So, what orders are yours?So does mine! Cannot I use the same proposed elements for valid Orders as does your “Church”?
My current priest is in Apostolic succession
So, what orders are yours?So does mine! Cannot I use the same proposed elements for valid Orders as does your “Church”?
How so? …My current priest is in Apostolic succession
I thought all Catholics read scripture. Have you read the great commission?No I didn’t; it’s essentially what we’ve been asking and what you’ve refused to answer. You just keep changing the wording of the question. So in this case:
Who decides who’s validly baptized?
Oneness Pentecostals? Mormons?
Line of succession. I think you know how that worksHow so? …
No doubt they referred to councils. But those councils were unable to bind the whole Church, right? So how can local Churches claim Scripture as the highest rule of faith without the whole Church first declaring a canon?rcwitness:![]()
I think most would say that "infallible " is a claim one bishop makes for himself, quite honestly. So, no. While I can’t speak for anyone but me, I don’t think they would say that.So they claim to be able to make an infallible declaration? Both the doctrine of Sola scriptura and the Canon?
Well, they Gould refer to councils. Lutherans do it a lot. There’s no inconsistency in doing so.You see, the Catholic Church never claimed Scripture to be the independant rule of faith, so she never relied on a Canon as Sola Scripturists would. Yet, Sola Scripturists are unable to refer to an eccumenical council which declared a body of Scripture so that Sola Scriptura has a foundation. We can know our Canon of Scripture because it rests on the foundation of Church authority to decree.
they actually take a rather conservative view, that being to evaluate books based on how the early Church and Fathers did.
So, again, it seems a futile effort to group “sola scripturists” or "Protestants " as s single monolith
“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” - Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32 [A.D. 200])Line of succession. I think you know how that works
Ok, I think we both know that wasn’t an answer…Vonsalza:![]()
I thought all Catholics read scripture. Have you read the great commission?No I didn’t; it’s essentially what we’ve been asking and what you’ve refused to answer. You just keep changing the wording of the question. So in this case:
Who decides who’s validly baptized?
Oneness Pentecostals? Mormons?
100% agreed! I commend him for being charitable!He is one of my favorite Non-Catholic Christians on this forum. He has very orthodox faith. I think he lacks very little to agree with everything we profess, which is alot more than we can say for the majority of Catholics!
I respectfully disagree.providing reasonable answers to all
Maybe the problem was the question.Ok, I think we both know that wasn’t an answer…
22When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.I know that you are not kidding, so I will not ask. The entire Church? Where is that in scripture?
Thank you.100% agreed! I commend him for being charitable!![]()
I understand and respectfully disagreeI respectfully disagree.
Local Churches have for over a millennium. What hasn’t happened is a Universally agreed upon canon.No doubt they referred to councils. But those councils were unable to bind the whole Church, right? So how can local Churches claim Scripture as the highest rule of faith without the whole Church first declaring a canon?
You see the dilemma?
The problem is the Apostolic sees have never agreed on a canon. Ever. And some of the Church Fathers explicitly rejected some of the books all of us view as canon.The whole Church did not affirm a canon in an eccumenical council, yet small groups hundreds of years removed took what the Apostolic Churches declared, and established it as a rule higer than other pronouncements those Churches made.
Because they make a determination as a communion toBut thats why i dont understand how modern Churches can cling to Sola Scriptura, when God did not provide a universal Canon independant of Church authority.
This is true. And the EO seems have a similar viewAt least the Catholic Church professes and practices a universal authority! We can say that we have the ability to declare a Canon with binding power! We can say we have the ability to declare what the Sacred Tradition of this passage or that passage is! And it is based on a Tradition that exists within Scripture, and attested to from the earliest of days, even though it met resistance throughout the ages as well.
Apparently Anglicans of the time did not consider this an issue. But even if it were, the "infusion " of Dutch Old Catholic lines in the early 1930’s would have solved that.But the Anglicans altered the ordination rite! 1633 was it? By whose authority did they do that?