K
KjetilK
Guest
Not one person, but the Church. And the Church is more than those in communion with Rome.
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm
III. THE POWER OF ORDER, OR THE HIERARCHIC SACRAMENTAL POWER
- The Existence And Nature Of The Power Of Order
- The power of order that Christ left in the world to assure the continuity of the chief acts of the Christian cultus is virtually multiple. These different realizations of the divine power of order mark the degrees of the hierarchy.[171]
Were the “presbyters” mentioned in Scripture, or some of them, only laymen? Various writers think so. But some, at any rate, had the power of order. Paul and Barnabas, after prayer and fasting, set them at the head of the Churches of Asia (Acts xiv. 22). If these presbyters imposed hands on Timothy (1 Tim. iv. 14) that, no doubt, could only be because hands had already been imposed on themselves. They were to bring the sacramental anointing, which remits sins, to the sick (Jas. v. 14). A more difficult question arises: were they simple priests or genuine bishops? Scripture in fact calls them bishops, episcopoi: for example the presbyters of Ephesus whom St. Paul had called to Miletus, were “bishops ruling the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28); and the presbyters whom Titus ordained were to be bishops without blame (Tit. i. 5-7).
P
pablope
Guest
Okay…how would the “Church” go about this…examination of the evidence?
What is your proposal on how to go about this?
And who in the Church?
And if not Rome…then who? Constantinople? Antioch?Jerusalem? Alexandria?
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I really can’t see this conversation making much headway. Of course Rome and Constantinople and the rest are fully entitled to examine the evidence and make their own judgements. Fr K, however, is a Norwegian, a member of the Church of Norway, and ordained in the priesthood by a bishop of the Church of Norway.
P
pablope
Guest
All I asked (And Randy too) was ask for a simple question with a simple answer…and not dance around it.
And who will validate and examine the claim of the Church of Norway? Do you propose they do it themselves?
Let say Rome and Constantinople did…and it was against Father K’s own opinion…what do you propose the Church of Norway do? Just go about it themselves and ignore both Rome and Constantinople?
It always boils down to a queston of authority…ain’t it…and the dislike for a certain kind of authority…it looks like…
Father K said to examine the evidence…so who you propose will examine the evidence and make the final determination on their orders?
K
KjetilK
Guest
But Rome can validate and examine their own claims?
S
steido01
Guest
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
And who would need to examine Fr K’s orders and validate them? Members of his church, surely, could be satisfied with them. Someone not of his church but contemplating taking communion from him might feel the need to check — presumably from their own church. A member of the Church of England would be advised to go ahead, a member of the Church of Rome would no doubt be advised otherwise. And there we are, back where we started in this discussion.All I asked (And Randy too) was ask for a simple question with a simple answer…and not dance around it.
And who will validate and examine the claim of the Church of Norway? Do you propose they do it themselves?
Let say Rome and Constantinople did…and it was against Father K’s own opinion…what do you propose the Church of Norway do? Just go about it themselves and ignore both Rome and Constantinople?
It always boils down to a queston of authority…ain’t it…and the dislike for a certain kind of authority…it looks like…
Father K said to examine the evidence…so who you propose will examine the evidence and make the final determination on their orders?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Of course not! Shouldn’t the Church of Norway validate and examine the claims of the Roman Catholic Church? That sounds logical to me.
M
MaryT777
Guest
By what authority would they claim to be able to do that? None. They don’t have any authority to do any such thing.Of course not! Shouldn’t the Church of Norway validate and examine the claims of the Roman Catholic Church? That sounds logical to me.
Mary.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Which brings us back to the point of disagreement: I do not recognize that the Bishop of Rome has jurisdiction in or over the Church of Norway, or the Norwegian realm.
But you seem to use that position as a premise in the debate, thus constantly begging the question.
P
pablope
Guest
But the question is not the orders of Rome…but of the Church of Norway…who can validate the claim of AS of Norway?
Would you be willing to let Constantinople examine your claim of valid AS?
You are sidestepping the question…but can you point out an instance where Rome had lost its connection to Peter?
P
pablope
Guest
Then who does have jurisdiction…or which jurisdiction will you recognize that can validate and examine your claim or holy orders (aside from Norway)?
P
pablope
Guest
Right…an issue of authority…l.which one will you submit to? Your own or someone who you do not like?
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Fr K is a priest of the Church of Norway. Why would he need some other jurisdiction?
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
I would presume that any Christian recognises the authority of his church. Why should he seek to submit to some other authority?Right…an issue of authority…l.which one will you submit to? Your own or someone who you do not like?
K
KjetilK
Guest
I’ll make you a deal. The Church of Rome can validate our orders, and we can validate theirs.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Do you not the conflict of interest inherent in being both judge and defendant?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Bump for response.Acts 15
The Council at Jerusalem
15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Notice in this passage that Paul and Barnabas examined the arguments presented by those who were teaching circumcision. In fact, not only did they examine the arguments, but they disputed and debated over them.
In the end, however, Paul and Barnabas did not simply decide to ignore the matter and go on about their way doing and teaching as they thought best. They submitted themselves to the central authority of the Church by travelling to Jerusalem. There, the matter was discussed, and Peter gave a final ruling.
Now, it is possible to pay no mind to the matter of the validity of CoN ordination - it’s been ignored for almost 500 years. But in light of the biblical precedent established in Acts 15, I don’t see how anyone can simply say that he would “examine the arguments” and then, I gather by inference, do as he deems appropriate if those arguments are not convincing. IOW, he would ignore the decision of Rome already reached and continue on as before.
Paul and Barnabas submitted to the Council of the Church and to Peter, the head of the Church, and it is my belief that these God-fearing men would have done so even if the Council had ruled against them regarding circumcision.
You would not do likewise?
And if not, isn’t this Protestantism at its core?
Kjetilk? Thoughts?
K
KjetilK
Guest
But if Rome does it, its all OK?
Jerusalem probably had jurisdiction. Rome does not have jurisdiction in Norway.Bump for response.
Kjetilk? Thoughts?
- Status