Non-Catholic Christians view on apostolic succession?

[Jon_S_1]

Greetings, Susan.

I see your point. However, Jesus had many, many followers, yet he only commissioned the select few. He also gave them authority John 20:21-23 Do you find this to be at all significant?

Absolutely, they safeguarded the scriptures…actually they safeguarded the entire deposit of faith.

So do you think A/S was necessary, maybe for that time but not to be continued post reformation?

I think Paul was a extraordinary case for sure. I think non-apostolic churches can/do point to that and say, see anybody is called and do not need to be from the line of succession. The problem with that is Paul was raised up to provide nearly half the NT, and we are no longer receiving revelation as the book of Revelation(and the church) says. So if we parallel ourselves to Paul then you could also say we are authorized to pen our own scripture. And most of us would agree that that is absurd.

I’m not sure if there is any church teaching on whether or not Paul received the laying on of hands. I need to look into it.

I think it’s tough to compare the original few churches to the expanded universal church hundreds of years later. Not apple to apples because of natural expansion that was going to occur.

Blessings.

It seems Paul did not need the laying on of hands because he was commissioned by Christ himself and this was confirmed by Peter, the first Pope.

As such he was a true apostle like the 12. Not a “successor” to the apostles.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The ones visiting me are quite nice and seem to want to find answers, but haven’t yet…we’ve had good discussion. I even got them to come to mass last week!

I am having my fourth meeting with them Wednesday. They are supposed to bring an apostasy expert…should be interesting. I already know what he will say. Point to done Bible verses, infer way too much and say that the church was corrupted as soon as the apostles died.

No evidence of that will be offered and it frankly is illogical.

Pray for these young men that seeds will be planted.

That’s awesome, Jon!

I pray that the Mass arrests them, so to speak and they come to the fullness of the faith.

Pax

 

[Lenten_ashes]

It seems Paul did not need the laying on of hands because he was commissioned by Christ himself and this was confirmed by Peter, the first Pope.

As such he was a true apostle like the 12. Not a “successor” to the apostles.

Yeah, it was such a extraordinary experience that I don’t think it’s necessary, either. But perhaps there is at least small “t” tradition on this somewhere i don’t know about.

Pax

 

[susanlo]

The Orthodox also exercise apostolic succession…and we both consider it a sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[susanlo]

Greetings, Susan.

I see your point. However, Jesus had many, many followers, yet he only commissioned the select few. He also gave them authority John 20:21-23 Do you find this to be at all significant?

Absolutely, they safeguarded the scriptures…actually they safeguarded the entire deposit of faith.

So do you think A/S was necessary, maybe for that time but not to be continued post reformation?

I think Paul was a extraordinary case for sure. I think non-apostolic churches can/do point to that and say, see anybody is called and do not need to be from the line of succession. The problem with that is Paul was raised up to provide nearly half the NT, and we are no longer receiving revelation as the book of Revelation(and the church) says. So if we parallel ourselves to Paul then you could also say we are authorized to pen our own scripture. And most of us would agree that that is absurd.

I’m not sure if there is any church teaching on whether or not Paul received the laying on of hands. I need to look into it.

I think it’s tough to compare the original few churches to the expanded universal church hundreds of years later. Not apple to apples because of natural expansion that was going to occur.

Blessings.

John 20:21-23 - What specific power was granted them and what are the specific terms of this? To assume that He gave the 10 apostles present an “Apostolic Authority” that is conveyed to some, but not all is reading a lot into it. Do we know who each of the 10 apostles present with Jesus ordained? I am only aware of the ordinations of a few of the Apostles were tracked. I had read somewhere that the Greek word for ‘breathe on them the spirit’ was only used once in the Septaguint to refer to God breathing life into Adam when he was created. I found that interesting - like a life-giving breath. Do Catholics teach that this is a separate Holy Spirit then what was given to all 12 + 3000 at Pentecost?

I don’t think a complete formula for A/S was needed and then ditched during the reformation. I think it has always been important to evaluate the sources of our information. It was true then and it is true now. I don’t see evidence of a specific formula in the early centuries. Paul’s letters and the Didache give instructions on how to select leaders from your congregation, these are about specific attributes and not about getting them approved from the central church, per se.

 

[JonNC]

Pablope,
We have been through a lot of this already, and have answered your charges. I’m not going to chase down this rabbit hole anymore. I will respond to questions, but not polemical accusations, and i will answer in keeping with the OP.

=pablope;13761136]

I guess it is only in the Lutherans who stress this…

I suspect that the Cistercians abbots were happy to stress this, as well.

Besides, bishops are an important element of AS, by both East and West…and Lutherans had discarded the bishopric.

Nonsense. The Lutheranism has not disregarded the bishopric. Where bishops acted like bishops, priests continued to be ordained, and still are in AS in these areas. In fact, AS has continued to be reestablished where it was lost due to bishops in the Reformation era not ordaining priests.

Were these human authority acting on their own in establishing these Church rules? Were these bishops acting without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Actually, I think much of what the early Church did they did with the help of the Spirit, and the Apology lends support to that: ** For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. **

And Lutherans see fit and wise to disregard what was instituted by the Fathers?

To say that the Lutheran Reformers disregarded what was instituted by the Fathers is, at best, a misrepresentation of the Lutheran position. But that said, here is what the rest of the article says, disputing the very false charges you have made.:

But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. 27] And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; 28] towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. **Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice. **

Jon

 

[susanlo]

Awesome I think they will be very helpful to you. One thing no Catholic fears is history… it supports our claims over and over.

This is like saying, “What is conveyed on Matthias in Acts by the laying on of hands that was not conveyed to Joe Shmoe who received the Spirit at Pentecost” Clearly there was a difference right?

Simply put, In John 20, Jesus “breathes on the Apostles” With that he gave them special authority to forgive and retain sins and he commissioned them to a special service within the church. Jesus gave this to his apostles…not Mary Magdalene, not Nicodemus, not any of his followers, but only to the 12.

It is this special authority that is passed down. It is an authority linked to the office of apostle which carries to successors the bishops. This is a participation of God with man for his mission as he has always done. By virtue of the office of bishop, God protects the deposit of faith and shepherds his people in orthodoxy.

The priest is simply the agent of the bishop and so the bishop confers some of his authority to the priest.

Hopefully that helps you,

I leave you with this quote…but please do the reading I posted! After that reading, I do not believe you will be able to honestly say, “I haven’t heard a good argument for it”

Note the Authority that Ignatius gives to the office of bishop… “follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father” That is without question! St. Ignatius heard the apostle John preach. He was second bishop of Antioch where they were first called Christians. He overlaps in time with the apostles. Polycarp, mentioned in the NT several times, was his good friend. How can we discount his views as he writes letters to the churches enroute to Rome and his Martyrdom in 107AD?

“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

I have read the letters written by Ignatius. There were 7 of them including the letter to the Smyrnaeans on the website I was reading some writings on. Are there other writings of Ignatius? He does speak about the authority of the Bishop. I wouldn’t disagree with this as a non-Catholic. Every church appoints leaders and we need to respect those leaders. I would have totally read these and never thought that he meant a centralized authority needs to appoint Bishops with special authority, and that a Bishop has authority and is able to pass on partial authority to priests, while retaining an apostolic authority that only Bishops can have.
I realize that one’s viewpoint makes a difference. One who has been familiar with Apostolic Succession their whole lives would assume it is true unless it is proven not to be. My viewpoint leaves me assuming Apostolic Succession is unnecessary unless it is proven to be absolutely true.

The biggest concern that I had when first learning about Apostolic Succession was: How can every church outside of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church be invalid? How can the only way to access God’s presence be through the Roman Catholic Church? I was raised in church my whole life. I didn’t have a great deal of faith until at an intensive retreat as a teenager. At this event I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit and it overwhelmed every aspect of me and I was never able to doubt the reality of God from this moment on. I have had a vibrant relationship with God where I have had “whisperings” from God in prayer revealing to me things that only God could reveal. I was able to overcome difficult circumstances and at times have been able to speak and perform in ways that I would be unable to do without the power of the Holy Spirit. I have had so many Christian mentors who have lived amazing lives where they have achieved amazing things for God. I have seen people have their lives dramatically changed by accepting Jesus, and seen miraculous physical healings as the result of prayer. All of this took place with people having Biblical knowledge and faith in God, but without a single Catholic Sacrament.

So, I was faced with the question, is everything my entire faith is built on fake? Is the God that I know not a real God? That cannot be true. If I can know God and walk through life filled with the Holy Spirit without Catholicism, then why is it absolutely necessary? I have done a lot of research and have prayed a lot about this recently. I have come to the conclusion that clearly the Holy Spirit is not bounded to a system of Apostolic Succession.
I have been enjoying learning about church history as I have been reading and learning more about this. I still have more questions that I want to understand in time.

But, in conclusion, I would say that non-Catholics do not think that Apostolic Succession is necessary. The way I know this is partially because of a review of history, but mostly because of my spiritual reality of what I have experienced in my non-Catholic church.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

John 20:21-23 - What specific power was granted them and what are the specific terms of this? To assume that He gave the 10 apostles present an “Apostolic Authority” that is conveyed to some, but not all is reading a lot into it. Do we know who each of the 10 apostles present with Jesus ordained? I am only aware of the ordinations of a few of the Apostles were tracked. I had read somewhere that the Greek word for ‘breathe on them the spirit’ was only used once in the Septaguint to refer to God breathing life into Adam when he was created. I found that interesting - like a life-giving breath. Do Catholics teach that this is a separate Holy Spirit then what was given to all 12 + 3000 at Pentecost?

I don’t think a complete formula for A/S was needed and then ditched during the reformation. I think it has always been important to evaluate the sources of our information. It was true then and it is true now. I don’t see evidence of a specific formula in the early centuries. Paul’s letters and the Didache give instructions on how to select leaders from your congregation, these are about specific attributes and not about getting them approved from the central church, per se.

Greetings, Susan.

Would you call giving ordinary men the ability to forgive or retain sins a extraordinary experience? Note the Jews reaction to Jesus forgiving sins in Luke 5:21

When you also look at Matthew 18:17 you see that the Church, run by men, is the final authority:

Matthew 18:17Amplified Bible (AMP)

17 If he pays no attention to them [refusing to listen and obey], tell it to the [a]church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile (unbeliever) and a tax collector.

But which Church and which men? It was commissioned men and the only church that holds councils ACTS 15.

Acts 8:28-31Amplified Bible (AMP)

28 and he was returning, and sitting in his chariot he was reading [the scroll of] the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the [Holy] Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” 30 Philip ran up and heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I [understand] unless someone guides me [correctly]?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Same Holy Spirit, different roles.

Men and women are created equal, but fortunately we don’t bear children, lol.

We had no bible until 382AD. So we needed apostles armed with the Holy Spirit and the deposit of the faith to not only spread the gospel, but safeguard it from heretics as well. So there needed to be a careful process involved (Matthew 7:6 )

I’ve seen a chart with tree of the successors of the apostles before. I’ll see if I can find it, or maybe another Catholic beats me to it.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have read the letters written by Ignatius. There were 7 of them including the letter to the Smyrnaeans on the website I was reading some writings on. Are there other writings of Ignatius? He does speak about the authority of the Bishop. I wouldn’t disagree with this as a non-Catholic. Every church appoints leaders and we need to respect those leaders. I would have totally read these and never thought that he meant a centralized authority needs to appoint Bishops with special authority, and that a Bishop has authority and is able to pass on partial authority to priests, while retaining an apostolic authority that only Bishops can have.
I realize that one’s viewpoint makes a difference. One who has been familiar with Apostolic Succession their whole lives would assume it is true unless it is proven not to be. My viewpoint leaves me assuming Apostolic Succession is unnecessary unless it is proven to be absolutely true.

When I first read St Ignatius as an evangelical it immediately jumped out as different. My evangelical church had elders but they were simply elected based on their popularity. St Ignatius speaks of something different.

As he writes to the churches, they all agree with each other and have the same teaching.

How do you have anything like this outside of a unified authority?

Are you saying that the many Christian denominations are all equally holding the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit tell one to baptize infants and another not? One to allow gay marriage and another not? One that Christ is in the Eucharist and another that it’s a symbol?

All of this occurs due to a departure from authority. A trading of God’s authority in the Church for personal opinions. These personal dissenters then group together and call themselves a church until a new issue divides them and they split.

Over and over it happens…this is not what Ignatius talks about.

He does not tell the church in Philadelphia to “shop around the seven churches and find the one that works for you”. Instead he says, confirm to Christ and SUBMIT to the bishop who is appointed by Christ.

The biggest concern that I had when first learning about Apostolic Succession was: How can every church outside of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church be invalid? How can the only way to access God’s presence be through the Roman Catholic Church? I was raised in church my whole life. I didn’t have a great deal of faith until at an intensive retreat as a teenager. At this event I felt the presence of the Holy Spirit and it overwhelmed every aspect of me and I was never able to doubt the reality of God from this moment on. I have had a vibrant relationship with God where I have had “whisperings” from God in prayer revealing to me things that only God could reveal. I was able to overcome difficult circumstances and at times have been able to speak and perform in ways that I would be unable to do without the power of the Holy Spirit. I have had so many Christian mentors who have lived amazing lives where they have achieved amazing things for God. I have seen people have their lives dramatically changed by accepting Jesus, and seen miraculous physical healings as the result of prayer. All of this took place with people having Biblical knowledge and faith in God, but without a single Catholic Sacrament.

Do you think Catholics don’t have these experiences?
What about Mormons?
What about Islam?
What about Hindus?

They all have emotional experiences. Mormons even focus on it calling it “a burning in the bosom” that proves the Book of Mormon is true. Emotional feelings are not the litmus test. Nor is being a good person or having improvement in life, there are self help books for that.

The test is; is this the faith given by Christ and the apostles. Am I worshiping God the way he wants? Am I participating in the FULLNESS of truth.

In Catholicism we talk about the fullness of truth. That wherever truth exists God is there. And yes there is truth in other Christian churches and God does work through them. But is the fullness of truth there? I know from experience it is not.

So, I was faced with the question, is everything my entire faith is built on fake? Is the God that I know not a real God? That cannot be true.

What if it is true? Would you change? Or would you prefer what you are used to?

Now I wouldn’t say everything you were taught is fake. It is branched off from the Catholic Church and is rooted in the tradition of the church. It simply has departed from the confines of orthodoxy by replacing authority with personal opinions.

It is a problem. I think you should ask yourself. “Where the reformers prophets?” If not then why were they allowed to defy their bishops and break away in exact opposition to the submission Ignatius talks about?

If they were prophets then what evidence is there for that?

Truthfully though Protestantism for the most part today in America has loose roots even to the reformers let alone the Catholic Church. It is sad, but the result of not being joined to the Church fully.

If I can know God and walk through life filled with the Holy Spirit without Catholicism, then why is it absolutely necessary? I have done a lot of research and have prayed a lot about this recently. I have come to the conclusion that clearly the Holy Spirit is not bounded to a system of Apostolic Succession.
I have been enjoying learning about church history as I have been reading and learning more about this. I still have more questions that I want to understand in time.

God is not bound to Catholicism. But the Christian Faith is bound to Catholicism. I would ponder that for a bit.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #27
The biggest concern that I had when first learning about Apostolic Succession was: How can every church outside of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church be invalid? How can the only way to access God’s presence be through the Roman Catholic Church?
If I can know God and walk through life filled with the Holy Spirit without Catholicism, then why is it absolutely necessary? I have done a lot of research and have prayed a lot about this recently. I have come to the conclusion that clearly the Holy Spirit is not bounded to a system of Apostolic Succession.

Now that you know the fact that Bishops were a reality with the Apostles, it is also necessary to face the reality that Christ’s Catholic Church has always taught that non-Catholics, and non-Christians, may be saved – fancy not knowing that.

Pope St Clement knew that non-Catholics could be saved from the beginning, for he wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). [My emphasis].

We cannot be saved without the Church. It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846). [My emphasis]
Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, OSV].

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium:
16. “Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”

What you lack is the certainty of so much that you do not have:
Most of the seven sacraments, including the Sacraments of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist, instituted by Christ, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and the infallible teaching authority on faith and morals.

 

[susanlo]

It is a problem. I think you should ask yourself. “Where the reformers prophets?” If not then why were they allowed to defy their bishops and break away in exact opposition to the submission Ignatius talks about?

If they were prophets then what evidence is there for that?

Truthfully though Protestantism for the most part today in America has loose roots even to the reformers let alone the Catholic Church. It is sad, but the result of not being joined to the Church fully.

God is not bound to Catholicism. But the Christian Faith is bound to Catholicism. I would ponder that for a bit.

The reformers were men who were highly educated in the Bible and in the early Christian Theologians and writers. They were wanting to reclaim the direction of the early church. I would not call them prophets, but men with faith and principles. The call to obey bishops was written by Ignatius in writings that were not God-breathed. There is very little in the NT about being obedient to church leaders. There are multiple references in the NT to obeying the legal authorities that God has allowed to govern. This is written in letters of both Peter and Paul, who ironically were jailed and executed for disobeying the legal authority. Clearly their instructions to obey the government leaders were very true, yet obviously obedience to God trumps obedience to earthly leaders. I think of Acts 4:19 “But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!”
I do not have a generalized rebellious spirit, but God is my highest authority.

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church part of the Apostolic Succession? How can they have different teachings and traditions, including a different understanding of original sin and Mary’s Immaculate Conception? Which one is right?

 

[Micosil]

The reformers were men who were highly educated in the Bible and in the early Christian Theologians and writers. They were wanting to reclaim the direction of the early church. I would not call them prophets, but men with faith and principles. The call to obey bishops was written by Ignatius in writings that were not God-breathed. There is very little in the NT about being obedient to church leaders. There are multiple references in the NT to obeying the legal authorities that God has allowed to govern. This is written in letters of both Peter and Paul, who ironically were jailed and executed for disobeying the legal authority. Clearly their instructions to obey the government leaders were very true, yet obviously obedience to God trumps obedience to earthly leaders. I think of Acts 4:19 “But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!”
I do not have a generalized rebellious spirit, but God is my highest authority.

:tsktsk:

Matthew 18-17:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

1 Timothy 3:14-15:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church part of the Apostolic Succession? How can they have different teachings and traditions, including a different understanding of original sin and Mary’s Immaculate Conception? Which one is right?

Yes, the Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as the Oriental Orthodox family of churches and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East all retain valid, legitimate Apostolic Succession. They may differ slightly on some issues but they have retained enough of the true Apostolic teachings to have validly consecrated bishops and celebrate valid sacraments.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #31
There is very little in the NT about being obedient to church leaders.

Really?
"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And, behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Mt 28: 18-20).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

That warning of Jesus follows this warning:
“It is not those who say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord’ who will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but the person who does the will of My Father in heaven (Mt 7:21).

It is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth. Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church part of the Apostolic Succession? How can they have different teachings and traditions, including a different understanding of original sin and Mary’s Immaculate Conception? Which one is right?

Not only do the Orthodox have no notion of a universal Church, only of local churches, they permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, IVF and have no doctrine on a host of medical and health ethics, while recognising Anglican orders. They are not a Church but an assemblage of Churches, despite their legitimate priesthood and the sacraments.

Ignoring Christ’s commands to follow him in His Catholic Church results in errors and falsehoods.

 

[pablope]

t.

Thanks for the reply.
Was it the “prophets and teachers” that ordained Paul? Was there an Apostle or Catholic Bishop present at this time? Or is it just assumed between the lines that when he saw Peter for 15 days, that there was an ordination during that time? I have read multiple answers as to when Paul was ordained. I don’t see a specific case for an Apostle laying hands on him.
What is conveyed to a priest when they are ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop? Is it a spirit, power, piece of knowledge? Or is it a symbolic bestowing of authority? I can’t seem to find the answer to that.

In Act 13, it depends on the translations. Those “elders” or “prophets and teachers” were selected and appointed by Peter, with him being the founder of the Church at Antioch. As Acts 13 says, it was at Antioch that Paul was ordained…prior to going on his first missionary journey. He had to prove himself first…and as Gal 18 says, he was led by the Holy Spirit to seek out the Apostles at Jerusalem, first.

And Paul and Barnabas do the same…when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed." (Acts 14:23)

And later he instructs Titus and Timothy:

In Titus 1:5, Paul tells Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee.”

St. Timothy - “As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3)

2 Tim 1:6
We find the same pattern in 2 Timothy 1:6, when Paul urges his protégé to fulfill his ministry and says: “I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands.”

c. 1 Tim 4:14
He spoke of the same thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, where Paul explains how he must fulfill his ministry as an evangelist and tells him: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”

1 Tim. 5:19-22: Pass it on!
This gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of hands in ordination, was something Paul instructed Timothy to pass on in the future. Part of his duty as a bishop-evangelist was to ordain elders in different congregations. He tells Timothy he must exercise this ministry carefully, lest he ordain a priest unworthy of the office.

In 1 Timothy 5:19-22 he tells the young evangelist: “Never admit any charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. . . . Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.”

What is conveyed to a priest when they are ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop? Is it a spirit, power, piece of knowledge? Or is it a symbolic bestowing of authority? I can’t seem to find the answer to that.

This explains the ministerial priesthood…from the OT to today. Keep in mind, the Orthodox do the same as the CC:

More here…ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

We have been through a lot of this already, and have answered your charges. I’m not going to chase down this rabbit hole anymore. I will respond to questions, but not polemical accusations, and i will answer in keeping with the OP.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

To say that the Lutheran Reformers disregarded what was instituted by the Fathers is, at best, a misrepresentation of the Lutheran position. But that said, here is what the rest of the article says, disputing the very false charges you have made.:

Jon

Jon…from your own quote… Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In

F

urthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.

As I had asked before…what is one to do in this case?

 

[JonNC]

And the Cisterians will certainly add something being omitted…that they had permission to do so…and did not do so on their own.

 

[JonNC]

Jon…from your own quote… Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing 26] the Church. In

F

As I had asked before…what is one to do in this case?

Seek reconciliation from both sides, but until then we recognize the validity of your ordinations, and ours.

Jon

 

[Micosil]

So, is it permission from the pope, or laying on hands by a bishop? If it is both, how can "schismatics " have valid ordinations without the pope’s say so? The answer is only those in communion with the pope need his permission. Valid ordination is not subject to his say so.

Jon

Within the Catholic Church, a licit consecration of a bishop must involve Papal approval; if the bishop that does the consecration has not obtained Papal permission but (validly) consecrates a new bishop anyway (who is indeed validly, but illicitly consecrated), they incur the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Outside of the Catholic Church (think the Eastern Orthodox communion, the Oriental Orthodox family of churches and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, whose bishops all have true, legitimate Apostolic lineage), obviously the requirement for licit consecration doesn’t apply to them since they aren’t a part of the Catholic Church; I do not know if they have their canon law which applies in these cases.

 

[GKC]

Within the Catholic Church, a licit consecration of a bishop must involve Papal approval; if the bishop that does the consecration has not obtained Papal permission but (validly) consecrates a new bishop anyway (who is indeed validly, but illicitly consecrated), they incur the penalty of automatic excommunication.

Outside of the Catholic Church (think the Eastern Orthodox communion, the Oriental Orthodox family of churches and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East, whose bishops all have true, legitimate Apostolic lineage), obviously the requirement for licit consecration doesn’t apply to them since they aren’t a part of the Catholic Church; I do not know if they have their canon law which applies in these cases.

And a little broader than that. Per Ott/FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458. Any bishop possessing valid orders, whether schismatic, heretical, excommunicated, etc, can validly dispense the sacrament of Orders (validly, not licitly) providing all other sacramental requirements are validly met. Hence the valid/illicit Orders recognized in the PNCC and selected portions of the Old Catholics.