Question for Catholics

[Justy90]

Why do Roman Catholic always use 2 Timothy2:2 and 3:14 to try and prove that extra-biblical tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession when tradition says that Timothy became the Bishop of the Ephisians which through succession is now part of the Eastern Orthodox church. If 2 Timothy2:2 proves succession, doesn’t is show that the Roman Catholic church isn’t part of that succession?

 

[MACHIU]

Up to 1000 AD there Eastern Orthodox Church was still part of the Catholic Church, who indeed had apostolic succession. Due to doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical disputes the the Partiach of Eastern Church and the delegate of the Pope excommunicate each other, and one thing let to another each claim to be the head of the Church. Mind you, this is an oversimplification of the said disputes. Better check your history books for a better picture.

Even now, both Catholic Church and Eastern Churches still has an unbroken line of apostolic successions, although each is also the claiming the title the head of the Church. In recent years there has been encouraging contacts for unification.

Coming back to your question, both Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church still has valid apostolic succession, and both are trying for reconciliation although it may not happened within our live time. But I am still praying for that.

Please also note that the term Roman Catholic Church only begun when Anglican started and the Anglicans wanted to claim they were also Catholic, then coined that they are Anglo-Catholic while the “others” are Roman Catholic. Anglican Church apostolic succession was deemed invalid by the Catholic Church due to the changes in the rite of episcopal consecration (eg. women ordination and active homosexual priests)

God Bless.

 

[Justy90]

Up to 1000 AD there Eastern Orthodox Church was still part of the Catholic Church, who indeed had apostolic succession. Due to doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographical disputes the the Partiach of Eastern Church and the delegate of the Pope excommunicate each other, and one thing let to another each claim to be the head of the Church. Mind you, this is an oversimplification of the said disputes. Better check your history books for a better picture.

Even now, both Catholic Church and Eastern Churches still has an unbroken line of apostolic successions, although each is also the claiming the title the head of the Church. In recent years there has been encouraging contacts for unification.

Coming back to your question, both Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church still has apostolic succession, and both are trying for reconciliation although it may not happened within our live time. But I am still praying for that.

Please also note that the term Roman Catholic Church only begun when Anglican started and the Anglicans wanted to claim they were also Catholic, then coined that they are Anglo-Catholic while the “others” are Roman Catholic.

God Bless.

Then it really begs the question. If both the Orthodox and the Catholic church follow apostolic tradition exactly, then why do they teach doctrine so differently that they are not even in communion with one another?

 

[Julian0404]

Read Acts II where the Holy Spirit came upon Matthias, who replaced Judas, by election from the other apostles. This annionting of the Holy Spirit on one who was not a direct member of the original 12, blesses all “successions” from that point forward. For it was by his election/succession into Judas position that accounts for the Holy Spirits descend and fire upon his head. This is the very roots of succession.

 

[MACHIU]

Then it really begs the question. If both the Orthodox and the Catholic church follow apostolic tradition exactly, then why do they teach doctrine so differently that they are not even in communion with one another?

Sorry, I thought your question was about apostolic succession. And since you are in a Catholic forum, I also thought that you want to know what the Catholic Church believes what an apostolic succession is.

Now you ask about doctrines.

Overall, the Catholic Church sees the Eastern Orthodox Church as schismatic, not heretical. This means that although there are differences in the doctrines, both Churches has a very close doctrines. The only issues are the acceptance of the pope as the head of the Church. Once they accept the supremacy of the pope, the rest of the minor doctrine differences would be reconciled seamlessly.

Anglican Church also has apostolic succession that was transferred in from the Old Catholic Church. However due to some doctrine differences that is deemed heretical (i.e. women ordination and active homosexual priests), the Catholic Church deems it invalid.

God Bless

 

[Justy90]

Sorry, I thought your question was about apostolic succession. And since you are in a Catholic forum, I also thought that you want to know what the Catholic Church believes what an apostolic succession is.

Now you ask about doctrines.

Overall, the Catholic Church sees the Eastern Orthodox Church as schismatic, not heretical. This means that although there are differences in the doctrines, both Churches has a very close doctrines. The only issues are the acceptance of the pope as the head of the Church. Once they accept the supremacy of the pope, the rest of the minor doctrine differences would be reconciled seamlessly.

Anglican Church also has apostolic succession that was transferred in from the Old Catholic Church. However due to some doctrine differences that is deemed heretical (i.e. women ordination and active homosexual priests), the Catholic Church deems it invalid.

God Bless

But why the vast differences?? For example, the way in which the Orthodox church views the sacraments is far different from Catholics. If both churches believe that they follow apostolic traditions exactly then how can this be?

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Why do Roman Catholic always use 2 Timothy2:2 and 3:14 to try and prove…

I don’t wish to get pulled into a discussion about the CC and the EO but I would like to point out how great it is to see that someone’s contention is with the CC using Scripture to prove its beliefs

It’s a nice change of pace from the usual charge.

God bless

 

[Justy90]

I don’t wish to get pulled into a discussion about the CC and the EO but I would like to point out how great it is to see that someone’s contention is with the CC using Scripture to prove its beliefs

It’s a nice change of pace from the usual charge.

God bless

Hey, I always knew that there was the Bible when I was Catholic, I just never read it!

 

[IHeartAquinas]

But why the vast differences?? For example, the way in which the Orthodox church views the sacraments is far different from Catholics. If both churches believe that they follow apostolic traditions exactly then how can this be?

Both put different emphasis on different traditions. For instance, in the Catholic Church, we deny that Mary died but was assumed into heaven, body and soul. In the Orthodox Church, their Tradition holds that Mary did die, and so was not assumed. Because of this accepted Tradition, they must likewise deny the Immaculate Conception because “the wages of sin is death.” Mary died, vis-a-vis, she was still born with original sin.

I could point to a couple of noncanonical gospels that illustrate the death of Mary if you wanted, but these gospels were deemed invalid and heretical prior to the schism, so you shouldn’t rely on them as authoritative sources for the Orthodox position.

My point being that the Tradition of Apostolic Succession does not necessarily affect other doctrines. Most of the doctrines held by Catholics and Orthodox Christians weren’t defined by Apostolic Succession, but rather defined by inheritors of said succession who were interpreting Church Fathers and early Church writings. The one affects the other but the latter does not define the former.

Your question isn’t a valid question because you are trying to establish causality where none exists, and if any does exist, you have the causal relationship backwards.

Edit: Actually, what I should have said is your question doesn’t have a valid answer instead of saying your question wasn’t valid period. Sorry!

 

[MACHIU]

Far different?
I know for a the following fact:

1. 
   *]Some Orthodox Churches do not require baptism in the case of a convert already baptized in the Catholic Church.
   *]Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and vice versa.
   *]Catholic priests are allowed to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, - properly of course
   *]Orthodox Canon Law authorizes Catholic priest to bless Orthodox marriage
   *]When unable to find a Catholic Church, a Catholic may attend Orthodox mass and receive Holy Communion.
   
   The Catholic Church views that Orthodox doctrine on the sacraments are complementary to the Church and never contradictory. I am not a member of the Orthodox Church, however, whatever I hold is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
   
   Now you are touching on apostolic tradition from apostolic succession. The succession is there, no doubt. Now tradition may be different from one place to another, however, never contradicting. In the Catholic Church there are different traditions (we call it rites) such as Coptics, Melkites, Maronites, Chaldaeans, Armenians, Ukrainians, Syro-Malabars and others. Each have their own rites, but their doctrines are identical and all submit the authority of the Pope.
   
   God Bless

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Why do Roman Catholic always use 2 Timothy2:2 and 3:14 to try and prove that extra-biblical tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession when tradition says that Timothy became the Bishop of the Ephisians which through succession is now part of the Eastern Orthodox church. If 2 Timothy2:2 proves succession, doesn’t is show that the Roman Catholic church isn’t part of that succession?

Who’s talking to Timothy? That is, who is his teacher, instructing him? St. Paul, who dies in Rome, and was often mentioned as a co-founder of the church there (it’s why he and St. Peter share a feast day: we recognize that St. Peter was pope, but St. Paul was pretty indispensible).

As for the supposed wide differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the majority of these differences are either (a) us viewing the same thing in different ways, or in different terms, or focusing on different aspects, or (b) an EO hesitancy to formally define a number of areas which the Catholic Church was pushed to define in the face of challenges.

But in any case, 2 Timothy 2:2 and 3:14 acknowledge that Sacred Tradition exists. Paul doesn’t say, “Timothy, as you know, your heirs will never betray the Sacred Deposit of Faith.” There’s no promise of that. St. Augustine was part of a whole slew of incredibly devout North African Catholics. Their old dioceses are now so solidly Muslim you’d have trouble finding a Christian church of any kind. In light of all of this, how are you deciphering this verse as Paul saying, “Timothy, be Eastern Orthodox,” or even, “Timothy, whatever your heirs do will become binding Tradition”?

 

[Nine_Two]

As an Orthodox Christian I would never interprete that verse to suggest Catholics don’t have apostolic succession. It would be quite rare for a Bishop to ordain his successor - generally you only replace a Bishop when they die, retire, or are disposed, meaning that it would only be by fluke that a Bishop would appoint his successor (or very specific circumstances).

Regarding differences in Orthodox and Catholic Tradition, we have a different language and after roughly 1500 years it has shown itself in major ways. What a word may mean to a Western Christian is not exactly what it might mean to an Eastern Christian.

1. Some Orthodox Churches do not require baptism in the case of a convert already baptized in the Catholic Church.

That has nothing to do with it being the Catholic Church, but is due to the bishop granting economia in certain case. I was baptised into the Anglican Church as an infant, yet was received into the Orthodox Church, by economia, through Christmation alone. Would you argue that Anglicans and Catholics have the same outlook on the Sacraments?

1. Most Orthodox Churches allow marriages between members of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and vice versa.

Again this depends on the Bishop, although Catholics are usually allowed with little fuss, however they are required to get married in the Orthodox Church and to agree to raise their children Orthodox.

1. Catholic priests are allowed to administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, - properly of course

Your priests may be allowed to administer those sacraments to us, but at least in the case of the Eucharist, we are not allowed to accept.

1. Orthodox Canon Law authorizes Catholic priest to bless Orthodox marriage

I’ve never heard this. Do you have a reference? I actually see no reason it wouldn’t be allowed, since someone blessing a marriage can never be a bad thing.

1. When unable to find a Catholic Church, a Catholic may attend Orthodox mass and receive Holy Communion.

Absolutely not. Only those who are members of the Orthodox Communion may recieve Communion. You may be thinking of Eastern Catholics, who are in full communion with Rome.

 

[1ke]

Why do Roman Catholic always use 2 Timothy2:2 and 3:14 to try and prove that extra-biblical tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession when tradition says that Timothy became the Bishop of the Ephisians which through succession is now part of the Eastern Orthodox church. If 2 Timothy2:2 proves succession, doesn’t is show that the Roman Catholic church isn’t part of that succession?

No, it shows no such thing.

A Catholic bishop that goes into schism or heresy is excommunicated and replaced. The See at Ephesus did not *become *Orthodox with a schismatic bishop. The Catholic Church still has a See at Ephesus. Right now it is a titular see and is vacant. However, it didn’t “go” anywhere, certainly not with a schismatic bishop. Through succession the See of Ephesus is still Catholic and can never be anything other than Catholic.

The fact that the Orthodox set up their own struture and hierarchy that competes with the Catholic Church, and that has valid succession by the laying on of hands, does not in any way disprove apostolic succession or show that the Catholic Church isn’t part of that succession.

Your reasoning is very strange.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Absolutely not. Only those who are members of the Orthodox Communion may recieve Communion. You may be thinking of Eastern Catholics, who are in full communion with Rome.

Actually, I’ve read this also. But this is the rule from the Catholic perspective. If I were to go to a Protestant service, it wouldn’t fulfill my Sunday obligation, nor would I be able to present myself for whatever form of Communion or Lord’s Supper they celebrated. On the other hand, if I were in a place with no nearby Catholic church, I could fulfill the Sunday obligation by going to an Eastern Orthodox church, and the Catholic Church is fine with me presenting myself for Communion. Obviously, if the Eastern Orthodox church is not, or if a particular priest or bishop refuses, the barrier still remains.

 

[kalt]

Then it really begs the question. If both the Orthodox and the Catholic church follow apostolic tradition exactly, then why do they teach doctrine so differently that they are not even in communion with one another?

I just wish someone on this board would use the term
“beg the question” correctly for once.

 

[Texan77]

Why do Roman Catholic always use 2 Timothy2:2 and 3:14 to try and prove that extra-biblical tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession when tradition says that Timothy became the Bishop of the Ephisians which through succession is now part of the Eastern Orthodox church. If 2 Timothy2:2 proves succession, doesn’t is show that the Roman Catholic church isn’t part of that succession?

I have read a few replies so I will not repeat but my question is to whom gave the apostolic succession? I believe we can also find this through the The acts of the apostles…

 

[Xavierlives]

I don’t wish to get pulled into a discussion about the CC and the EO but I would like to point out how great it is to see that someone’s contention is with the CC using Scripture to prove its beliefs

It’s a nice change of pace from the usual charge.

God bless

Forgive my ignorance, I come from a faith that only uses the scripture to prove beliefs, so why is the CC’s use of scripture surprising?

 

[Nine_Two]

Forgive my ignorance, I come from a faith that only uses the scripture to prove beliefs, so why is the CC’s use of scripture surprising?

It isn’t. That someone is accusing them of doing so it, when a great many threads posted here talk about how Catholics hate the bible and whatnot.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Then it really begs the question. If both the Orthodox and the Catholic church follow apostolic tradition exactly, then why do they teach doctrine so differently that they are not even in communion with one another?

The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches are not that far apart at all on matters of doctrine. They are in schism primarily because of a dispute over the primacy of the See of Peter in Rome. The Catholic Church fully accepts the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Chrches as valid, and their tradition as apostolic. That is one of the tragedies of the split… there’s really not much that separates us from a doctrinal point of view. The main stumbling block is the authority of the Pope.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Xavierlives]

It isn’t. That someone is accusing them of doing so it, when a great many threads posted here talk about how Catholics hate the bible and whatnot.

Ahh… is it an indictment of the use of other text or a simply a claim that there is an abandonment of the Bible?

(I’m just finding this whole thing interesting because I would have assumed the CC would have used it like an orchestra uses many instruments. Likewise, I wouldn’t have thought someone listening to the orchestra to say, “MORE TRUMPET! I can’t hear any!”)