Is your Pastor Valid

[PC_Master]

You keep avoiding my questions. I don’t understand why, but regardless, would you please just answer them this one time?

Does the ordainment of a priest endow them with protection from error or not? (Yes or no.)

If not, what else does it endow the ordained with?

No. It is not affirming the consequent. Not giving the Sacraments or redefining the Sacraments as less important is an example of begging the question of whether or not ordination is valid.

Actually, you’re asserting (without proof) that the Roman Catholic sacraments are valid, and you’re also asserting (without proof) that one must be a validly ordained priest to administer them. You’ve proven neither point, but are assuming the consequent in this form…

If one is not validly ordained, one cannot administer the sacraments.
Protestant ministers do not administer the sacraments.
Therefore, Protestant ministers are not validly ordained.

To prove what you’re saying, you must…

1. The sacraments are valid (of course, you’ll approach this from a “the church says so” view, so I doubt this will get us anywhere).
2. That one must be ordained with valid apostolic succession to administer sacraments (again, we’d be seeing a “the church says so” thing).

Oh, and since we know there have been schismatic bishops and priests through the centuries, I’d like to know whether their future actions were indeed valid in areas of ordination, sacraments, etc? If not, then obviously ordination doesn’t give them the ability to be valid, unless they somehow lost this ordination upon leaving the Roman Catholic Church.

One way to dispute someone’s authority is to do an endrun around it. Redefining the Sacraments as less important or even as symbolic is one example of an endrun. The endrun begs the question of authority.

The very idea that a non-Roman-Catholic minister would be valid is a disputation of Roman Catholic authority, so why bother with your semantics?

But I guess since you couldn’t substantiate exactly why it is that ordination is important, or for that matter exactly where scripture tells us that valid ordination is required, it’s easier to quibble over minutia.

 

[Jesusstreet]

Ahhh, i see. Tertulian WAS a bishop. Why were those he ordained after he left the church not valid?

Before i listen to revisionist history arguements in an attempt to show that apostacy is not apostacy, and that invalid ordination are valid, and before we promote the devil to a minister of grace, let us get some background . … newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

Tertullian was a 2nd and 3rd century Bishop . … What has that to do with Luther and Calvin who were never a Bishop? Tertullian taught heresies . … do you think those teaching heresies remain in CHRIST able to ordain. The Orthodox Churches believe in the REAL PRESENCE, if they did not they too would fall into apostacy. Though i would also say the should be Roman Catholic, because they are still not part of the FULLNESS OF THE TRUTH. Tertullian’s view points on the HOLY EUCHARIST show that he was an apostate heretic, because he denined THE REAL PRESENCE. If CHRIST allows the existance of Catholic Orthodoxy, that is because CHRIST chooses this, but CHRIST is clearly evident not supporting heresy, as a renegade Bishop. (in the dark people are permitted to do these things but when JESUS comes and brings these things to light, many shall weep and mourn) If the Pope excommunicates a Bishop, such as a Bishop who is performing homosex marriages or some other heresy against doctrine, what becomes of the diocese if they are in some region where they cannot easily just replace the Bishop? Do you excommunicate the entire diocese for the sin of the Bishop, it seems you have to. But then what does a 2nd and 3rd century bishop have to do with a 16th century apostate?

(tertullian was a rash careless historian and apologist. if you recognize the errors here)

 

[TobyLue]

Here is something I believe is worthwhile reading.
Something that has to be read carefully.

God Bless.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PC Master:

You keep avoiding my questions.

Sir, with all due respect, you keep avoiding our answers. Folks only have to read down the posts to note that your questions have been answered in full. They will also note that for some reason our answers do not satisfy you. I suggest that the reason our answers do not satisfy you is because you disagree with them, not because they have not been offered.

In my opinion: a perfectly interesting and enlarging thread going down the tubes due to tautologized evasion.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Here is something I believe is worthwhile reading. Something that has to be read carefully. God Bless.

This was right on the mark. Thanks for this!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

PC Master: Do you think the disciples themselves were protected from error in teaching and preaching? If so how?

If not does that mean we should all form our own churches and worship our own interpretation of truth?

 

[TobyLue]

Here is the crux of the problem with PCMaster and with many others. He states

God promised to lead us (each of us, given** my **interpretation of scripture) into all truth. So, I do my best to allow that to happen. I study and pray. And honestly, when this brings me to conclusions that are drastically different from the Roman Catholic position, how can I possibly believe Roman Catholic priests to be valid, if they’re teaching something consistently that isn’t the will of God (in my view)?

By what authority do you claim your interpretation to be the true one and the CC to be the wrong one? How do you know that your interpretations is not really the one that is NOT the will of God. Jesus founded ONE Church who said that the gates of hell would not prevail. The HS would lead that Church to all truth. All heretics think THEY are doing the will of God and the Church is wrong. Prove to us that your interpretations are consistent with those throughout history or are they just novel ideas and you claim yours are correct? Remember, you rightly state “my interpretation” and “in my view”. You say your study and pray. Do you have the experience of 2000 years of studying and praying like the CC? I’m curious to know…

 

[Aramis]

Ordination does not protect a cleric from erring.

It gives him assistance to avoid error, **if **he is willing to listen to the Holy Spirit.

And listening to the Holy Spirit is not always the easiest thing, for even patriarchs are human, and need to work to retain their relationship with God.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

But with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and by listening to the gospel being taught by those with authority to teach it and by those who have received the same gospel as that preached by the disciples one does have a far better chance of being able to preach that same gospel.

Are they guranteed to not be in error?

No.

Do they have a much better chance of being free from error than anyone else?

Of course! That’s the whole point!

 

[PC_Master]

Ordination does not protect a cleric from erring.

It gives him assistance to avoid error, **if **he is willing to listen to the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for this key point.

Now my question is – if it’s listening to the guidance of the holy spirit that keeps you from error (a position I firmly agree with, by the way), why can’t just anyone achieve this, if he indeed listens fully to the holy spirit?

 

[heisenburg]

Why Can’t Anyone just receive this.

Because thats what the Bible Says. As has been mentioned numerous times, there are countless pages on the importance of teachers/elders/bishops, and WHO should be these people.

To those that don’t see its importance, this is because you do not want to. No other reason than that. It is pride. It is arrogant. And it says you think you know more than what the bible says

Ordination is not a Catholic invention

Ordination and its importance are in the BIBLE.

The Bible goes ON to say that Timothy (or someone like him) needed to ordain. The individual couldn’t Ordain himself.

To everyone so insistent on the fact that Bishops have sinned as proof it isn’t so… Either you are missing the point, or ignoring it.

I wanted to talk about the importance of ordination… All that has been discussed is the sin of those ordained.

Red Hearing
Staw Man

If you have a problem with Bishop sinning. Take it up with the BIBLE, because it is the bible that talks about the importance of ordination.

Don’t like the issue of ordination? Great… but don’t claim to be an obedient Christian either because now you become a hypocrite.

In Christ

 

[PC_Master]

Eh, the thing is, the two subjects are linked.

You’re asking whether people feel it’s important that pastors/priests be ordained. But to establish whether or not it’s important, we have to establish exactly what the ordination is and what benefit it imparts.

Thus far, I’ve heard nothing about the importance of ordination except for a sorta-half-working protection from error that only happens when one listens to the holy spirit.

Now, if you want to go into criteria for a pastor or bishop, then sure, let’s look at it in scripture. Show me what scripture says about it.

 

[heisenburg]

The bible gives details on WHO because those that fit this description will be less likely to introduce error. They are not protected from sin, any more than you.

Think about it like this. Who would you want to learn physics from…

1. Someone with a PHD in Physics
2. Someone who just claims to know a lot about physics
3. A physics student with minimal years under his belt

Obviously (1) They are less likely to teach error. and are less likely to introduce stupid ideas. It doesn’t mean they wont, it just means the likley hood goes down. That is why the two are seperate.

Further more. Would you want to be taught by someone who was given a PhD from a non accredited, Joe’s back alley College? or from A school accredited by the National Association of Physicist.

Again, the later.

When someone ordains them self, they may or may not fit the description in the bible. They may or may not have a lasting zeal. They may or may not have a valid understanding. They may not even understand what it means to be a Christian.

When someone follows the rules. They are being ordained by someone validly ordained (like the accredited college) and they have the requirements (just like the earning of a PhD)

It is not about the sin, and they are separated. God set aside the special office of Bishop. God set aside requirements. It is not up to an individual to change them because “it doesn’t suit them”

In Christ

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Christ founded His Church as a supernatural society, the Kingdom of God. In this society there must be the power of ruling

; and also the principles by which the members are to attain their supernatural end, viz., supernatural truth, which is held by faith, and supernatural grace by which man is formally elevated to the supernatural order.

Thus, besides the power of jurisdiction, the Church has the power of teaching (magisterium) and the power of conferring grace (power of order). This power of order was committed by our Lord to His Apostles, who were to continue His work and to be His earthly representatives.

The Apostles received their power from Christ: “as the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21). Christ possessed fullness of power in virtue of His priesthood–of His office as Redeemer and Mediator. He merited the grace which freed man from the bondage of sin, which grace is applied to man mediately by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and immediately by the sacraments.

He gave His Apostles the power to offer the Sacrifice (Luke 22:19), and dispense the sacraments (Matthew 28:18; John 20:22, 23); thus making them priests.

It is true that every Christian receives sanctifying grace which confers on him a priesthood. Even as Israel under the Old dispensation was to God “a priestly kingdom” (Exodus 19:4-6), thus under the New, all Christians are “a kingly priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9);

but now as then the special and sacramental priesthood strengthens and perfects the universal priesthood (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6; Romans 15:16). link

 

[Aramis]

Thank you for this key point.

Now my question is – if it’s listening to the guidance of the holy spirit that keeps you from error (a position I firmly agree with, by the way), why can’t just anyone achieve this, if he indeed listens fully to the holy spirit?

EVERYONE can listen to the Holy Spirit. But not everyone is annointed to be the official interpreter of scripture and Tradition.

Bishops absolutely are, and the Patriarchs appointed further (but not ordained) to supervise their brother bishops and aid them in avoiding error, and the Pope further appointed to aid and guide his brother patriarchs. Likewise, Metropolitan Archbishops are appointed further to guide and aid their suffragan and auxilliary bishops.

They ordain their priests and deacons, and supervise them, for they have less share in the fullness of the holy spirit. They also appoint them to teach and to preach, and in the case of priests, to say the Divine Liturgy/Mass/Holy Quorbono in the Bishop’s stead, so that all may celebrate the Eucharist.

The Patriarchs are elected by their synods (or a subset of electors in the Roman case, known now as Cardinals), who are hopefully, as a group, discerning the most open to listening to the Holy Spirit person, and electing that person to the Patriarchy. And, given that the other patriarchs receive by right the next open Cardinal-bishoprics, the Pope is quite honestly expected to be he who is most open to the Holy Spirit.

But ALL of these men are still human, no matter the changes to their souls, and subject to hubris, pride, and arrogance, as well as other sins, and may not always listen to the Holy Spirit. That change at Ordination is said to make it easier. (My dad, an RC Deacon, has implied this in several conversations, as have several priests I’ve known.)

Further, the ordained are supposed to be educated/trained enough to know the difference between hearing the Holy Spirit and hearing an unclean spirit… few laymen are.

 

[DJim]

Thank you for this key point.

Now my question is – if it’s listening to the guidance of the holy spirit that keeps you from error (a position I firmly agree with, by the way), why can’t just anyone achieve this, if he indeed listens fully to the holy spirit?

Actually, part of “listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit” involves listening to the guidance of the teaching authority of the Church. You can’t pit “my” Holy Spirit against the Church’s Holy Spirit.

The only way to personally listen to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a way that protects you from error is to listen also to the teaching voice of the Church…

The Sacrament of Holy Orders is not about infallibility. It is a participation in the direct ministry of the Apostles–one who is ordained a deacon, priest, or bishop is therefore “authorized” to serve the Church in the same manner as the Apostles–in service, sacrifice, and teaching.

The grace of Holy Orders is geared to accomplish these tasks of ministry for the sake of the Church, and if that grace also assists the individual cleric in holiness–which it should–all the better. But the Sacrament exists for the good of the Church more than the good of the individual…

The point of apostolic succession is one of “identity” rather than “function”. To be part of the continuous line of apostolic ministry is a means of unifying the Churches of all generations and of “legitimizing” the living Magisterium’s authority and mission.

Having valid “orders” or valid “succession” is an expression of the four marks of the Church–one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

NOT having valid orders or succession is an expression that something is lacking in those four marks…

DJim