S
sandmountainsli
Guest
Do you exclude Anglicans from this since their Bishops go back to Augustine and thus to the Apostles?
WP
- Status
WP
R
rr1213
Guest
Catholics reject the validity of Protestant orders for the most part, even those with an unbroken line of apostolic succession such as the Anglicans. As for the Anglicans, the Pope pronounced in the last part of the 19th Century that the Anglican line was broken through use in England of the Edwardian ordination rites which Catholics contend were defective for reasons of form and intent. The Anglicans, quite naturally, have a different view of the subject. Current status of Anglican orders from a Catholic viewpoint is problematic because there have been ordinations into the Anglican line by bishops whom the Catholics acknowledge to have valid orders (although illicit orders in their eyes). So, in essence, the facts have changed since the Pope’s pronouncement. Whether the facts have changed enough to make a difference is still up in the air.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It isn’t completely clear that they do - and in the case of Anglican Bishops who ordain women and practicing homosexuals, it’s obvious that they don’t, since they don’t have the proper intent, for the Sacrament of Ordination to be able to take place - they’ve mistaken the vocation of the priesthood for a regular secular-style job for which a certain skill set, regardless of the person who has the skill set, is all that’s required - their intent involves “hiring the best man or woman for the job;” not “ordaining a man to become in persona Christi.”
S
simbagizmo
Guest
But God can give this authority to anyone he chooses, can’t He? Even one outside of the established leaders of the Church. For example, Paul was given the same authority as Peter to preach to the Gentiles, even though he was not one of the apostles and not ordained by the apostles. Peter and the apostles wanted nothing to do him.
Also, in Mark 9 shown below.
This man was also not ordained by the apostles, and if he is casting out demons, one could assume he is also preaching in Jesus name. He was actually rebuked by the apostles and they forbid him to do these things because he was not one of them. But he was given the authority to cast out demons and Jesus told his apostles to not hinder him.
So, if men outside of the established leaders of the Church were given the authority to teach and perform miracles in Scripture, why would they have to be ordained by the Catholic Church leadership today?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Yes. He can. But even in Paul’s case, Paul had witnessed the martyrdom of St. Stephen, who preached strongly before he died and gave the good testimony of Chirst. Stephen’s faithful witness (along with many other Christians that he was persecuting) certainly played a roll in the transmission of faith–so it’s not like Paul figured this out without recourse to those who are originally called by Christ.
I will note, too, that St. Stephen, as a close member of the original Church, was brought to the apostles-- who indeed who prayed and laid their hands on him.
Actually, Paul was witnessed to by someone who had the transmission from the apostles, St. Stephen, well before Christ appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Likewise, before Paul even started to preached, he did go to see St. Peter too.
For example, we read this…
Galatians 1:18:
And this too…
Galatians 2:9:
Galatians 1:18:
Yes. But look at what Jesus said…
The Church has never said that Christ cannot work, via extra-ordinary grace, outside the existing visible structure of the Church-- and this is something that we’ve been over in detail before too. The point is that whatever this young man was doing was not going against what Jesus himself intended.
It does not, however, mean that this young man had the same authority as the apostles themselves. It’s just that this man was gifted in the ministry of driving out spirits-- much like how Baalam was gifted by God (the Holy Spirit) with the gift of accurately prophesying.
In Baalam’s case, the mad prophet really was against God even though he knew that God had granted this gift of prophesying to him. Baalam. much like the adversary, utterly blasphemed God when he betrayed God by attmepting to destroy God’s chosen people.
In the case of the young man driving out demons in Mark 9, however, the young man was nonetheless working for God even if he did not understand God in the true sense that the apostles did. The Holy Spirit was certainly using this man to do God’s will-- and the man was not saying anything bad against Jesus either.
This comes back to Jesus’ own words…
Why did Paul have to be given permission by Peter and the other apostles before he preached to the Gentiles?
The apostles are here to verify that the motion of the Spirit that these men experienced is authentic and true– kind of like God’s quality assurance program. Therefore, when the apostles speak in this manner, they are giving a visible seal of approval to those that these men were indeed called by God.
From that point onward, it was understood that Paul was indeed called by God and that he did have this authority that he claimed to have been given by Christ. In this sense, it’s a visble sign for people within the Church to understand that Paul can be trusted when he says the things he says, because the apostles recognized the grace given to Paul.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The reason we recognize Paul’s authority today is that, ultimately, he was recognized and ordained by the Apostles. When you look at Acts 15, it’s clear that Paul is no longer an outsider - he’s part of the inner decision-making core of the Apostles - the equivelant of a modern-day Cardinal. He’s no longer just an itenerant preacher going around the countryside telling people about Jesus (if he ever really was that - I suspect he had some kind of a relationship with the Church right from the very start, since he was baptized by Cornelius almost right away after his vision on the road) - now (in Acts 15) he’s ranked equally with the Apostles, with all of the duties, memberships, and privileges of that rank in the Church.
That guy who was casting out demons no doubt also eventually met Jesus and the Apostles, and became authorized by the Church in his ministry. I doubt they allowed him to be a “lone ranger” for his entire career.
S
simbagizmo
Guest
Acts 22:20 states that Stephen did not influence Paul, but Paul stood by in approval, holding the coats of those that stoned Stephen.
Again, Paul was not influenced by Stephen, but stood by in approval of the stoning (Acts 22:20).
This is not true. Galatians 1:15-18
I was asking my question in response to what “jmcrea” posted as the definition of “living transmission”. Please read the entire definition in the post. Here is an exerpt.
"jmcrea:
This seems to indicate that living transmission can only be done by one approved by a Catholic Bishop. My response was to this, stating that Paul was preaching and the man in Mark was preaching, or at least casting out demons, without the approval or blessing of the Church leadership. If you read in Mark, the man was preaching in disobedience to the apostles.
But it would be reasonable to assume that one that drives out demons in Jesus’s name, also preaches in Jesus’s name. And yet he was not approved or given the green light by the apostles.
Paul did not have to get permission to preach. He was preaching 3 years before meeting Peter and James. (Galatians 1)
Not correct. The apostles did not verify either Paul or the man in Mark 9 before they started preaching and casting out demons. In Mark 9, the apostles forbid the man to cast out demons in Jesus name. Paul did not even go to meet the apostles until 3 years of preaching, and did not need Peter’s approval.
I disagree again, Paul was preaching and even had his own disciples for 3 years before meeting Peter and the James. I also find it significant that Jesus did not direct Paul to go to the apostles. And this is my point.
Keep in mind, my goal is to get a definition of Sacred Tradition.
S
simbagizmo
Guest
I understand that he was let into the group, but that was after 3 years of preaching and discipling. But looking at your definition of living transmission again
"jmcrae:
You stated that it is because of ones ordination through the Church that one gets the power of the Holy Spirit in a deeper way and has the God-given authority and abilityto teach and preach. You later stated
Here you stated that if one is not ordained by a Catholic Bishop, they have no authority. I assume you interpret the Bishops to be the apostles and the Pope being Peter. Since Paul was never “ordained” by the apostles, I do not see how this definition makes sense.
I do not believe Paul was ever just a traveling preacher prior to meeting the Peter and James. He was actually establishing churches and had his own disciples prior to meeting Peter and James. He was obeying Jesus’s Will to teach and preach and establish churches among the Gentiles.
I do not know this and this would be pure conjecture. But what we do know is that this man could cast out demons in Jesus’s name and he was not ordained by the apostles. We know that the apostles forbid the man to continue because he was not one of them. We know that he disobeyed the apostles command to stop. We know that Jesus told the apostles to not hinder him, because he was doing God’s Will. We know that Jesus knew this man, like He know all of us. We could assume that the man was preaching in the name of Jesus, since he was casting out demons in Jesus’s name. This would be an assumption, but one that is likely.
To summarize, Paul was preaching, teaching, establishing churches and had disciples and yet never was ordained, or at least was not ordained prior to his ministry, by the apostles.
The man in Mark 9 was casting out demons and probably preaching in the name of Jesus in disobedience to the apostles.
Both of these men had the authority to preach and act in Jesus’s name without being given that authority by the apostles.
So my question is why does the Catholic Church require ordination of the Catholic leadership before one is said to have the authority to preach and teach in Jesus’s Name, when Scripture shows that one can be given the authority by God outside of the established Church leadership to teach and preach the Gospel message?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I think you’re missing the point.
Stephen did witness the gosepl message to the Paul, even if Paul (as Saul) did initially reject it. In fact, Stephen’s face was shining like and angel.
So, contrary to what’s being claimed, Paul did hear the message of the gospel directly from someone who was directly confirmed by the apostles themselves-- especially since Stephen was one of the original seven (as I noted already).
Even saying that, I’m positive that Stephen’s testimony (along with all the other Christians Saul was persecuting) did later influence Paul and prepared him for his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus.
If you’re honestly claming that Saul was not influenced in any way by Stephen’s testimony, then I have to ask you if you believe that all people immediately believe the gospel message when they first hear it?
Most don’t.
In fact, in real life, it often takes many messages before the Holy Spirit can break through and bring about conversion-- which is exactly what we see hapeening with Saul prior to his conversion.
Even the apostles had to spend a considerable amount of time with Christ, approximately three years, before they were fully ready to be sent out on their own for the Great Commision as the Holy Spirit guided them. Aside from his strong rabbinical training, I generally don’t see why Paul would be totally different than the apostles in this sense…
Consequently, Paul himself says that God set him apart from birth, and yet we both know that Paul (as Saul) severely persecuted the early Church too, the very Church which he himself admits that he was set apart from birth for.
Certainly, God must have been using the witness of people like Stephen during this time, leading up toward Saul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. This seems to be consistent with most other ‘extended conversions’ I’ve heard before And, to be honest, I don’t really see any reason to believe otherwise.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Yes. Fair enough. But I’m talking more about his three missionary journeys than anything else. You are correct that Paul almost immediately started to preach…
Even admitting this, we still see Ananias laying his hands upon Paul to bring him into the Christian fold before he starts to preach…
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I’ve read it-- and he is correct in my opinion.
I would note that the apostles were not fully trained at this time. In fact, at this time they still didn’t even understand that Jesus was really going to die and be resurrected from the dead yet.
Beside what I’ve already said in regards to this, Jesus’ rebuke of their actions seems to be his training and preparing them for after his death and resurrection transpires-- when their ministry officially begins with the great commision Christ gives to them.
I think it’s more than reasonable to be fair. But the apostles were not fully prepared yet. The great commision had not even started yet. In fact, Jesus had not even been resurrected yet-- and many still did not understand what was going to happen to Christ even though Jesus repeatedly told them exactly what was going to happen to him.
Much like Peter acted when confronted with Moses and Elijah on the mount of the transfiguration, I don’t think they really knew what they were talking about on this particular matter. Jesus was stil training them to understand this better.
Can you show me an example of this after the Day of Pentecost?
Did John the Baptist need to be approved or given the green light by the apostles?
Let’s not forget that this movement began with the very last prophet of the Old Testament, John the Baptist himself. Let’s also not forget that Paul had met many disciples of the Lord who only had John’s baptism before they were accepted by confirmation into the Church…
I don’t know exactly who this man in Mark 9 is. But he has all the earmarks of a person much like Apollos baptised by John the Baptist and not fully received into the Church yet. Here’s some good examples of what happens when the apostles actually meet someone who only has John’s baptism.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
He most certainly did have to be confirmed by Ananias before he could do anything. And he did not become filled with the Holy Spirit prior to Ananias reluctantly placing his hands on Paul at the Lord’s command. Ananias is thought to have been the first Bishop of Damascus by the way.
Yes. Correct.
See below…
Ananias did confirm Paul-- and this is how the Church is supposed to work, as far as I understand, after they were sent out for the great commision.
The man in Mark 9, however, was most likely a person who was baptized by John the Baptist-- and this is an example which has been recorded before Christ actually sent the apostles out on the great commision.
The difference between these two reports appears to be pre- and post-resurrection-- and, in the later case, it is believed that a transmission from from Ananias did occur before Paul began to preach.
But Paul did not do anything before he was filled with the Holy Spirit by Ananius’ laying of hands. And even before Paul went on his three great missionary journeys, he did indeed go to meet with Peter before he went. This is consistent with what is beleived within Catholicism. As Paul moved up through the Church, he eventually came to the leaders of the Church so that they could confirm the greater mission.
And, yes, the apostles did lay their hands upon Paul as well. Barnabus too.
Galatians 2:9:
*As 1 Timothy 3:15 notes, the church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
In short, Saul was set apart by God before he was born– and yet he did not immediately recognize his calling and actually did persecute the Church which he was called to build up.
Saul heard the testimony of Stephen and many others when he was persecuting the Church. This planted a seed within Saul as the lord was working within his heart and readying him for his encounter with Christ.
This too is consistent which a process that is often displyed in the Scriptures. For example…
1 Corinthians 3:6:
Saul, on the road to Damascus, had a direct encounter with Jesus. This had dramatic results on him-- it ultimately knocked any doubts he might have aside.
Saul then had the benefit of Ananius laying his hands on him to be filled with the Holy Spirit (prior to this time, Saul, like all people could be moved by the Holy Spirit, but he did not have the indwelling (ie., filled with the Holy Spirit). He then became Paul and began to preach. This would be akin to his baptism/confirmation within Catholicism. In this sense, he would have worked in the general capacity of an evangelist sharing the faith and debating-- not much different from you or I preaching.
Then, as his gifts increased, he was recognized by the pillars of the Church and confirmed by them before Paul went out for his three major missionary journeys. The right hand of fellowship they extended to him was akin to the sacrament of holy orders within Catholicism.
And, for the record, I don’t think Paul is actually called an apsotle until Acts 14:14 if I recall correctly.
I’m sorry. I’m not seeing what you’re getting at here. There’s nothing here that contradicts what Catholicism actually teaches.
Actually, I think your goal is to attempt to poke holes in the things we’re presenting to you for you to understand Catholic teaching better. I could be wrong. But, so far anyway, everything we’ve presented has been met with debates on your part so far.
Are you actually interested in learning this-- or are you more interested in debating?
I love debates-- and I would rather just call it as such and have at it.
S
simbagizmo
Guest
As all believers are set apart by God to do the work he predestined us to do.
I am sorry, but where to you read this. Paul stated he watched with approval the beating of Stephen. It does not mention any seed was planted at that point.
Paul had nothing but doubt prior to his encounter. He did not believe in Jesus one bit. He was the feared zealous persecutor.
But he did not work in a general capacity. He was establishing churches and had his own disciples for three years prior to meeting James and Peter. He had the authority to teach the Gospel to the Gentiles as Peter had the authority to teach the Gospel to the Jews before meeting the apostles. (Gal 2:7)
Yes, but my point is that he was already a establishing churches for three years prior to this.
I am interested in learning the definition of Sacred Tradition. You mentioned that Sola Scriptura is Sacred Tradition. This was interesting to me and wanted to know your definition of Sacred Tradition. If you want to call this a debate, I am OK with that also, but in the end, I am not going to say that Sacred Tradition is right or wrong. I just want to understand it.
To summarize where I am so far:
Defintion of Sacred Tradition:
CCC 78
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition
Definition of "Living Transimission"
Only ones ordained by the Roman Catholic Bishops are authorized to teach the Gospel. The original apostles are equivalent to the RC Bishops. Peter is the Pope.
What is transfered to the Ordainedonly by being ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop, does one get the power of the Holy Spirit in a deeper way than everyone else, and through this special kind of power of the Holy Spirit, have the God-given authority and the ability to teach us the Gospel through their preaching, through their leadership in the Sacraments, and through their actions on behalf of the People of God in creating practical environments for us where we can learn about Jesus and come to know Jesus in a living relationship with Him through His Church.
Is all this correct?
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
But not all believers are called to the same level. For example, Jabez was not called to the same degree as John the baptist. Those who are called to a greater degree than others are often mentioned in this singular fashion as being called from the womb-- whereas all people who have salvation in a ‘general sense’ are often spoken of as having been chosen from the foundation of creation.
Good Lord man. How literally are you going to read this?
Many people are being reached by the gospel message even when they are rejecting the gospel message they are trying to suppress.
Consider Lee Strobel’s words from The Case for Faith, recalling his own experience when talking with Christians before his own conversion…
The Scriptural record stating that Paul watched with approval the beating of Stephen does not contradict the fact that Paul was being witnessed too-- no more so than Strobel’s admittance that he walked away feeling smug and self-satisfied when people attempted to witness their faith to him prevented the seeds to be planted.
Regardless of whether people reject the message or not, the seed has been planted-- many times. And even if they choose to reject the testimony presented to them (As Saul did when he rejected what Stephen witnessed before Saul), they will still be held accountable to some extent to the testimony that they have been presented with and ultimately rejected.
The extent to which they will be judged and therefore shown mercy is directly proportional to their calling-- and the degree of authentic ignorance they are currently operating in.
Actually Paul was acting in ignorance. Paul himself says…
C.S. Lewis has often talked about this similar kind of experience in his own life, relating how his conversion was a rather gradual process. In fact, it was only in hindsight that he was able to see how God was leading him toward faith-- even though he did not realize that the Spirit was working at him, drawing him toward God all that time.
Anyway, having said this, if you can’t even admit that Stephen’s testimony was a powerful factor in eventually leading Saul to become Paul after his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, then I highly doubt that you will accept much else that I have to present which explains Catholic doctrines as found within the Scriptures.
We seem to be working from totally different perspectives here. Imcompattible perspectives at that.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I really don’t think the claim that St. Paul was a kind of “proto-Protestant” holds any kind of water, given that he was received into the Church by Ananias, who we read elsewhere in the Fathers was one of the most influential Bishops of the early Church; and the fact that he was a member of the inner circle of the Apostles by the time of the Council of Jerusalem, which is recorded in Acts 15.
It’s very clear that St. Paul acted both with and under Church authority throughout his preaching career, and that all of the churches he established were Catholic churches in full communion with Peter.
It’s very clear that St. Paul acted both with and under Church authority throughout his preaching career, and that all of the churches he established were Catholic churches in full communion with Peter.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
That’s basically my observation too. Very well said.
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
Alright. I’ll try this one more time.
The most simple answer is that both Tradition and Scripture make up a single deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church. This comes from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (section 10).
In other words, as the Second Vatican Council declared, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are “like a mirror, in which the church, during it’s pilgrim journey here on earth, contemplates God”. This is from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (section 7).
More to the point, however, God’s Word of revelation comes to you through words spoken and written by human beings. Or, as the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (section 9) states, Sacred scripture is the utterance of God put down in writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the handling of God’s Word by the successors of the apostles.
In either case, the Holy Spirit is at work. And, in all these things, the Magisterium is placed in charge. In this sense, it all comes around full circle. In other words, speaking of the infallibility of the Church, the pope, and the bishops, Vatican II says…
In other words, the Church could not suddenly declare that the doctrine of the trinity was wrong for example. She could not just suddenly claim a new revelation that contradicted the previous teaching, not had any precedent in Church history either.
But, since the Catholic faith beleives that God will keep his promises, we as Catholic do not worry about these kinds of pernicious teachings worming their way into the Church’s teachings. e are simply trusting that God will keep his promises depite our own ability to fail him.
God is not depending on us. We’re depending on God.
And the fact that the Church has indeed stood gaurd as the ‘pillar of truth’ over the last 2,000 years, protecting from false teachings, fairly well indicates that she has been doing an excellect job via the Holy Spirit to protect the deposit of revelation which came directly from God.
Does this clarify things better?
A
Alexius
Guest
Sola Scriptura is a not-so-clear minimalistic phrase uttered during the Reformation. It was never meant to be taken as meaning that tradition should not be used or that tradition is wrong. It was taken to combat the “man-made” traditions of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. Obviously Luther could not argue the Papal traditions unless he had a guide with which to refute the Pope with. Scripture became that guide. Sola Scriptura in the proper sense means that all tradition is proof-tested against Scripture. Of course, the problem is that every person has their own interpretation of Scripture, so this definitely falls short of being sufficient for Truth
.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
.Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
S
simbagizmo
Guest
What do you mean when you say handling of God’s Word:Alright. I’ll try this one more time.
The most simple answer is that both Tradition and Scripture make up a single deposit of the word of God, which is entrusted to the church. This comes from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (section 10).
In other words, as the Second Vatican Council declared, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are “like a mirror, in which the church, during it’s pilgrim journey here on earth, contemplates God”. This is from the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (section 7).
More to the point, however, God’s Word of revelation comes to you through words spoken and written by human beings. Or, as the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (section 9) states, Sacred scripture is the utterance of God put down in writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the handling of God’s Word by the successors of the apostles.
In either case, the Holy Spirit is at work. And, in all these things, the Magisterium is placed in charge. In this sense, it all comes around full circle. In other words, speaking of the infallibility of the Church, the pope, and the bishops, Vatican II says…
In other words, the Church could not suddenly declare that the doctrine of the trinity was wrong for example. She could not just suddenly claim a new revelation that contradicted the previous teaching, not had any precedent in Church history either.
But, since the Catholic faith beleives that God will keep his promises, we as Catholic do not worry about these kinds of pernicious teachings worming their way into the Church’s teachings. e are simply trusting that God will keep his promises depite our own ability to fail him.
God is not depending on us. We’re depending on God.
And the fact that the Church has indeed stood gaurd as the ‘pillar of truth’ over the last 2,000 years, protecting from false teachings, fairly well indicates that she has been doing an excellect job via the Holy Spirit to protect the deposit of revelation which came directly from God.
Does this clarify things better?
Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, is the handling of God’s Word by the successors of the apostles.
You say Tradition is the handling of God’s Word. Is it then not God’s Word?
- Status