Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[Jaberwocky]

Why doesn’t it? You believe the apostles to have been completely trustworthy with saying that a dead man rose from the grave, but you say “ehhhhh I dunnooooo…” when it comes to them saying He told them to pass on His teachings?

Because it should be obvious that seeing someone rise from the dead does not make them an expert on the subject matter the man taught, right?

Depends on the doctrine.

How about perpetual Virginity that St. Jerome defended vigorously?

I hold to a threefold division of the office of the ministry. Bishop, presbyter, and deacon. You do know there were bishops who supported the Reformation, yes?

Yes, but then you would also know that there was a strict hierarchy that even these Bishops accepted. They were only infallible in so far as they taught in communion with Rome.

Depends on the Protestant. Anglicans certainly do.

And Anglicans certainly do not have it. Do you see some similarity here with the concept of the West and East?

Again, it depends on the Protestant. I think some of them dismissed it far too cavalierly. I’m thinking of the Reformed here.

Do YOU hold it? How do these Protestants who do hold it get succession?

 

[Contarini]

Why doesn’t it? You believe the apostles to have been completely trustworthy with saying that a dead man rose from the grave, but you say “ehhhhh I dunnooooo…” when it comes to them saying He told them to pass on His teachings?

It’s quite possible, logically, that they genuinely encountered the risen Jesus in bodily form and came up with a lot of the teachings afterwards, as they reflected on what they had experienced and had further encounters with the Risen Christ. There are in fact scholars who believe this–it’s quite plausible with regard to John in particular, and of course we all agree that it’s what happened in the case of Paul (except that his encounter with Jesus seems from the beginning to have been a vision–my point is that little if any of Paul’s teaching in his letters seems to come from things Jesus said before His death and resurrection).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And Anglicans certainly do not have it.

There’s no “certainly” about it unless from the standpoint of Catholic faith as defined by the note to “Ad Tuendam Fidem.”

Edwin

 

[Jaberwocky]

There’s no “certainly” about it unless from the standpoint of Catholic faith as defined by the note to “Ad Tuendam Fidem.”

Edwin

Hasn’t it been declared even recently by John Paul II with respect to their Holy Orders being null?

EDIT: Yes, that was “Ad Tuendam Fidem”. Well we have that and the one by Pope Leo XIII. So I am not sure there is going to be a change.

EDIT2: It seems the matter is actually settled.

“With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37”

Full document here

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[Per_Crucem]

Because it should be obvious that seeing someone rise from the dead does not make them an expert on the subject matter the man taught, right?

No, but then you’d have to come up with a whole slew of reasons as to why they got those teachings wrong…especially given that the risen God-man just showed up to them. In other words, it would be my guess that His rising from the grave had some important significance to it that He wasn’t going to let a bunch of His disciples mess up I’m not saying that what you’re suggesting is implausible. I’m just going with the most reasonable answer.

How about perpetual Virginity that St. Jerome defended vigorously?

I hold to it without any real reservation, though I don’t think it an essential point.

Yes, but then you would also know that there was a strict hierarchy that even these Bishops accepted. They were only infallible in so far as they taught in communion with Rome.

More like in communion with all of the apostolic Sees. Though certainly Rome possessed a dignity of importance over the rest.

And Anglicans certainly do not have it. Do you see some similarity here with the concept of the West and East?

Inasmuch as, going strictly by laying on of hands, the Anglicans have equal claim to it. You’d best discuss that with an Anglican though, for all the ins and outs.

Do YOU hold it? How do these Protestants who do hold it get succession?

In the case of the Scandinavian bishops, through prior ordinations. That is, if you’re going strictly by laying of hands A, B, C, D, etc. I would hold to a succession of teaching. If the bishop teaches false doctrine, I don’t much care who ordained him.

 

[Jaberwocky]

No, but then you’d have to come up with a whole slew of reasons as to why they got those teachings wrong…especially given that the risen God-man just showed up to them. In other words, it would be my guess that His rising from the grave had some important significance to it that He wasn’t going to let a bunch of His disciples mess up I’m not saying that what you’re suggesting is implausible. I’m just going with the most reasonable answer.

Well why can’t it be that the man rose from the dead, accomplished what he came for and just left?

Seems to me like you are just reading back what you know to the story now.

Let me ask you this way. If Elvis Presley were to appear to you in the flesh, does it automatically mean you can sing all the songs he sang now?

I hold to it without any real reservation, though I don’t think it an essential point.

Interesting. How about teaching on the Eucharist?

More like in communion with all of the apostolic Sees. Though certainly Rome possessed a dignity of importance over the rest.

That’s fine. So how do you explain your persistence outside of these Apostolic Sees?

Inasmuch as, going strictly by laying on of hands, the Anglicans have equal claim to it. You’d best discuss that with an Anglican though, for all the ins and outs.

I just provided why the Catholic Church has declared that their ordinations are null and void.

In the case of the Scandinavian bishops, through prior ordinations. That is, if you’re going strictly by laying of hands A, B, C, D, etc. I would hold to a succession of teaching. If the bishop teaches false doctrine, I don’t much care who ordained him.

How do you decide he taught false doctrine? Where do you base your certainty on? Is it on history?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Because it should be obvious that seeing someone rise from the dead does not make them an expert on the subject matter the man taught, right?

How about perpetual Virginity that St. Jerome defended vigorously?

Yes, but then you would also know that there was a strict hierarchy that even these Bishops accepted. They were only infallible in so far as they taught in communion with Rome.

And Anglicans certainly do not have it. Do you see some similarity here with the concept of the West and East?

Do YOU hold it? How do these Protestants who do hold it get succession?

Regarding the blessed Virgin Mary, Lutherans hold differing views and certainly do not argue with the Augsburg Confession on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Luther believed that the Virgin was also assumed into heaven.

If the bishops of Sweden/ Finland, etc changed from Catholic to Lutheran, how is it that the Apostolic Succession stopped? Rome has never questioned the AP of these Lutherans but may consider the validity of holy Orders to be iffy on other grounds .

 

[Jaberwocky]

Regarding the blessed Virgin Mary, Lutherans hold differing views and certainly do not argue with the Augsburg Confession on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Luther believed that the Virgin was also assumed into heaven.

If the bishops of Sweden/ Finland, etc changed from Catholic to Lutheran, how is it that the Apostolic Succession stopped? Rome has never questioned the AP of these Lutherans but may consider the validity of holy Orders to be iffy on other grounds .

The AP stops in the same way it does for the Anglicans.

To ask another question from you. What is your basis for judging what is true Christian doctrine? Is it

a) History?
b) Scripture?
c) Personal opinion?
d) Something else?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Well, I am too tired to go down that road tonight. We would not, I believe, agree that a bishop ordaining other bishops without the approval of the pope and possibly in conflict with the pope, has a valid ordination. But I’ve heard your argument, realize you believe it and respect that. That’s about as far as I want to go.

Have a good night.

Steve

Yes, I am a “night owl” but will likely turn in myself.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Well why can’t it be that the man rose from the dead, accomplished what he came for and just left?

Seems to me like you are just reading back what you know to the story now.

Let me ask you this way. If Elvis Presley were to appear to you in the flesh, does it automatically mean you can sing all the songs he sang now?

LOL!

Well, no, but if I start singing exactly like him, then it may be a good bet that he gave me that capability.

Interesting. How about teaching on the Eucharist?

True body and blood of Christ, totally.

That’s fine. So how do you explain your persistence outside of these Apostolic Sees?

They fell into error at various points and to differing degrees. You believe the same thing. I just believe one more of them did than you do.

I just provided why the Catholic Church has declared that their ordinations are null and void.

Yeah, but you don’t have to convince me of that. You have to convince the Anglicans that Rome’s opinion on it matters.

How do you decide he taught false doctrine? Where do you base your certainty on? Is it on history?

I’m sure that could be a factor. But it would depend on the doctrine.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The AP stops in the same way it does for the Anglicans.

To ask another question from you. **What is your basis for judging what is true Christian doctrine? Is it

a) History?
b) Scripture?
c) Personal opinion?
d) Something else?/**QUOTE]

1] Scripture
2] Tradition/ History

Why hasn’t the Vatican ever officially disregarded Lutheran AP?

 

[Jaberwocky]

LOL!

Well, no, but if I start singing exactly like him, then it may be a good bet that he gave me that capability.

In this case, since you don’t already know what Jesus taught unless through the Apostles, you cannot make that good bet, right?

True body and blood of Christ, totally.

Ok. So what about praying for the intercession of saints?

They fell into error at various points and to differing degrees. You believe the same thing. I just believe one more of them did than you do.

Ok, so what is your plumb line for the truth?

Yeah, but you don’t have to convince me of that. You have to convince the Anglicans that Rome’s opinion on it matters.

Not really. Anglicans do not have to be convinced of it because they have other issues that need to be worked out first.

I’m sure that could be a factor. But it would depend on the doctrine.

How do you conclude that? Can you elaborate how in the absence of no one that seems to be able to tell you things free from error, how you come to conclusions on truths that you cannot verify directly (aka. supernatural)?

 

[Per_Crucem]

The AP stops in the same way it does for the Anglicans.

To ask another question from you. What is your basis for judging what is true Christian doctrine? Is it

a) History?
b) Scripture?
c) Personal opinion?
d) Something else?

By the way, it should be noted than the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church has valid apostolic succession with respect to Rome.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jaberwocky;11254752:

The AP stops in the same way it does for the Anglicans.

To ask another question from you. **What is your basis for judging what is true Christian doctrine? Is it

a) History?
b) Scripture?
c) Personal opinion?
d) Something else?/**

QUOTE]

1] Scripture
2] Tradition/ History

Why hasn’t the Vatican ever officially disregarded Lutheran AP?

From what I understand, Lutherans didn’t ordinate Bishops after the reformation (at least till sometime after). None of the Bishops continued to do it in the same way as the office was meant to be passed down. There is no place for a Bishop in Lutheran view of Church. So there has never been a claim to Rome that they have Succession in the same way the Anglicans have insisted.

Even if there was, it would be rejected for the same reasons Anglicans (who actually have records of ordinations) were rejected since they departed from Church teaching.

On the matter of Truth, so you finally decide after looking at those what seems most reasonable? What about with issues like In vitro fertilization that are not present in history?

 

[Per_Crucem]

In this case, since you don’t already know what Jesus taught unless through the Apostles, you cannot make that good bet, right?

I guess I have to ask at this point, where you’re going with this line of questioning? As it stands, we’re kind of going in circles, brother/sister.

 

[Per_Crucem]

From what I understand, Lutherans didn’t ordinate Bishops after the reformation (at least till sometime after). None of the Bishops continued to do it in the same way as the office was meant to be passed down. There is no place for a Bishop in Lutheran view of Church. So there has never been a claim to Rome that they have Succession in the same way the Anglicans have insisted.

This is largely untrue. It wasn’t until the LCMS and WELS that Lutherans did not have an episcopal church governance.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I guess I have to ask at this point, where you’re going with this line of questioning? As it stands, we’re kind of going in circles, brother/sister.

My point is that there is a missing gap that you haven’t put much thought in to as to how you go from the resurrection to the Bible.

Honestly, the only logical reason to listen to the Apostles is because they were known to be the the disciples of of Christ the rabbi which at that point in time would have been known (though not to us).

In the same way you listened to them, it is also reasonable to listen to their successors and so forth. There is no point saying you do not agree with them on some particular doctrine unless the successors themselves rule that the doctrine is error (or after they have ruled it to be free of error).

 

[Per_Crucem]

Ok. So what about praying for the intercession of saints?

I believe that the Church Triumphant prays for the Church Militant. When it comes to invoking the saints for intercession specifically, I think it gets murky there.

Ok, so what is your plumb line for the truth?

Scripture.

Not really. Anglicans do not have to be convinced of it because they have other issues that need to be worked out first.

Not touching that one

How do you conclude that? Can you elaborate how in the absence of no one that seems to be able to tell you things free from error, how you come to conclusions on truths that you cannot verify directly (aka. supernatural)?

I think the question supposes a Cartesian view of reality which I don’t accept.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jaberwocky;11254773:

This is largely untrue. It wasn’t until the LCMS and WELS that Lutherans did not have an episcopal church governance.

Episcopal in Lutheran doesn’t always mean that a Bishop ordained a successor. Although there were Bishops that supported the reformation, none of them in recorded history ordinated any successors. Are there records?

 

[Jaberwocky]

I believe that the Church Triumphant prays for the Church Militant. When it comes to invoking the saints for intercession specifically, I think it gets murky there.

Scripture.

If your plum line for truth is Scripture and Scripture has multiple possible interpretations, how do you decide if you are right?

I think the question supposes a Cartesian view of reality which I don’t accept.

So what exactly do you mean? You just “KNOW” its true?