N
Nyika
Guest
Some of the posts like this one really make me laugh!! Excellent response JustaServant
- Status
N
Nyika
Guest
Amen to that!!
E
Elizium23
Guest
You are wrong. Plain wrong. You are misinterpreting, twisting, and misrepresenting Catholic teaching about who is Catholic and who is not. You are certainly not.
M
MaryT777
Guest
It’s always interesting when a Protestant tries to teach their perception of Catholic teaching to Catholics as if it is truth.
Mary.
P
PJM
Guest
NO!
The Seven Sacraments entrusted to His Catholic Church MUST HAVE direct Apostolic Succession in order to become what they signify.
Protestants by virtue of their Schism [separation from the RCC] forfited this GIFT
God Bless you,
Patrick
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
The point that has been repeatedly raised in this thread, though, and which seems not to have been answered, (unless I’ve missed it!), is that apostolic succession is not necessarily ended by schism. If it were, then the Orthodox would not have apostolic succession, and their sacraments would therefore lack validity – which, as I understand it, is not the Catholic position.NO!
The Seven Sacraments entrusted to His Catholic Church MUST HAVE direct Apostolic Succession in order to become what they signify.
Protestants by virtue of their Schism [separation from the RCC] forfited this GIFT
God Bless you,
Patrick
With Anglican sacraments, for instance, the Catholic position is not that they lack validity because of schism (that simply makes them illicit) but that they are invalid because the Church of England lost apostolic succession through defects in the ordination rite under Edward VI.
Your argument with the Lutherans therefore needs to rest not on the existence of schism, but on some other defect.
G
GKC
Guest
Invalid ordination rite and sacramental intent was the intertwined logic behind Apostolicae curae.
Schismatic bishops, assuming they had possessed valid episcopal orders previously, retain them after a schism. As you mention, the issue of liceity then arises, but assuming all requisite sacramental factors are valid, such bishops confect valid/illicit sacraments, including holy orders. Reference is usually to Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.
I waited to see if anyone would post on this, out of curiosity.
K
KjetilK
Guest
I didn’t say I was. Of course I maintain that I am, but my point is that if you want to follow what your own Church teaches, you have to acknowledge that at least the Orthodox Church is Catholic. For they have apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, making them what your Church calls particular churches. This is blatantly obvious in both Dominus Iesus, §17, and Communionis notio, §17. That is explicitly obvious in the latter, where it is said that there exists a special communion of Roman Catholic Church “with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches.” It says that “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature,” since " in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present."
How can the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” become “truly present” if there is no catholicity there?
P
PJM
Guest
My friend, you make an EXCELLENT point. Thank you!
That said, however.
It seems TO ME that the Eastern Churches retained what they legitimately and historically had; namely provable DIRECT Apostolic succession; while the schism in the Church of England; HAD Direct Apostolic Succession through the good graces of the RCC. Once they “freely” choose to separate from Rome; & they severed their connection to DIRECT Apostolic succession; right?
God Bless you,
Patrick
G
GKC
Guest
No.My friend, you make an EXCELLENT point. Thank you!
That said, however.
It seems TO ME that the Eastern Churches retained what they legitimately and historically had; namely provable DIRECT Apostolic succession; while the schism in the Church of England; HAD Direct Apostolic Succession through the good graces of the RCC. Once they “freely” choose to separate from Rome; & they severed their connection to DIRECT Apostolic succession; right?
God Bless you,
Patrick
E
Elizium23
Guest
No, the bishops of a Church in schism remain validly-ordained bishops, and providing they validly ordain successor bishops for themselves, can retain apostolic succession in perpetuity, exactly as the Orthodox do.My friend, you make an EXCELLENT point. Thank you!
That said, however.
It seems TO ME that the Eastern Churches retained what they legitimately and historically had; namely provable DIRECT Apostolic succession; while the schism in the Church of England; HAD Direct Apostolic Succession through the good graces of the RCC. Once they “freely” choose to separate from Rome; & they severed their connection to DIRECT Apostolic succession; right?
God Bless you,
Patrick
The jury is out on whether KjetilK’s Lutheran sect retains that apostolic succession. He claims they do, but of course, he claims to be Catholic and the Catholic Church does not validate that claim either. I have personally never heard of any Lutheran branch having valid Holy Orders, so it seems a stretch to me. I would await a Catholic document which affirmed or denied the validity of Norwegian Lutheran Holy Orders in order to convince me of the veracity of these claims. And they still aren’t Catholic.
K
KjetilK
Guest
And that is the problem in a nutshell.
If we possess apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, we are Catholic for the same reason the Orthodox are Catholic. For “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present.”
E
Elizium23
Guest
As I already told and proved to you, the Orthodox are not Catholic.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
After following this discussion, I’m convinced that us ELCA Lutherans are Catholics, too
E
Elizium23
Guest
:banghead:
M
MaryT777
Guest
Let’s just make K an “honorary Catholic” with “honorary” valid orders and Sacraments. Maybe that will appease???
K
Kliska
Guest
After following this discussion, I’m convinced that us ELCA Lutherans are Catholics, too
K
KjetilK
Guest
And I have shown you that according to Dominus Iesus and Communionis notio, they are.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
So do we follow the Church or do we follow difference of opinions? Only the Church can provide us transcendent unity based on fullness of Christ.
S
steve_b
Guest
How?
Even with all the ecumenical language, to evangelize and reach out
There’s an important term to consider in those 2 documents, “subsists in” .
From the CCC 816 , 820 , 870 , 2105
And
*Subsists in, *is also often misinterpreted
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
- Status