The Catholicity of the Society and Synod of St. Timothy?

[dennisknapp]

This was posted on another thread and I thought we should discuss it.

iwonder:

This is a typical Protestant speech and yet you claim that your new Society is Catholic. You say that the Synod of St. Timothy follows the ancient primitive Church, which of course would be out of Communion with Rome, but you claim to be new. Now, I have a question?
With all of the various Protestant, Fundamentalist, Orthodox Churches in the world that reject Rome’s teachings as a “power grab”, what is it that caused you guys to found a new Church? If the objection is to Rome primarily, why not join the above mentioned groups? How is your charism different from the Protestant and Orthodox or Fundamentalist Christian? Do you have something new to offer that they don’t?

gelsbern:

*We didn’t form a new church, we adhere to the Church that Christ established following the model of church governance and ministry as laid down by the apostles and early church fathers. The Bishops were equals, and that is shown in scripture, there was no primacy, there was however a deference for the see of Peter, but it was out of respect, not from a sense of submission to authority of Rome. *

This is my last response to you in this thread. If you really want to ask more questions please feel free to start a new thread. However I ask that if you do ask questions, please try to be more civil.

Let’s keep it civil and discuss thing in a charitable manner.

Peace

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I would like to make a short comment on this.

It seems that there is no end of groups who claim to be an extension of the Early Church. A lot like to use the word primitive.

But what strikes me as off in the reply from gelsbern is this, “The Bishops were equals, and that is shown in scripture, there was no primacy, there was however a deference for the see of Peter, but it was out of respect, not from a sense of submission to authority of Rome.”

First, scripture is not the only source.

Second, This is just wrong, bishops were not equals in the early Church as there were (and are) Patriarchs as well as bishops (metropolitian) who headed Synods of bishops.

Thrid, the deference shown to the see of Peter did at times come to a submission to ruleings from there, as the see of Peter was the last appeal in disagreements. Which by the way this group does not even show that deference.

They may claim to be old but they are really new.

 

[Mickey]

ByzCath:

It seems that there is no end of groups who claim to be an extension of the Early Church.

I just recently read about a group called the landmarkist baptists who believe they can trace their history down through the centuries to the time of Christ. They call this “the trail of blood”. :ehh:

 

[gelsbern]

I don’t think that the SST makes any claims to be an extension of the early church, I believe where we stand is we are part of the Church that Christ established and adhere to the practices and the faith held by the early church fathers.

Which means that as far as we are concerned everything that was needed for salvation can be found in the faith of the apostles and the early church fathers.

Now with that in mind, the SST is also accomodating to those bishops who wish to use whichever rite would best minister to those parishoners that associate with them. I am not sure of all the names of the rites, but I do know that we have some bishops that use eastern rites, some use anglican rites, and others use roman rites, including the current Vatican II Mass. The idea is to dwell on that which is required for salvation while removing stumbling blocks that would lead people away from the Church.

If you ask many protestants why they left church, you will get a whole slew of answers. Some of their reasons are in fact detrimental to their salvation, but other reasons are less so.

For example, some have left Roman Catholicism due to invoking the saints. Well one does not need to invoke the saints to gain salvation, and so many of our bishops use rites which avoid invoking the saints. What the bishops of the Synod have done is found those items that are required for salvation, and focus on those, and put less focus on other devotions that are not required for salvation and could potentially be a stumbling block in an effort to bring people into the Church.

I hope this makes sense. Sometimes I don’t think I explain things clearly enough.

In regards to Bishops being equals, they had to be. There was no mass communication, no internet and no telephone, so Bishops were in charge of their local sees. St. Ignatius of Antioch said where the bishop is, there is the church, that meant that the bishops were equals. When items of faith and morals came up, the all met together in councils, and together each one with an equal vote so to speak were able to develop and solidify those matters. Then they all went back to their local sees and continued their job as pastors of their flocks. Rome was on the same level as all the other patriarchies, BUT, there was deference to Rome and a respect for the see of Peter in that Peter was the one given the keys, hence first among equals. Even with that, the Pope could not unilateraly force the other patriarchies to accept what he tried to bind. Each patriarch had the power to bind and loose on those only within his jurisdiction. There were several rules set up. For example, one bishop could not send a priest into another bishops area without the permission of the bishop, this included Rome.

Anyway like I said, sometimes I ramble, but I will try to clarify this as we go along.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

gelsbern:

Anyway like I said, sometimes I ramble, but I will try to clarify this as we go along.

Not rambleing at all.

Thank you for your reply.

Now that I look back at my comment I can see how you could have taken what I said as uncharitable, which was not my intent and I am very happy that you seem to have not taken it that way.

The bishops are just as much in charge of their sees now as they were back then.

Yes, Rome has stated that it has universal jurisdiction (not totally sure I agree with this aspect) but there has always been patriarchs and didn’t archbishops at one time have some say in the sees of the bishops within their ecclesiastical province?

 

[gelsbern]

I never hold a grudge, I have too many things to try to remember, that I can’t even remember to hold a grudge.

As the Church grew, there became more um, ranks so to speak.

At first, there was really only two ranks Bishop and Deacon ( I Timothy 3) With the bishop being the pastor of the region. There were also Elders which later developed into the priesthood as the bishops were unable to be effective pastors of multiple churches.

There was also the Chorepiskopoi which were in a way, sub-bishops. These were the the rural bishops who were pastors of their church but were not allowed to ordain priests and deacons. That was reserved for the metropolitan bishop. newadvent.org/cathen/16024c.htm

But as the number of Bishops grew from the initial 12 to what we have today, the need for the various ranks came about.

I wish I could do a diagram. Oh well.

I will skip the position of deacon because in reality the deacon reports directly to the bishop taking direction from the priest. So I will start with priests and work up the ladder.

Multiple priests report to a single bishop.
Multiple bishops report to an archbishop who can also be the patriarch if there are no other archbishops.
Multiple archbishops report to a patriarch.

In the Roman model.
Multiple archbishops report to the Pope who is the patriarch of the west.

In the eastern model, the patriarchs are equals.

Each rank is an equal to another of the same rank. priest to priest, bishop to bishop etc…

So WAY back when the church was young and there were no archbishops etc… ALL bishops were equal. Although fairly early on, we see that possibly archbishops and patriarchs begin to exist. John in revelations wrote to the 7 churches over which he had authority, with the technology of the time, each of those churches would have had to have a bishop, which would have made John an archbishop and technically a patriach…

So there are ranks, starting at the bottom the deacons and priests are the frontline who both report to their bishop, who reports to his archbishop who reports… etc… Also it works the other way as well going back down the other direction, instructions and commands start along the chain and work their way down.

Heheh, I guess a short answer to your question would be yes.

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

You were telling me in another thread that your church has valid sacraments because your bishops have valid succession from having been consecrated by other bishops where they orginally came from.

I am curious. Suppose a member of your church, perhaps a bishop or a priest decides (God forbids, you’ve just started) that one of those you picked up necessary for salvation is not really necessary for salvation and now thinks otherwise (or let’s put it the other way - now thinks your teachings are not entirely the truth - well they’ve done it once, possible they can do it again), and start again his own church, would you think his sacraments are valid, his apostolic succession valid, and his church valid?
What’s the stand of your church in church divisions and further divisions?

gelsbern:

I don’t think that the SST makes any claims to be an extension of the early church, I believe where we stand is we are part of the Church that Christ established and adhere to the practices and the faith held by the early church fathers.

Which means that as far as we are concerned everything that was needed for salvation can be found in the faith of the apostles and the early church fathers.

Now with that in mind, the SST is also accomodating to those bishops who wish to use whichever rite would best minister to those parishoners that associate with them. I am not sure of all the names of the rites, but I do know that we have some bishops that use eastern rites, some use anglican rites, and others use roman rites, including the current Vatican II Mass. The idea is to dwell on that which is required for salvation while removing stumbling blocks that would lead people away from the Church.

If you ask many protestants why they left church, you will get a whole slew of answers. Some of their reasons are in fact detrimental to their salvation, but other reasons are less so.

For example, some have left Roman Catholicism due to invoking the saints. Well one does not need to invoke the saints to gain salvation, and so many of our bishops use rites which avoid invoking the saints. What the bishops of the Synod have done is found those items that are required for salvation, and focus on those, and put less focus on other devotions that are not required for salvation and could potentially be a stumbling block in an effort to bring people into the Church.

I hope this makes sense. Sometimes I don’t think I explain things clearly enough.

In regards to Bishops being equals, they had to be. There was no mass communication, no internet and no telephone, so Bishops were in charge of their local sees. St. Ignatius of Antioch said where the bishop is, there is the church, that meant that the bishops were equals. When items of faith and morals came up, the all met together in councils, and together each one with an equal vote so to speak were able to develop and solidify those matters. Then they all went back to their local sees and continued their job as pastors of their flocks. Rome was on the same level as all the other patriarchies, BUT, there was deference to Rome and a respect for the see of Peter in that Peter was the one given the keys, hence first among equals. Even with that, the Pope could not unilateraly force the other patriarchies to accept what he tried to bind. Each patriarch had the power to bind and loose on those only within his jurisdiction. There were several rules set up. For example, one bishop could not send a priest into another bishops area without the permission of the bishop, this included Rome.

Anyway like I said, sometimes I ramble, but I will try to clarify this as we go along.

 

[gelsbern]

Lumen Gentium:

You were telling me in another thread that your church has valid sacraments because your bishops have valid succession from having been consecrated by other bishops where they orginally came from.

I am curious. Suppose a member of your church, perhaps a bishop or a priest decides (God forbids, you’ve just started) that one of those you picked up necessary for salvation is not really necessary for salvation and now thinks otherwise (or let’s put it the other way - now thinks your teachings are not entirely the truth - well they’ve done it once, possible they can do it again), and start again his own church, would you think his sacraments are valid, his apostolic succession valid, and his church valid?
What’s the stand of your church in church divisions and further divisions?

Validity is a two edged sword. By the order of Melchizedek once ordained always ordained and that also carries over to once consecrated, always consecrated. So the apostolic lines that that particular bishop has are valid and his ordinations would be valid and the sacraments would also be valid. It has happened numerous times in the history of the church.

The Bishop of Utrecht begat the Old Catholic Church
Bishop Duarte-Costa begat the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil
The Polish National Catholic Church was begun by a bishop who was ordained by the Old Catholics.

The list goes on and on of VALID lines, ordinations and sacraments, but there is also a large amount of invalid lines as well.

One thing you might find interesting is that even though the groups mentioned above are technically schismatic, they still submitted to Rome for declaration of their validity. The PNCC, and the Old Catholics went to great lengths to obtain documentation from Rome stating the validity of their lines.

Of course, now, one must keep in mind that the valid lines CAN be lost. For example, a bishop with valid lines “ordains” a woman and later tries to consecrate that woman as a bishop. A sacrament is only valid with proper matter, form and intent. In this case a woman is not proper matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, therefore she could not possibly been ordained, and if she were mistakenly made a bishop, she wouldn’t be, and would not posess valid lines, and therefore any one she ordained or consecrated would not be valid.

 

[WBB]

I posed this question in the Orthodox portion of the forum, but you didn’t answer it, so I will pose it here. If you still choose not to answer, that is fine.

I noticed that your Divine Liturgy of St. Timothy has elements of the order for the Holy Eucharist in The Book of Common Prayer. Did your synod consult Anglican liturgies (along with others) when formulating the Timothean Liturgy?

 

[FrRobSST]

Hi folks…

Not much time to post tonight, but thought I’d offer some thoughts.

If a bishop left our jurisdiction and founded another one, we would acknowldge his orders and sacraments as valid, presuming the form, matter, and intent remained the same. Our practice is that the Church is a communion of local churches on an equal footing.

Where we start to run into problems is when people leave as a means of changing who can be ordained. Women cannot participate in the priesthood (presbyterate or episcopate) without comprimising the nature of the priesthood. Without a valid episcopate and presbyterate we have no eucharist and no further priests.

If an individual left us specifically for this intention, then we would have to call into question the validity of their ministries and their sacraments that require a presbyter or bishop.

Sorry, it’s been a long day, and I realize my thoughts are somewhat rambly. I’ll try to post again soon.

Rob+

 

[FrRobSST]

All historic western liturgies were looked at as were eastern ones. Also, the version of the Liturgy on the site has not quite been updated yet. The new revised Altar Edition has just been approved for provisional usage and should be posted in a few weeks.

Also, we have an Eastern Rite litugy, The Divine Liturgy of Saint Titus, that is being prepared for release in July.

Rob+

 

[WBB]

One other question…for now !

Why do you rely on the Roman Catholic definition of “true particular church” as found in Dominus Iesus?

 

[dennisknapp]

FrRobSST:

Hi folks…

Not much time to post tonight, but thought I’d offer some thoughts.

If a bishop left our jurisdiction and founded another one, we would acknowldge his orders and sacraments as valid, presuming the form, matter, and intent remained the same. Our practice is that the Church is a communion of local churches on an equal footing.

Where we start to run into problems is when people leave as a means of changing who can be ordained. Women cannot participate in the priesthood (presbyterate or episcopate) without comprimising the nature of the priesthood. Without a valid episcopate and presbyterate we have no eucharist and no further priests.

If an individual left us specifically for this intention, then we would have to call into question the validity of their ministries and their sacraments that require a presbyter or bishop.

Sorry, it’s been a long day, and I realize my thoughts are somewhat rambly. I’ll try to post again soon.

Rob+

Some questions:

First, where does your succession come from? What church did you break away from?

Second, how do you reconcile the total lack of evidence for sola fide and sola scriptura within the early Church?

You believe these two late innovation and yet still claim to be heirs of the early Church.

Peace

 

[gelsbern]

WBB:

One other question…for now !

Why do you rely on the Roman Catholic definition of “true particular church” as found in Dominus Iesus?

Basically it’s a defensive move to a certain individual on Catholic Answers Forums who was very agressive in his attacks on us in stating we were not catholic (lower case). We chose to use it to show that even though we weren’t in union with Rome we were still part of the church in a certain way that was spelled out by Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict.

Basically it was, you say we’re not but the pope says we are.

I don’t think that person is allowed on the boards anymore, and speaking for myself, I am just too lazy to change my signature.

 

[WBB]

gelsbern:

Basically it’s a defensive move to a certain individual on Catholic Answers Forums who was very agressive in his attacks on us in stating we were not catholic (lower case). We chose to use it to show that even though we weren’t in union with Rome we were still part of the church in a certain way that was spelled out by Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict.

Basically it was, you say we’re not but the pope says we are.

I don’t think that person is allowed on the boards anymore, and speaking for myself, I am just too lazy to change my signature.

Thanks. I figured that this was more to satisfy some Roman Catholic who disputed your claim rather than to assure yourself. Funny thing is that according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, even baptized Protestants are included in the Catholic Church, albeit in an imperfect communion.

 

[gelsbern]

dennisknapp:

Some questions:

First, where does your succession come from? What church did you break away from?

Second, how do you reconcile the total lack of evidence for sola fide and sola scriptura within the early Church?

You believe these two late innovation and yet still claim to be heirs of the early Church.

Peace

I will answer the first 2 questions and leave the rest for Fr. Rob.

First, where does your succession come from?

The sucession our bishops hold comes from various lines, Old Catholic, PNCC, Eastern orthodox etc. I will get permission from my bishop to post his lines. But he is only 1 bishop of the Synod. We also have intercommunion with other groups who act as co-consecrators and their lines are also transferred in the consecration of new bishops.

What church did you break away from?

Many churches are not necessarily a break away from others. Some come together after being abandoned by their churches, or their churches do things that cause a split. If you looked at all our clergy individually you would see a different reason why they came to the Synod. Some left their original churches because of the ordination of women and openly gay people. Others came to the Synod because they were tossed aside by their bishop over a disagreement about the bishops actions that were against the faith, others came because their bishop retired and left them bishopless. For me, I stepped away from the Roman Catholic Church because of some disagreements I have. The Synod is not a breakway of one particualar group, but a coming together of people who started with other groups.

 

[WBB]

Another question. What is your relationship with the Charismatic Episcopal Church? If I am not mistaken, they may have maintained Apostolic Succession in a similar way to the SST.

 

[gelsbern]

WBB:

Thanks. I figured that this was more to satisfy some Roman Catholic who disputed your claim rather than to assure yourself. Funny thing is that according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church, even baptized Protestants are included in the Catholic Church, albeit in an imperfect communion.

Yup, and also in the address Ut unum sint (That they may be one) given by Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint

As far as your other question about the relationship with the CEC I will leave that to Fr. Rob, as I am not positive on which groups we have dialogue with.

Time for me to go to do my evening prayers and go to bed. God bless.

 

[flameburns623]

Interesting thread. I registered on the SSST forum but it seems pretty inactive over there.

 

[FrRobSST]

WBB:

Another question. What is your relationship with the Charismatic Episcopal Church? If I am not mistaken, they may have maintained Apostolic Succession in a similar way to the SST.

We do not have a formal relationship with the Charismatic Episcopal Church, though I have been invited to concelebrate with their clergy by their bishops and we would invite their clergy to do likewise.

Rob+