I did not say I did not want to debate the issue of whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church. I just wanted, for efficency’s sake, to restrict the argument to confirmation or denial of apostolic succession. If you would like to debate things other than this, go ahead. I was just taking a stance as the OP to keep things somewhat simple.
As far as Peter being in Rome, I wish I could find the cite in my limited time (maybe later) but I recently read that remains in a basilica in Rome that were suspected to be his were confirmed as such.
Well, you won’t get any argument from me about Apostolic Succession.
However, I suspect that you will stand with your Church in defending Leo XIII and his Apostolicae Curae, which means that you will not recognize me as having been confirmed by a bishop in the Apostolic Succession, my priests Lorraine and Jim, a married couple, as having valid ordinations to the priesthood, my bishop Michael Curry as being validly a bishop of the church in the apostolic succession, and in particular the man whom we all recognize and support as Bishop of New Hampshire, the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, as being validly consecrated bishop.
I could run through any number of things “drawn from the Deposit of Faith” and supposedly infallibly promulgated as dogmas of the Church which are not demonstable as obvious implications of Scripture or even of Holy Tradition as we and the Orthodox understand it. But let’s start with Anglican Orders.
And no, you have not reformed to meet the standards of most Protestants, nor even the views of most Anglicans and Orthodox. We can discuss that in more detail as you wish.
Well, I think you will have to expand your argument, and not just to Orthodoxy. As previously pointed out, in Catholic thinking the apostolic succession comes from all the apostles, not just from Peter, and it is passed through all the bishops, not just the Bishop of Rome. Catholics do not deny, therefore, that Orthodox, Coptic and some other churches participate fully in the apostolic succession.
There are protestant episcopal churches, of which the Anglican communion is the most prominent example, and the Anglican theology of apostolic succession is, I think, indistinguishable from Catholic thinking. Anglican bishops certainly have an unbroken chain of ordinations back to pre-reformation Catholic bishops, and regard themselves as participating fully in the apostolic succession. Catholics, I’m sorry to say, have concerns about the validity of Anglican ordinations and so question whether the apostolic succession has been passed on in an unbroken chain. But even from a Catholic perspective many, and perhaps most, Anglican bishops may participate fully, any “defects” stemming from the supposedly inadequate ordination rite used in the Edwardian church having been cured by the practice of Anglican bishops of being ordained not just by other Anglican bishops but also by Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc bishops whose apolisticity is unquestioned.
At least some other protestant denominations, while they lack the concept of episcopacy, accept the need for apostolic succession but dispute that it need involve episcopal ordination. For them, the apostolic succession resides in the community of believers as a whole, and the baptism and eucharist which has been handed down from the apostles.
So the short answer is that, in order to persuade non-Catholics to accept that they need to rejoin the Catholic church to participate in the fullness of the apostolic succession, you’ll first of all have to persuade them that the Catholic understanding of the apostolic succession, and its connection to the Catholic understanding of episcopacy, is the only possible one. And, even then, you’ll have to show them why they should become Catholics rather than Copts, Orthodox Christians or something of the kind.
And then there’s the whole matter of Eastern Rite Catholics…
While we do recognize Papal primacy, we seem to be more, um, laid back about it than the Latin Rite, if that is the proper word. The Pope doesn’t have the monarchial-type rule over the Eastern churches as he does over the Latin church, which, with the exception of the Italo-Greek church, are not under the Partriacate of Rome, although in matters of faith and morals, he would still have the last word. We have the same take on theology and spirituality as the Orthodox, and we are not held to certain matters of Church discipline as the Latin Rite (example, the Eastern Rites allow the ordination of married men, also, we still don’t eat meat on Fridays year round, not just during Lent). Also, that pesky filioque clause is not found in the Creed in the Eastern Rites.
The Eastern Catholic Churches are somewhere in between the Orthodox and the Latin Rite Catholics when it comes to Papal authority.
The remaining doctrinal differences, as well as our declining to subject ourselves to the authority of the papacy.
Veneration of the saints and the Virgin Mary are particular sticking points. But we acknowledge the Roman Catholics as part of the “holy catholic church” mentioned in the Creeds,
And we ELCA Lutherans have mostly given up referring to the Pope as the anti-Christ and the Roman church as the Whore of Babylon. We reserve those terms only for those benighted heretics who suggest changing the service times from 8:15 to 9:00am, or similar blasphemy.
Which doctrines specifically were you talking about?
I know little about the other Protestant reformers besides Luther, but Luther certainly intended his Ninetyfive Theses to trigger reforms against what he considered a corruption of the church. Thus he was purifying rather than changing, in his view. Although you are correct that this eventually led him to reject the authority of the papacy.
Is the magisterial authority of Rome the doctrine you were speaking of?
Yes and no. A lot of it was doctrinal disputes. Oh, there were problems with the selling of indulgences, but as it was, the doctrinal disputes were much more important. For the most part, ordinary people would have been entirely uninterested in the fight, save that certain Protestants declared that we were all servants of Satan, and backed it up with ridiculous printjobs, the political cartoon polemics of their day.
Frankly, very few educated Protestants (and I mean theologically educated, much less laymen) have any clue what the Catholic church is about.
I read your words fairly carefully, and chose my own words with particular care. I did deliberately skirt the issue of dogma, partly because I don’t think I understand dogma myself. I was attempting to explain the protestant view, as I understood it, that the roman catholic church has changes since the time of jesus, and therefore that it is not (necessarily) any closer to Jesus’ original intentions than any of the protestant denominations. :]
Sorry if you felt that I was intentionally trying to misrepresent your position. It’s a complicated question and, like in most great debates, the different sides differ on their definition of the terms involved, which terms are meaningful, which terms are most important, etcetera.
You blather on about dogma as if it were a good thing.
Dogma is one of the most destructive forces in the world. It is dogma that has led the Crusades and every other holy war which left nothing but carnage in its wake.
Dogma is just a system of beliefs held by a group to be true, and as such, it’s morally neutral. Depending on what the dogma is, it can be destructive or constructive.
I shouldn’t do this, but I’m responding to the OP without first reading the other posts. Apologies if I’m boringly saying what others have already said.
Several points.
Jesus was a man, so any church he founded was founded by a man.
Surely Catholic doctrine has undergone many changes over the centuries, esp. in the early days? As I understand it, the religion founded by Jesus was changed quite a bit by that guy Saul (the one who changed his name to Paul after the scales fell from his eyes). Then addit’l big changes at the time Christianity was made the official church of Rome.
I don’t know when this particular branch of Chrisitianity acquired the name “Catholic”. But aren’t all the branches of Christianity desended from the original Christian church of the first few decades after Jesus’ life? Why does one branch have any claim to be more genuine or more original than another?
The multiplicity of Christian denominations bothers me…God is letting confusion reign!
Why does he allow this? Surely as Paul states “God is not the author of confusion”-so why do we ahve so many different varieties of Christainity?
Of course, we’ll have ybeayf, beagledave, Abbie Carmichael, and a few others show up to demonstrate how their version of Christianity is the new, improved version that best preserves the Faith Once Given to the Apostles, while everybody elses is Another Gospel Than That Which Paul Proclaimed.
And efforts to identify common ground are succeeding – but only serving to illustrate the issues on which there is not common ground.
Good point and good question, though – any suggestions on how to fix it?
Because humanity is so diverse, diversity in the Church is not a bad thing. The Gospel is the same; how it is implemented will vary with the traditions of different people.
As well, different parts of the Gospel will have more relevance for different people. Luther called the Epistle of James the Epistle of Straw, because its emphasis on works went contrary to Luther’s focus on faith alone, yet for other Christians the Epistle of James may be more attractive than Luther’s approach. That’s not a bad thing; that’s a sign of a church universal, in my opinion, that speaks to different people in different ways, according to their own spiritual needs.
September 11th was also caused by planes. To expound on the Captain’s comments, the basic concept of dogma is not in itself evil. The dogma itself and its spirit/intentions can be, yes. People’s interpretations of it can be, also. To lump all matters of morality and faith designated by all of the churches in the world together is over generalizing.
Hazel, ok this time it really is a matter of not reading my words correctly. Read dogma as dogma, doctrine as doctrine. (this should clear that up.
Dogma cannot contradict itself. None of the Church’s new dogma has contradicted previous d-word. See my very first cite about that.
If you’re wondering why I’m using the d-word so often, it is because I have found no suitable syonyms for it and I am trying to take great care in expressing what I actually mean. If I said Church teachings have never contradicted each other, I would be wrong.
Okay, now I’ll open up the worms. If you really wish me to address specific teachings of the Church, I will. Then we will see how messy things get. The only one I will bother with now is the veneration of Mary, and I will just start off simply. Mary says to Elizatbeth, “All generations will call me blesses.” We do that. Jesus also says to John, “behold your mother.” I haven’t seen a better explanation for this than ours. It must be significant, otherwise why would the weakened and dying Jesus bother to say it and why would it be place during the climactic event of our faith? We believe, as I’m sure those who disagree with me would assert about other Bible passages, that Jesus was not just talking to the one specific person, but to everyone who reads the Bible.
I would like to see specific comments on the Bible passages that I provided supporting papal authority. Many have commented on the lack of scripture involved in the Church, and so far I have been the only one to provide scripture-based evidence.
IMNSHABO*, this is one of the strengths of the Catholicism. I have often held certain objections against what I see as elitism in many of the Protestant faiths, though its not nearly as bad as it once was. Catholicism is the religion of Peter the faithless, Peter the oddball.
It seems to me that most protestant denominations object to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, ie the belief that the Pope speaks for God (in matters of faith and morals). Why is this an issue? Suppose for a moment (just for the sake of argument) that Pope Paul proclaims a new papal dogma…the dogma is that “Christ owned his clothes, and earthly posessions”. Such a dogma would have NO effect on me at all. Should I refuse to believe it? I would have no opinion on the matter at all. So it is with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception…how does a refusal to accept something so obscure have any relevance to morality?
Might I add, as I wait for more replies, the argument the apostolic succession cannot continue throught the community of believers as a whole. This is supported by Jesus continually taking the apostles apart from the rest.
Granted, it has to be preserved through the ongoing and intentional bestowing of faculties, including that to be able to bestow such faculties, down through a list of people previously authorized to do so – i.e., the apostles and bishops.
Ah, but why in the Name of All that is Holy is it that sometimes it has to be in communion with the Chair of the Successor of Peter. and sometimes not? Do not be throwing the veneration of Mary in to the mix just yet – you raised an issue and I expect you to make your case regarding it.
You know full well what irks me about your church’s stance, I’m sure – and I expect you to address it.
Yeah – with a touch of belligerence, given some of the reasons I’ve seen given. I do know many of the reasons given, so you need not get into a shopping list of what the Curia considers wrong about Anglican orders. Rather, I’m focused on why you would recognize Orthodox and Old Catholic orders and not Anglican, based on your own presumptions.
Beyond that, what defense would you give to the Orthodox charge that Catholicism changed the historical polity of autonomous bishops united under patriarchs and metropolitans in national churches that together comprised one Holy Catholic Church into a monarchical structure with the Pope alone (not counting Ecumenical Councils) as the source of authority. From the perspective of some – well, pardon the solecism – ultraorthodox Orthodox, Catholicism was the first great schism in which the Pope back in 1054 effectively pulled a Henry VIII four-and-a-half centuries early and pulled his half of the Church out into a schismatic group that is not the Holy Orthodox Apostolic Catholic Church.
While the Catholic stance on ecclesiology is an ongoing source of irritation to me as an Anglican with ecumenical feelings and a strong respect for preserving the apostolic faith, I am not trying to instigate a flamefest here but simply put hard questions to you to see if maybe we can discuss things calmly and rationally.
Your OP, however, simply makes some grand assumptions and jumps to the conclusion that any rational Christian will agree with you – which I know you realize is not the case. To answer one question in it, Anglicans won’t rejoin you as a church because you won’t let us, except under terms of submission we have no intention of accepting – it was Pius V who decided to support Philip II in his claims on England by excommunicating Elizabeth I and all her followers, which included all Anglicans, and that excommunication has never been lifted. You Catholics are welcome at our altar anytime you choose to come – we didn’t choose to leave; we were thrown out.
haven’t forgotten the