Protestant Communion?

[KjetilK]

What I don’t do is say that one has to be a confessional Lutheran to be saved

So it begs the question, why then do you remain Lutheran?

You don’t have to be a Byzantine Christian to be saved. Markonite Christian can be saved also. Why, then, should anyone remain Byzantine?

 

[KjetilK]

Which then begs the question…who determines who is catholic and who is not?

Catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations. If you have a validly consecrated bishop, and a valid Eucharist, you are Catholic.

As you have pointed out yourself, and which I cite the distinction, the RCC has determined the catholicity of the Orthodox, but not the Lutherans.

Yes, and so? Again; catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations.

So if you decide on your own catholicity…then you are your own pope then?

Now you are begging the question. You are assuming your own Church’s self image over against me, and using it as a premise in the discussion. Again; catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations.

I will point out one difference. The Byzantine tradition, and other early Church traditions developed as the Church grew, and developed alongside the Latin Tradition.

Then you do not understand the comparison at all. My point is merely that you cannot use a Lutheran free church in the US as the starting point of a critique of the Church of Norway (or vice versa).

The Lutheran tradition was borne from the rejection of Rome, not the Byzantines.

Yes, they did. They rejected Rome in 1054 (or more accurately, sometime between the 9th an the 13th century). Later some came back into communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Looks like the Lutherans, are becoming, in the words of GKC…“motley”…like the Anglicans.

OK. So what? The Byzantines are also ‘motley.’ Some are in communion with Rome, some are not. Some accepts the baptism of other Christians, some reject even the baptism of other Byzantines. Why aren’t their ‘motleyness’ an equal problem?

But the question is…who has recognized the validity of your orders?

Some Orthodox doesn’t even recognize the validity of Pope Francis’ orders. Why should recognition have any effect on the objetivity of any orders? Holy orders are conferred whenever a validly consecrated bishop consecrates or ordaines a baptised male using a valid form (the ordinal), valid matter (the imposition of hands), and with valid intent (to do what the Church does, facere quod facit ecclesia).

And this probably shows your protestant side…why you are protestant and not catholic.

Maybe, there is wisdom in Rome’s incoherence after all.

Again; catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations.

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, a k slipped in.

 

[steve_b]

You don’t have to be a Byzantine Christian to be saved. Markonite Christian can be saved also. Why, then, should anyone remain Byzantine?

You might mean either Maronite or Melkite

either way, the particular Christians you speak of are Catholics in the Catholic Church

The Eastern Rite Church

 

[KjetilK]

You might mean either Maronite or Melkite

either way, the particular Christians you speak of are Catholics in the Catholic Church

The Eastern Rite Church

There are Maronites and Melkites who aren’t in communion with Rome.

But that wasn’t my point, anyway. Like Byzantinism, Melkitism, or Maronitism, Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition. When Jon said that you don’t have to be a Lutheran to be saved, he was saying that you do not have to be part of the Lutheran tradition to be saved, just like you do not have to be part of the Byzantine tradition to be saved. Nothing more, nothing less.

To put it in perspective: You don’t have to be part of the Anglican tradition to be saved. Why, then, would you be part of the Ordinariate?

 

[steve_b]

There are Maronites and Melkites who aren’t in communion with Rome.

But that wasn’t my point, anyway. Like Byzantinism, Melkitism, or Maronitism, Lutheranism is an ecclesial tradition. When Jon said that you don’t have to be a Lutheran to be saved, he was saying that you do not have to be part of the Lutheran tradition to be saved, just like you do not have to be part of the Byzantine tradition to be saved. Nothing more, nothing less.

To put it in perspective: You don’t have to be part of the Anglican tradition to be saved. Why, then, would you be part of the Ordinariate?

I would add, just because one is Catholic doesn’t mean they are automatically saved. They have to be a good Catholic & free from mortal sin when they die. Obviously I’ve stated that very simply.

But here’s another point. I’d like to make some distinctions in the phrasing you used above AND regarding specifically “ecclesial traditions”

For example

These are ALL ecclesial traditions as well. They just happen to be Great Heresies

Looking at those individual traditions in that link, protestantism is one of them, I would say no one should ever be involved in any heresy nor remain in one…period. IOW when we talk about a “tradition” that means “tradition” needs to be specifically defined.

Re: the Catholic Church.

That is the Church Jesus established. His will is that everyone is perfectly united “perfect in one”] and safe inside her.John 17:20-23 Therefore, the CC is necessary for salvation as I’ve said in previous posts…

 

[KjetilK]

When you are ready to reply to my actual points, and not just post random stuff from some apologist webiste, give me a call.

 

[MaryT777]

When you are ready to reply to my actual points, and not just post random stuff from some apologist webiste, give me a call.

Our of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish on this thread?

Mary.

 

[steve_b]

When you are ready to reply to my actual points, and not just post random stuff from some apologist webiste, give me a call.

I replied #435
It’s not random but specific.

Every ecclesial tradition isn’t legitimate just because it’s a tradition.

From Then Card Ratzinger prefect of the doctrine of the faith under pope JPII

Excerpt
“…to be a Church the community must be “legitimate”; they are legitimate when they are “united with their pastors”. What does this mean? In the first place, no one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name”.The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “Sacrament”. It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No one can baptize himself. No one can ordain himself. No one can forgive his own sins. Perfect repentance cannot remain something interior—of its essence it demands the form of encounter of the Sacrament. This too is a result of a sacrament’s fundamental structure as an encounter [with Christ]…”
from https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCV2.HTM

Protestantism made themselves. They are 100% manmade… by Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, Smyth, etc etc. As then Card Ratzinger said, that’s NOT legitimate. Ergo they aren’t “churches”

Then **Fernando Ocáriz **explains “subsists in”

Excerpt

…“As is well known this famous expression “subsistit in” was subsequently the object of many and contradictory interpretations. The notion became quite widespread that the Council had not wanted to adopt as its own the traditional statement according in which the Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church — as was stated in the preparatory schema2 — so as to be able to say that the Church of Christ subsists also in Christian communities separated from Rome.
In reality, however, an analysis of the Council proceedings leads to the conclusion that
“[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church”.3
This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4
“Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church”.5
In this Document of the Council, the assertion of the subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church is followed by the famous phrase about the presence of many elements of sanctification and truth, belonging to the Church, outside her visible structure.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, already in 1985, in the face of erroneous interpretations, made the following statement in this regard: " . . . the Council chose the word subsistit precisely in order to make it clear that there exists a single ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure only elementa ecclesiae exist, which — as elements of the Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church”.6
More recently, the same Congregation declared: “The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen Gentium”.7"…

https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doctrine/subsistit.htm

 

[KjetilK]

Our of curiosity, what are you trying to accomplish on this thread?

Correct misconceptions about ‘Lutheranism,’ for one.

 

[KjetilK]

I replied #435

That wasn’t a reply. It was a string of question begging claims that didn’t even remotely touch upon the points of my post.

 

[Elizium23]

Basically, this thread has devolved into one guy saying “I’m just as Catholic as you are!” “Nuh-uh!” “Yuh-huh!” “Nuh-uh!” and a lot of putting fingers in ears and holding breath until we turn blue.

 

[steve_b]

That wasn’t a reply. It was a string of question begging claims that didn’t even remotely touch upon the points of my post.

awe c’mon, just say you didn’t have an answer.

 

[Kliska]

Basically, this thread has devolved into one guy saying “I’m just as Catholic as you are!” “Nuh-uh!” “Yuh-huh!” “Nuh-uh!” and a lot of putting fingers in ears and holding breath until we turn blue.

And what a strange but entertaining read it is…

 

[Thorolfr]

Correct misconceptions about ‘Lutheranism,’ for one.

 

[pablope]

tilK;13235578]Catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations. If you have a validly consecrated bishop, and a valid Eucharist, you are Catholic.

Yes, and so? Again; catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations.

And who would decide and determine what is objective and what is not? And who would decide who has a validly consecrated bishop or not?

Even deciding on what is objective and what is not will involve a determination of some sort…you cannot escape away from it.

And how about those Lutheran branches that have ditched holy orders and do not have valid bishops…from your statement above…they do not have a valid Eucharist…correct?

Now you are begging the question. You are assuming your own Church’s self image over against me, and using it as a premise in the discussion. Again; catholicity is determined by objective facts, not determinations.

If not Rome…then by what standard? Who determine what is the objective standard?

Then you do not understand the comparison at all. My point is merely that you cannot use a Lutheran free church in the US as

Yes, they did. They rejected Rome in 1054 (or more accurately, sometime between the 9th an the 13th century). Later some came back into communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Byzantium existed prior to 1054…is my point…lutheran tradition was borne of the rejection of Rome.

OK. So what? The Byzantines are also ‘motley.’ Some are in communion with Rome, some are not. Some accepts the baptism of other Christians, some reject even the baptism of other Byzantines. Why aren’t their ‘motleyness’ an equal problem?

The anglican motleyness is different than byzantium motleyness.

So

me Orthodox doesn’t even recognize the validity of Pope Francis’ orders. Why should recognition have any effect on the objetivity of any orders? Holy orders are conferred whenever a validly consecrated bishop consecrates or ordaines a baptised male using a valid form (the ordinal), valid matter (the imposition of hands), and with valid intent (to do what the Church does, facere quod facit ecclesia).

The OC lines are visibly traced to the Apostles…not the Lutheran line.

Would you categorically state then that without a validly consecrated bishop…a priest would not have valid orders and cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist?

 

[KjetilK]

And who would decide and determine what is objective and what is not? And who would decide who has a validly consecrated bishop or not?

That is determined by historical fact, not declarations.

Even deciding on what is objective and what is not will involve a determination of some sort…you cannot escape away from it.

Yes, a determination of a historical manner. But you keep assuming that this belongs to one man alone.

And how about those Lutheran branches that have ditched holy orders and do not have valid bishops…from your statement above…they do not have a valid Eucharist…correct?

Yes, correct.

If not Rome…then by what standard? Who determine what is the objective standard?

Well, since you claim that authority for Rome, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it, not my responsibility to disprove it.

Byzantium existed prior to 1054…is my point…lutheran tradition was borne of the rejection of Rome.

The Church of Norway existed before 1537. Which is my point exactly. If the Russian Orthodox Church didn’t loose their orders just because they broke from Rome, then neither did the Church of Norway.

The anglican motleyness is different than byzantium motleyness.

So it is just a difference of degree, then?

The OC lines are visibly traced to the Apostles…not the Lutheran line.

Here you are tossing every Lutheran church into the same pot. In the national churches of Scandinavia, in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, the bishops continued to serve, just as in the Old Catholic churches.

Would you categorically state then that without a validly consecrated bishop…a priest would not have valid orders and cannot validly consecrate the Eucharist?

Yes, of course. That should be pretty evident from my posts. But note that my orders doesn’t become valid or unvalid just because the pope says so. They are valid because my bishop has valid orders. And even if the Church of Norway lost their orders sometimes in the past (which I maintain they did not do), those orders were ‘regained’ through the communion, and joint consecrations, with the Church of England. And even if the Church of England lost their orders sometimes in the past (which I maintain they did not do), those orders were ‘regained’ through the communion, and joint consecrations, with the Old Catholic churches.

 

[commenter]

Basically, this thread has devolved into one guy saying “I’m just as Catholic as you are!” “Nuh-uh!” “Yuh-huh!” “Nuh-uh!” and a lot of putting fingers in ears and holding breath until we turn blue.

True.

Some of the Nuh-uhs and Yuh-huh’s are more intelligent or sensitive than others.

This thread needs a little humor or affection, so people can be open to learning from each other.

“Angels can fly because they take themselves lightly" - G. K. Chesterton

 

[YADA]

No.

There is no Communion unless it is consecrated by a validly ordained priest.

Father David,

Is Jesus to be found in Protestant Communion? We cannot say “Yes” with any certainty … but it is not possible to say no with the same certitude.

We know with certainty that Jesus in present in the Eucharist because of the ministerial priesthood and the promises and command of Christ at the institution of the Priesthood and the Eucharist at the Last Supper. As a Catholic I believe this to the core of my being and have experienced the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in my life. I attend Mass to be fed, to join with my faith family in the Eucharistic Feast, to worship our Lord and Savior, to be strengthened for the journey.

However, truly it is not possible to say with the same certainty that Christ is not present in any non-Catholic Communion on any given day because the God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit can be present anywhere and in any form they choose … even in the Methodist [or any other denomination] down the Street … I would not seek Christ in the Eucharist there because of their lack of the apostolic Church and apostolic ministerial priesthood and their very beliefs regarding Communion - but I have no doubt that if Jesus desires to feed and nourish that faith community with His Body and Blood in their Communion - He - by the power of the Holy Spirit - unaided by a validly ordained priest can make that a reality …

Christ instituted the Church - The Church has to operate according to God’s will - The Church cannot teach other then the Good News

However, God can and does what He wills - unconstrained by the Church or any man - whether ordained priest or lay -

 

[pablope]

That is determined by historical fact, not declarations.

And who will determine the objectivity of these historical facts? who will sift through them and then say…these are the objective historical facts?

And to make those applicable…a declaration has to be made…so the question…who will make that declaration?

Yes, a determination of a historical manner. But you keep assuming that this belongs to one man alone.