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

[pablope]

Fine. Take the word “rightly”. Steido’s question is:
**So what do you do with groups who do see the church as visible, just not necessarily corporate on earth – like, say, Lutherans? **

Jon

Huh…I thought you Lutherans would go back to Tradition…so what does both East and West define?

Does Tradition say you need to have bishops with apostolic lineage? (for one thing)

What do you think both East and West’s response would be?

 

[steido01]

Most Protestants would not because the intent of the receiver of the baptism was fundamentally skewed. JWs are unitarian, Mormons believe in a triad, so the intent of the baptism is off.

That said, I understand Rome accepts the same thing. But Protestants generally view baptism as an outer reflection of an inner change, the latter is necessary for salvation, the former is not.

I was raised Christian, and consider myself so, but I have never been baptized, which is an unfortunate fact, since I frequently argue for the necessity of a literal baptism in water.

Words of caution: speak for yourself, not “Protestantism.”

You’ll find many Anglicans and Lutherans are more aligned with the Catholics when it comes to the necessity of the Sacraments.

 

[guanophore]

See, I have a big problem with statements like this.
“Rightly” administered — according to whom?

“Wherever the Word is preached” – according to whose interpretation?

These two elements are important to recognize the true Church, but your point is very valid. Who determines if the sacraments are “rightly administered”?

By what standard is the “Word preached” correctly?

Again we are back to denominational differences.

One major element from the Apostles is valid ordination (apostolic succession) and unity with the Bishop. This, by itself, though, is not sufficient. a validly ordained person must also be licit, which means that they have been commissioned/privileged/authorized by their Bishop or appointed authority (abbot).

Pope Leo withdrew Luther’s permission to preach and teach, though his Holy Orders were still valid.

 

[steido01]

Not quite, this counter-analogy does not work because Rome never makes the claim that only Roman springs can provide baptism. A better analogy would be of accepting any form of water, from any denomination, with any minister’s action - no matter which denomination.

Ok, so my analogy wasn’t perfect. No analogy is. My question remains. We’ve seen that Catholic response to the “invisible church” espoused by some Christians. What is the Catholic response to the Lutheran concept of a visible church that is manifest wherever the Word is preached and Sacraments rightly administered? Please note that Lutherans do understand Catholics, among others, to have valid sacraments.

So do Lutherans(any protestants) accept - say, JW, Mormon, SDA, etc baptism as “valid” as their own since water is used and perhaps the “right phrasing”?

Of course not. But this does not pertain to my question, which I hope someone will respond to.

 

[steido01]

One major element from the Apostles is valid ordination (apostolic succession) and unity with the Bishop. This, by itself, though, is not sufficient. a validly ordained person must also be licit, which means that they have been commissioned/privileged/authorized by their Bishop or appointed authority (abbot).

I don’t think it’s so simple as that, and I’m not sure your communion boils it down so narrowly, either (though I am certainly open to correction):

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.
-Pope Benedict XVI

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Ok, so my analogy wasn’t perfect. No analogy is. My question remains. We’ve seen that Catholic response to the “invisible church” espoused by some Christians. What is the Catholic response to the Lutheran concept of a visible church that is manifest wherever the Word is preached and Sacraments rightly administered? Please note that Lutherans do understand Catholics, among others, to have valid sacraments.

The answer is that the determination of whether it is “rightly” administered is a function of the ONE Magisterium that Christ inaugurated.

 

[Godspells]

They won’t say “true church”, but must consider their own the closest and truest, or would go elsewhere.

Baptism of desire implies desire not just mental assent to an ideology with no sacramental act.

so why not believe AND be baptised?

invisible baptism then, as part of the invisible church

Baptism of desire is mostly for catechumens who have the intention to be baptized and it is similar to protestants who have that ‘inner’ change who will eventually make that outter act.

There are other Catholic dogmas I haven’t accepted. Divorce, infallibility, contraception, and scholasticism to name a few. If the Church didn’t require assent to all doctrine I probably would, but then again one is not just baptized as a convert in the church. I am looking into RCIA currently if that makes you feel better.

 

[JonNC]

Huh…I thought you Lutherans would go back to Tradition…so what does both East and West define?

Does Tradition say you need to have bishops with apostolic lineage? (for one thing)

What do you think both East and West’s response would be?

What do you think the East’s response to…

Originally posted by FathersKnowBest
The answer is that the determination of whether it is “rightly” administered is a function of the ONE Magisterium that Christ inaugurated.

…is?

Yes. Tradition does say that there should be apostolic succession. Tradition also says when there are no bishops to ordain (or are unwilling to), that presbyter ordination is acceptable. Not preferable, but acceptable. This, btw, is what our confessions say.
So yes, we would go back to the Tradition of the Church Catholic.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

What do you think the East’s response to…

…is?

Why should I care?

Are you EO? I am not.

Can YOU answer the question?

Yes. Tradition does say that there should be apostolic succession. Tradition also says when there are no bishops to ordain (or are unwilling to), that presbyter ordination is acceptable.

That’s just untrue.

And, even if they were true, when were there “no bishops to ordain” except where they were not allowed to be, by the very same people who were making the claim that there are “no bishops to ordain”?

Not preferable, but acceptable. This, btw, is what our confessions say.

Sorry, but your confessions post-date OUR Apostolic Traditions by a good number of centuries.

 

[JonNC]

=FathersKnowBest;12309419]Why should I care?

Why should you care? Because the claim that the Magisterium gets to determine whether or not the sacraments are administer rightly administered is not settled fact, even if you discount Lutheran practice. Further, while the Magisterium is certainly part of the Church Christ established, so are we.

That’s just untrue.

And, even if they were true, when were there “no bishops to ordain” except where they were not allowed to be, by the very same people who were making the claim that there are “no bishops to ordain”?

It is true. The bishops refused to ordain our priests, and our churches relied on a historic practice of presbyter ordination, which was even practiced in the 15th century by the Catholic Church.

Sorry, but your confessions post-date OUR Apostolic Traditions by a good number of centuries.

True, and regularly reflect those ancient Traditions.

Jon

 

[Godspells]

Sorry, but your confessions post-date OUR Apostolic Traditions by a good number of centuries.

Question to you, is apostolic succession the act of one (or three per canon law) bishop ordaining another, or is it the act of canonizing a bishop who has already been ordain by the Holy Spirit?

Cardinal bishops seem to believe it is the latter.

 

[Annie39]

What do you think the East’s response to…

…is?

Yes. Tradition does say that there should be apostolic succession. Tradition also says when there are no bishops to ordain (or are unwilling to), that presbyter ordination is acceptable. Not preferable, but acceptable. This, btw, is what our confessions say.
So yes, we would go back to the Tradition of the Church Catholic.

Jon

I challenge this. Documentation please.i

Annie

 

[Annie39]

Why should you care? Because the claim that the Magisterium gets to determine whether or not the sacraments are administer rightly administered is not settled fact, even if you discount Lutheran practice. Further, while the Magisterium is certainly part of the Church Christ established, so are we.

It is true. The bishops refused to ordain our priests, and our churches relied on a historic practice of presbyter ordination, which was even practiced in the 15th century by the Catholic Church.

True, and regularly reflect those ancient Traditions.

Jon

It is true. The bishops refused to ordain our priests, and our churches relied on a historic practice of presbyter ordination, which was even practiced in the 15th century by the Catholic Church." Reference please.
"

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Question to you, is apostolic succession the act of one (or three per canon law) bishop ordaining another, or is it the act of canonizing a bishop who has already been ordain by the Holy Spirit?

Cardinal bishops seem to believe it is the latter.

To answer your question:

It is not an either/or but both:

The apostolic foundation has this special characteristic: it is both historical and spiritual.

Source: CATHOLIC TEACHING ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION (1973)

Further:

1. Now Christ instituted a ministry for the establishment, animation, and maintenance of this priesthood of Christians. This ministry was to be the sign and the instrument by which he would communicate to his people in the course of history the fruits of his life, death, and Resurrection. The first foundations of this ministry were laid when he called the Twelve, who at the same time represent the new Israel as a whole and, after Easter, will be the privileged eyewitnesses sent out to proclaim the Gospel of salvation and the leaders of the new people, “fellow workers with God for the building of his temple” (see 1 Cor 3:9). This ministry has an essential function to fulfill toward each generation of Christians. It must therefore be transmitted from the apostles by an unbroken line of succession. If one can say that the Church as a whole is established upon the foundation of the apostles (Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14), one has to add that this apostolicity, which is common to the whole Church, is linked with the ministerial apostolic succession, and that this is an inalienable ecclesial structure at the service of all Christians.

Break

It is historical in the sense that it comes into being through an act of Christ during his earthly existence: the call of the Twelve at the start of his public ministry, their commission to represent the new Israel and to be involved ever more closely with his Paschal journey, which is consummated in the Cross and Resurrection (Mk 1:17; 3:14; Lk 22:28; Jn 15:16). Far from destroying the pre-Easter structure, the Resurrection confirms it. In a special manner Christ makes the Twelve the witnesses of his Resurrection, and they head the list that he had ordered before his death: the earliest confession of Faith in the Risen One includes Peter and the Twelve as the privileged witnesses of his Resurrection (1 Cor).

Those who had been associated with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to the eve of his Paschal death are able to bear public witness to the fact that it is the same Jesus who is risen (Jn 15:27). After Judas’ defection and even before Pentecost, the first concern of the Eleven is to replace him in their apostolic ministry with one of the disciples who had been with Jesus since his baptism, so that with them he could be a witness of his Resurrection (Acts 1:17-22). Moreover Paul, who was called to the apostolate by the risen Lord himself and thus became part of the Church’s foundation, is aware of the need to be in communion with the Twelve.

This foundation is not only historical; it is also spiritual. Christ’s pass-over, anticipated at the Last Supper, establishes the New Covenant and thus embraces the whole of human history. The mission and task of preaching the Gospel, governing, reconciling, and sanctifying that are entrusted to the first witnesses cannot be restricted to their lifetime. As far as the Eucharist is concerned, Tradition—whose broad lines are already laid down from the first century (see Lk and Jn)—declares that the apostles’ participation in the Last Supper conferred on them the power to preside at the eucharistic celebration.

Thus the apostolic ministry is an eschatological institution. Its spiritual origins appear in Christ’s prayer, inspired by the Holy Spirit, in which he discerns, as in all the great moments of his life, the will of the Father (Lk 6:12). The spiritual participation of the apostles in the mystery of Christ is completed fully by the gift of the Holy Spirit after Easter (Jn 20:22; Lk 24:44-49). The Spirit brings to their minds all that Jesus had said (Jn 14:26) and leads them to a fuller understanding of his mystery (Jn 16:13-15).

The kerygma, if it is to be properly understood, must not be separated or treated in abstraction from the Faith to which the Twelve and Paul came by their conversion to the Lord Jesus or from the witness to him manifested in their lives.

 

[Godspells]

To answer your question:

It is not an either/or but both:

Source: CATHOLIC TEACHING ON APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION (1973)

Further:

Break

Well, truthfully, I disagree, it can’t be both. Either God chooses apostolic successors, or men do, but the scripture pertaining to the Apostles appointing a successor to Judas, they used “lots” which I understand were like a set of dice that were commonly used to determine what the will of God was, and the lots fell on Matthias.

So then, laying of hands simply canonized (or recognized) what God had already decided. So, while we certainly don’t know for sure if God has appointed apostolic successors outside of the ordinary line of succession, you Catholics certainly have to recognize the potential for it. We get to caught up in trying to know if some denominations has apostolic succession in the legalistic sense, as to whether they have a direct line to Peter and the Apostles, when instead we ought to be focused on whether someone transmits the apostolic faith.

My question is why does the Vatican claim supreme authority to appoint and dismiss all Bishops of the Catholic Church, when Peter himself right here essentially says, “let’s flip a coin.”

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Well, truthfully, I disagree, it can’t be both. Either God chooses apostolic successors, or men do, but the scripture pertaining to the Apostles appointing a successor to Judas, they used “lots” which I understand were like a set of dice that were commonly used to determine what the will of God was, and the lots fell on Matthias.

In the document I linked, it is expressed that God (Jesus) chose the 12 and then the 11 chose a 12th and then God (Jesus) chooses Paul. Paul didn’t go by himself but he was sent to the Church. These 12 and Paul in turn chose others (Acts 7 - Deacons, and so forth). Had Paul gone on his own outside the actual physical Church with alive and kicking humans, your position would hold more ground.

The question for you, then, is if you agree with this premise:

God chose the Apostles, and the Apostles in turn chose other disciples and appoint Church leaders. All as prescribed by Christ.

So then, laying of hands simply canonized (or recognized) what God had already decided.

Yes, the Church appoints others under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the way we are certain about this decision is through the Church, not without.

So, while we certainly don’t know for sure if God has appointed apostolic successors outside of the ordinary line of succession, you Catholics certainly have to recognize the potential for it.

“You Catholics”… really? lol.

We recognize that those who are not against us are for us (Luke 9:50) . However, this does not mean that we are to ignore Scripture, history and Tradition and ascribe something that is just not there.

We get to caught up in trying to know if some denominations has apostolic succession in the legalistic sense, as to whether they have a direct line to Peter and the Apostles, when instead we ought to be focused on whether someone transmits the apostolic faith.

Have you read Dominus Iesus?

The Catholic Church recognizes the salvific mystery of Christ in those who are in imperfect/incomplete union with the Church. But again, this does not allow for ascribing missing attributes.

It’s not a matter of legalism. It’s a matter of history and Tradition in the life of the Church.

My question is why does the Vatican claim supreme authority to appoint and dismiss all Bishops of the Catholic Church, when Peter himself right here essentially says, “let’s flip a coin.”

Developed doctrine. It wasn’t until ~1090AD that this came into effect after Dictatus Papae.

 

[guanophore]

The answer is that the determination of whether it is “rightly” administered is a function of the ONE Magisterium that Christ inaugurated.

This answer was obviously rejected by all the Reformers, who considered that they were righly administering, though it was outside of the Catholic Magesterium.

 

[SteveVH]

So then, laying of hands simply canonized (or recognized) what God had already decided. So, while we certainly don’t know for sure if God has appointed apostolic successors outside of the ordinary line of succession, you Catholics certainly have to recognize the potential for it.

We do? LOL. Yes, God only knows how many apostolic successors are running around out there of whom we may not be aware.

We get to caught up in trying to know if some denominations has apostolic succession in the legalistic sense, as to whether they have a direct line to Peter and the Apostles, when instead we ought to be focused on whether someone transmits the apostolic faith.

And who determines whether or not one is transmitting the apostolic faith? Just any one? Just any denomination who wishes to make that claim? And what if two conflict?

This sounds familiar, doesn’t it? I think we are already trying this method of determining truth and it has proved to divide Christianity until it resembles shattered glass. Thus, the importance of unity in faith, in the faith given once to the Apostles. The guardian and protector of that faith for the last 2000 year has been the Catholic Church who, along with the Eastern Orthodox, have a true claim to Apostolic succession.

Your attempt to minimize the Church’s claim as “legalistic” does not change the reality that hands were laid upon men by the Apostles who received their authority and by those men to others, down through the centuries to today. Authority is not assumed. It must be given by one who already possesses it. Unless one can show that line of authority then he has assumed authority, which is no authority at all.

My question is why does the Vatican claim supreme authority to appoint and dismiss all Bishops of the Catholic Church, when Peter himself right here essentially says, “let’s flip a coin.”

First of all when the Apostles cast lots it was to replace an Apostle. There were certain requirements of being an Apostle, as opposed to a bishop appointed by them.

"21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22)

As for the appointment of bishops in the Catholic Church, this is the first thing that popped up on wiki:

“The appointment of bishops in the Catholic Church is a complicated process. Outgoing bishops, neighboring bishops, the faithful, the apostolic nuncio, various members of the Roman Curia, and the pope all have a role in the selection. The exact process varies based upon a number of factors, including whether the bishop is from the Latin Church or one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the geographic location of the diocese, what office the candidate is being chosen to fill, and whether the candidate has previously been ordained to the episcopate.”

You can read all about the process of choosing a bishop with a simple search if you really want to know. The Pope doesn’t just wake up one day and appoint a bishop nor “dismiss” one. It is done with much consultation and prayer.

 

[Godspells]

In the document I linked, it is expressed that God (Jesus) chose the 12 and then the 11 chose a 12th and then God (Jesus) chooses Paul. Paul didn’t go by himself but he was sent to the Church. These 12 and Paul in turn chose others (Acts 7 - Deacons, and so forth). Had Paul gone on his own outside the actual physical Church with alive and kicking humans, your position would hold more ground.

Ah, but in Acts 1, the 11 Apostles in fact do not choose the 12th, they roll a dice to see what God wants.

I mean, obviously I get what your saying, and I certainly don’t think everyone should think they are divinely ordained to teach the faith, but I think that the mentality of the RCC is that the Bishops get to choose their successors, and that had historically had very negative consequences in them committing nepotism, simony, etc.

Instead, the mentality is that God has already appointed the successor, the Bishop is just canonizing who God has chosen.

The question for you, then, is if you agree with this premise:

God chose the Apostles, and the Apostles in turn chose other disciples and appoint Church leaders. All as prescribed by Christ.

Sure, but I’m not really into this “all or nothing” position. Yes, I believe for the first few generations this worked great, but after two great schisms we ought to keep in mind that at certain points in history, the Church was not doing the will of God, and I think it is a fair position to presume that certain individuals came out to try to correct what was going on. For all of Martin Luther’s sins, I rarely hear Catholic apologists actually recognize that simony and corruption was extensive throughout the Church and had it been at the forefront reform we likely would not have had a schism.

If I’m not mistaken, Borgia was the Pope at the time, and one of the most notorious ones at that.

Yes, the Church appoints others under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the way we are certain about this decision is through the Church, not without.

Well, beyond that, we can no if someone is appointed by the Holy Spirit by whether or not the produce the fruits of the Holy Spirit as our Lord commanded.

“You Catholics”… really? lol.

Sorry… Ye Catholics.

We recognize that those who are not against us are for us (Luke 9:50) . However, this does not mean that we are to ignore Scripture, history and Tradition and ascribe something that is just not there.

I respect that. Certainly, don’t abandon your beliefs to accommodate others, but I think it is always good to approach interdenominational relations in good faith whenever the opportunity arises (unless its the Westburo Baptists, just stay away from them).

The Catholic Church recognizes the salvific mystery of Christ in those who are in imperfect/incomplete union with the Church. But again, this does not allow for ascribing missing attributes.

It’s not a matter of legalism. It’s a matter of history and Tradition in the life of the Church.

Well, it is unfortunate. My theology holds that the Gospel is the revelation of the New Covenant. While, I don’t believe most protestants uphold this revelation as it ought to be upheld, for me I feel Catholic scholasticism has added unnecessarily to it.

Infallibility I find to be a rather circular argument and a pretty massive stretch from, “The Gates of Hades”, but I digress.

Developed doctrine. It wasn’t until ~1090AD that this came into effect after

So what is the fate of people who lived before the doctrine was developed?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ah, but in Acts 1, the 11 Apostles in fact do not choose the 12th, they roll a dice to see what God wants.

Who do you think invented Yahtzee?

Did you see dice being rolled in Acts 7? How about in the Pastoral letters? There is no more record of dice after the Acts 1 event, but of the Church leadership in action.

I mean, obviously I get what your saying, and I certainly don’t think everyone should think they are divinely ordained to teach the faith, but I think that the mentality of the RCC is that the Bishops get to choose their successors, and that had historically had very negative consequences in them committing nepotism, simony, etc.

This is very dangerous thinking. Wasn’t Christ who chose Judas? The Church leadership makes mistakes, is composed of sinners and has straying members. That does nothing to the way things are and have been meant to be.

Instead, the mentality is that God has already appointed the successor, the Bishop is just canonizing who God has chosen.

Not only the Bishop, but the Priest, the Deacon, et. al. Regardless a response and an overt act is needed and has been established. Has it not?

Sure, but I’m not really into this “all or nothing” position. Yes, I believe for the first few generations this worked great, but after two great schisms we ought to keep in mind that at certain points in history, the Church was not doing the will of God, and I think it is a fair position to presume that certain individuals came out to try to correct what was going on. For all of Martin Luther’s sins, I rarely hear Catholic apologists actually recognize that simony and corruption was extensive throughout the Church and had it been at the forefront reform we likely would not have had a schism.

We rarely hear any person name their sins and beat themselves down in public…

If I’m not mistaken, Borgia was the Pope at the time, and one of the most notorious ones at that.

Popes are sinners too.

Well, beyond that, we can no if someone is appointed by the Holy Spirit by whether or not the produce the fruits of the Holy Spirit as our Lord commanded.

But in the larger picture, we don’t. Otherwise we would not have all these different denominations, each claiming to be preaching and teaching the correct Gospel. A line must be drawn.

I respect that. Certainly, don’t abandon your beliefs to accommodate others, but I think it is always good to approach interdenominational relations in good faith whenever the opportunity arises (unless its the Westburo Baptists, just stay away from them).

We certainly do. We also do have 2,000 years of history.

Well, it is unfortunate. My theology holds that the Gospel is the revelation of the New Covenant. While, I don’t believe most protestants uphold this revelation as it ought to be upheld, for me I feel Catholic scholasticism has added unnecessarily to it.

Yes, scholasticism is really annoying and tries to explain too much.

Infallibility I find to be a rather circular argument and a pretty massive stretch from, “The Gates of Hades”, but I digress.

You’d be surprised at how much you might claim to be infallible in the majority of your beliefs.

So what is the fate of people who lived before the doctrine was developed?

Aren’t each of us accountable for the grace given to each one of us?