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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eark
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Or, if someone entered into joint communion with another jurisdiction, recognized in some places has possessing valid/illicit orders, and Ott, p. 458, accurately expresses what some people say about valid/illicit episcopal orders and if all other sacramental factors were valid, then the episcopal orders infused in the consecration might be valid. Depends on who you ask.
2.A bishop possessing valid orders, tout court, could ordain to the priesthood or consecrate to the episcopate anyone possessing the requisite sacramental qualities.
 
And it’s the episcopate that is the key. They are consecrating to the episcopate in steady numbers. Which will, eventually, make Apostolicae curae a document prescient by over 90-100 years.
 
ReadTheBible said:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It sure sounds like the Pope and scripture are at odds. This was the reason Rome fought so hard to keep a lid on scripture.
Click to expand...
I found an interesting article
[The Real Story Behind the Translation of 2 Timothy 3:16](franknelte.net?

Beware the article it is very long and is written by Frank W. Nelte who seems to be associated with Herbert Armstrong.
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
Using your analogy, On that continent, there are 17 countries, and 17 governments governing their people. Not an innumerable situation.
Click to expand...
It is remarkable how little faith some Catholic apologists have in the Vatican. They’ve dialogues pretty well these last 50 to 60 years.
steve-b said:
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?
Click to expand...
The next time you decide to use a polemic that starts with “‘Protestantism’ teaches…”,
remember this comment.
 
steve-b said:
Using your analogy, On that continent, there are 17 countries, and 17 governments governing their people. Not an innumerable situation.
Click to expand...
40.png
JonNC:
It is remarkable how little faith some Catholic apologists have in the Vatican. They’ve dialogues pretty well these last 50 to 60 years.
Click to expand...
Who said differently?
steve-b said:
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?
Click to expand...
40.png
JonNC:
The next time you decide to use a polemic that starts with “‘Protestantism’ teaches…”,
remember this comment.
Click to expand...
Some (same teachings) DO run through Protestantism.
 
Last edited:
GKMotley said:
  1. Or, if someone entered into joint communion with another jurisdiction, recognized in some places has possessing valid/illicit orders, and Ott, p. 458, accurately expresses what some people say about valid/illicit episcopal orders and if all other sacramental factors were valid, then the episcopal orders infused in the consecration might be valid. Depends on who you ask.
2.A bishop possessing valid orders, tout court, could ordain to the priesthood or consecrate to the episcopate anyone possessing the requisite sacramental qualities.
Click to expand...
In summary from:Holy Orders | Catholic Answers

Excerpts: (emphasis mine)

"No one but a bishop can give any orders now without a delegation from the pope, but a simple priest may be thus authorized to confer minor orders and the subdiaconate. It is generally denied that priests can confer priests’ orders, and history, certainly, records no instance of the exercise of such extraordinary ministry. The diaconate cannot be conferred by a simple priest, according to the majority of theologians. This is sometimes questioned, as Innocent VIII is said to have granted the privilege to Cistercian abbots (1489), but the genuineness of the concession is very doubtful. For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization (see below). "

I would just add this question, and comment

just thinking out loud 😎

Why would anyone think anyone ordained outside what Jesus established in HIS Church, The Catholic Church, is OK in the first place with Jesus? Since Jesus said soooooo clearly, division and separation is NOT an option with Him. It’s condemned in scripture. Yet people still try their darndest to justify it.
 
Last edited:
As to your quote, yep. That underlined sounds a lot like what I understand the RCC position to be on lawful (licit) conveying of orders. Ott makes the same general point.
What I think Ott is saying is that the RCC recognizes the ability of any valid bishop (including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops) to ordain/consecrate priests/bishops, validly/licitly, in some cases, validly/illicitly in others (like those in parentheses here), depending on the RCC’s view of the circumstances. Anyone with a problem with Ott there is going to need to look way over my pay grade to get it worked out.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
steve-b:
"No one but a bishop can give any orders now without a delegation from the pope,
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that. The Vatican recognizes the validity of the Orthodox and SSPX priesthood.
Click to expand...
You didn’t finish the quote, therefore, the point I was making.

"For lawful ordination the bishop must be a Catholic, in communion with the Holy See, free from censures, and must observe the laws prescribed for ordination. He cannot lawfully ordain any except his own subjects without authorization (see below). "
 
GKMotley said:
As to your quote, yep. That underlined sounds a lot like what I understand the RCC position to be on lawful (licit) conveying of orders. Ott makes the same general point.
What I think Ott is saying is that the RCC recognizes the ability of any valid bishop (including heretical, schismatic, simonistic, or excommunicated bishops) to ordain/consecrate priests/bishops, validly/licitly, in some cases, validly/illicitly in others (like those in parentheses here), depending on the RCC’s view of the circumstances. Anyone with a problem with Ott there is going to need to look way over my pay grade to get it worked out.
Click to expand...
🙂

above My pay grade too. That’s why I quote copiously

its also why I raised the following question. I change it here, just a smidge + comment

Why would anyone after being shown the truth all properly referenced, think anyone ordained outside what Jesus established in HIS Church, The Catholic Church, is OK in the first place with Jesus?

Since Jesus said soooooo clearly, that division and separation is NOT an option with Him. It’s condemned in scripture. Yet people still try their darndest to justify it.
 
GKMotley said:
Have you tried querying the general world of Orthodoxy?
Click to expand...
Orthodoxy got its start in a similar fashion as Protestantism did. Rejection of the authority Jesus gave to His Church He builds on Peter and those in union with Peter. They separated as a result

AND

schisms heresies, etc from the Catholic Church is a big sin (mortal) not a little sin (venial). Speaking of the Orthodox, now the Russians ~60%+ of Orthodoxy are now in schism with the rest of Orthodoxy. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...an-orthodox-church-splits-from-constantinople

To make the point of authority even more specific for THEM, the Orthodox can’t even get together in council as individual Churches with each other , over the last 900+ years. The one PAN Orthodox (as in all the Orthodox) getting together, attempted in 2016, couldn’t happen because the Russians and 2 other churches boycotted.

Orthodoxy got its start rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, put in place by Jesus. And authority issues remain with them to this day even among themselves individually… as with Protestantism of every stripe
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top