Methodist Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jinc1019 said:
I am sorry but an honest and clear reading of that letter from St. Jerome is clear…It doesn’t mean St. Jerome is wrong, but he clearly believes that they are one order.
Click to expand...
Today, it is still the case that both Bishops and Priests are considered “Presbyters”. Jerome is arguing that deacons have no authority over priests, because they are presbyters, meaning they share in the priesthood of the bishop, the fullest sign of Christ’s authority. Priests, by their nature have authority over deacons, because of innate authority of the Christian priesthood.

I pointed out the exact line where he differentiates the difference between bishops and priest, namely the ability to ordain. Jerome’s argument is fairly narrow, regarding the authority over deacons, and does not directly address the nature of the Presbyteriate.
 
jinc1019 said:
I am sorry but an honest and clear reading of that letter from St. Jerome is clear…It doesn’t mean St. Jerome is wrong, but he clearly believes that they are one order.
Click to expand...
Today, it is still the case that both Bishops and Priests are considered “Presbyters”. Jerome is arguing that deacons have no authority over priests, because they are presbyters, meaning they share in the priesthood of the bishop, the fullest sign of Christ’s authority. Priests, by their nature have authority over deacons, because of innate authority of the Christian priesthood.

I pointed out the exact line where he differentiates the difference between bishops and priest, namely the ability to ordain. Jerome’s argument is fairly narrow, regarding the authority over deacons, and not the nature of the presbyteriate in general.
 
runningdude said:
Today, it is still the case that both Bishops and Priests are considered “Presbyters”. Jerome is arguing that deacons have no authority over priests, because they are presbyters, meaning they share in the priesthood of the bishop, the fullest sign of Christ’s authority. Priests, by their nature have authority over deacons, because of innate authority of the Christian priesthood.

I pointed out the exact line where he differentiates the difference between bishops and priest, namely the ability to ordain. Jerome’s argument is fairly narrow, regarding the authority over deacons, and does not directly address the nature of the Presbyteriate.
Click to expand...
I can’t even begin to imagine the mental yoga one has to do to come to that conclusion. It’s pretty clear from the quotes I have already cited.

St. Jerome SPECIFICALLY says they are one order. I understand what he is saying about deacons and no one here is disputing that, but how you can suggest St. Jerome is not making the argument I am asserting is very bewildering. However, I will admit that just because he says it doesn’t mean he is right! But, that doesn’t change what he actually said.
 
jinc1019 said:
I can’t even begin to imagine the mental yoga one has to do to come to that conclusion. It’s pretty clear from the quotes I have already cited.

St. Jerome SPECIFICALLY says they are one order. I understand what he is saying about deacons and no one here is disputing that, but how you can suggest St. Jerome is not making the argument I am asserting is very bewildering. However, I will admit that just because he says it doesn’t mean he is right! But, that doesn’t change what he actually said.
Click to expand...
I misread the letter. There was also what I now see as a typo in post of yours that dramatically changed the meaning, to which I argued against. Obviously, Saint Jerome chose the losing side to this argument.
 
runningdude said:
I misread the letter. There was also what I now see as a typo in post of yours that dramatically changed the meaning, to which I argued against. Obviously, Saint Jerome chose the losing side to this argument.
Click to expand...
I apologize for the typo!

The losing side, yes…the incorrect side, I don’t know.
 
pablope said:
When it is the Truth…why would there be a losing side?
Click to expand...
Obviously, that’s my point. What is the Truth? Have you even looked at the evidence? I don’t think it conflicts with Catholicism at all anyway so I am not sure why so many are defensive on this point.
 
jinc1019 said:
I have heard multiple theories about apostolic succession in the Methodist tradition and would like to know what all of you think of it. From what I understand, they elect bishops from the priesthood and claim that it is based on an ancient decision from Alexandria. Is that correct? Is there any truth to it?
Click to expand...
The biggest question I would have is this. Who did they inherit their authority from? ANd do I accept that authority.

Besides Communion, Apostolic Authority is the main reason I am RC.

The authority was passed down to Peter and the Apostles and can be traced to the RCC.
 
I think that whether or not we Methodists have apostolic succession depends on whether or not the Anglicans have apostolic succession.
Fr. John Wesley believed that they did. I suspect–though Idon’t know this for sure–that Fr. Charles Wesley probably didn’t much care. (The Wesley family didn’t just fight among themselves; they;) went to war among themselves).

Of course, it might be argued that Methodists have lost apostolic succession. But that depends more on the person of Francis Asbury than on anyone in the Wesley family.
 
jinc1019 said:
Methodists teach the Real Presence. It’s as plain as that. Do they teach it the same way as the Catholic Church, no…but they still teach it.
Click to expand...
What other way is there to teach it? Its either the Real Presence or it is not.
 
So I didn’t have to go through RCIA after all:) I can tell you as someone who grew up Methodist I have no idea what we were officially taught but I always thought of it as the “real thing” even though I had no idea of transubstantiation or anything like that. I would say though that most of my fellow church members who attended contemporary would be mixed in what it was they were engaging in which was only once per month. Ironically it was the Eucharist that made me Catholic- once I knew the truth and it is kind of a long story that started with my husband being asked to be a communion server as a lapsed Catholic in our Methodist church and his severe reluctance and my investigation of why that was which led to my investigation of the Catholic Church and learning the truth over a year long period. I actually cried when I realized what we were doing was not what I always thought it was. It is encouraging actually to know that John Wesley is an Anglican saint and maybe as a Methodist I was not so far maybe from the Church Christ started but having said that unfortunately the Methodist church of today is not the one I grew up in when it comes to moral teaching(life issues etc).

Blessings,

Val
 
rinnie said:
What other way is there to teach it? Its either the Real Presence or it is not.
Click to expand...
Transubstantiation is not the only way of articulating a doctrine of the Real Presence. Some Protestants believe that the bread and wine substantially remain bread and wine, while the body and blood of Christ are at the same time present with the elements.
 
RyanBlack said:
Transubstantiation is not the only way of articulating a doctrine of the Real Presence. Some Protestants believe that the bread and wine substantially remain bread and wine, while the body and blood of Christ are at the same time present with the elements.
Click to expand...
But there is only one truth. We cannot have two truths.
 
rinnie said:
What other way is there to teach it? Its either the Real Presence or it is not.
Click to expand...
Actually there are MANY ways to teach the Real Presence. Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, etc.
 
Lifesong said:
So I didn’t have to go through RCIA after all:) I can tell you as someone who grew up Methodist I have no idea what we were officially taught but I always thought of it as the “real thing” even though I had no idea of transubstantiation or anything like that. I would say though that most of my fellow church members who attended contemporary would be mixed in what it was they were engaging in which was only once per month. Ironically it was the Eucharist that made me Catholic- once I knew the truth and it is kind of a long story that started with my husband being asked to be a communion server as a lapsed Catholic in our Methodist church and his severe reluctance and my investigation of why that was which led to my investigation of the Catholic Church and learning the truth over a year long period. I actually cried when I realized what we were doing was not what I always thought it was. It is encouraging actually to know that John Wesley is an Anglican saint and maybe as a Methodist I was not so far maybe from the Church Christ started but having said that unfortunately the Methodist church of today is not the one I grew up in when it comes to moral teaching(life issues etc).

Blessings,

Val
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your opinions and story. It is very helpful and welcome! I do have a question for you though, what do Methodists think about apostolic authority etc.? Did this factor into your decision to become Catholic?
 
rinnie said:
The biggest question I would have is this. Who did they inherit their authority from? ANd do I accept that authority.

Besides Communion, Apostolic Authority is the main reason I am RC.

The authority was passed down to Peter and the Apostles and can be traced to the RCC.
Click to expand...
The only things keeping me in the RCC at this point, are the Eucharist (and other sacraments) and the potential that papal authority is real (even though I reject papal infallibility).
 
jinc1019 said:
I have heard multiple theories about apostolic succession in the Methodist tradition and would like to know what all of you think of it. From what I understand, they elect bishops from the priesthood and claim that it is based on an ancient decision from Alexandria. Is that correct? Is there any truth to it?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Methodism derived from Anglicanism. If so, their claims to apostolic succession have been utterly void since the promotion of the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 fell short of the sacramental form required for valid conferral of holy orders. The deficiency was not corrected until over a century later, by which time all the people who had valid orders had already died. Thus, even if the Methodists did not corrupt the sacramental validity of holy orders, the mere fact that they descended from the Anglicans means they never had it in the first place.

See the Papal bull Apostolicae Curae, on the absolute nullity of Anglican orders, by Pope Leo XIII, for more.
 
jinc1019 said:
Thanks for sharing your opinions and story. It is very helpful and welcome! I do have a question for you though, what do Methodists think about apostolic authority etc.? Did this factor into your decision to become Catholic?
Click to expand...
Yes it did to a certain degree as my study led to the Church Fathers- actually sitting in my Methodist church I did hear from time to time about early saints in sermons. I think most of my devout friends from my old church see all of that as church history and interesting but not relevent to their faith lives now. But for me it was really all about where the truth was which was the Eucharist and also moral authority as so many Protestant churches go the way of the world. Miss the praise music though, that is about it and for that there is K love-LOL!

Blessings,

Val
 
sw85 said:
My understanding is that Methodism derived from Anglicanism. If so, their claims to apostolic succession have been utterly void since the promotion of the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 fell short of the sacramental form required for valid conferral of holy orders. The deficiency was not corrected until over a century later, by which time all the people who had valid orders had already died. Thus, even if the Methodists did not corrupt the sacramental validity of holy orders, the mere fact that they descended from the Anglicans means they never had it in the first place.

See the Papal bull Apostolicae Curae, on the absolute nullity of Anglican orders, by Pope Leo XIII, for more.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if it was you or someone else, but this point was brought up at the very beginning of the thread (I think, I could be confusing threads!). In any case, my response then was the same as it is now: Your answer makes the assumption that the Anglican Communion doesn’t have apostolic succession because the Pope said so, a claim many people would disagree with. I also think there are numerous compelling arguments to make in favor of the Anglican Communion, especially that when the Catholic Church regained power in England under Queen Mary, they did NOT force priests ordained under the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 to take new vows…It wasn’t until much later that the Church came to this conclusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top