How do protestants explain the time between Christ and the reformation?

[GKMotley]

NO ONE speaks for all in Protestantism.

Yep. That’s true.

I think JonNC has spoken to the need to get all of us together, and what that would basically, imply.

Basically, I doubt that agreement might be reached as to how that could be done.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

NO ONE speaks for all in Protestantism.

Yep. That’s true.

I think JonNC has spoken to the need to get all of us together, and what that would basically, imply.

Basically, I doubt that agreement might be reached as to how that could be done.

Unfortunately, that is probably true.

I’m sure authority issues and disobedience to authority Jesus put in place, is all connected with Jesus, looking forward in time to the end, warning us in advance that few are saved

It should be a motivator but apparently it isn’t. It should scare the hell out of everyone, but apparently it doesn’t.

Therefor a permanent separation between the few going to heaven and the rest not, is already taking place at each person’s death. And we were given advanced warning.

 

[GKMotley]

In general, any Christian would agree with the end statement. But not how you arrived at it.

 

[steve-b]

In general, any Christian would agree with the end statement. But not how you arrived at it.

Jim Ole buddy

Any Christian? Depends on who they are choosing to follow.

And I didn’t arrive at what I posted as if I invented it. It’s quoted right outta scripture.

The sin of division/dissension is no light sin. Any sin that keeps one from inheriting heaven is a whopper of a sin.

The consequence for one who dies in that sin of division/dissension “They won’t inherit heaven” Gal 5:20-21 that describes a mortal sin. I didn’t come up with that.

That consequence has been there from the beginning. Not 1000 yrs later, NOT 1500 yrs later, NOT 2000 yrs later, The only Church that is there is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That tells us who the scriptures are telling us to be IN and NOT separate from…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Interesting discussion. I came from the Anglican Church before becoming Catholic so I still somewhat stay in contact with my former pastor, who seems to be insulted by Rome, as he says Rome thinks they are the only Church that exists lol.

What does it all mean from a Catholic perspective? Any Catholic can take a stab at it here.

I think the orders are not valid, of course, as they broke from the barque of Peter and therefore their Church does not contain the promises of Matthew 16. But that doesn’t mean the Anglicans and Lutherans don’t count as I see some here seem to imply.

So Protestants lack any tangible authority. But I think they are fine with that and believe too much power corrupts, anyhow.

They also lack a valid Eucharist. This is a bigger deal. Most don’t really believe in it anyhow. However, if Catholic/Orthodox synergistic soteriology is correct, then lacking a valid Eucharist could be the difference between 2 years in purgatory vs 200 years.

So yeah, I guess invalid orders do matter. With that said, I wish the “you don’t count” implication from us could be put to a halt, somehow, when we discuss this issue.

 

[GKMotley]

I think the orders are not valid, of course, as they broke from the barque of Peter and therefore their Church does not contain the promises of Matthew 16.

Which would not make their orders necessarily invalid (the orders of the Orthodox and such as the Old Catholics were not so declared) but illicit.

Apostolicae curae explains why the RCC has declared Anglican orders invalid. And if they were, then the issue of a valid Eucharist, or any other sacrament requiring valid orders to confect, would follow. How Anglicans would think of that is variable.

 

[ATraveller]

So Protestants lack any tangible authority. But I think they are fine with that and believe too much power corrupts, anyhow.

That’s a very important point. Baptists and other dissenters were mistreated by the Church of England. The predecessors to the LCMS experienced this too. And many of the groups that have left Mainline Protestantism know all too well the abuses that can be done by the people at the top. Of course, the down side to this is all of the constant splintering and regrouping. There’s not a lot of peace.

 

[JonNC]

Who does the Catholic Church go to, to talk about reunification of all of Protestantism when Every entity is their own entity and speaks for themselves? NO ONE speaks for all in Protestantism.

This is like saying the US can’t have diplomatic dialogue with South America because there are too many countries there.
Since the advent of Vatican II, the Catholic Church has had dialogue with Lutherans resulting in significant agreements. Catholics have met with Anglican leaders. Meanwhile, Lutheran and Anglican leaders have met. Lutherans and Orthodox, Anglicans and others.
This idea that no one speaks for “Protestantism” is a red herring.

 

[AlNg]

Apostolicae curae explains why the RCC has declared Anglican orders invalid.

1.If the orders of the Old Catholics are valid, and some Old Catholic bishops participated in the ordination of some of the Anglican clergy, would that make the orders of those Anglican clergy valid?
2. There are some Roman Catholic priests who have married and subsequently joined the Anglican Church. Would the Anglican Masses said by those priests be valid?

 

[GKMotley]

1. Per Ott, p. 458. this would seem to be what would occur; valid/illicit. The RCC has not, to my knowledge, made a definitive statement on that point. Which is, remember, not a question of “some clergy”, but of of joint consecration of Anglican bishops, by bishops considered by the RCC to possess valid but illicit orders. Which opens a wider issue. The point has been raised as possibly having played a part in both of the two known cases of ordination sub conditione as RC priests, of Anglican priests, post Apostolicae Curae.
2. AFAIK, such could be the case: valid/illicit masses. But that would depend, if it is the case, on all other sacramental factors being also valid, and on any disciplinary actions the RCC might have taken in the case. Fr. Cutie comes to mind. Nine years ago, when he left the RCC and became an Episcopal priest, this point was much discussed. I don’t recall how it all went, and my assumption might be incorrect here, on the basic question.

 

[AlNg]

this would seem to be what would occur; valid/illicit.

Since some Episcopal Churches have valid Eucharist, and since the Episcopal Church welcomes all who have been baptized to receive Holy communion, it seems like there are many Protestants who are receiving a valid and real Holy communion.

 

[GKMotley]

If the initial assumption is correct, then yes, that would seem to follow. With the caveats I’ve mentioned.

 

[Wannano]

Interesting discussion. I came from the Anglican Church before becoming Catholic so I still somewhat stay in contact with my former pastor, who seems to be insulted by Rome, as he says Rome thinks they are the only Church that exists lol.

What does it all mean from a Catholic perspective? Any Catholic can take a stab at it here.

I think the orders are not valid, of course, as they broke from the barque of Peter and therefore their Church does not contain the promises of Matthew 16. But that doesn’t mean the Anglicans and Lutherans don’t count as I see some here seem to imply.

So Protestants lack any tangible authority. But I think they are fine with that and believe too much power corrupts, anyhow.

They also lack a valid Eucharist. This is a bigger deal. Most don’t really believe in it anyhow. However, if Catholic/Orthodox synergistic soteriology is correct, then lacking a valid Eucharist could be the difference between 2 years in purgatory vs 200 years.

So yeah, I guess invalid orders do matter. With that said, I wish the “you don’t count” implication from us could be put to a halt, somehow, when we discuss this issue.

To me your reply is like a breath of fresh air in a midst of stench. I wish all implications from all sides would permanently cease.

I really wonder if the root cause to it all, whether Catholic or Protestant is idolatry. Loving our church and putting our trust in our church is taking our eyes off of Christ. Jesus warned us that many will tell Him of all the wonderful things they did and believed and He will sadly inform them that He never knew them.

 

[MarysLurker]

it seems like there are many Protestants who are receiving a valid and real Holy communion.

But because of all the doubt, there is no way to know. I am not just talking about doubt about valid orders. I am talking about doubt of intention—both on the part of the celebrant of the Eucharist, those who receive It, those who venerate or don’t generate It, and those who dispose of It.

Consider this: in the United Methodist Church it’s common practice to consecrate(?) bread and then after distributing it, throw the Blessed(?) Sacrament(?) outside for the birds and beasts to eat. If that bread is actually the Body of Christ, then that is quite the sacrilege. It is almost unheard of to reserve or venerate the Eucharist. Then again, even if the Methodist pastor had valid orders, he would have to intend to context the Sacrament, not to hold a symbolic memorial. There are just too many question marks flying around. Once you realize this is serious business it’s time to get to an apostolic Church.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

You don’t even need to be baptized anymore to receive communion at many Episcopal churches. Our church had dropped the baptized part and started just saying “all are welcome” for a few years prior to us converting to RCC. If some of these churches have a valid Eucharist, I wonder if it would be causing harm to people if they aren’t baptized?

 

[MarysLurker]

If some of these churches have a valid Eucharist, I wonder if it would be causing harm to people if they aren’t baptized?

That’s a very valid concern.

1 Corinthians 11:27-32 (NRSV)​

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgement against themselves. 30For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Even if many of these churches have valid orders at the moment, the ones that are ordaining women will have their orders completely die out in short order. The episcopal church is ordaining a large number of women now.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

When our old church dropped the need to be baptized we realized then that the EP church itself probably didn’t believe in the Real Presence. I mean, it’s theology 101 that you aren’t technically a Christian/a member of Christ’s body if you aren’t baptized. So they no longer care if non Christians take their communion.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Who does the Catholic Church go to, to talk about reunification of all of Protestantism when Every entity is their own entity and speaks for themselves? NO ONE speaks for all in Protestantism.

This is like saying the US can’t have diplomatic dialogue with South America because there are too many countries there.

Using your analogy, On that continent, there are 17 countries, and 17 governments governing their people. Not an innumerable situation.

OTOH, Each Protestant “church”, on any corner, even if there is only 10 people in it, is their own individual country making their own laws and their own decisions. THAT is an innumerable number of countries to diplomatically dialogue with

JonNC:

Since the advent of Vatican II, the Catholic Church has had dialogue with Lutherans resulting in significant agreements. Catholics have met with Anglican leaders. Meanwhile, Lutheran and Anglican leaders have met. Lutherans and Orthodox, Anglicans and others.
This idea that no one speaks for “Protestantism” is a red herring.

There’s no red herring

No ONE speaks for any of those you mention. NO ONE then can make a decision for all. So what’s the verdict?

 

[steve-b]

GKMotley:

this would seem to be what would occur; valid/illicit.

Since some Episcopal Churches have valid Eucharist, and since the Episcopal Church welcomes all who have been baptized to receive Holy communion, it seems like there are many Protestants who are receiving a valid and real Holy communion.

Q’s:​

1. If someone did a double reverse with a triple twist maneuver to get what they thought would be “validly ordained,” but didn’t believe nor go through all that the valid ordination required, is the ordination still valid?
2. Can a valid bishop ordain just anyone to the priesthood or bishopric and it is valid?