Do Non-Catholics See the Papacy as Power or Responsibility?

[JRKH]

And in this corner, in the white and gold trunks, weighing in at 200 billion pounds, the Terror of the Tiber, the Slayer of Ottomans, the Raging Roman…okay, sorry, let me slip into serious mode now. You’re correct that there is only one church, and it is certainly catholic; just not Roman. It is composed of all those who trust in Christ for their salvation.

So now that we’re in “serious mode”, do you see teh papacy more in terms of power or responsibility?

This isn’t borne out in the pages of the New Testament and is an alien supposition. The church is only the church as long as it is connected to the vine. Which requires faithful adherence to His commandments.

Would that include the commandment to submit to the Church, the Pillar and foundation of Truth?
Would that also include the commandment to “Take it to the Church” when issues needed resolved?
It would seem that, if the mark of the true Church (singular) is adherance to the commandments, we all have a problem since we have allowed that Church to splinter into multiple, competeing entities.

I agree that the true church as a whole will not defect; though individual members can lose faith. Institutions do not have faith in Christ; they are composed of members who possess faith in Christ. The Church is not a hierarchy, it’s a community.

The Church is both community AND hierarchy. There is no community that I know of that does not have some sort of “Governance”, and thus hierarchy. The Fact that the Catholic Church is so large, it naturally has a more involved hierarchy. Thankfully we can trust that hierarchy to be guarded by Our Lord just as He promised.

By declaring that the Church as an institution does not have faith in Christ, you deny the very authority Christ gave to His Church. The authority to teach, to bind and loose, to baptize, etc. Even the Bible as we know it today was assembled under the authority of The Church.
It is the Church as an institution that must Guard and Teach the truth. By defining the Church as a community, rather than an institution, you automatically remove the ability of the Church to guard and teach correct doctrine in the face of a changing world.
Would you like to defend some of the decisions made by even old and established protestant churches regarding homosexuality, womens ordination and other issues long held as sacrosanct? These desicions are the result of a “community” with “Faith in Christ”. Do you think that Christ would approve of these decisions? Wouldn’t Christ rather teach agianst these things?

We simply can’t seperate the faith from the Church that is intended to teach and protect the Truth.

Peace
James

 

[TriuneUnity]

So now that we’re in “serious mode”, do you see teh papacy more in terms of power or responsibility?

Both.

Would that include the commandment to submit to the Church, the Pillar and foundation of Truth?

Depends on what you mean by submission.

Would that also include the commandment to “Take it to the Church” when issues needed resolved?

Yes, we practice this.

It would seem that, if the mark of the true Church (singular) is adherance to the commandments, we all have a problem since we have allowed that Church to splinter into multiple, competeing entities.

The true church is not associated by outward denominational affiliation. It is consists of all those who have faith in Christ. It’s outward, visible marks are faithfulness to the Word of God and the administration of Christ’s sacraments as He instituted them. On this level, yes, the splintering is a tragedy and is not positive in any way, shape, or form. It is often an unspoken assumption that Protestants think sectarianism is a good thing.

The Church is both community AND hierarchy. There is no community that I know of that does not have some sort of “Governance”, and thus hierarchy. The Fact that the Catholic Church is so large, it naturally has a more involved hierarchy. Thankfully we can trust that hierarchy to be guarded by Our Lord just as He promised.

The visible church is organized along hierarchial lines and hierarchy is necessary. The hierarchy doesn’t define the church, however; the Word of God does. When the hierarchy takes action, whether that be defending an apostolic doctrine against false teaching it bases this on the role given to it by God’s Word in submission to His revelation.

By declaring that the Church as an institution does not have faith in Christ, you deny the very authority Christ gave to His Church. The authority to teach, to bind and loose, to baptize, etc. Even the Bible as we know it today was assembled under the authority of The Church.

All the specific things you mention here is given to every member of the church (i.e., those who have faith in Christ). It is not restricted to those elected to positions of authority within the Church. The entire faithful are given the Office of the Keys by the power of the Gospel. We elect members within our congregations to represent us for the purpose of exercising these keys, such as administration of the sacraments. Their election does not grant them some mystical gifts that are not available to the entire priesthood.

It is the Church as an institution that must Guard and Teach the truth. By defining the Church as a community, rather than an institution, you automatically remove the ability of the Church to guard and teach correct doctrine in the face of a changing world.

No; we merely do not place the institution on the level of deciding what is and is not apostolic doctrine through its own inventions and claims of infallibility irrespective of the teaching of the apostles that we have in writing.

Would you like to defend some of the decisions made by even old and established protestant churches regarding homosexuality, womens ordination and other issues long held as sacrosanct? These desicions are the result of a “community” with “Faith in Christ”. Do you think that Christ would approve of these decisions? Wouldn’t Christ rather teach agianst these things?

Yes. Those teachings are against the Word of God and that is exactly the point. The outward visible church may resist the guidance the Holy Spirit offers in divine revelation and go its own way. Whether that be saying homosexuality is acceptable, or saying that it is acceptable to petition saints in prayer.

 

[CentralFLJames]

And in this corner, in the white and gold trunks, weighing in at 200 billion pounds, the Terror of the Tiber, the Slayer of Ottomans, the Raging Roman…okay, sorry, let me slip into serious mode now. You’re correct that there is only one church, and it is certainly catholic; just not Roman. It is composed of all those who trust in Christ for their salvation.

I thought you were going to be serious? Do you really expect people to take you serious when you make spurious comments like “Just not Roman” taken together with your supercilious assumption of pedigree to judge universal “correctness” with a contemporary conjecture that its possible to trust in Christ while rejecting His Body? Sorry, but it comes across severely oxymoronic to suggest that Jesus’ Body, The Catholic Church, can be divided against itself through the legion of competing conjectures of unqualified private opinion. What’s your pedigree? Our bishops and popes all personally knew and were taught by a successor of Peter and the other apostles. Who taught you? Do you have anything more substantial to offer over just another round of unqualified lay-pontification and double talk.

This isn’t borne out in the pages of the New Testament and is an alien supposition. The church is only the church as long as it is connected to the vine. Which requires faithful adherence to His commandments.

What a novel interpretation and assumption. Do you profess to have a superior private interpretation of scripture that exceeds anyone else’s? Where does it say in scripture that “the church” is only “the church” if it remains connected to the vine? Has any apostle ever taught this or are you innovating again?

I agree that the true church as a whole will not defect; though individual members can lose faith. Institutions do not have faith in Christ; they are composed of members who possess faith in Christ. The Church is not a hierarchy, it’s a community.

So do you, or do you not, subscribe to the notion that The Church is supernatural and has a mystic nature? And where do you get your theory that there are no relational roles and a hiearchy in The Church when scripture very clearly indicates that Jesus is the head and there are elders/ presbyters /priests and members each with their own gifts. Do you know of a community on the planet that does not have a leadership and an authority structure of some sort (short of the anarchy of Woodstock communtes etc.)? Do you think truth is a matter of democratic process and majority rule?

James

 

[TriuneUnity]

I thought you were going to be serious? Do you really expect people to take you serious when you make spurious comments like “Just not Roman” taken together with your supercilious assumption of pedigree to judge universal “correctness” with a contemporary conjecture that its possible to trust in Christ while rejecting His Body? Sorry, but it comes across severely oxymoronic to suggest that Jesus’ Body, The Catholic Church, can be divided against itself through the legion of competing conjectures of unqualified private opinion. What’s your pedigree? Our bishops and popes all personally knew and were taught by a successor of Peter and the other apostles. Who taught you? Do you have anything more substantial to offer over just another round of unqualified lay-pontification and double talk.

Do you have anything to offer other than a-typical condescension which can be found in any other of the numerous postings on this forum?

 

[JRKH]

Both.

Would that include the commandment to submit to the Church, the Pillar and foundation of Truth?

Depends on what you mean by submission.

The same thing the Christ did when he established the Church with Peter at it’s head.

Would that also include the commandment to “Take it to the Church” when issues needed resolved?

Yes, we practice this.

I’m sorry my friend but you do not. While you certainly do take things to the hierarchy in your own denomination, that is not the same thing.
The problem arises when one goes back to your founder Martin Luther. He “took it to the Church” and was judged against. He refused to submit. He was then made “anethema” - excommunicated.
So then, in a nutshell, this is the basis upon which your denomination is built. The failure to submit to “The church” as defined in Luthers time and by Luther’s vows as a Priest.

The true church is not associated by outward denominational affiliation. It is consists of all those who have faith in Christ.

Tell that to those non-catholics who swear that all catholics ar going to hell and that the Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. I realize that you do not feel this way, but there are those…

It’s outward, visible marks are **faithfulness to the Word of God **and the administration of Christ’s sacraments as He instituted them.

Which included submission to the Church instituted by Christ upon Peter and the Apostles and thie succesors.

On this level, yes, the splintering is a tragedy and is not positive in any way, shape, or form. It is often an unspoken assumption that Protestants think sectarianism is a good thing.

Well I am sure that many protestants DO abhore the splintering. especially when it only re-enforces the strength and stability of the True Catholic Church.

The visible church is organized along hierarchial lines and hierarchy is necessary. The hierarchy doesn’t define the church, however; the Word of God does. When the hierarchy takes action, whether that be defending an apostolic doctrine against false teaching it bases this on the role given to it by God’s Word in submission to His revelation.

Exactly. Sign this fellow up for RCIA

All the specific things you mention here is given to every member of the church (i.e., those who have faith in Christ). It is not restricted to those elected to positions of authority within the Church. The entire faithful are given the Office of the Keys by the power of the Gospel.

Jesus Gave the keys to Peter. No King is going to give the keys of stewardship to every single member of his kingdom.

We elect members within our congregations to represent us for the purpose of exercising these keys, such as administration of the sacraments. Their election does not grant them some mystical gifts that are not available to the entire priesthood.

“We Elect…to represent us” and there in lies the problem. This is how the strange doctrines come about that are rending the anglican and lutheran communities. Because it is based on the false premise of Christianity being somehow a democracy.

No; we merely do not place the institution on the level of deciding what is and is not apostolic doctrine through its own inventions and claims of infallibility irrespective of the teaching of the apostles that we have in writing.

Your loss.

Would you like to defend some of the decisions made by even old and established protestant churches regarding homosexuality, womens ordination and other issues long held as sacrosanct? These desicions are the result of a “community” with “Faith in Christ”. Do you think that Christ would approve of these decisions? Wouldn’t Christ rather teach agianst these things?

Yes. Those teachings are against the Word of God and that is exactly the point. The outward visible church may resist the guidance the Holy Spirit offers in divine revelation and go its own way. Whether that be saying homosexuality is acceptable, or saying that it is acceptable to petition saints in prayer.

And yet these doctrines are the same ones that the Catholic Church successfully resists because it does uphold the Truth of Christ’s Church precisely because it listens to Him and not to some “Majority”.

Peace
James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Do you have anything to offer other than a-typical condescension which can be found in any other of the numerous postings on this forum?

I can offer 2000 years of apostolic teaching with a touch of higher-order admonishment that is an order of magnitude more refined than the private opinion you pontificate here with no evidence of any scholarship nor pedigree.

I see you conveniently ducked my questions.

James

 

[TriuneUnity]

The same thing the Christ did when he established the Church with Peter at it’s head.

If you mean then the teachings of the apostles, then yes, we should submit to that. Not to due to any quality that the Church possesses, but because the Church is exercising the authority of God’s revelation to His people. The Church has one head; Christ.

I’m sorry my friend but you do not. While you certainly do take things to the hierarchy in your own denomination, that is not the same thing.
The problem arises when one goes back to your founder Martin Luther. He “took it to the Church” and was judged against. He refused to submit. He was then made “anethema” - excommunicated.
So then, in a nutshell, this is the basis upon which your denomination is built. The failure to submit to “The church” as defined in Luthers time and by Luther’s vows as a Priest.

And the Church was wrong in the practices that it taught/teaches when Luther brought his charges against them. The fact that the Church refused to submit to the clear Word of God that was presented to them abrogated any apostolic authority she could claim to posses as her authority is derivative of that holy Word.

Tell that to those non-catholics who swear that all catholics ar going to hell and that the Church is the Whore of Babylon and the Pope is the Anti-Christ. I realize that you do not feel this way, but there are those…

They are no less sectarian in their attitudes than Rome is. The fact of the matter is that Rome still possesses the Word of God and both of her sacraments are valid. Therefore, there will be members of Christ’s Church within her. Again, denominational lines do not change the efficacy of the Lord’s means of grace.

Which included submission to the Church instituted by Christ upon Peter and the Apostles and thie succesors.

Yes; which is not Rome.

Well I am sure that many protestants DO abhore the splintering. especially when it only re-enforces the strength and stability of the True Catholic Church.

If it weren’t for that nagging East/West split which divided Christendom more than the Reformation did. Ask the other half whether Rome is the True Catholic Church. The fact that there was a division long before Luther makes Rome’s arguments to being indivisible prior to Luther null and void. Did Sola Scriptura cause that split? Sola Fide?

Exactly. Sign this fellow up for RCIA

Been there, done that. Have the t-shirt

Jesus Gave the keys to Peter. No King is going to give the keys of stewardship to every single member of his kingdom.

Unless that King considers us all one in His Body. The Church may not be a democracy but it’s not a feudal society either.

“We Elect…to represent us” and there in lies the problem. This is how the strange doctrines come about that are rending the anglican and lutheran communities. Because it is based on the false premise of Christianity being somehow a democracy.

Within a congregation, yes. We choose and call pastors and teachers from within our church. Christianity is not a democracy because it is not in any form political.

And yet these doctrines are the same ones that the Catholic Church successfully resists because it does uphold the Truth of Christ’s Church precisely because it listens to Him and not to some “Majority”.

And falls into other errors which are as dangerous to faith as what the ELCA and ECUSA are doing.

 

[RobHom]

Well, if Benedict doesn’t want the job, I’ll gladly take it from him. Pope Gustaf I. How does it sound? Free beer and lutefisk for everyone. And then we can go Baptist huntin’

Where’s the ballot box…I’ve got a bunch of ballots already filled out!!

(Ooooh, did I really say that?)

 

[mercygate]

And in this corner, in the white and gold trunks, weighing in at 200 billion pounds, the Terror of the Tiber, the Slayer of Ottomans, the Raging Roman…okay, sorry, let me slip into serious mode now. You’re correct that there is only one church, and it is certainly catholic; just not Roman. It is composed of all those who trust in Christ for their salvation.

Whoever they may be . . . My Mormon relatives “trust in Christ for their salvation.” I call 'em nuts because the “Christ” they trust in has nothing to do with the Christ of the Christian faith.

The Catechism states, those who are not in full communion with the Church yet in good faith place their trust in Christ, are somehow united to her, then what you say is true – to a point. But they are not apart from Rome except by their own declaration. Ultimately the “true” Church cannot exclude Peter. “Peter” is the place where Our Lord promised to build His Church. The Church of “anything but Catholic” is singing a sour note. Our Lord’s prayer was “that they all might be one.”

This isn’t borne out in the pages of the New Testament and is an alien supposition. The church is only the church as long as it is connected to the vine.

Yes.

Which requires faithful adherence to His commandments.

Yes.

I agree that the true church as a whole will not defect; though individual members can lose faith. Institutions do not have faith in Christ; they are composed of members who possess faith in Christ. The Church is not a hierarchy, it’s a community.The Church of the New Testament was a community WITH a hierarchy. To think that the Church should not have Bishops, presbyters and deacons would be naive. You are not naive.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Whoever they may be . . . My Mormon relatives “trust in Christ for their salvation.” I call 'em nuts because the “Christ” they trust in has nothing to do with the Christ of the Christian faith.

Yes…which is why the teachings of Scripture are laid out for us chiefly in the ecumenical creeds of the faith as well as individual confessions of same. I would assume you know that I am speaking of Christians here, not non-Christian cults.

The Catechism states, those who are not in full communion with the Church yet in good faith place their trust in Christ, are somehow united to her, then what you say is true – to a point. But they are not apart from Rome except by their own declaration. Ultimately the “true” Church cannot exclude Peter. “Peter” is the place where Our Lord promised to build His Church. The Church of “anything but Catholic” is singing a sour note. Our Lord’s prayer was “that they all might be one.”
Yes.Yes.

I agree that Jesus prayed we may all be one. There has been no visible unity within Christendom for almost a thousand years and it is not a result of Protestantism. Christ promised to build His Church on the confession of Him as the Son of the Living God.

And it’s Anything But Baptist, thank you very much.

The Church of the New Testament was a community WITH a hierarchy. To think that the Church should not have Bishops, presbyters and deacons would be naive. You are not naive.

Yes, of course there is a hierarchy. My argument is not against hierarchy. It is against hierarchy as defined by Rome.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I can offer 2000 years of apostolic teaching with a touch of higher-order admonishment that is an order of magnitude more refined than the private opinion you pontificate here with no evidence of any scholarship nor pedigree.

I see you conveniently ducked my questions.

James

You’ve been in the church for 2000 years?

I didn’t know a PhD in theology was required to discuss topics of faith on these forums. What seminary did you graduate from?

 

[CentralFLJames]

You’ve been in the church for 2000 years?

I didn’t know a PhD in theology was required to discuss topics of faith on these forums. What seminary did you graduate from?

Have to keep this brief here. I am in the middle of a hurricane here in FL and its right over top of me at the moment. I am on UPS batteries with power unreliable so will log out for a while to preserve power.

To answer your question:
All Catholics have a rich 2000 year old living legacy and apostolic tradition that we all get passed to us. So none of us speaks with our own opinions on dogmatic matters but we can speak with confidence and authority that what we all receive from our predecessors is God given truth.

Although I have a few college degrees in science and business I am not an academic in theology. My insights come from the Catholic Catechism, Catholic education, Catholic teaching from the pulpit and from my own reading and research as a work of faith as well as from inner locution from a deep prayer life. An academic knowledge is not necessary for salvation or for discussion. But when I wandered in here it did not sound like you were discussing. What I heard was you preaching - and some very unbiblical things.

James

 

[JRKH]

Step back - - -
Take a deep breath - - -
Focus - - -

OK,
This thread has gotten off topic here and I’ve helped…… but I’d like to get it back somewhat to the power vs responsibility aspect.

Being Pope does not bring with it the sort of power that some seem to think and fear. Someone mentioned that the papacy is a ecclesiastical dictatorship, which seems to indicate pretty well the misconception of what Pope means.

Wikipedia defines Dictator as:
A dictator is an authoritarian ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch.

Let us break this term down.
Authoritarian Ruler: Certainly the Pope is this. He posseses this authority from two sources at once. First from Our dear Lord who is King over all, and second from those who, in good conscience, submit to the authority of the Church.

Assumes sole and absolute Power: This is wrong on at least two counts. First the Pope doe not assume this office but is selected for the office by others. Secondly the Pope does not hold absolute power.
The Pope cannot Change the deposit of faith. Those things dogmatically declared by the Church cannot be changed. No Pope can simply “un-declare” something.

Without Hereditary Ascension: This, again is wrong since the Pope is in the line of St Peter, selected by th Holy Spirit to lead the body of the Church on Earth.

So we can see from the above that the notion of the Papacy as being some sort of dictatorship is mistaken on every count.
The Pope is not the sole authority in the Church, nor is he the ultimate authority. Rather he is the Prayerful head of the faithful, and guardian of the deposit of faith.

Someone else here mentioned that most men in a conclave to elect a new pope are probably praying the Gethsemane prayer. Lord let this cup pass…

When we consider seriously how sonmeone becomes pope today, how can anyone seriously think that such a person becomes some sort of tyrant? These people, who are eligable have spent their lives in prayerful service to Christ, and His Church. Not for financial gain, or worldly comforts, but to learn, and teach and serve.

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that the Presidential election process in the US is a good system because of how strenuos and stressful it is. Thus it is a good system for weeding out those without the stamina to be president. I look at how one becomes pope in the Church and see similarities. Except in the case of the Church, the “stamina” is in prayerful obedience to the Will of God, rather than any percieved power or prestege.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

And it’s Anything But Baptist, thank you very much.

I dunno. Baptists have a lot going for them.

Yes, of course there is a hierarchy. My argument is not against hierarchy. It is against hierarchy as defined by Rome.

Hierarchy “as defined by Rome” is hierarchy as exemplified in the New Testament. Even the Orthodox, who hate papal supremacy to pieces, have an identical hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons. Even they recognize Petrine primacy, couched under the toothless heading, primus inter pares. “Primus” does not mean “tyrannical potentate,” it means “the buck stops here.”

Are you Swedish Lutheran of the group that has “real” bishops or was the lutefisk reference just a Minnesota thing?

 

[Hesychios]

Hierarchy “as defined by Rome” is hierarchy as exemplified in the New Testament. Even the Orthodox, who hate papal supremacy to pieces, have an identical hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons. Even they recognize Petrine primacy, couched under the toothless heading, primus inter pares. “Primus” does not mean “tyrannical potentate,” it means “the buck stops here.”

Whatever else you may think of the Orthodox, they are historically consistant from the early church to the present. Orthodox don’t “hate supremacy to pieces”, it’s just wrong. Orthodox hate the sin but love the sinner.

No need to add “teeth” or anything else novel to the patriarchate of Rome. It might be a good idea to clean it up from it’s unnecessary accretions so that it can do it’s own job properly.

As Patriarch H.B. Grégoire III Laham, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch has stated…

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, “servatis servandis”, in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

 

[Mickey]

Orthodox don’t “hate supremacy to pieces”, it’s just wrong. Orthodox hate the sin but love the sinner.

Amen.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Leeann:
Gabriel of 12
Today I would answer your question No; No Bishop would seek the office of Pope for power or self gain, due to the fact that she has already experienced this through her history.

Leeann
Maybe some consideration about the old adage: “History repeats itself.” should come into play here…the “race is still being run”…

Gabriel of 12
True “history can repeat itself”, no one cannot deny a dictactor can invade Rome and claim the Chair of Peter, this has already taken place in history. If history repeats itself, then we have the guarantee that God will always save a remnant of his people to continue, this we have the promise from Jesus Christ himself. So no matter what man does, the divine office has been prayed for by Jesus himself, and it is divinely protected, so that the gates of hell will never prevail against her. I hold to my statement a Bishop will never seek the office of Pope for self gain or Power. Besides it is by the Holy Spirit that the next Pope will be chosen.

Gabriel of 12
Non catholics and protestants should know that, now that the world is aware of the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope is clearly defined from antiquity, that the holy spirit protects the Catholic church (body of Jesus Christ) from error,

Leeann
Why should anyone “know that” - simply because - "a doctrine of infallibility of the Pope " - which is issued by a highly “biased” authority - the RCChurch itself - says it to be so? And “clearly defined from antiquity” - ? - again - by whom???

Gabriel of 12
It is declared by Jesus himself from sacred scripture, it is declared from the successors of the apostles by the Saints, Martyrs who all looked to the Chair of Peter as having the final word or to declare the decision of the Church.

For clarification the RCC did not invent this doctrine of infallibility, she defined infallibility from what was already believed from the first century. This doctrine is not new as some may claim, but became defined in time. Can you explain where you get the idea of “biased” authority? What Jesus instituted cannot be changed

Gabriel of 12
it is safe to believe and accept the 2000 year old Christian teachings and Traditions handed down to her from Jesus and his apostles.

Peace

 

[TriuneUnity]

I dunno. Baptists have a lot going for them.

Except theologically lol

Hierarchy “as defined by Rome” is hierarchy as exemplified in the New Testament. Even the Orthodox, who hate papal supremacy to pieces, have an identical hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons. Even they recognize Petrine primacy, couched under the toothless heading, primus inter pares. “Primus” does not mean “tyrannical potentate,” it means “the buck stops here.”

That wasn’t what I meant via hierarchy. Bishops and such are perfectly biblical. We do not see the form of the hierarchy as mandatory. Episcopal is as good as any other. What I meant was the idea of a hierarchy that possesses a divine charism over and above the laity; such that only they may properly interpret scripture, as an example. Anti-clericalism within certain Protestant circles is aberrant, just as the Roman Catholic obsession with the caste system it has invented is also.

Are you Swedish Lutheran of the group that has “real” bishops or was the lutefisk reference just a Minnesota thing?

Nah, just a Lutheran joke. I don’t believe in clerical apostolic succession. You and I are as much their successors as any bishop is.

 

[mercygate]

Except theologically lol

That wasn’t what I meant via hierarchy. Bishops and such are perfectly biblical. We do not see the form of the hierarchy as mandatory. Episcopal is as good as any other. What I meant was the idea of a hierarchy that possesses a divine charism over and above the laity; such that only they may properly interpret scripture, as an example. Anti-clericalism within certain Protestant circles is aberrant, just as the Roman Catholic obsession with the caste system it has invented is also.

Nah, just a Lutheran joke. I don’t believe in clerical apostolic succession. You and I are as much their successors as any bishop is.

I understand your position, and once held it myself. Of course, Martin Luther shared your views. Laymen are not outside the Succession. We are in it insofar as we are in the Church.

I’m flabbergasted that you feel that any form of church governance is as good as any other.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I understand your position, and once held it myself. Of course, Martin Luther shared your views. Laymen are not outside the Succession. We are in it insofar as we are in the Church.

I’m flabbergasted that you feel that any form of church governance is as good as any other.

Ha…in practice it may not be. What I meant to say is that a church polity is not an issue of divine command.

Congregational polity is awful in practice. I do think an episcopal form of church governance is the most effective. Presbyterian is also very good.