Help settle argument-valid transubstantiation in other churches

[Dovekin]

Exactly!

It is not relativism to acknowledge that an Anglican does not believe the fact. I can still believe the fact while respecting your opinion. And I can still believe while looking for an explanation for our contradicting perceptions of reality. I am not going to dismiss Anglicans as delusional, as some seem wont to do.

 

[GKMotley]

I reciprocate for RCs

Mainly.

 

[annad347]

Meant to say history, not their history… their history points to individual history, but I meant was history, specifically history of the Catholic church… not sure if that makes a difference.

Two thoughts: is this “it shouldn’t have been that way” something that could have been foreseen and prevented, or is it hindsight? Also, is it not a fact that we are all sinners? If so, then is it incorrect that “there are sinners in the church and there will always be sinners in the church”?

Yes “it shouldn’t have been that way”. If not foreseen (which I doubt) and prevented (again doubtful) shuld have been corrected.

The Puritans tried that once – the whole “sinners cannot be in a position of authority!!!” thing. Didn’t turn out too well. All you ended up with was lots of finger-pointing and everyone throwing everyone else out of office. I mean, it’s a nice idea… but given our flawed nature, it’s unrealistic.

So, we ignore what is happening when the one in authority is abusing his power? Besides the fact that we’re all sinners so it’s okay to sin sounds more like an excuse then being unrealistic.

…including the ones who turned their back on Peter???

Isn’t doing something that goes against the teaching of Peter, also turning your back on Peter? Isn’t allowing someone with authority to abuse his power for personal gain not an insult to Peter but more importantly God?

 

[annad347]

All faithful RCs should affirm all teachings of the RCC, at the appropriate level of theological certainty.

at an appropriate level of theological certainty?

 

[GKMotley]

Yes.

See Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, pp 8-10, paras 6-8.

 

[annad347]

I meant what does that mean?

 

[GKMotley]

Catholic dogmas/teachings are classified by a scale of theological certainty. I found, to my surprise, that I had bookmarked and still have a reference that gives para 8, which is the most pertinent point. The others paras, the the details associated, are too complicated to sum up.

Para 8:

The Theological Grades of Certainty​

- “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”
by Ludwig Ott.

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are " de fide definita ."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith ( sententia fidei proxima ) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching ( sententia communis ) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

(continued)

 

[GKMotley]

1. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.

Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum,” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

From the source cited, pages 9-10.

 

[Gorgias]

So, we ignore what is happening when the one in authority is abusing his power?

Of course not. On the other hand, we also don’t abandon him to his sin, or abandon the Church that Jesus founded for us.

Besides the fact that we’re all sinners so it’s okay to sin sounds more like an excuse

Where did I ever say “it’s ok to sin”? Never said it. Never implied it. Nope nope nope.

On the other hand, what I did say was “the presence of sin doesn’t nullify the promise of Christ.” Yep. Now that’s biblical!!!

Isn’t doing something that goes against the teaching of Peter, also turning your back on Peter?

Not in the same way that leaving the Church, denying the authority of Peter, and changing the divinely-assented-and-protected teachings is ‘turning your back on Peter’!

Isn’t allowing someone with authority to abuse his power for personal gain not an insult to Peter but more importantly God?

Sure. And how / where / when is that addressed? It’s sin, and therefore, it is the province of God alone, in the context of personal judgement for salvation.

 

[annad347]

Of course not. On the other hand, we also don’t abandon him to his sin, or abandon the Church that Jesus founded for us.

But I think that’s where we disagree… I honestly don’t think for example, when Martin Luther was trying to point out the abuse of power that was going in the church at the time he believed he was risking his position in the church, but trying to help the people.

He wasn’t leaving the Church but leaving the abuse of the person with authority at the time…because he was told either accept the rules of the one in authority or not. The rest kind of snowballed from there. So did He turn his back on Peter and God or the sins of man?

On the other hand, what I did say was “the presence of sin doesn’t nullify the promise of Christ.” Yep. Now that’s biblical!!!

Never said you condone sin or even that the Catholic leaders do… I just question if “divine authority” of God can be present in a sinner? If, it can then why can it not exist in someone from another church, especially if that church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ.

I understand why the Catholic faith says it can not but they can’t know for sure, any more then whether or not it can exist in a sinner.

Not in the same way that leaving the Church, denying the authority of Peter, and changing the divinely-assented-and-protected teachings is ‘turning your back on Peter’!

but they didn’t… this part is based on hindsight… and its time both churches correct their separation with each other… especially when we both agree both church have had sinner ruling under their roofs.

and with that thought… I think this has gone discussion has gone beyond the topic of this thread… wonder if we should start a new one or not because this topic as no real answers.

 

[Gorgias]

I honestly don’t think for example, when Martin Luther was trying to point out the abuse of power that was going in the church at the time he believed he was risking his position in the church, but trying to help the people.

OK, but when the Pope – in his document Exsurge Domine – said “we disagree with your theological innovations, now please step it back”, and Luther responded by publicly burning the Pope’s writ, you’ve gotta think that Luther knew what he was getting himself into. (And, in fact, he did – that spurred the Pope to excommunicate Luther.)

So, we’ve got a few levels of things going on:

• “hey, Rome… there’s something really bad going on, up here in my neck of the woods, with the way that indulgences are being handled.”
  • this is totally cool, right? And, the Church did address these issues, in time!
• “hey, Rome… the whole theological underpinnings of the doctrine which gives rise to ‘indulgences’ are mistaken.”
  • This is a whole different vibe, wouldn’t you say? After all, what it says is “I realize that you have the authority to promulgate doctrine – and I don’t! – and I realize that you teach that your promulgated doctrine is infallibly proclaimed, but… I think you’re wrong about that.” Especially for a person who took a vow of obedience to his superior (and, as it were, Church authority!), saying “meh… I’m not big on authority other than my own” is quite the assertion!
• “Hey, Rome… You wanna know what I think about your doctrine about justification, salvation, the authority of the Church, the sacraments, the ministerial priesthood? I think you’re all wet. And wrong. And my judgment is right and yours is wrong. Neener neener neener.”
  • OK… I’m being kinda snarky. But you get the point, right? That’s like the local worker at the county office telling the President of the U.S., “you’re not the boss of me; I get to make all the rules.” Totally… totally out of line, no?
• And, finally… “Hey, Rome: when you reminded me that I took a vow to hold to the teachings of the Church, and to obey my superior, guess what? I don’t have to do that. I’m gonna go start my own religion, and claim that it’s better than yours.”
  • There’s a certain mind-boggling hubris in that attitude… wouldn’t you say? And it goes well beyond “he was trying to help the people”, don’t you think?

He wasn’t leaving the Church but leaving the abuse of the person with authority at the time

Oh, no. He very definitely, distinctly, and with full intent, left the Catholic Church. Not the Pope – the whole Church, kit and caboodle!

 

[Gorgias]

So did He turn his back on Peter and God or the sins of man?

Interesting that you capitalized “He”, in reference to Luther.

I would respond, “the counter-reformation fixed the ‘sins’ of man’. Did any of the ‘Reformers’ come back to ‘Peter’, then, when the sinful acts were corrected?”

I just question if “divine authority” of God can be present in a sinner?

St Pope John Paul II went to confession each and every single day. Yes… we’re all sinners; yes… Jesus gave authority to Peter (a sinner!); yes… this divine authority, by definition, when given to a human, is present in a sinner.

If, it can then why can it not exist in someone from another church, especially if that church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ.

First, because that person left the “foundation of Jesus Christ”. Second, because they built on a partial foundation, and abandoned the entirety of the foundation that Jesus gave us.

and with that thought… I think this has gone discussion has gone beyond the topic of this thread… wonder if we should start a new one

 

[annad347]

:+1:t4: means yes we should start a new thread or :+1:t4: means this has gone beyond the topic of this thread?

Interesting that you capitalized “He”, in reference to Luther.

and if you think this means any more then a typo and that I suck at editing my post then that’s sad, I thought we were becoming friends.

I’m still thinking about and researching the rest of your post, thank you for that… hopefully I’ll know what to say before this one gets closed…or maybe start a new one.

 

[Gorgias]

:+1:t4: means yes we should start a new thread or :+1:t4: means this has gone beyond the topic of this thread?

New thread, I think…!

and if you think this means any more then a typo and that I suck at editing my post then that’s sad, I thought we were becoming friends.

Nah. ''Typo" makes sense. I just noticed it and it caught my attention. My first thought was “Freudian slip?”

I’m still thinking about and researching the rest of your post, thank you for that

Cool… I hope to continue the discussion!

 

[dochawk]

Only the various churches of the east have valid apostolic succession, thus valid 7 sacraments:
The Eastern Orthodox, The Oriental Orthodox and The Assyrian Church of the East.

that has to be qualified by some of the Orthodox, such as the Armenians, not using the name . . .

And, of course, the PNC, and some individual priests of the Old Catholics.

And then there’s the “Dutch Touch”, but I’ve been advised that it’s far less common than often made out to be.

Hey brother, I believe your mistaken, here take a look:

your article says the same thing as @vico, but in more detail.

And for a bit more detail, the priests in the Old Catholic Church that were ordained before their bishops lost the understanding of orders and therefore the ability to bass them on, are still ordained and able to validly consecrate, etc.

[note that such a bishop still has orders; it is the lack of understanding, not lack of orders, that leaves him unable to successfully ordain]

This article alone says they have apostolic succession and a true Eucharist. If you have a source that says they have women as bishops, then the situation may be less clear.

a bishop that believes that a woman can be ordained, whether he does so or not, lacks the understanding of the sacrament needed to confer orders. His attempted ordination of men would also fail.

Yes this article states that the Old Catholics maintain some form of apostolic succession, but I believe that it is iffy saying they possess a true Eucharist.

validity would depend upon the validity of the particular priest’s ordination.

The Church of Sweden, a Lutheran body, fancies that it has apostolic succession . . .

 

[CathBoy1]

And for a bit more detail, the priests in the Old Catholic Church that were ordained before their bishops lost the understanding of orders and therefore the ability to bass them on, are still ordained and able to validly consecrate, etc.

Agreed.

a bishop that believes that a woman can be ordained, whether he does so or not, lacks the understanding of the sacrament needed to confer orders. His attempted ordination of men would also fail.

Exactly!
This is exactly what I meant.
If they can no longer validly ordain priests (male or female), they will eventually lose all Apostolic Succession.

[note that such a bishop still has orders; it is the lack of understanding, not lack of orders, that leaves him unable to successfully ordain]

OK maybe I miss worded it, but this is exactly my point, after those Bishops began ordaining women they lost their understanding, going forward from that point no priest male or female is validly ordained by these Bishops (in the eyes of the RCC) thus there is a loss of Apostolic Succession (although there are remnants still in existence).

In the end the best that can be said is that there is remnants of Apostolic Succession thus remnants of valid Eucharist, I say remnants because in the near future (next 50-100 years maybe less) there will no longer be any validly ordained priests left (barring some really rare circumstance) in the Old Catholic Church, thus no valid Eucharist.
At best it’s very dicey in their case.

Peace brother

 

[dochawk]

I say remnants because in the near future (next 50-100 years maybe less) there will no longer be any validly ordained priests left (barring some really rare circumstance) in the Old Catholic Church, thus no valid Eucharist.

and . . . we’re back to the DutchTouch . . .

:crazy_face:

 

[Dovekin]

a bishop that believes that a woman can be ordained, whether he does so or not, lacks the understanding of the sacrament needed to confer orders. His attempted ordination of men would also fail.

That is a bit of a stretch. You would have to establish the bishop’s intent is not to do what the Church intends. If he has ordained women, you might be able to establish that.

But if it is just a professed belief that is not expressed in the ritual, it is murkier.

It is this cavalier attitude to our traditions that makes me wary of those who oppose ordaining women. They may be right on the core principle, but they seem bent on adding oddities to the theology of ordination.

 

[dochawk]

That is a bit of a stretch. You would have to establish the bishop’s intent is not to do what the Church intends.

no.

part of the requirement for orders is an understanding by the bishop of the nature of orders. He cannot confer orders that he does not understand.

and this isn’t much different than your phrasing. “What the church does” is not “ordain a person” but “ordain a man.” The ambivalent bishop is not doing what the church does . . .

 

[Dovekin]

What is needed is the intent to do what the Church does. Understanding is not part of that, though it can affect it. But understanding is not really needed, certainly perfect understanding is not. It really only matters to the extent it affects intent.

I think. Could be wrong.