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

[FathersKnowBest]

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

Obviously.

But in so doing, they went against the scriptures as understood and taught by the Church for 1500 years, and against the Church that Jesus instituted. “If they hear you, they hear Me.”

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

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?

True that.

Could David Koresh have been an Apostolic Successor? Who, if not the Church that Jesus founded, His very Body, guided by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ), could determine that?

How about Joseph Smith? Mohammed?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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

This was AFTER they produced two valid candidates. The Church did this.

 

[guanophore]

Obviously.

But in so doing, they went against the scriptures as understood and taught by the Church for 1500 years, and against the Church that Jesus instituted. “If they hear you, they hear Me.”

That is just it, though, they were not hearing Christ. They witnessed centuries of simony and corruption in the officials of the Church, especially the Bishops. It was the corruption they were going against. Sola Scriptura was adopted as an unadulterated standard by which what was being heard could be evaluated.

True that.

Could David Koresh have been an Apostolic Successor? Who, if not the Church that Jesus founded, His very Body, guided by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ), could determine that?

How about Joseph Smith? Mohammed?

This is why it is important to have valid commissioning as well. A person can be validly ordained, yet still has not permission to preach, teach, or cathect sacraments. There have been many saints who have been forbidden those things, and endured it faithfully until their faculties were restored, or until they were released from this life.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

That is just it, though, they were not hearing Christ. They witnessed centuries of simony and corruption in the officials of the Church, especially the Bishops. It was the corruption they were going against.

So, how does this translate into them not hearing Christ?

Sola Scriptura was adopted as an unadulterated standard by which what was being heard could be evaluated.

… in opposition to the very same scriptures that were supposed to be the standard.

This is why it is important to have valid commissioning as well. A person can be validly ordained, yet still has not permission to preach, teach, or cathect sacraments. There have been many saints who have been forbidden those things, and endured it faithfully until their faculties were restored, or until they were released from this life.

 

[guanophore]

Well, truthfully, I disagree, it can't be both. Either God chooses apostolic successors, or men do,

How do you conclude this? Is it not clear from Scripture that Jesus chose Paul long before anyone laid hands on him?

Is it not also clear that God sent His chosen so that hands could be laid on him?

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, (Ac 15:22)

Are you suggesting that the Church did not pray and ask God to show them who He wanted to send? " For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…" (Ac 15:28)

I marvel that one could read these passages and think there was a dichotomy.

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.

Not sure what you mean by this. Apostolic succession exists within the ordinary line of succession. Do you mean that there may be some validly ordained Apostolic Successors that are not “recognized”?

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.

For those of us who are part of the ancient faiths, the two go together. Holy orders are how those who are entrusted with the faith are regularized/authorized/recognized.

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.”

The use of the lot was practiced for centuries until Pentecost, and new ways of discerning the will of God arrived. The supreme authority rests on exactly Peter, and the fact that he was the one who stood up amongst them and announced that a replacement for Judas was necessary. Peter was given the unique responsibility to feed and care for the flock. This was passed on to his successor until the present day.

 

[SteveVH]

True that.

Could David Koresh have been an Apostolic Successor? Who, if not the Church that Jesus founded, His very Body, guided by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ), could determine that?

How about Joseph Smith? Mohammed?

Yep.

 

[Per_Crucem]

True that.

Could David Koresh have been an Apostolic Successor? Who, if not the Church that Jesus founded, His very Body, guided by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ), could determine that?

How about Joseph Smith? Mohammed?

Hyperbole much?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Hyperbole much?

Avoidance much?
Denial?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Avoidance much?
Denial?

Yes, I do deny that referring to extremists and non-Christians, in order to question who could be potentially be considered in apostolic succession, is a reasonable or well thought out argument in support of your position.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, I do deny that referring to extremists and non-Christians, in order to question who could be potentially be considered in apostolic succession, is a reasonable or well thought out argument in support of your position.

It could be called a Reductio ad absurdum argument, which is a valid form of argument provided it does not construct a strawman, which I had not.

Perhaps you could address the actual argument, rather than avoiding it?

Put in your own examples, then, if you must:

King Henry VIII
John Knox
Samuel Seabury
John and Charles Wesley
Theophilus Lindley
John Smyth
Michaelis Jones
William Booth
Mary Baker Eddy
etc., etc. etc.

 

[Per_Crucem]

It could be called a Reductio ad absurdum argument, which is a valid form of argument provided it does not construct a strawman, which I had not.

But you did, because which non-Catholic communion has ever stated that David Koresh or Muhammad could be considered valid successors either to the apostles, or to the teaching to the apostles?

 

[Godspells]

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

Of course, I do believe that I am correct, but that is only because I’ve looked at the evidence and come to a rationale conclusion.

There is nothing inherent about my beliefs that make me infallible. I am correct, only insofar as I purport well supported doctrine that makes sense and produces good fruit.

For the Catholic Church it goes like this:

The Church is infallible.

How do you know?

Because the Church said so.

So?

The Church is infallible.

Its a circular argument. What you base that off of is the “Gates of Hades”, but then if I say, well no that doesn’t mean that the Church is infallible, and then the Church just overrules me because the Church is infallible.

This is what I see is scholasticism. There’s not an appreciation of mystery. I don’t believe there was ever a “Great Apostasy” that is the faith that Christ gave to His apostles never “died” but I don’t think that means that the Church can never be wrong.

I also think it is inaccurate to believe that the apostolic faith “evolves”. There is just the one faith that was believed everywhere, at all times, by everyone. I’m not comfortable with the addition of new articles of faith that we have to believe in.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

But you did, because which non-Catholic communion has ever stated that David Koresh or Muhammad could be considered valid successors either to the apostles, or to the teaching to the apostles?

STILL won’t address the actual argument?

Seems to me to be a sign that your position isn’t very strong.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Of course, I do believe that I am correct, but that is only because I’ve looked at the evidence and come to a rationale conclusion.

There is nothing inherent about my beliefs that make me infallible. I am correct, only insofar as I purport well supported doctrine that makes sense and produces good fruit.

For the Catholic Church it goes like this:

The Church is infallible.

How do you know?

Because the Church said so.

So?

The Church is infallible.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Shawshank94]

NO ONE knows the truth until they die. That is the truth.

It’s very scary and a great reason I fear death. But I hope…I hope and I have faith
that there is something greater than this and that there is someone waiting at home…

 

[JonNC]

I challenge this. Documentation please.i

Annie

Although the Luth. symbols affirm the desire to retain the apostolic succession and hist. episcopate (Ap XIV 1, 5) only a few canonically consecrated bps. accepted the Reformation and, except in Swed., political and other considerations prevented them from transmitting the apostolic succession to the Luth. community. Lacking bps. to ordain their candidates for the sacred ministry, the Luths. appealed to the patristically attested facts that originally bps. and priests constituted only one order; that the right to ordain was inherent in the priesthood (a principle on which a number of popes of the 15th c., among them Boniface IX, Martin V, and Innocent VIII, acted in authorizing Cistercian abbots who were only priests to ordain); that thence “an ordination administered by a pastor in his own church is valid by divine law” (Tractatus 65); and that when the canonical bps. refuse to impart ordination “the churches are compelled by divine law to ordain pastors and ministers, using their own pastors for this purpose (adhibitis suis pastoribus)” (ibid., 72). The succession of the ministry in the Luth. Ch. may therefore be presumed to be a valid presbyterial one.

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.
"

And from the confessions:

The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. 25] But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved.

Jon

 

[FathersKnowBest]

cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOSTOLICSUCCESSION

Jon

OK, great. Now, if a Catholic wants to ordain, say, a female or openly gay bishop, and can’t find a Catholic bishop to ordain such, would it be likewise valid to allow a priest to “ordain” such a person?

 

[1loved]

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.”

Actually Peter tells us that we are a nation of priests.

1Peter2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

1loved