Methodist Apostolic Succession

[Cavaradossi]

Maybe it’s my gut feeling but I am not surprised many months or a year from now you will put your religion as … still discerning… then undecided… then probably one of the Orthodox churches. I have seen this game played before in the CAF.

What you just described is conversion, and frankly it is anything but a game. If jinc1019 is sincerely a Roman Catholic with doubts, as he claims (and I see no reason to disbelieve him), then a post like this could potentially be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back, and drives him away. If your goal is to win arguments, you are doing a fine job by casting aspersions upon other posters’ motives and affiliations, but if your goal is to win souls over to your Church (or in this case, to keep them there), then you hurt your own efforts by posting things like this.

What is most regrettable is that you are engaging Catholics who are trying to defend Catholic doctrine … against a supposedly another Catholic. I feel like as if we are being taken for a ride.

But he has subjected to similar scrutiny claims made by posters who are not Catholic. Again, if he is having a crisis of faith or doubts about Roman Catholic doctrines, questioning his loyalties is the wong approach to take with him. It will only serve to drive him away.

Another thing, a Catholic will never refer to the Church as RCC; only others do that and perhaps with a disgusting connotation. You are talking about the Catholic Church as if you are on the outside.

The first place I ever saw the abbreviation RCC was here on CAF, and I have seen plenty of Catholic posters use it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I had never heard that story until this thread.

I haven’t either. Tis interesting though.

 

[GKC]

First, the best evidence is not that the Church has always regarded their ordinations as invalid. When Queen Mary took the throne and reinstated Catholicism, MANY, MANY priests who you claim were invalidly ordained were NOT asked to be ordained by the Catholic Church, who let them continue practicing as priests. The priests that were asked to be re-ordained were asked to do for specific reasons, such as being married.

Second, everything the Catholic Church teaches, right or wrong, is because the Pope said so…that’s the line of reasoning they use for the whole of their doctrines in our modern age, starting with the first time they declared their infallibility until the modern day. Why? Because if you have a claim to infallibility, your other arguments don’t matter at all, because ultimately, no matter what you argue in terms of theology or history, you can always claim infallibility.

Third, I do accept the authority of the Church, although I have always had my doubts due to some of the arguments made by the Orthodox churches…But authority without infallibility leads one to the conclusion that the pope is a lot like a parent in that they may have absolute authority over their children, but they can make the wrong choices still. Ultimately, sole authority belongs to God and to the truth…I am sure you would agree with that. So if the truth is more important than anything else, that is the goal I constantly set for myself. Now you would say the truth is that the pope has both infallibility and authority. My view is that he may have authority that I am called to abide by, but I don’t believe he has it right all the time.

And by the way, I doubt very highly the majority of Catholics, for better or for worse, accept papal infallibility…So I am not alone in this thought. (Not that the majority thinking something makes it right, because often times, the majority is wrong.)

I’ve been gone for a week.

Historically, re: the re-ordaining of priests, in Mary’s day, you are correct.

GKC

 

[GKC]

This is my first time in the thread.

Not “because the Pope said so” but because the Edwardine Ordinal lacked sacramental form, and the deficiency wasn’t corrected until well after everyone capable of transmitting holy orders was dead. The Pope has no authority over whether or not a validly-conducted sacrament confers its effect, because he has no authority over the form of the sacrament.

The best evidence that the Church has always regarded their ordinations as invalid is that Anglican priest converts have always been unconditionally (not conditionally) ordained.

I’ve noticed in the past you’ve said you accept the teaching authority of the Church but reject that it’s infallible. Yet you repeatedly go on to reject particular teachings on the grounds that they aren’t infallible. It makes me wonder what, exactly, your acceptance of the teaching authority of the Church consists in, since it apparently does not consist in accepting the actual teachings of the actual Church.

And intention, not just form. People always forget intention

And at least two priests have been ordained* sub conditione*, since Apostolicae Curae was issued.

GKC.

 

[jinc1019]

I was raised Methodist and the only time I ever heard that tale about Wesley being ordained by a rogue Greek bishop was on the internet by Methodist clergy seeking to legitimize their sect. Of course, if one believes in Apostolic Succession and if the tale were true, how could Wesley (an Anglican priest, NOT a bishop) ordain others to the priesthood?

The whole thing is only an imaginative narrative on the internet.

In Christ,
Andrew

Actually, the argument he made was that this same sort of thing occurred for centuries in Africa when all of the bishops were killed off with no successors. Priests actually ordained their own bishops in those cases to appoint priests, and this was based on the concept that there really is no different in class between priest and bishop, only in assigned powers. So they all would share apostolic succession in that sense and would have the power, if no bishop with authority was available, to appoint bishops. The Catholic Church accepts those lines in Africa as valid by the way!

 

[jinc1019]

I had never heard that story until this thread.
As I said befroe, my understanding (as a Methodist) is that there were bishops in Scotland (& possibly other Celtic countries) who had valid succession & they ordained John Wesley. Since the majority of the Wesley family (though not John’s father Samuel) were loyal to the Catholic Jacobite rulers of England.
For the record: The last legitimate ruler of said country was a Catholic Archibishop, HRM Henry Benedict Stewart, who died in the Papal states in the early 19th C. (This being germane only to demonstrate the state of utter disarray of the British royals as well as the British clerics during the period under discussion. I have no problem whatever believing that there was more than one high-placed churchman who managed to stay out from under the eye of the authorities. It would have been hard–and dangerous–, but not impossible).
This is my opinion, with which–as usual–one may, by adding in your pocket change, purchase a $1 item at MacDonald’s.

Hi Zooey, you mentioned this story again but I have never heard of it. Do you happen to know of a source for it?

 

[jinc1019]

Maybe it’s my gut feeling but I am not surprised many months or a year from now you will put your religion as … still discerning… then undecided… then probably one of the Orthodox churches. I have seen this game played before in the CAF.

What is most regrettable is that you are engaging Catholics who are trying to defend Catholic doctrine … against a supposedly another Catholic. I feel like as if we are being taken for a ride.

I am not saying exactly you are a liar. What is quite clear is that you are not talking like a Catholic. A Catholic would not disparage the papacy. He would fight tooth and nail to defend it. Even if you have doubt, surely this is not a place to discuss it. You can always go to the Apologetic section. Another thing, a Catholic will never refer to the Church as RCC; only others do that and perhaps with a disgusting connotation. You are talking about the Catholic Church as if you are on the outside.

Sure go ahead. You can say I am judging. That’s not my intention but you can ponder what I said too. I hope to be proven wrong.

It’s very, very clear what I am trying to do. I am Catholic, I was raised Catholic, I was brought up in the Church, I was married in the Church, etc. However, this does not mean that I should simply abandon all reason as you are seemingly suggesting. And your definition of a “Catholic” would actually throw out more than half of all Catholics, since MOST Catholics in the West do not believe in papal infallibility or in many other things the pope and Church teaches with infallibility.

I do find it funny how I am attacked, rather constantly, or in your case just criticized, for bringing up fair points of contention for which Catholics should have an answer. But when you give an answer one could easily say comes only from a blind faith in Catholic teaching without any really reason behind it, I don’t call you a “papist” or disparage you for your beliefs…I don’t say you are stupid for believing the pope is infallible…Yet these kinds of things are thrown my way all of the time by a group of people who claim to follow Jesus. I am not accusing you of doing such a thing because you haven’t been quite that harsh, but it is a common theme on these forums.

Orthodox Catholics shouldn’t wonder why so many have left the Church; it’s partly because many Catholic positions are purported with a certain haughty attitude that is unbecoming and unwelcoming.

I am honestly, faithfully, and truthfully seeking answers to very difficult questions…and if you feel the need to satisfy that itch in the back of your brain to disparage me for that pursuit, then so be it.

 

[jinc1019]

I’ve been gone for a week.

Historically, re: the re-ordaining of priests, in Mary’s day, you are correct.

GKC

Amen!
I have taken a lot of heat on that one.

 

[jinc1019]

What you just described is conversion, and frankly it is anything but a game. If jinc1019 is sincerely a Roman Catholic with doubts, as he claims (and I see no reason to disbelieve him), then a post like this could potentially be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back, and drives him away. If your goal is to win arguments, you are doing a fine job by casting aspersions upon other posters’ motives and affiliations, but if your goal is to win souls over to your Church (or in this case, to keep them there), then you hurt your own efforts by posting things like this.

But he has subjected to similar scrutiny claims made by posters who are not Catholic. Again, if he is having a crisis of faith or doubts about Roman Catholic doctrines, questioning his loyalties is the wong approach to take with him. It will only serve to drive him away.

The first place I ever saw the abbreviation RCC was here on CAF, and I have seen plenty of Catholic posters use it.

Amen to this as well.
I am very disappointed in how many Catholics treat my honest questions and beliefs. I have questioned many Orthodox teachings as well, but I have yet to find such hostility when I do so.

 

[Reuben_J]

What you just described is conversion, and frankly it is anything but a game. If jinc1019 is sincerely a Roman Catholic with doubts, as he claims (and I see no reason to disbelieve him), then a post like this could potentially be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back, and drives him away. If your goal is to win arguments, you are doing a fine job by casting aspersions upon other posters’ motives and affiliations, but if your goal is to win souls over to your Church (or in this case, to keep them there), then you hurt your own efforts by posting things like this.

With due respect, I cannot believe anyone can get converted in an internet forum. Faith and belief is bigger than that. But there are people who try, anyway.

No camel back should be broken here. Really?

But he has subjected to similar scrutiny claims made by posters who are not Catholic. Again, if he is having a crisis of faith or doubts about Roman Catholic doctrines, questioning his loyalties is the wong approach to take with him. It will only serve to drive him away.

As I said, you would know how a Catholic speaks. You’d know by their ‘body language’. You can’t masquerade as a Catholic. You may be a Catholic but your heart is not one and it’s a matter of time your true self will be exposed or you are simply dishonest.

If you are truly having a crisis, the Church is the answer – go to a priest, a church leader or someone in the parish. Have a heart to heart talk to them. What really goes wrong, for example.

Or one can be a troll in an internet forum and score some political point when later on you come up with a different religion in your personal data.

The first place I ever saw the abbreviation RCC was here on CAF, and I have seen plenty of Catholic posters use it.

No problem about that. If you are a Catholic, you just know. One can use in many ways but it is how you use it and you will be picked out.

 

[Reuben_J]

And your definition of a “Catholic” would actually throw out more than half of all Catholics, since MOST Catholics in the West do not believe in papal infallibility or in many other things the pope and Church teaches with infallibility.

You know there is no compromise on that. If you are a Catholic.

I do find it funny how I am attacked, rather constantly, or in your case just criticized, for bringing up fair points of contention for which Catholics should have an answer. But when you give an answer one could easily say comes only from a blind faith in Catholic teaching without any really reason behind it, I don’t call you a “papist” or disparage you for your beliefs…I don’t say you are stupid for believing the pope is infallible…Yet these kinds of things are thrown my way all of the time by a group of people who claim to follow Jesus. I am not accusing you of doing such a thing because you haven’t been quite that harsh, but it is a common theme on these forums.

I have seen a poster such as you who later on would change his religion. And, yes, in this Forum, after questioning Catholic doctrine, and engaging in its discussion. We Catholics got carried away believing that he was a bona fide Catholic.

I would like to build on honesty, even if it is a forum. I understand if a poster is not Catholic and discussion, sometimes argument can take place.

Orthodox Catholics shouldn’t wonder why so many have left the Church; it’s partly because many Catholic positions are purported with a certain haughty attitude that is unbecoming and unwelcoming.

No such thing. I am hundred percent sure there are Orthodox who are even more haughty with their belief here. If you are a Catholic, this is a place for you. You are intelligent enough for that and to know that.

I am honestly, faithfully, and truthfully seeking answers to very difficult questions…and if you feel the need to satisfy that itch in the back of your brain to disparage me for that pursuit, then so be it.

You have been veering away from the Catholic position and you already are supporting the Orthodox one. That by itself is no problem for me. But at least for yourself, perhaps you really should peel off the cloaks wrapping you and look into your real self. Who you really are.

 

[Reuben_J]

… but I have yet to find such hostility when I do so.

You don’t have to be Einstien to see that. Let’s see if I do that to them … .

 

[jinc1019]

With due respect, I cannot believe anyone can get converted in an internet forum. Faith and belief is bigger than that. But there are people who try, anyway.

No camel back should be broken here. Really?

As I said, you would know how a Catholic speaks. You’d know by their ‘body language’. You can’t masquerade as a Catholic. You may be a Catholic but your heart is not one and it’s a matter of time your true self will be exposed or you are simply dishonest.

If you are truly having a crisis, the Church is the answer – go to a priest, a church leader or someone in the parish. Have a heart to heart talk to them. What really goes wrong, for example.

Or one can be a troll in an internet forum and score some political point when later on you come up with a different religion in your personal data.

No problem about that. If you are a Catholic, you just know. One can use in many ways but it is how you use it and you will be picked out.

This is such a ridiculously foolish and outrageous assessment to make.

With all sincerity, I am very happy you are comfortable with your religion, but to disparage others because they don’t fit your perceived view of looking and feeling like a true Catholic is really pathetic.

Your arrogance and haughty nature really does say it all and is not at all the message of Jesus.

And by the way, did St. Paul LOOK AND FEEL like a Catholic prior to conversion? Did Scott Hahn or the abundance of other Catholic apologists feel this way? No. But I guess they just aren’t as smart as you are, is that right?

 

[jinc1019]

You know there is no compromise on that. If you are a Catholic.

I have seen a poster such as you who later on would change his religion. And, yes, in this Forum, after questioning Catholic doctrine, and engaging in its discussion. We Catholics got carried away believing that he was a bona fide Catholic.

I would like to build on honesty, even if it is a forum. I understand if a poster is not Catholic and discussion, sometimes argument can take place.

No such thing. I am hundred percent sure there are Orthodox who are even more haughty with their belief here. If you are a Catholic, this is a place for you. You are intelligent enough for that and to know that.

You have been veering away from the Catholic position and you already are supporting the Orthodox one. That by itself is no problem for me. But at least for yourself, perhaps you really should peel off the cloaks wrapping you and look into your real self. Who you really are.

Again no, this place is not a club for Catholics only…It’s a place for open dialogue and for individuals to try to learn something. You are contributing nothing.

And again, by your own standards, no one would EVER be converted because you don’t think Catholics should waste their time talking to people who are not “really” Catholic. What a stupid way to look at the world.

 

[Zooey]

Hi Zooey, you mentioned this story again but I have never heard of it. Do you happen to know of a source for it?

A biography of Susanna Wesley that I read some years ago. And I have NO idea about the title. It was a Free Methodist or Wesleyan author, if that helps.
The story about the tensions in the Wesley family in re the monarchy are legendary. Susanna & the children remained esconced (SP) in the rectory whilst Samuel went off on a travelling ministry for a year, until he was willing to admit that maybe, just maybe he was wrong on the whole question of the legitimacy of the exiled Jacobite rulers.
Probably the reason the priestly brothers had such a time getting along with one another, is that they grew up watching their parents declare war over anything & everything, mostly of less import than Samuel’s signature of allegiance to the newer monarchs.

In any case, this put both John & Charles (& the rest of the family) in close contact with Scottish nationalists–including highly placed churchmen, many of whom had been active in the attempts to put the Stewarts back on the British throne. [Where they jolly well belonged!!:twocents:].

 

[Reuben_J]

This is such a ridiculously foolish and outrageous assessment to make.

With all sincerity, I am very happy you are comfortable with your religion, but to disparage others because they don’t fit your perceived view of looking and feeling like a true Catholic is really pathetic.

Your arrogance and haughty nature really does say it all and is not at all the message of Jesus.

And by the way, did St. Paul LOOK AND FEEL like a Catholic prior to conversion? Did Scott Hahn or the abundance of other Catholic apologists feel this way? No. But I guess they just aren’t as smart as you are, is that right?

I have spoken. As I said, I will be happy to be proven wrong in your case. So we will see.

 

[jinc1019]

I have spoken. As I said, I will be happy to be proven wrong in your case. So we will see.

Exactly right, you don’t address a single point.

 

[jinc1019]

A biography of Susanna Wesley that I read some years ago. And I have NO idea about the title. It was a Free Methodist or Wesleyan author, if that helps.
The story about the tensions in the Wesley family in re the monarchy are legendary. Susanna & the children remained esconced (SP) in the rectory whilst Samuel went off on a travelling ministry for a year, until he was willing to admit that maybe, just maybe he was wrong on the whole question of the legitimacy of the exiled Jacobite rulers.
Probably the reason the priestly brothers had such a time getting along with one another, is that they grew up watching their parents declare war over anything & everything, mostly of less import than Samuel’s signature of allegiance to the newer monarchs.

In any case, this put both John & Charles (& the rest of the family) in close contact with Scottish nationalists–including highly placed churchmen, many of whom had been active in the attempts to put the Stewarts back on the British throne. [Where they jolly well belonged!!:twocents:].

Excellent, thank you very much!

 

[Randy_Carson]

With due respect, I cannot believe anyone can get converted in an internet forum.

True. However, Internet forums can provide information or recommendations about sources of information that can be used to educate oneself about the truths of Christian history…and to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.

 

[Zooey]

Excellent, thank you very much!

You are welcome.
But don’t misunderstand me; Methodist oral tradition as passed down may or may not be acceptable to others as true, but this is what I learned as a young person. *

*Back when wild poodles roamed the earth…