victims of the erroneous theological opinions of their times (this does not touch the Papal infallibility, because an ex cathedra decision was not given), one must take it that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation. In this latter view, the requisite power of consecration is contained in the priestly power of consecration as “potestas ligata.” For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.
Can priests ordain other priests? Liturgy and Sacraments
I note the following in CAF from ad_Ordinem (Jan 2016):
Theologians aren’t agreed on this question. Ludwig Ott has the following to say in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 459:
_[M]ost theologians, with St. Thomas, hold the opinion that a simple priest cannot validly administer these [diaconate, presbyterate], even with plenary power from the Pope. But there are grave historical difficulties with regard to this opinion: Pope Boniface IX … by the Bull “Sacrae religionis” on the 1st of February 1400, conferred on the Abbot of the Augustine Monastery of St. Osytha at Essex (Diocese of London) and his successors, the privilege of administering to those subject to them both the Minor Orders and those of the subdiaconate, diaconate and priesthood. The privilege was withdrawn on 6th February, 1403, on the instance of the Bishop of London. But the Orders conferred on the ground of the privilege were not declared invalid…
Unless one wishes to assume that the Popes in question were victims of the erroneous theological opinions of their times (this does not touch the Papal infallibility, because an ex cathedra decision was not given), one must take it that a simple priest is an extraordinary dispenser of the Orders of Diaconate and Presbyterate, just as he is an extraordinary dispenser of Confirmation. In this latter view, the requisite power of consecration is contained in the priestly power of consecration as “potestas ligata.” For the valid exercise of it a special exercise of the Papal power is, by Divine or Church ordinance, necessary.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I neither agreed nor disagreed with @JonNC. I simply asked him to provide credible sources.
Lo and behold the nature of the beast of CAF, i.e. posters going off-topic. Good thing you contributed to our off-topic “argument”.
Thanks. Hopefully Ott is considered "credible ". I might add, however, that the question regarding Lutherans has been answered.
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
As far as a I know, Ott has not publicly confessed to claim the Pope as being the Antichrist; so, Ott appears to be “credible”.
I am sincerely glad that you have brought this topic up, @JonNC. I was completely unaware of this. After researching as much as I could online, this is perhaps the best information that takes into account the possibility of non-Bishops ordaining priests:
The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, who alone has this power in virtue of his ordination. Holy Scripture attributed the power to the Apostles and their successors (Acts 6:6; 16:22; 1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5), and the Fathers and councils ascribe the power to the bishop exclusively. First Council of Nicaea (Canon 4) and Apostolic Constitutions VIII.28 — “A bishop lays on hands, ordains. . .a presbyter lays on hands, but does not ordain.” A council held at Alexandria (340) declared the orders conferred by Caluthus, a presbyter, null and void (Athanas., “Apol. contra Arianos”, ii). For the custom said to have existed in the Church of Alexandria see EGYPT. Nor can objection be raised from the fact that chorepiscopi are known to have ordained priests, as there can be no doubt that some chorepiscopi were in bishops’ orders (Gillman, “Das Institut der Chorbischöfe im Orient,” Munich, 1903; Hefele-Leclercq, “Conciles”, II, 1197-1237). No one but a bishop can give any orders now without a delegation from the pope, but a simple priest may be thus authorized to confer minor orders and the subdiaconate. It is generally denied that priests can confer priests’ orders, and history, certainly, records no instance of the exercise of such extraordinary ministry. The diaconate cannot be conferred by a simple priest, according to the majority of theologians. This is sometimes questioned, as Innocent VIII is said to have granted the privilege to Cistercian abbots (1489), but the genuineness of the concession is very doubtful. For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm
Now, for the sake of argument, let us say that you are absolutely correct in claiming that the Pope dispensing the function and sacramental power of ordaining priests to Abbots, among other non-Bishops, has occurred in the past. It would seem, at least to me, that this privilege derives its efficacy from the jurisdiction of the Pope, such as Pope Boniface IX dispensing the authority and sacramental power to ordain to Cistercian Abbots. In other words, it would be the Bishop of Rome ordaining through the Abbot as the Abbot would act as an auxiliary Bishop, if you will. Not solely the authority would derive from the Pope, but that actual sacramental power that all Bishops have.
continued:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
It appears, from everything that has thus far been presented for evidence, that this seeming ordination by an extraordinary minister, e.g. Abbot, is pure speculation. I am not saying you’re wrong, but to use this as a basis for Lutherans claiming valid sacred orders seems to be quite the stretch, especially considering they believe the Pope as being the Antichrist. Do Lutherans really not see the irony in claiming that their ministerial validity comes from the “Antichrist” in the late fourteenth century?
Your answer to my question is?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I am happy to see your denouncement of that term. However, I am not keen on negotiating and/or comprising, through indifferentism, eternal truths under the pretext of false ecumenism. There is nothing more I desire than to be numbered among the flock of the Apostles and their successors. If one wants to be counted and included as one of Christ’s sheep, one needs to heed, and with humble docility and divine assistance be confirmed into the unity of the body of the Church under the unity of its head established in Peter and his successors. “He who hears you, hears me”; I want to hear Christ, therefore I subject myself, while crucifying my personal pride, and place myself at the mercy of those whom Christ appointed and commissioned to pastor the little ones, viz. Saint Peter, the only one whom Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to. I want Saint Peter to lead me to the One that singularly choose him to feed us sheep.
So, no, I am not willing to denounce anything the Holy Spirit says through those whom Christ gave authority to speak on His behalf.
Last edited:
Well, there you are. A pope declares that probably billions of baptized Christians are condemned simply because they are not in communion with him. And you take umbrage that some of those Christians would declare that teaching as opposed to Christ?
Why are you even talking to any of us, the condemned?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where do you get that from?
Unam Sanctum.JonNC:
Where do you get that from?
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Absolutely necessary. How many Orthodox Christians have not been in communion with the pope for the last thousand years? How many western non-Catholics Christians?
Last edited:
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Where do you see anything about “being condemned” in that?
Absolutely necessary for salvation. Is the another alternative to salvation than eternal condemnation?JonNC:
Where do you see anything about “being condemned” in that?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
To be subject to the Catholic Church and Her Supreme Pontiff are the necessary means that Christ instituted for obtaining salvation. It is through the Catholic Church, under the authority of the Pope, that Christ speaks, lives, and offers the fruits of His redemptive work to the faithful. However, that does not inherently mean that every single human being, baptized or unbaptized, is destined to eternal condemnation if they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. I suggest you read the parable of the Good Samaritan in light of how the Jews disassociated themselves with Samaritans. I also encourage you to read and meditate on Lumen Gentium, particularly this part:
“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”
God is only bound by Himself, and wills every human being ever created to be eternally saved, primarily through the means of the Catholic Church. However, as in the parable of the Good Samaritan, souls can be saved through means of grace stemming from the Church while cooperating with that grace in good will and conscience.
Umm, no. That’s not scriptural. Grace through faith, baptism and the other sacraments. There is no mention of a requirement to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Certainly for those who belong to that one tradition in the Church, but not all Christians. Christ does all of these things through His entire Church, through all of the bishops.
You are contradicting a pope here! His words are "absolutely necessary for salvation "!
So, Pope Boniface VIII was wrong.
Therefore, you can easily in good conscience denounce Unam Sanctum.
By the way, my apologies that this discussion continues to be off topic.
Last edited:
- Status