the non- difference

[JonNC]

He wasn’t a Cistercian; he didn’t have this authority that was given to the Cistercians. Therefore, those whom he ordained (and those whom they subsequently ordained) were not lawfully or validly ordained.

So, then you are saying that apostolic succession isn’t the direct laying on of hands by bishops personally, but permission to ordain by the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

 

[cooterhein]

Actually, it is the same reason - initiation into His Covenant, and the protection of His grace.

And the protection of His grace? I think it’s just a little anachronistic to impose sacramental grace on the Old Covenant.

Oh, and it’s more like a sign of the covenant rather than an initiation. The Bible clearly says Abraham was declared righteous by faith before, not after, he was circumcised.

 

[cooterhein]

Jesus and the Holy Spirit did a very poor job of teaching these men according to what you are trying to claim here.

“These men” must have noticed that the Holy Spirit came on people at all different times- before, alongside, or after baptism by water. It happened during their lifetimes and within their direct observation. I’m sure you can ignore it by selectively proof-texting Scripture, but they couldn’t avoid it because they lived with it and it happened to them.

 

[jmcrae]

So, then you are saying that apostolic succession isn’t the direct laying on of hands by bishops personally, but permission to ordain by the Bishop of Rome?

Jon

Permission to ordain comes from the Pope, yes, and that’s what makes it licit. A Bishop who was validly ordained can validly ordain others, but if he is in schism, his ordinations are not licit.

Luther was never a Bishop, so his Ordinations were neither valid nor licit.

 

[jmcrae]

You cited a rather specific promise, though. You said God has guaranteed that He will always take action whenever the sacraments are done, and since baptism guarantees regeneration by the Holy Spirit, Catholics (and, according to some of your earlier clarification, all Christians) can know with infallible certitude that God always indwells a person when they are baptized.

Right.

Even if they don’t feel any kind of divine presence within themselves, and even if nothing tangible happens to them such as speaking in tongues, or hearing God’s voice speaking to them, or suddenly being healed of an addiction, or suddenly finding it easier to be kind to someone they don’t like very well, etc.

 

[jmcrae]

In this case, you’re not putting your faith directly in God.

Of course I am. Do you think that at the human level, it’s easy to trust other human beings, especially if at the human level, I disagree with them or don’t fully understand them?

Obedience to another human being is the hardest test of all, and it takes great faith in God to be able to do it even a little bit. There’s absolutely no way I’d ever do it, if I were not firmly convinced that this is how God works in our lives, and that this is the true meaning of loving one another as He has loved us.

 

[jmcrae]

“These men” must have noticed that the Holy Spirit came on people at all different times- before, alongside, or after baptism by water. It happened during their lifetimes and within their direct observation. I’m sure you can ignore it by selectively proof-texting Scripture, but they couldn’t avoid it because they lived with it and it happened to them.

The only instance I can think of is when the Holy Spirit came to certain Gentiles prior to their Baptism, in order that St. Peter would baptize them, and in order that the Apostles could know that the Gentiles are to be included in the Church.

The Holy Spirit allowed this exception in order to get St. Peter’s attention - but the reason it got St. Peter’s attention was because this was not the norm - the norm was that the Holy Spirit came to people at the time of baptism (which is why he immediately realized that he could baptize those particular Gentiles).

 

[JonNC]

Permission to ordain comes from the Pope, yes, and that’s what makes it licit. **A Bishop who was validly ordained can validly ordain others, but if he is in schism, his ordinations are not licit. **
Luther was never a Bishop, so his Ordinations were neither valid nor licit.

But the Cistercians were not bishops, they were abbots (priests). And they ordained. So the question is, is apostolic succession maintained by the laying on of hands by bishops, or by permission of the Bishop of Rome to priests to lay on hands and ordain?

Secondly, you say that bishops in schism cannot ordain licitly. Do the Orthodox patriarchates who are in schism need permission from the Bishop of Rome to ordain? Are their ordinations licit and valid?

Jon

 

[fbl9]

I think this has more to do with what’s been said between me and jmcrae than any specific reference to Church teaching. I believe this is the material of primary concern.

Not Church teaching- just a little something from a forum master. Over here on the other side of the issue,** I’m asserting that God makes you a Christian **and it can happen at all different times, not just when you’re baptized. I’m also asserting that God hasn’t promised to make you a Christian at the moment you receive a certain sacrament (hence the comment on which you called a foul). I don’t know whether or not the Magisterium has actually claimed to receive such a revelation from God; we haven’t gotten that far yet.

You nothing but a mere mortal what postion do you have to assert anything? none.
You can not prove what you assert anyhow just mere proof texting on your behalf.
How can the Churhc pronounce anything certain unless it comes from God.
You honestly think Christ left His Church to fumble around in the dark without any guide or authority?

 

[fbl9]

Same reason He told all Jewish males to cut off their foreskin? Oh wait, that was so they could avoid getting sand up in there. :bigyikes: Very uncomfortable.

No, seriously though, it wasn’t an exact replacement for circumcision, but it’s done for very similar reasons.

Be honest. Haven’t you had similar thoughts about that? When baby boys are eight days old, you cut a little bit of skin off the penis. Why? Because God commands it. Didn’t that sound kind of funny to you when you first heard it? What’s God going to do with the foreskin, anyway?

Haven’t you ever wondered why YHWH would command that Jews do something absolutely useless like that?

Well, whether you have or haven’t, the question has been asked before and you know the answer to it. Now you’ve asked the same question about baptism, and the answer is basically the same- the only major change is that you replace YHWH with Jesus.

So the answer is a non answer how typical.

 

[John1]

And the protection of His grace? I think it’s just a little anachronistic to impose sacramental grace on the Old Covenant.

Oh, and it’s more like a sign of the covenant rather than an initiation. The Bible clearly says Abraham was declared righteous by faith before, not after, he was circumcised.

Hi Cooterhein,

Somewhere the Bible also talks about God coming to kill Moses, but his wife circumcised him, so God changed his mind about killing Moses, so God must think things like that are pretty important.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Right - not a Cistercian, meaning he had no authority to ordain anyone to the priesthood or ministry.

Whether he was a Cistercian or an Augustinian, I could care less, but at least get it right, he was a Friar not a Monk.

 

[Mikeoffaith]

But the Cistercians were not bishops, they were abbots (priests). And they ordained. So the question is, is apostolic succession maintained by the laying on of hands by bishops, or by permission of the Bishop of Rome to priests to lay on hands and ordain?

Secondly, you say that bishops in schism cannot ordain licitly. Do the Orthodox patriarchates who are in schism need permission from the Bishop of Rome to ordain? Are their ordinations licit and valid?

Jon

I’m going to guess that he is going to say that the Orthodox ordinations are valid but illicit.

 

[cooterhein]

You nothing but a mere mortal what postion do you have to assert anything? none.

Yes, I am a mortal. I don’t think that’s a problem, though.

You can not prove what you assert anyhow just mere proof texting on your behalf.

Which of the assertions do you have a problem with? Maybe we can talk about it.

How can the Churhc pronounce anything certain unless it comes from God.

General revelation rather than divine revelation, and the use of human reason when dealing with Scripture. But don’t you think this is starting to go slightly beyond the scope of this thread?

You honestly think Christ left His Church to fumble around in the dark without any guide or authority?

I don’t think all of the alternatives to the papacy are quite so bleak. But again, this is far enough removed from personal matters of soteriology that a different thread might be a better place for this. I think there’s one or two active ones that are covering it.

 

[fbl9]

cooterhien: i want to take this opportunity to apologize for my crassness in responding to your previous posts.Please forgive me.

I agree the subjects are beyond the scope of this thread.

God bless

 

[cooterhein]

Right.

Even if they don’t feel any kind of divine presence within themselves, and even if nothing tangible happens to them such as speaking in tongues, or hearing God’s voice speaking to them, or suddenly being healed of an addiction, or suddenly finding it easier to be kind to someone they don’t like very well, etc.

Speaking in tongues usually has more to do with the Holy Spirit “coming on” someone temporarily (possibly “in power”), usually not being baptized by the Holy Spirit or indwelt by Him. Other overt signs like miracles, hearing voices, or an increase in kindness aren’t necessarily pegged by Scripture as things that are normative or indicative of God’s indwelling presence. We do have some guidelines to look at, though, and there are some things that every Christian can expect to be aware of. While it might be difficult to pin down just one of them with a great deal of certainty, it’s a bit easier when you take all of them together and find out whether or not the third person of the Trinity is doing a half-dozen things to you that would be noticable if it were happening. If those things aren’t happening at all, God probably isn’t doing them. But if they are, that’s great.

Obedience to another human being is the hardest test of all, and it takes great faith in God to be able to do it even a little bit. There’s absolutely no way I’d ever do it, if I were not firmly convinced that this is how God works in our lives, and that this is the true meaning of loving one another as He has loved us.

What is this…way…that God works in our lives? What kind of work is that? And what happened (to you) that made you firmly convinced that this work is happening (to you)?

The only instance I can think of is when the Holy Spirit came to certain Gentiles prior to their Baptism, in order that St. Peter would baptize them, and in order that the Apostles could know that the Gentiles are to be included in the Church.

These are the main passages to look at.

Acts 2:1-4
Acts 8:14-17
Acts 9:17-18
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 19:1-6
Acts 2:38-39

I wouldn’t want to ask you to do any more private interpretation than you’ve already done, but I do think you’re at least permitted to look up the passages and decide whether the Holy Spirit indwelt people before, after, or simultaneous to their water baptism. Some, but not all, examples include some of the overt signs that you mentioned. And again, some, but not all, have a timing for the different baptisms that coincides very closely. For others, the Holy Spirit baptism (aka the regenerative indwelling of the Holy Spirit) happens well before or well after.

 

[cooterhein]

cooterhien: i want to take this opportunity to apologize for my crassness in responding to your previous posts.Please forgive me.

I agree the subjects are beyond the scope of this thread.

God bless

Hey, don’t worry about it. I’m not upset, I appreciate the apology, and I forgive you. I haven’t always responded as well as I should have, and I think I’ve said a few things to you that were hurtful and not entirely reactive, either. For that, I’m sorry as well.

I’ve been making contributions (such as they are) to a non-Catholic Religions thread that has something to do with a Protestant Papacy, and that’s gotten pretty well into issues of authority and the similarities/differences between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. I can’t remember if you’ve posted anything there…if not, it might be good.

 

[cooterhein]

Hi Cooterhein,

Somewhere the Bible also talks about God coming to kill Moses, but his wife circumcised him, so God changed his mind about killing Moses, so God must think things like that are pretty important.

Yes, I agree that it was very important to God. I think it was in Exodus 4, and Moses had failed to circumcise one of his sons and his wife did it. (Maybe not his wife? Handmaiden or something, maybe? I can’t remember. Some woman).

Right before that passage, God was giving Moses a message to tell Pharoah. In it, he said Israel is His son and that Pharoah needs to let that son go or lose his own firstborn. Then it immediately jumps to this account of Moses and the circumcision of his son.

This is a little bit of speculation, but I think the flow of thought was intentional and has to do with some common themes. I also think God was a little more hard on Moses because of his leadership role and the things that he was asking other people to do on God’s behalf. If you’re going to do that, you’d better be obedient when God asks similar things of you.

 

[fbl9]

Genesis 17:10-14 circumcistion is the covenant in the flesh.

 

[jmcrae]

But the Cistercians were not bishops, they were abbots (priests). And they ordained. So the question is, is apostolic succession maintained by the laying on of hands by bishops, or by permission of the Bishop of Rome to priests to lay on hands and ordain?

This is actually the first I have ever heard of the Cistercians being permitted to do so, so I really don’t know the details of how it is that they are permitted to do so.

Secondly, you say that bishops in schism cannot ordain licitly. Do the Orthodox patriarchates who are in schism need permission from the Bishop of Rome to ordain? Are their ordinations licit and valid?

They are valid, but not licit. What this means is that in order for an Orthodox priest to say Mass in a Catholic Church, he would need to go through certain channels (I don’t know the details, sorry!) that would allow his ordination to then become licit - he couldn’t just show up to a Catholic Church and say Mass. (Not that he would ever want to, but I am just giving an illustration.)

A Lutheran or Anglican priest would actually have to be ordained as a Catholic priest in order to do so, since their ordinations are neither licit nor valid.

For pastoral reasons, it is often the case that Lutheran and Anglican priests who convert to the Catholic faith will also receive the Sacrament of Ordination when they are initiated into the Church, so that they can continue in their work of ordained ministry - this might make it seem to an outside observer as if their Lutheran or Anglican priesthood was considered valid, if the observer was not aware that Ordination also took place at the time of Initiation.