Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[JonNC]

=pablope;12313540]Okay…the operative word here is…the Cistercians were authorized by Popes.

Even Titus and Timothy were authorized by Paul. It is not one own’ authority to ordain, there is an authority to authorize it. Even Paul himself was ordained prior to going on his first missionary journey.

Who authorized the Lutherans except themselves?

Was Paul the Bishop of Rome?
The actual question then becomes, is it the laying on of hands, or the pope’s authorization that determines validity? If presbyter ordination can be valid, then it is valid.

So if a bishop refused to ordain, for certain reasons…what is one supposed to do:

If the bishop refuses to ordain, and the Tradition of the Church is that churches have the divine law to ordain, then presbyter ordination, however less desirable than the episcopacy, is valid.

Thumb one’s nose at the bishop and say, it does not matter what you say…I will go about my business and ordain someone?

Or pray for the bishop to change his mind…and pray for humility to accept the bishop’s decision?

I pray that the Bishop of Rome changes his mind. In fact, if all that is needed is his authorization, he could proclaim that all male Lutheran pastors are valid in their ordination, whether it is in apostolic succession, or presbyter. Imagine the impact of that!

When a bishop decides against ordaining someone…is this not exercising the binding and loosing authority granted to the bishop?

do you think it appropriate to use the powers of a bishop to withhold sacraments from a parish?

So you just presumed it to be valid? If you just presumed it…how does that give it validity if you just presumed on your own authority?

There is no reason to think otherwise, based on scripture and Tradition.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12313561]Well…for one thing…do you think the Fathers, through the Apostles, were guided by the HS in setting up the manner of Church government? Do you think the Fathers just acted willy nilly in setting up the manner of government and discipline within the Church?

Does the Apology say it was done willy nilly

So instead of seeking reform within the Church, praying for our leaders, as the Bible says…you throw the canonical government set up by the Fathers?

Does it sound like, by the very existence of the Confession and Apology, that this was the case?

In both cases, it sounds like quite the opposite.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Was Paul the Bishop of Rome?

No, but he was a bishop, therefore he could validly ordain. Unlike the situation you are imagining.

The actual question then becomes, is it the laying on of hands, or the pope’s authorization that determines validity?

At a minimum, it is a validly ordained bishop’s authorization that determines validity, and, I would contend, the laying on of hands by said bishop.

If presbyter ordination can be valid, then it is valid.

And if it is not, it is not.

If the bishop refuses to ordain, and the Tradition of the Church is that churches have the divine law to ordain, then presbyter ordination, however less desirable than the episcopacy, is valid.

And, if the bishop refuses to ordain, and the Tradition of the Church is that BISHOPS -]churches/-] (since they are the validly authorized representative of the Church, and successor to the Apostles) have the divine law to ordain, then presbyter ordination, however less desirable than the episcopacy, is INvalid. Which happens to be the case, unlike your postulated situation.

I pray that the Bishop of Rome changes his mind. In fact, if all that is needed is his authorization, he could proclaim that all male Lutheran pastors are valid in their ordination, whether it is in apostolic succession, or presbyter. Imagine the impact of that!

He doesn’t have that power, since it would be in opposition to the will of the Holy Spirit.

do you think it appropriate to use the powers of a bishop to withhold sacraments from a parish?

If they are in open rebellion to the Church that Jesus Himself Divinely instituted, then certainly.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The first time I heard this argument used, I got so frustrated, I kicked my dinosaur.

And yet, in all that time, we’ve not seen a valid counter-argument. Imagine that.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12314764]No, but he was a bishop, therefore he could validly ordain. Unlike the situation you are imagining.

So, now you are saying that a bishop can ordain whomever he wants? Further, neither one of us are talking about imagining things. If you want to carry on a civil dialogue, I will be happy to contine, otherwise…

At a minimum, it is a validly ordained bishop’s authorization that determines validity, and, I would contend, the laying on of hands by said bishop.

I think that is a valid position, but again, there are instances in the history of the Church when presbyter ordination was used.

And if it is not, it is not.

It is, under the circumstances immediately following the Reformation. it was, in the situation of the Cistercian abbots. It was, in the very early days of the Church, when presbyter and bishop were one office.

And, if the bishop refuses to ordain, and the Tradition of the Church is that BISHOPS -]churches/-] (since they are the validly authorized representative of the Church, and successor to the Apostles) have the divine law to ordain, then presbyter ordination, however less desirable than the episcopacy, is INvalid. Which happens to be the case, unlike your postulated situation.

Then there were untold numbers of Christians in the early Church who did not receive the sacraments, and there were untold Christians who received invalid sacraments from the Cistercian abbots. It is obviously not the case.
The history of the church is evidence that presbyter ordination is clearly valid.

If they are in open rebellion to the Church that Jesus Himself Divinely instituted, then certainly.

They weren’t. they were of the church that Christ Himself instituted on Pentecost, and to withhold ordination was wrong.

Jon

 

[Per_Crucem]

So, now you are saying that a bishop can ordain whomever he wants? Further, neither one of us are talking about imagining things. If you want to carry on a civil dialogue, I will be happy to contine, otherwise…

Good luck with that one, Jon.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So, now you are saying that a bishop can ordain whomever he wants?

Please read the first line that I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia in post #775.

I think that is a valid position, but again, there are instances in the history of the Church when presbyter ordination was used.

Again, there were not. You keep claiming that there were, without support.
And even in your claims, it was done through the papal office.
So, even in your claims, you don’t meet the criteria.

It is, under the circumstances immediately following the Reformation. it was, in the situation of the Cistercian abbots. It was, in the very early days of the Church, when presbyter and bishop were one office.

No, no, and no.
And, without any supporting primary documentation, this should be chalked up to wishful thinking.

Then there were untold numbers of Christians in the early Church who did not receive the sacraments, and there were untold Christians who received invalid sacraments from the Cistercian abbots. It is obviously not the case.
The history of the church is evidence that presbyter ordination is clearly valid.

It seems your whole case is tied up in this one claim, which has not been substantiated. And, even if it were, it would not be equivalent to the claim you make of an equivalent situation, since, as I said above, Lutherans did not have the approval of the pope, whereas your story of the Cistercian abbots did.

They weren’t. they were of the church that Christ Himself instituted on Pentecost, and to withhold ordination was wrong.

They were. THAT is why they are called “protestants.”

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12314834]Please read the first line that I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia in post #775.

Already did.

Again, there were not. You keep claiming that there were, without support.
And even in your claims, it was done through the papal office.
So, even in your claims, you don’t meet the criteria.

I’ve supported it.

No, no, and no.
And, without any supporting primary documentation, this should be chalked up to wishful thinking.

I’ve provided at least as much documentation as you have. that they come from different sources should not surprise.

It seems your whole case is tied up in this one claim, which has not been substantiated. And, even if it were, it would not be equivalent to the claim you make of an equivalent situation, since, as I said above, Lutherans did not have the approval of the pope, whereas your story of the Cistercian abbots did.

If the approval of the pope is the factor, then the laying on of hands by bishops doesn’t matter, and presbyter ordination, by what you say here, is valid. We are not under the bishopric of the Bishop of Rome.

They were. THAT is why they are called “protestants.”

They were called “protestants” because they protested against, essentially, civil authorities are the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who wished to limit there religious activities, sort of like the way your communion and mine are protesting against the HHS Mandate.
It had nothing to do with ordination, or at least directly, doctrine.
Regardless, they, and we, are indeed of the Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[Jon_S_1]

Already did.

I’ve supported it.

I’ve provided at least as much documentation as you have. that they come from different sources should not surprise.

If the approval of the pope is the factor, then the laying on of hands by bishops doesn’t matter, and presbyter ordination, by what you say here, is valid. We are not under the bishopric of the Bishop of Rome.

They were called “protestants” because they protested against, essentially, civil authorities are the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who wished to limit there religious activities, sort of like the way your communion and mine are protesting against the HHS Mandate.
It had nothing to do with ordination, or at least directly, doctrine.
Regardless, they, and we, are indeed of the Church Catholic.

Jon

You can say you are of the church catholic but it is by definition false as Lutherans themselves are widely divided let alone divided from the church Catholic by rejection of mainly the pope among other things.

You can say as much as you want you are catholic it doesn’t make it so. Just as I can call a square a circle as much as I want and the thing just will never become that circle.

 

[guanophore]

That’s fine, but they justify it by magisterial infallibility which is not defined in scripture.

Jesus founded a Church, and invested that Church with authority. He promised the HS would guide them into “all Truth”. How was this supposed to happen?

7 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. (Mt 18:17–18)

The Church was the “last stop”!

I honestly don't feel like the Church distinguishes between the apostolic faith which is contained in the Gospel and what are doctrines that developed and evolve with the times. The former is necessary, but the latter is not and I don't believe is infallible either.

You are right, doctrine is doctrine, whether it comes through Sacred Tradition or Scripture. Jesus did not give the church a book, but a Faith, then He promised to preserve that faith infallibly by the Holy Spirit.

The reason Catholics say “the gates of Hell” is because teaching error is what leads souls through the gates of hell. Several examples have been given in this thread about the departure from the Apostolic faith. When these departures happen, and people think they are still following the true faith, they will be led astray at the peril of their souls.

 

[guanophore]

I'm not for an the abolition of a magisetrium but I do feel like the role of the magisetrium needs to be better defined. And I think dogmatically defining infallibility and things like that is not helpful.

What would you like to add?

When you look at how the Eastern Orthodox Church functions, it is just as old as Catholic, has a sort of teaching authority, but is much more **lenient in deviation**

What does that mean?

and far less focused on dogmatically defining every aspect of the faith.

Dogmatic definitions must be made when heresies arise. The West has faced a number of theological challenges that did not exist in the East.

 

[guanophore]

Was Paul the Bishop of Rome?

The actual question then becomes, is it the laying on of hands, or the pope’s authorization that determines validity?

It seems to me that it is both. All those who were presbyters were in unity with the Apostles. The “one church” came from the recognition of their authority.

Paul was chosen and prepared apart from all the Apostles in Jerusalem, yet, he knew that it was essential his ministry and message be unified with them.

If presbyter ordination can be valid, then it is valid.

I think this leaves out a number of important elements, such as the proper form, matter and intention. If this statement were true, then the ordinations of women and others would be considered valid. It is more than just the particular source of the laying on of hands.

Though I don’t disagree with your point, there have been times when extraordinary measures have been used in ordination.

If the bishop refuses to ordain, and the Tradition of the Church is that churches have the divine law to ordain, then presbyter ordination, however less desirable than the episcopacy, is valid.

I pray that the Bishop of Rome changes his mind. In fact, if all that is needed is his authorization, he could proclaim that all male Lutheran pastors are valid in their ordination, whether it is in apostolic succession, or presbyter. Imagine the impact of that!

do you think it appropriate to use the powers of a bishop to withhold sacraments from a parish?

There is no reason to think otherwise, based on scripture and Tradition.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

They weren't.  they were of the church that Christ Himself instituted on Pentecost, and to withhold ordination was wrong.

Jon

Did the Lutherans have a right to ordination?

What is the basis/foundation for such a right?

 

[guanophore]

Good luck with that one, Jon.

Are you saying you cannot carry on a civil dialogue?

Accusing other members of “imaginings” with regard to the basic tenents of their faith does not support respectful dialogue.

 

[guanophore]

They were.  THAT is why they are called "protestants."

Actually, the root of the word protestare meaans to stand up for a principle. The original protestants were standing up for their beliefs and convictions, even in the face of excommunication, disenfranchisement, or death.

It is true what you say that they were not ordained because they espoused theologies that diverged too far from the apostolic deposit of faith (and I think to a great degree the refusal to accept authority).

 

[guanophore]

 If the approval of the pope is the factor, then the laying on of hands by bishops doesn't matter

I think you lost me here. What makes these mutually exclusive? It seems to me that both are true.

Would you not agree that, ideally, both elements would be present? And I would add that ideally the candidate was first put forward or “elected” in their parish, by the congregation.

. We are not under the bishopric of the Bishop of Rome.

Are you under a bishopric at all?

I have read in your post that the Lutherans could accept that the Bishop of Rome has a claim as Patriarch of the West. Is that different than a bishopric?

They were called "protestants" because they protested against, essentially, civil authorities are the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529, who wished to limit there religious activities, sort of like the way your communion and mine are protesting against the HHS Mandate.

I think it is important to recognize that the standing up “for” a position is as important as standing “against” another. Many modern non-denoms will say “I am not protesting anything”, but they do define themselves theologically in a specific position.

 

[guanophore]

You can say you are of the church catholic but it is by definition false as Lutherans themselves are widely divided let alone divided from the church Catholic by rejection of mainly the pope among other things.

You can say as much as you want you are catholic it doesn’t make it so. Just as I can call a square a circle as much as I want and the thing just will never become that circle.

This position does not seem entirely consistent with the Catechism, which states that baptized Christians are members of the One Body.

 

[1loved]

I am a former Evangelical, and I never asked myself this question, but when I did, I personally saw no other alternative than Catholicism or Orthodoxy. The roots of the tree were there, and the closer to the time if Christ, the more Catholic it looked.

So, if any of you have found another method besides history to determine the true expression of Christian faithfulness in a Protestant denomination, I’d love to hear it.

Thanks!

I think that the only test for “Christian faithfulness” is found in the bible. Rev.14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
and
Isaiah 8:20To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12315304]It seems to me that it is both. All those who were presbyters were in unity with the Apostles. The “one church” came from the recognition of their authority.

Paul was chosen and prepared apart from all the Apostles in Jerusalem, yet, he knew that it was essential his ministry and message be unified with them.

Something we should continue to work on today.

I think this leaves out a number of important elements, such as the proper form, matter and intention. If this statement were true, then the ordinations of women and others would be considered valid. It is more than just the particular source of the laying on of hands.

This, it seems to me, is the far better argument for Catholics, the charge that intent is different, considering our differing views of the sacrifice of the Mass.

Though I don’t disagree with your point, there have been times when extraordinary measures have been used in ordination.

And the Reformers in Germany thought it extraordinary circumstances.
But as I’ve always claimed in this issue, this is not won’t that, all else being resolved, would prevent unity. Female ordination, ISTM, is far greater barrier to unity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=guanophore;12316291]I think you lost me here. What makes these mutually exclusive? It seems to me that both are true.

That would, I guess, be the Catholic view, except that episcopacy hasn’t always been the order to the day, and my friends Pablope and FKB are making the point that if presbyter ordination is valid, it must be by permission.

Would you not agree that, ideally, both elements would be present? And I would add that ideally the candidate was first put forward or “elected” in their parish, by the congregation.

Indeed, I agree.

Are you under a bishopric at all?

In a manner of speaking. For strange reasons that make little sense to me, the LCMS doesn’t use the term bishop or diocese, but effectively we have them.

I have read in your post that the Lutherans could accept that the Bishop of Rome has a claim as Patriarch of the West. Is that different than a bishopric?

You are probably better equipped than me to answer that. How is the authority of your local bishop different than the authority of the Bishop of Rome concerning your diocese?

I think it is important to recognize that the standing up “for” a position is as important as standing “against” another.

I agree, and I think you would agree that when LCMS Pres. Harrison, and Bishop Lori sat next to each other before that congressional committee, they were both standing up for their position, and against the attack on it.
I actually think the primary position is standing up for something, as the standing against is usually a reflection of the standing for.

Many modern non-denoms will say “I am not protesting anything”, but they do define themselves theologically in a specific position.

And to the extent that it differs from your communion’s position, or mine, it could be considered a “protest”.

Jon