Protestants: The 1500 yrs

[gurneyhalleck1]

Apostolic succession is always a fascinating topic. I sometimes wonder if the Catholic view that it can be transmitted via rogues who go outside the Catholic Church but remain illicit or whether the Orthodox aren’t right in saying that when you leave the Orthodox faith it is up in the air and irrelevent? Using terms like “valid” is totally foreign to the Orthodox when I’ve spoken with them. Totally irrelevent. They don’t go as far as Cyprian and say that the orders dissipate into vapor upon leaving the Church but they basically have that “we can tell you where grace is, not where it isn’t” approach which seems to make sense. The transmission of apostolic succession is interesting. The risk of the “valid but illicit” approach is that it borders on an almost magical approach it seems?

In general, those who do not believe in it seem to say that it is a succession of faith, rather than having a necessity of unbroken laying-on-of-hands. That is, they believe apostolic succession relates primarily to apostolic faith.  I haven't said that and it isn't my position, though I think it is interesting to ask whether it would be better to have apostolic succession, or apostolic faith, if one had to choose.

 

[GKC]

Yes. And according to Bishop Lightfoot, England needed several re-conversions to Christianity. Several major areas of the British Isles became Christian under Augustine of Canterbury only to be reclaimed by barbarians, etc. Aiden is someone who was a major part of that re-conversion mission and he’s rarely spoken of. Interesting guy.

Yep. England was a conglomerate of smaller kingdoms, not a unity, in the day. Until the 900s, or so.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Apostolic succession is always a fascinating topic. I sometimes wonder if the Catholic view that it can be transmitted via rogues who go outside the Catholic Church but remain illicit or whether the Orthodox aren’t right in saying that when you leave the Orthodox faith it is up in the air and irrelevent? Using terms like “valid” is totally foreign to the Orthodox when I’ve spoken with them. Totally irrelevent. They don’t go as far as Cyprian and say that the orders dissipate into vapor upon leaving the Church but they basically have that “we can tell you where grace is, not where it isn’t” approach which seems to make sense. The transmission of apostolic succession is interesting. The risk of the “valid but illicit” approach is that it borders on an almost magical approach it seems?

Augustinian/Cyprianic. Interesting.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes. And I still see them as fascinating views. I wonder which one is the true viewpoint? Cyprian makes sense in that it is not only some sort of “touch” of the Holy Spirit that is crucial for the transmission of orders, but being in line with orthodox (small o) unified, coherent, cohesive, catholic thinking (small c). Is it mechanical and something that can be carried away and used outside of the orthodox mainstream of universal cohesive ecclesiology? Would that make the sacraments seem magical and the Holy Spirit something one can light like a torch, transfer elsewhere, and almost hold hostage? Cyprian makes some sense there. Along with the “unbaptized babies go to hell” stuff, this is another area that I actually diverge from the venerable genius Augustine.

Augustinian/Cyprianic. Interesting.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

Apostolic succession is always a fascinating topic. I sometimes wonder if the Catholic view that it can be transmitted via rogues who go outside the Catholic Church but remain illicit or whether the Orthodox aren’t right in saying that when you leave the Orthodox faith it is up in the air and irrelevent? Using terms like “valid” is totally foreign to the Orthodox when I’ve spoken with them. Totally irrelevent. They don’t go as far as Cyprian and say that the orders dissipate into vapor upon leaving the Church but they basically have that “we can tell you where grace is, not where it isn’t” approach which seems to make sense. The transmission of apostolic succession is interesting. The risk of the “valid but illicit” approach is that it borders on an almost magical approach it seems?

It seems to me that to try and p(name removed by moderator)oint just when it is “wrong” is usually a mistake. There are some obvious ones - a play about an ordination doesn’t really ordain anyone! But when you see how Catholicism has tried to pin down Anglican orders - well, it is just not that convincing. The idea, when it comes down to it, seems to be that they say “well, these people have just strayed too far from the proper understanding to maintain succession”. Fine, except there are old Catholics out there who are way loonier than those Anglicans who supposedly “lost” the succession, and they are still “valid”?

And are we willing to say, absolutely, that God won’t let, say, Lutherans have the Real Presence at their Eucharist?I certainly can’t limit God that way, even if I think it’s doubtful.

As an Anglican, neither the OC or the CC accepts that my priests are real, but I find the OC position a lot more logical. It says right out that without right belief as well as succession by laying-on-of-hands, we can’t know where you are. That is much different than saying a few lines in an ordinal, or an individual’s private intentions that none of us has access to, is not good enough, but some guy who doesn’t believe in the Resurrection but was ordained an Old Catholic is ok.

 

[Bluegoat]

Sure there is evidence! All the Liturgies were in Latin, not Greek.

If the missionaries had not been from the Latin Rite, they would have taught the Liturgies in a Slavic, Oriental, or Greek language.

I’ve looked into this slightly, just because you got me interested. It seems to be a huge topic. But anyway, whether it is in Latin doesn’t seem, in and of itself, to indicate that the liturgy is Western in origin. Some of Eastern origin seem to have been translated into Latin for use in the West.

In general, as far as I know, the East has always translated the liturgy into the vernacular.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Backing up these statements of yours would be really appreciated.

What historical evidence that Anglican orders were valid after Henry, and Edward, and Elizabeth and James?

What ‘old Catholics’ are you talking about - especially the ‘loonier’ ones?

And what ‘old Catholic’ was ordained and did not believe in the Resurrection at the time of his ordination?

There is this deluge of opinions that adds nothing except more opinin.

God bless

It seems to me that to try and p(name removed by moderator)oint just when it is “wrong” is usually a mistake. There are some obvious ones - a play about an ordination doesn’t really ordain anyone! But when you see how Catholicism has tried to pin down Anglican orders - well, it is just not that convincing. The idea, when it comes down to it, seems to be that they say “well, these people have just strayed too far from the proper understanding to maintain succession”. Fine, except there are old Catholics out there who are way loonier than those Anglicans who supposedly “lost” the succession, and they are still “valid”?

And are we willing to say, absolutely, that God won’t let, say, Lutherans have the Real Presence at their Eucharist?I certainly can’t limit God that way, even if I think it’s doubtful.

As an Anglican, neither the OC or the CC accepts that my priests are real, but I find the OC position a lot more logical. It says right out that without right belief as well as succession by laying-on-of-hands, we can’t know where you are. That is much different than saying a few lines in an ordinal, or an individual’s private intentions that none of us has access to, is not good enough, but some guy who doesn’t believe in the Resurrection but was ordained an Old Catholic is ok.

 

[GKC]

Hi, Bluegoat,

Backing up these statements of yours would be really appreciated.

What historical evidence that Anglican orders were valid after Henry, and Edward, and Elizabeth and James?

What ‘old Catholics’ are you talking about - especially the ‘loonier’ ones?

And what ‘old Catholic’ was ordained and did not believe in the Resurrection at the time of his ordination?

Whether Anglican orders were objectively valid after a given point (the point is not precisely known, but the assumption from the internal logic in Apostolicae Curae is 1559, and Archbishop Parker; see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) depends on your affirmation of said* Apostolicae Curae*. As a RC, you certainly should affirm same, at least as sententia ad fidem pertinens. Anglicans have a different view of the matter.

Did I mention that *Apostolicae curae * is a hobby of mine?

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes. Yes to everything you said, Meghan. I see the Catholics as looking at technicalities, very legalistic in the end outcome to all this. Their argument is, “you didn’t say _________ or you were intending __________ when you ordained Matthew Parker.” They have this formulaic technicality approach that basically looks like God views apostolic succession as a contract or a formula more than what it is, the commission of a successor to a bishop who was a successor to an apostle, to carry forth the sacraments of Christ to man.

The Orthodox are very honest with a “heck, we don’t know” honest approach. They don’t know and they hate the terms “valid” and “invalid” and “illicit.” They feel that consistency with tradition and the Church that they DO know, the Orthodox Church, is the only measuring compass of security and safety that definitely grace transpires there.

You are correct that the Old Catholics are a heck of a lot more liberal and innovative and off the beaten path than the conservative Anglo-Catholics of forward in faith or the continuing movement here in the States and yet the Old Catholics are considered valid? It’s an odd dichotomy to be sure? Take Father Cutie, the Catholic priest who started sleeping with a parishoner, married her, left the CC and went to the Episcopal Church, a body of Christians that have strayed WAY far from Catholicism. He would be considered valid but illicit as a priest. The Orthodox wouldn’t speculate and would bet on the fact that he’s lost his apostolic sacramental grace-giving abilities as a priest as he has betrayed his collar and left for a body that has far-deviated from the norm of the sure faith.

I agree with your assessment completely.

It seems to me that to try and p(name removed by moderator)oint just when it is “wrong” is usually a mistake. There are some obvious ones - a play about an ordination doesn’t really ordain anyone! But when you see how Catholicism has tried to pin down Anglican orders - well, it is just not that convincing. The idea, when it comes down to it, seems to be that they say “well, these people have just strayed too far from the proper understanding to maintain succession”. Fine, except there are old Catholics out there who are way loonier than those Anglicans who supposedly “lost” the succession, and they are still “valid”?

And are we willing to say, absolutely, that God won’t let, say, Lutherans have the Real Presence at their Eucharist?I certainly can’t limit God that way, even if I think it’s doubtful.

As an Anglican, neither the OC or the CC accepts that my priests are real, but I find the OC position a lot more logical. It says right out that without right belief as well as succession by laying-on-of-hands, we can’t know where you are. That is much different than saying a few lines in an ordinal, or an individual’s private intentions that none of us has access to, is not good enough, but some guy who doesn’t believe in the Resurrection but was ordained an Old Catholic is ok.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Did you mention it? LOL! And there you go with the Latin again. Ay yay yay, that is Ricky Ricardo Latin circa 1958! GKC you got a lota splainin’ to do!

Apostolicae Curae is a hobby of mine----counter 5,678th time mentioning it

tqualey;7925415:

Hi, Bluegoat,

Backing up these statements of yours would be really appreciated.

What historical evidence that Anglican orders were valid after Henry, and Edward, and Elizabeth and James?

What ‘old Catholics’ are you talking about - especially the ‘loonier’ ones?

And what ‘old Catholic’ was ordained and did not believe in the Resurrection at the time of his ordination?

Whether Anglican orders were objectively valid after a given point (the point is not precisely known, but the assumption from the internal logic in Apostolicae Curae

is 1559, and Archbishop Parker; see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION) depends on your affirmation of said* Apostolicae Curae*. As a RC, you certainly should affirm same, at least as sententia ad fidem pertinens. Anglicans have a different view of the matter.

Did I mention that *Apostolicae curae * is a hobby of mine?

GKC

 

[GKC]

Did you mention it? LOL! And there you go with the Latin again. Ay yay yay, that is Ricky Ricardo Latin circa 1958! GKC you got a lota splainin’ to do!

Apostolicae Curae is a hobby of mine----counter 5,678th time mentioning it
GKC;7925488:
Creature of habit, c’est moi.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Now he’s going French. Good grief! Hey, Jim, what’s up with your weird quoting malfunctions in the last few posts?

gurneyhalleck1;7925658:

Did you mention it? LOL! And there you go with the Latin again. Ay yay yay, that is Ricky Ricardo Latin circa 1958! GKC you got a lota splainin’ to do!

Apostolicae Curae is a hobby of mine----counter 5,678th time mentioning it

Creature of habit, c’est moi

.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Now he’s going French. Good grief! Hey, Jim, what’s up with your weird quoting malfunctions in the last few posts?
GKC;7925700:
Not sure, but I did notice it. Maybe I’m cutting off the closing

.

GKC

added. No, that’s not it. Weird.

Perhaps it’s a curse.

GKC

 

[benedictus2]

To all your questions, no one knows. But all (fragmentary) evidence suggests it came from Britain to Ireland. Point is, St. Columba is not the origin in Britain.

GKC

Okay, if you say that St Columba is not the origin in Britain then you must know who is? So maybe you can tell us who.

 

[GKC]

Okay, if you say that St Columba is not the origin in Britain then you must know who is? So maybe you can tell us who.

No, not me. Not anyone. As I have said.

Look at the dates. Columba is at least 250 years too late to be the source of the Church in England. Arles,bishops, remember?

Now to see if the quote function malfunctions again.

GKC

added: No, worked that time.

 

[benedictus2]

Do waken up! Even I acknowledge that the Pope is primus of the West! But this is a long way from saying that he’s God’s Vice Regent on Earth!

We say He is Vicar of Christ - someone who stands in for Christ. And this claim is scripturally based - John 21 “Feed MY lamb, tend MY sheep”. The Christian (Christ’s sheep) is therefore tended by Peter and Peter’s successor.

If you study what was said you will realise that it was a political appointment, nothing to do with religion, other than the catholic church in its organisation mirrored the state.

Nothing to do with religion? It was Christ who appointed Peter so how can that be nothing to do with religion? And if you go down the track again about that office not being passed on to his successor, well sorry but you will be arguing against yourself because you believe that bishops are the rightful successors of the apostles.

That’s where the terms, Diocese and Vicar are gained from!
As for the Orthodox Church acknowledging Rome? Well as Primus of the West OK, otherwise those I spoke to in Both Constantinople and Palestine refer to you as Protestants…

"

Okay, let me go along with your “Primus of the West” theory. Where is Britain? Is Britain East or West? Was Britain part of the Western Church or the Eastern Church?

 

[benedictus2]

No, not me. Not anyone. As I have said.

Look at the dates. Columba is at least 250 years too late to be the source of the Church in England. Arles,bishops, remember?

Now to see if the quote function malfunctions again.

GKC

added: No, worked that time.

Okay, Arles. Were these Bishops united to Rome or not?

 

[GKC]

Okay, Arles. Were these Bishops united to Rome or not?

Could be. They were at the Council.

GKC

 

[jnpl1185]

Hi Guanophore, you are not reading my post thoroughly enough–rather, you are trying to shoot down everything I say without paying attention to the fact that I clearly stated that the reforms were not against the ancient teachings or those of Christ, but rather the practices of the Church at the time. I will have to come back when I have time for an in depth response, but a more sympathetic reading I think is in order, especially given that I am attempting to answer the original question from the Lutheran perspective.Just a few points:

Never once did I say that Catholic doctrine was responsible for the oppression of the Peasants in Germany. Please read more carefully.

The doctrine of infallibility and much marian doctrine actually did come into church canon only in the past two hundred years. Look up the dogmas. It may have been taught de facto, but it was not canon. This is why the CC and Lutherans and Anglicans are still separated concerning doctrine.

Concerning the JDJ–this is not historically true. Doctrine was foggy, but traditional teaching was clear: that works merit grace in some form. Please Read Erasmus’ De libero arbitrio. If this were not true (again, in practice, not in doctrine), there would not have been a split in the first place.

About Luther not needing to stand up to the Church, well, it was unfortunate that there was a split, but should Luther have simply recanted and said that indulgencies were really spiffy? He didn’t just leave the church. He was excommunicated and very likely would have suffered the fate of Jan Hus (execution) if he had not been kidnapped and swept away to the Wartburg. He was justified in not recanting–the practice of indulgences is not a minor thing.

This idea of infallible preservation of the teachings of Jesus looks really pretty and clean from the outside, but when you get to the actual practice of historical catholic church leaders, it is clear whence the reformation comes.

Tqualey–I said very clearly that the selling of indulgences was not doctrine. But it was declared at the council of clermont and later Pope Leo X used indulgences to fund the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica. This is in the historical record.

Also, his views on Mary changed throughout his lifetime and that no longer represents what modern Lutherans believe. Or the early Lutheran reformers such as Bugenhagen, etc.

As for the sacraments, Luthereventually pitched them because they could not be supported by the authority of scripture. Of course a Catholic will argue this…

more when I have time.

but the original point of the article was to get “protestant” perspectives. Not for Roman Catholics to come in and try to disprove the protestants that actually try to answer the questions. This is called baiting. And I bit.

 

[benedictus2]

As I have said before. It is not that Henry was right.

And that is all that needs to be said.

Henry was not right.

Whatever explanations may be given for what happened Henry was not right.

So therefore the Anglican Church is illegally constituted and thus cannot claim to be the English branch of the Catholic Church.

This is all I am getting at.

And since this is so, then what I would like to know is how Anglicans justify to themselves remaining Anglican.

Since Henry was not right, then really Anglicans, if they want to be in union with the Church that Christ founded should start making their way back to the Catholic Church.

Blessed Henry Newman will I am sure, be an excellent guide .