Protestant Ordination - By what authority?

[jimmy]

JKirkLVNV:

Strictly speaking, this is not true, not as you’ve written it. We say that these ecclessial communities (only the Orthodox and a few others, like the Old Catholics, are accorded the title “church”) are deficient (see Domine Jesus), but we do not say that they are all invalid for salvation.

From the Catechism:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Now if you want to argue that as someone who makes it to Heaven, a Protestant would then be a Catholic, that makes more sense. Further, the Catholic Church also teaches:

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains:** "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.** It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

There is one valid path to salvation. The salvation a protestant recieves is through his conformation to the Truth. It is not by some way outside of the Catholic Church.

Yes, you are right, everyone in heaven will be Catholic.

 

[wabrams]

jimmy:

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that there is only one Church and there is only one way to Christ. If a protestant or a muslim is saved it is not because of there being protestant or being muslim. They would be saved due to their conformity to the Truth, which is found completely in the Catholic Church.

And if they never became Catholic?

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

So Calvinists, Lutherans, and other Protestants are really Catholic? Do they know that?

Thanks

They are Catholic due to their baptism but they are not full members of the Church. You become united with the Church through corformation with the truth. A Lutheran, if he is saved, will be fully introduced into the Church in heaven.

There is one God, one Christ, one Church, one flock.

 

[jimmy]

wabrams:

And if they never became Catholic?

I am not sure what you are asking. I think I answered your question pretty clearly.

A muslim could possibly be saved, but it is not due to his being muslim. It is due to his conformation (of will) to the truth. If they are not Catholic on earth and they are saved, they will be Catholic in heaven. There is one truth. This is the firm teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[jimmy]

EA_Man:

So how does a Buddist, who has never professed Jesus Christ as his savior nor been baptized receive salvation?

There’s one True Church. Super.
Please identify how the above mentioned Buddist is attached to it.

Thanks

This is the last post I am going to answer due to salvation on this thread. If you want to discuss the statements of the late pope then start a new thread, this one is about protestant ordination.

As for your question, I have answered it. The Church teaches a baptism of desire. This teaching means that even if there has been no water poured over your head, you can still be saved due to your desire for it. That is the teaching of the Church. If you want to talk about baptism of desire, start a new thread.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Actually that is the whole point of his writing it. It was to declare that being apart from the bishop is against Christ. To say that it is a proper Eucharist that is in communion with the bishop is to declare those outside communion as improper. It was nothing to say that Eucharist in communion with the bishop was proper, that was a given. It is certainly right to draw the negative in this case because the whole point of Ignatius’ words are to declare that those apart from the bishop are wrong.

Your case is conclusive. I am not well-versed in Ignatius. I conclude that he was an early heretic.

 

[Angainor]

Kay Cee:

You said, “You must also do what **you think **is right.” You did not say, “You must do what is right.” Why did you add “you think” if it is not relative to what you were trying to say?

I would love to say “You must do what is right.” If only we knew for 100% certianty what is right in every situation. We must seek the independant truth of what is right. Sometimes we may disagree as to what is independantly right. One or both of us will be wrong, but we each must do what we each must do. We can only try to convince each other.

 

[SATEX]

**Angainor;

I also concluded that there are many latter day heretics that will not accept God’s appointed massagers.

Satex
**

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Your case is conclusive. I am not well-versed in Ignatius. I conclude that he was an early heretic.

Hahahaha, then you declare all the early Christians as heretics because they were all supportive of Ignatius. You also call John the apostle a heritic because Ignatius was his disciple.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Your case is conclusive. I am not well-versed in Ignatius. I conclude that he was an early heretic.

There is a big time error with a statement like this. This type of statement, denying the early church as heretical is completely in denial of all reason. It seems to say that the first Christian did not arrive till 1600 AD. All those before then were heretics. If this is so, how can you even trust the scriptures? They were given by these heretics that believed in the unity of the Church under the bishops.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Hahahaha, then you declare all the early Christians as heretics because they were all supportive of Ignatius. You also call John the apostle a heritic because Ignatius was his disciple.

Just who is this Ignatius dude. I thought John was Jesus’ disciple.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Hahahaha, then you declare all the early Christians as heretics because they were all supportive of Ignatius. You also call John the apostle a heritic because Ignatius was his disciple.

Heretic may have been a little excessive, but it looks like things got started off on the wrong foot from the beginning. This is clearly over-the-top:
It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself - Ignatius to the Ephesians

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Heretic may have been a little excessive, but it looks like things got started off on the wrong foot from the beginning. This is clearly over-the-top:It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself - Ignatius to the Ephesians

Are you serious? You honestly think that the apostles couldn’t even pass on the doctrine of the Church? This may be the biggest error of protestantism. By denying the first and second century fathers you deny those who first decided what was new testament canon. You subsequently are guessing on what is scripture and what is not. Christianity then becomes just one of the thousands of religions through history. We have no trustworthy history according to your view, and consequently no trustworthy scriptures.

 

[jimmy]

Anganor, just give it a chance. Don’t reject the Catholic view just because it is Catholic. I exhort you to make a judgement clear from all bias. View it in its context. Look at it all and think, “Is it rational to reject it?” This is the biggest issue between Protestants and Catholics, authority. If the Catholic Church holds the fullness of truth, then the best place to be would be in the Catholic Church.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Are you serious? You honestly think that the apostles couldn’t even pass on the doctrine of the Church?

I’m not too surprised. Jesus had to rebuke his own apostles for wanting to know who is the greatest among them. It’s human nature. Luke 22:24.

The 12 were wise enough to choose [thread=66501]an eyewitness[/thread] to replace Judas.

Do you really think it is not over-the-top to "look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself "?

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Anganor, just give it a chance. Don’t reject the Catholic view just because it is Catholic. I exhort you to make a judgement clear from all bias. View it in its context. Look at it all and think, “Is it rational to reject it?” This is the biggest issue between Protestants and Catholics, authority.

It is rational to believe in truth independant of man. Besides there are other reasons to reject it:

 

[RyanL]

Angainor:

I’m not too surprised. Jesus had to rebuke his own apostles for wanting to know who is the greatest among them. It’s human nature. Luke 22:24.

The 12 were wise enough to choose [thread=66501]an eyewitness[/thread] to replace Judas.

Do you really think it is not over-the-top to "look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself "?

“HE WHO HEARS YOU,HEARS ME”,Luke 10:16. You tell me - is this “over-the-top”? It seems to me that Ignatius is echoing Christ - who would you believe?

Don’t forget that these 12 who weren’t able to pass on Church doctrine reliably also passed on this same “unreliable” stuff to both Luke and Mark, neither of whom were Apostles, and countless other “trustworthy men” (**Titus 1:9), **who must have also been equally incompetant (as they couldn’t have met the criteria in **1 Timothy 3:11).

**How far do you want to take this “unreliable” line of thought? Would you have us dismiss 50% of our Gospels as well? Why not?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

I’m not too surprised. Jesus had to rebuke his own apostles for wanting to know who is the greatest among them. It’s human nature. Luke 22:24.

The 12 were wise enough to choose [thread=66501]an eyewitness[/thread] to replace Judas.

Do you really think it is not over-the-top to "look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself "?

That is very irrational to say that the Church was heresy from the first century and then to accept Christianity. Do you think Christ couldn’t even protect His Church from error for a 100 years?

The only way it is over the top is if he were to say to worship the bishop as Christ. But he is talking about authority. Christ chose these men as successors to the apostles. They are put in that position and given authority by Christ, so yes you treat them as you would Christ. Christ said to the apostles, “those who reject you reject me, and those who reject me, reject the one who sent me.” The authority was given by Christ, and we must follow this authority.

I have seen that thread and responded on it.

 

[Superstar905]

Angainor:

Your case is conclusive. I am not well-versed in Ignatius. I conclude that he was an early heretic.

WOW, listen, before you conclude as someone being a Heretic, learn a little about who he was.

He was a disciple of John, the same John the Apostle.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

It is rational to believe in truth independant of man. Besides there are other reasons to reject it:

Yes, it is rational to believe in truth independant of men. All truth is independant of men. But the problem is that Christ built a Church andthe Church was made of men. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against this Church.

To completely remove the scriptures from history is not the same as believing in truth independant of men. It makes Christianity the same as any other religion because the scriptures were made what they are by men. If you can’t even believe that Christ protected His Church from heresy for 100 years, how can you trust that these heretics chose the right books for the new testament? Maybe we should be reading the gospel according to Thomas? Or Phillip? If you believe Christ protected these men when deciding on the scriptures, how do you know he did not protect them with the matters of authority?