Is the first Catholic Church Roman?

[Abu]

guanophore #40
The fact that others do not agree with your perceptions does not equate to their not accepting the Sacred Scriptures. The expectation that only one perception is the right and divine one is actually a fundamentalist attifude.
The love for the scriptures among our separated brethren is a work of the Holy Spirit.

The reality is in knowing that the only interpretation, against other “perceptions” on Sacred Scripture is that of the Catholic Church.

As the Holy Spirit does not teach or support error, all of the false interpretations contrary to Catholic doctrine are false which is precisely why there are many thousands of different sects all teaching something different and none having the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, Reconciliation, and many promoting divorce, contraception, abortion and euthanasia.

For the still confused, Fr William Most on Apologetics:
“Apologetics is a branch of study which aims to explain and justify Christian doctrine, demonstrating its reasonableness in the face of objections by those who do not accept it. Doing apologetics means defending the faith through the presentation of evidence and arguments.”
tinyurl.com/kz38p7p

separated brethren… are familiar with the Scriptures

The realty as shown above is that most lack much that is mandated by Christ including as well the reality of purgatory because actually lacking seven books of the Sacred Scriptures.

Jesus’ way of leadership ws not one of “rulership” but one of service. He specifically taught against leadership by supremacy.

Condemning the Church’s infallible teaching on the fact that that service is **teaching, ruling and sanctifying **does no credit to the author. That leadership comes from the Magisterium teaching on dogma and doctrine, and the Code of Canon Law defines rules and norms concerning that teaching, ruling and sanctifying.

it was not possible for Pope Leo to allow the validly ordained priests of England to continue to serve after Henry took over headship. It would be more appropriate to say that their sacramental service was valid, but illicit, just as is the service of any priest who is in a state of schism. The Bishops could no longer ordain any valid priests from the perspective of Rome.

As Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae was promulgated on September 18, 1896 it has nothing to do with that Pope allowing “the validly ordained priests of England to continue to serve after Henry took over headship” – that is false.

Regarding the truth that Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm from the time of the Apostles throughout the Church until arbitrarily ditched at Trullo, the guanophore comment that “We must be reading different history books” shows the lack of historical fact – quite a common and even repetitive error.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition among the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000). Without these defining studies much confusion reigns.

 

[Mystophilus]

One problem I see with the Anglican or Episcopal Church is that a bishop is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Doesn’t the Bible frown upon homosexual activity?

Jewish Law and Paul’s letters are very firmly condemnatory of homosexuality and of gay people. Some people in the Anglican Communion believe that to mean that homosexuality is wrong; some believe those passages to be misunderstood; some believe those passages to be merely a product of their own time and culture. Such divisions cause strain, but we (generally) manage to work together despite such problems.

Also, what does the word “catholic” mean to an Anglican and would you say that the Anglican Church qualifies as a catholic Church?

We take it in its etymological sense, meaning “of the whole” / “universal”, and so the “catholic Church” is the worldwide Christian Church, of which we are definitely part.

 

[Abu]

Mystophilus #42
the “catholic Church” is the worldwide Christian Church, of which we are definitely part.

The Catholic Church has never been part of the dissent and self-creation of other sects.

The Church founded by Jesus of Nazareth is universal. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

No other sect or church has the fullness of Christ’s foundation of His Church nor teaches the fullness of His truths with the infallible freedom from error in teaching dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.

 

[guanophore]

The reality is in knowing that the only interpretation, against other “perceptions” on Sacred Scripture is that of the Catholic Church.

Actually I think perhaps what you are trying to say here is that the only “valid” or “correct” interpretation of Scripture is that of the CC. In point of fact, there are uncounted interpretations of the Scriptures, which is one of the main reasons we have so many divisions. Scripture itself, as well as the Early Father of the Church, will testify that there are many and varie interpretations of Scripture. People interpreting it different from the CC still affirm it as Scripture.

all of the false interpretations contrary to Catholic doctrine are false

Of course this your position, and you make an important distinction, that being that the CC has only offcially interpreted a handful of Bible verses. What informs Catholic understanding of Scripture is reading it through the lens of Sacred Tradition. This is a lens that was lost with the implmentation of SS.

The realty as shown above is that most lack much that is mandated by Christ including as well the reality of purgatory because actually lacking seven books of the Sacred Scriptures.

This statement only has partial validity. Protestants rejected ideas about Purgatory because of the gross abuses of the concept by Catholic Clergy. It was only after that rejection that the Deuterocanonicals were removed.

The other element you have not reconciled is the position of our Eastern Brethren, who still retain these books, yet do not espouse the Latin conception of Purgatory (never did, even before the Schism).

Condemning the Church’s infallible teaching on the fact that that service is **teaching, ruling and sanctifying **does no credit to the author.

What I am condemning here is the attitude of superiority and the worldly/secular concept of “ruling” that Jesus expressely forbad. Yes, He gave authority to His Church to teach, sanctify,and govern, but that government was grossly abused by corrupt clerics, causing the flock to rebel and scatter. This was not part of God’s plan for the Chruch.

As Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae was promulgated on September 18, 1896 it has nothing to do with that Pope allowing “the validly ordained priests of England to continue to serve after Henry took over headship” – that is false.

You have proved my point for me. A document that was penned some 200 years after Henry the VII cannot be used to purport that the orders of the priests of England became invalid due to his rebellion. The priests were ordained before he broke with Rome, and continued to be valid afterward. Priestly ordination is after the order of Melchizedech, and is therefore, permanent. Like Baptism, it cannot be “undone”, especially by the rebellious actions of another.

Regarding the truth that Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm from the time of the Apostles throughout the Church until arbitrarily ditched at Trullo, the guanophore comment that “We must be reading different history books” shows the lack of historical fact – quite a common and even repetitive error.

From the beginning, continence was required for priest and bishop – for Early Church Tradition among the most important studies are: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990); The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2000). Without these defining studies much confusion reigns.

Continence, yes, and such continence is practiced by married priests as it has been since the first century, however, the gift of celibacy is not now, nor has it always been required before one becomes a priest. For many reasons, the Latin Church prefers to choose fom among those called to celibacy to serve as priests, but this is a discipline, not a doctrine, and could change (though I expect it is unlikely). Pastoral exceptions can be made, and we do have married priests.

In the East, celibacy has never been a requirement, but remains a preference.

The Catholic Church has never been part of the dissent and self-creation of other sects.

The CC is complicit in the fracturing of Christendom to the extent that corruption was tolerated in the ranks of the ordained. It was these abuses that fomented and fueled the desire to denominate. Have you studied the Popes and Cardinals involved in the events of the Reformation? Have you studied the Medici family?

 

[Abu]

guanophore #44
He gave authority to His Church to teach, sanctify,and govern, but that government was grossly abused by corrupt clerics, causing the flock to rebel and scatter.
The CC is complicit in the fracturing of Christendom to the extent that corruption was tolerated in the ranks of the ordained.

A false assumption yet again. The fact of corruption and distortion in some was present at the time of Christ, with Judas. The tragedy of scattering is the thousands of sects today all led by those who feel they know better than Christ and His Magisterium, like the poster. There were Simon Magus, Arius, Calvin, Henry VIII, Luther. Face reality.

434. If there was only one Apostolic religion, your own, when and by whom was a breakaway caused?
Breakaways have occurred right through history, beginning in Apostolic times. Simon Magus, mentioned in the New Testament, was really the forerunner of independent men who set up religions of their own. Christ Himself predicted that men would do this, saying, “There will arise false Christs and false prophets to seduce if possible even the elect.” Mk. XIII., 22. But in spite of this, He promised to His true Church, “I will be with you all days even to the end of the world.” In the first centuries there were heretical founders of rival Churches – men whose names are found only in textbooks of history – Montanus, Manichaeus, Arius, Donatus, etc. In later centuries we find the founders of the Greek Church, Photius and Michael Cerularius. And later still the founders of the various Protestant Churches–Luther, Henry VIII., John Knox, and a host of others. As the years go on, others will arise, linger for a time, and disappear. But the Catholic and Apostolic Church will go on with continued vitality till the end of time. Ever there will be in the world a Church able to trace itself back in an unbroken line to the Apostles; and that Church is the Catholic Church which is subject to the Pope as the successor of St. Peter, the chief of the Apostles.
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Magus&db=2

To consistently confuse and misrepresent Christ’s Church with the sin of those involved is the epitome of hypocrisy. Why? Because the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Further, She is the spotless spouse of Christ, and remains so forever. Thus She is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].

The other element you have not reconciled is the position of our Eastern Brethren, who still retain these books, yet do not espouse the Latin conception of Purgatory (never did, even before the Schism).

“Positions” are a dime a dozen – and any rejection of that teaching of the Catholic Church reveals the dissent of the schismatics.

You have proved my point for me
The priests were ordained before he broke with Rome, and continued to be valid afterward.

What this poster has “proved’ is his continued dissent against the reality of the Magisterium’s teaching against the validity of Anglican orders in the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations; his inability to accept that reality is clear in the fact that all Anglican clergy who wish to become Catholic priests have to be ordained as priests.

In the East, celibacy has never been a requirement

Yet another example of the inability to accept the continence required of all clergy in the Catholic Church up to the break by the East at Trullo, as shown clearly by the great studies to which reference has been made explicitly.

 

[guanophore]

A false assumption yet again.

Which one? That clerics were corrupt, or that the corruption caused the dispersion of the flock?

Why do you think the German Princes supported Luther?

Why did Germany and England eject the religious communities from the monasteries in their territories?

The fact of corruption and distortion in some was present at the time of Christ, with Judas. The tragedy of scattering is the thousands of sects today all led by those who feel they know better than Christ and His Magisterium, like the poster. There were Simon Magus, Arius, Calvin, Henry VIII, Luther. Face reality.

I don’t disagree that the Reformation created theologies that continued to disintegrate the Church. I am saying that the Roman clergy had a significant role in precipitating the rebellion. They were engaged in lifestyles and practices that would make anyone who wanted a more pure faith want to leave.

To consistently confuse and misrepresent Christ’s Church with the sin of those involved is the epitome of hypocrisy. Why? Because the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

Further, She is the spotless spouse of Christ, and remains so forever. Thus She is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, art 39].

So what are you saying, Abu? My statements that Catholics living in the flesh who disheartened the flock they were sent to sheperd makes me a hypocrite?

How does the truth of history “confuse and misrepresent” the Church? There are fallible members in her, whose sins have caused problems. Pretending this didn’t happen is not helpful.

“Positions” are a dime a dozen – and any rejection of that teaching of the Catholic Church reveals the dissent of the schismatics.

How much time have you spent with Protestants? Are you aware that most of them are born and raised in ecclesial communities that espouse heresies? Are you aware that the Catechism instructs us not to place blame on them for this? Do you realize that most of them have never “rejected” the Cahtolic position, not ever having been taught it?

What this poster has “proved’ is his continued dissent against the reality of the Magisterium’s teaching against the validity of Anglican orders in the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations; his inability to accept that reality is clear in the fact that all Anglican clergy who wish to become Catholic priests have to be ordained as priests.

Abu, I am puzzled why you would expect people to believe CAtholic teaching on this matter, when they have inherited a faith tradition that considers their Holy Orders valid for the last 500 years. You seem to be accusing and blaming Anglicans for continuing to support their priesthood as if they were doing so in a deliberately rebellious fashion. Most Protestants disconnected themselves from what Rome thought 500 years ago. Why should they start caring now?

 

[Tomdstone]

I am saying that the Roman clergy had a significant role in precipitating the rebellion. They were engaged in lifestyles and practices that would make anyone who wanted a more pure faith want to leave.

From what I have read about the lifestyle and practices of His Holiness Alexander VI, I would have to agree that it does not appear that he lived up to the papal title of Holiness.

 

[guanophore]

From what I have read about the lifestyle and practices of His Holiness Alexander VI, I would have to agree that it does not appear that he lived up to the papal title of Holiness.

There are two different meanings for the term “holy”. Although I am sure that Christ intended for the successors of Peter to emulate his striving for sanctity, the term is also used for vessels that are set aside for God’s use (like the dedicated vessels and furnishings in the Temple).

The words spoken by Giovanni de Medici (the future Pope Leo X) after Borgia’s election are telling: “Now we are in the power of a wolf, the most rapacious perhaps that this world has ever seen. And if we do not flee, he will inevitably devour us all.”

Certainly his peers did not consider him to be a man of sanctity!

If those who are close to such persons want to flee, how much more those later involved in the Reformation?

It is also no mystery why people would ask the question of the OP. Who could recognize such a Pope as a successor of Peter?

 

[Abu]

guanophore #46
I am saying that the Roman clergy had a significant role in precipitating the rebellion. They were engaged in lifestyles and practices that would make anyone who wanted a more pure faith want to leave.

It is not at all reasonable for “anyone” to leave Christ’s Church as there is no “more pure faith” regardless of real or perceived sins in some of the hierarchy. Such a view shows an inability or refusal to understand the institution founded by Christ.

I am puzzled why you would expect people to believe CAtholic teaching on this matter, when they have inherited a faith tradition that considers their Holy Orders valid for the last 500 years.

Belief is not open sesame – and for any real Catholic to ignore repeatedly the plain teaching of the Catholic Church in personal opinion is nothing short of pathetic, and dissenting. So here it is again for anyone who might be confused by this persistent detraction of Catholic teaching:
the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.

Why the persistent denigration of Catholic teaching on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations?

Most Protestants disconnected themselves from what Rome thought 500 years ago. Why should they start caring now?

What a clueless question. The thousands of sects all teaching something different has led many back to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. The many Protestants that have entered the Catholic Church in the last 50 years including giants such as Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi show the paucity of that view.

11/24/2009
“The Vatican has had many inquiries from Anglicans, including Anglican clergy, about entering the Catholic Church. This provision responds to these people.”
Msgr. Owen F. Campion is the associate publisher of Our Sunday Visitor.
tinyurl.com/kelvr9g

But the promotion of first women ministers and then women bishops in the Anglican Church show why such continued lack of “caring” for faith and reason has no place for Christ and His teaching, and precisely why the Church established by Christ has instituted Personal Ordinariates, for those Anglican married clergy converting. They have to study and be ordained if they are accepted for ordination to the priesthood.

 

[steve_b]

You can take that one up with the Vatican.

I posted from the Catholic encyclopedia
M:

Seriously? Your argument is “They started it”???

The way you phrased your question, “THEY” left me thinking you’re referring to Anglicans. Surely you won’t disagree that Ole Hank murdered his way to be head of the Church in England.
M:

I have never said that it is. It is, however, the system from which Protestantism developed. Therefore, the roots of Protestantism lie in Catholicism, as is very obvious from history.

Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Smyth etc etc are Protestantism’s founders. They are the roots
M:

If you really want a list of Protestants with a firm grasp of history, I would suggest reading a list of British historians since the C16th, since the vast majority of those have been Protestants.
Since you were asking about their name, what they call themselves is entirely relevant.

John Cardinal Newman an ex Anglican, while still Anglican, wrote “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”. That statement no Protestant can argue with.
M:

That Catechism explains that, and also points out the conciliar structure which the Orthodox have always held to be the fundamental operation of the Church.

And when is the 1st time we see “Orthodox Church”?
M:

That was what the Filioque Controversy was about, after all: the Latins’ making a unilateral alteration.

here’s a short answer
catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-
M:

You say that Ignatius “brings up” Clement’s writing to Corinth, and yet I cannot find any reference at all by Ignatius to Clement. Where are you getting that from?

He references Clement’s letter to the Corinthians

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].” Ch 3
M:

Further, we have no evidence suggesting that the demarcation of episcopal territories was anywhere near as rigid at the end of the C1st as the Councils later made it. It might thus be worth noting that Ignatius approves of the intervention in Syrian Antioch of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (in his letter to Polycarp, 7.2), despite Smyrna’s being at the other end of Asia Minor and Syrian Antioch’s being very close to Jerusalem. Ignatius also wrote to the worshippers at Smyrna, despite Polycarp’s being their bishop. Bishops evidently helped out where they were needed in those days.

for previous conversations

#123,

Ignatius wrote, and isn’t going to go against this

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8
M:

As many readers have noted, what is peculiar is that, while Ignatius refers to the bishop of the Ephesians, in his letter to them, to the bishop of the Magnesians, in his letter to them, to the bishop of the Trallians, in his letter to them, to the bishop of the Philadelphians, in his letter to them, and to the bishop of the Smyrnaeans, in his letter to them, he does not refer to a bishop of the Romans, in his letter to them. Indeed, the only bishop to whom he refers in his letter to the Romans is to himself, and his address to the Romans is plural, not singular. This is why many historians have suggested that Rome did not have a bishop at the time.

As I quoted previously, Ignatius isn’t going to send a letter to, or ask for anything pertaining to the Church in another location, that isn’t intended for that local bishop.

 

[Mystophilus]

I posted from the Catholic encyclopedia

And you consider that to be a higher authority than the Vatican? Interesting.

The way you phrased your question, “THEY” left me thinking you’re referring to Anglicans. Surely you won’t disagree that Ole Hank murdered his way to be head of the Church in England.

Do you believe that one murder excuses another?

Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, Smyth etc etc are Protestantism’s founders. They are the roots

So, you imagine that they materialised spontaneously as adults, with no cultural/ideological (name removed by moderator)ut from any source?

John Cardinal Newman an ex Anglican, while still Anglican, wrote “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”. That statement no Protestant can argue with.

You are repeating yourself, as well as ignoring the fact that the majority of British historians have been Protestants.

And when is the 1st time we see “Orthodox Church”?

You are repeating yourself, again.

here’s a short answer
catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-

First, that link is not working. Second, Catholics claims “justifying” the insertion of the Filioque are one of biggest barriers to unity with the Orthodox: you are still failing to listen to them about it.

He references Clement’s letter to the Corinthians

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].” Ch 3

A general reference to teaching others is not a specific reference to a particular letter, and this, I am afraid, merely reinforces the fact that Ignatius omits any mention of Clement, despite consistently mentioning the bishops everywhere else.

Ignatius wrote, and isn’t going to go against this

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

This is a reference to the value of bishops. It does not in any way mitigate the facts that both Polycarp and Ignatius himself are, as already noted, both demonstrated in Ignatius’ letters to be involving themselves in affairs outside of their own dioceses.

 

[guanophore]

It is not at all reasonable for “anyone” to leave Christ’s Church as there is no “more pure faith” regardless of real or perceived sins in some of the hierarchy.

I don’t disagree, but it seems you just are unable to step outside of your own perspective to be able to see from another’s point of view, even if you don’t agree with it. From the perspective of the Reformers, pure faith had been irretrievably sullied by corrupted clerics.

Such a view shows an inability or refusal to understand the institution founded by Christ.

On the contrary, all the Reformers agreed that Jesus founded the Church. They may not have agreed with the structure or Institution that came to be called the Roman Church, but clearly what they were able to see and experience of that structure had become incurably incorrigible.

Belief is not open sesame – and for any real Catholic to ignore repeatedly the plain teaching of the Catholic Church in personal opinion is nothing short of pathetic, and dissenting.

Abu, whacking people over the head with doctrine has very limited effectiveness in evangelization and apologetics. Your judgmental use of the modifier “real Catholic” represents your own prejudices.

So here it is again for anyone who might be confused by this persistent detraction of Catholic teaching:
the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.

Why the persistent denigration of Catholic teaching on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations?

I am not sure where you get the workd “denigration”. It seems like, if people don’t accept your point of view, you find it insulting. Disagreement does not equate to “denigration”.

Anglicans, and most other Protestants, are happy to affirm that the Catholic Church has the right to publish and believe as they wish (so long as others are not forced to accept it). They just also believe that they have a right to define for themselves what constitutes Holy Orders for their own communion.

 What a clueless question. The thousands of sects all teaching something different has led many back to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. The many Protestants that have entered the Catholic Church in the last 50 years including giants such as Scott Hahn and Marcus Grodi show the paucity of that view.

Insulting others queries of you as being “clueless”, Abu, also does not futher the cause of evangelization and apologetics.

1 Peter 3:15
…in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;

Your tone lacks reverence and gentleness.

Yes, there are some of our separated brethren who have returned home, but the vast majority of them are still keeping their own counsel and standards when it comes to doctrinal matters, such as the ordination of priests. Surely you realize that the Lutheran and Anglican Communions consider their ministers to be validly ordained, regardless of what Rome says?

But the promotion of first women ministers and then women bishops in the Anglican Church show why such continued lack of “caring” for faith and reason has no place for Christ and His teaching, and precisely why the Church established by Christ has instituted Personal Ordinariates, for those Anglican married clergy converting. They have to study and be ordained if they are accepted for ordination to the priesthood.

I am not sure that this results from a lack of caring for faith and reason. Many of those who have fallen into such errors mean well, but are pulled by the popular culture, which is one of “death”, as Pope JP II has noted.

Some of those clergy being received from Lutheran and Anglican communions are also married, and are still ordained as priests of the Latin Rite.

 

[Tomdstone]

But the promotion of first women ministers and then women bishops in the Anglican Church show why such continued lack of “caring” for faith and reason has no place for Christ and His teaching,…

I think that is a stretch. The NT says for women to be silent in the Church and to wear headcovering which is not observed today and this does not mean that there is no place for Christ in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

I think that is a stretch. The NT says for women to be silent in the Church and to wear headcovering which is not observed today and this does not mean that there is no place for Christ in the Church.

There is quite a jump from women having a place in the Church, and ordaining them priests and bishops.

 

[whoisdiss]

The first rite in the Catholic Church was not Roman. It is a rite we no longer use today. Like some others had said, people try and use Roman Catholic as synonym’s for the Catholic Church as whole but this is not proper. Roman Catholic is a rite in the Catholic Church, Byzantine Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”, Coptic Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”, Chaldean Catholics are not “Roman Catholic”. We are all Catholics, we are all apart of the same denomination, but we’re not all “Roman” Catholics.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is quite a jump from women having a place in the Church, and ordaining them priests and bishops.

Not really, When you have women teaching in church without headcovering, reading the Epistles, giving sermons, administering the Sacrament of the Eucharist, reciting and celebrating the entire communion service in the absence of a priest, they are performing activities that were once reserved only for the male clergy. Things sometimes proceed step by step, one step at a time.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is quite a jump from women having a place in the Church, and ordaining them priests and bishops.

The question was whether or not a female priesthood necessarily implies that there is no place for Jesus Christ in that Church. Your comment does not address that question.

 

[steve_b]

And you consider that to be a higher authority than the Vatican? Interesting.

What is it that went against the Vatican?
M:

Do you believe that one murder excuses another?

you were blaming Catholics for starting it and doing all the harm . #28
M:

So, you imagine that theymaterialised spontaneously as adults, with no cultural/ideological (name removed by moderator)ut from any source?

Re: “THEY” and what caused anyone to become a heretic, Paul gave this direction

Tit 3:10
“As for a man who is a( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

I would just make this point, what Paul said there, came from the Holy Spirit, which means it originated from Jesus John 16:12-15 .
M:

You are repeating yourself, as well as ignoring the fact that the majority of British historians have been Protestants.

I quoted one who was Catholic
M:

First, that link is not working.

oooops! Try this
catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-
M:

Second, Catholics claims “justifying” the insertion of the Filioque are one of biggest barriers to unity with the Orthodox: you are still failing to listen to them about it.

It’s a tempest in a tea pot.
M:

A general reference to teaching others is not a specific reference to a particular letter, and this, I am afraid, merely reinforces the fact that Ignatius omits any mention of Clement, despite consistently mentioning the bishops everywhere else.

There’s only one letter Clement wrote, the others he was claimed to have written are spurious. The news of Clement dealing with sedition of bishops in Corinth (letter to the Corinthians) got around to more than Ignatius. For example, Irenaeus of Smyrna, same city as Polycarp, same city bishop Ignatius writes to, makes reference to Clement’s letter as well.
Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 3 using it as his defense that all must agree with Rome on account of its preeminent authority among all the Churches.

“Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition…[snip]”

Coincidence? Ignatius makes a quick reference, Irenaeus goes into detail to make his point
M:

This is a reference to the value of bishops. It does not in any way mitigate the facts that both Polycarp and Ignatius himself are, as already noted, both demonstrated in Ignatius’ letters to be involving themselves in affairs outside of their own dioceses.

“Ignatius approves of the intervention in Syrian Antioch of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (in his letter to Polycarp, 7.2), despite Smyrna’s being at the other end of Asia Minor and Syrian Antioch’s being very close to Jerusalem. Ignatius also wrote to the worshippers at Smyrna, despite Polycarp’s being their bishop. Bishops evidently helped out where they were needed in those days.”

Asking one bishop to assemble other bishops to meet, to find his replacement when he’s martyred, is one thing, it’s NOT the conclusion you’re trying to make of it.
newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm

Clement’s action otoh, was a whole different situation

 

[Abu]

guanophore #52
clearly what they were able to see and experience of that structure had become incurably incorrigible.

As clear as mud – precisely because they jettisoned the Magisterium with Christ’s Church , and thus lost the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and most of the sacraments and proceeded to the evils of divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, women “priests” and women “bishops”, and no authoritative teaching, except virtually anything goes. What next is to come?

That fantasy of an “incurably incorrigible structure” has resulted in all of those losses while Christ’s Catholic Church is the only institution teaching the fullness of His Truth.

“Thomas Babington Macaulay, unusual for an Evangelical, became fascinated by the Church of Rome in which he found many things to admire, and in his essay on Ranke’s History of the Pope’s in the 1840 Edinburgh Review he both argued that it had proved itself the most successful and long-lived of all Western institutions and it had done so because — and this would certainly have been a point particularly surprising to Victorian Protestants — it handled dissent far more positively than had those who broke away from it. — George P. Landow”

“The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs….The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila.”
victorianweb.org/authors/macaulay/ranke1.html

They just also believe that they have a right to define for themselves what constitutes Holy Orders for their own communion.

Anyone can feel or conjecture anything – which ensures that what is not instituted by Christ through His Church, clearly defined by His Magisterium, is lacking precisely those essential elements and thus a shadow of His Truth.

Surely you realize that the Lutheran and Anglican Communions consider their ministers to be validly ordained, regardless of what Rome says?

No number of wrongs make a right. There are endless selfist constructions. The very fact of disregarding Christ’s clear institution of His Church including “he that hears you hears Me” shows the selfism which is rampant.

Some of those clergy being received from Lutheran and Anglican communions are also married, and are still ordained as priests of the Latin Rite.

Repeating what has been explained, as though a new revelation, is pointless.
Post #49: “precisely why the Church established by Christ has instituted Personal Ordinariates, for those Anglican married clergy converting. They have to study and be ordained if they are accepted for ordination to the priesthood.”

 

[Tomdstone]

As clear as mud – precisely because they jettisoned the Magisterium with Christ’s Church , and thus lost the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and most of the sacraments and proceeded to the evils of divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, women “priests” and women “bishops”, and no authoritative teaching, except virtually anything goes. What next is to come?

That fantasy of an “incurably incorrigible structure” has resulted in all of those losses while Christ’s Catholic Church is the only institution teaching the fullness of His Truth.

“Thomas Babington Macaulay, unusual for an Evangelical, became fascinated by the Church of Rome in which he found many things to admire, and in his essay on Ranke’s History of the Pope’s in the 1840 Edinburgh Review he both argued that it had proved itself the most successful and long-lived of all Western institutions and it had done so because — and this would certainly have been a point particularly surprising to Victorian Protestants — it handled dissent far more positively than had those who broke away from it. — George P. Landow”

“The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs….The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustine, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila.”
victorianweb.org/authors/macaulay/ranke1.html
Anyone can feel or conjecture anything – which ensures that what is not instituted by Christ through His Church, clearly defined by His Magisterium, is lacking precisely those essential elements and thus a shadow of His Truth.
No number of wrongs make a right. There are endless selfist constructions. The very fact of disregarding Christ’s clear institution of His Church including “he that hears you hears Me” shows the selfism which is rampant.
Repeating what has been explained, as though a new revelation, is pointless.
Post #49: “precisely why the Church established by Christ has instituted Personal Ordinariates, for those Anglican married clergy converting. They have to study and be ordained if they are accepted for ordination to the priesthood.”

There have been cases where the reverse occurred; i.e., a Roman Catholic priest becomes an Episcopal priest. In a case like that, would the Sacraments of the former Roman Catholic priest be valid?