Luke 10:16

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1381605' date='Sep 9 2007, 02:32 AM']Apostolic authority has been passed down by laying on of the hands (ordination) in unbroken succession through the Bishops of the Church fo overr two thousand years, in that the Bishops of this day are the voice of Jesus Christ through the Apostles.

This line was broken during the reformation when Luther broke away from the Catholic church.[/quote]

Could you provide patristic proof that the practice of authority was from laying on hands and not a matter of a teacher picking a student to take his place? Tertullian believed that authority was given by a teacher to his student. I know he isnt a name we like here, but could you find patristic proof? I was mentored by a protestant prof that is a world-known expert in patristics and this was his sticky point with catholicism. The structure of succession did not seem biblical or validated by tradition before the late middle ages. I have never looked at it much myself, but this is a common argument from the protestant perspective.

Anomaly,

You seem to have a serious beef with catholicism. Im sure whatever I could say about sinners and saints would be something you have heard before, but the church is imperfect in her practice, but perfect in her teaching. We have the assurance to not teach false doctrine in order to transmit the apostolic oral and written tradition to her people in order to have salvation. God has always used sinners to transmit this message because there are no other kinds of people around. But if your faith can take a heavy hit cause a pastor or priest did some things he shouldnt, is it really your faith in God or in that leader?

["Kyrie eleison"]

i[quote]='Revprodeji' date='Sep 10 2007, 10:54 PM' post='1383195']
Could you provide patristic proof that the practice of authority was from laying on hands and not a matter of a teacher picking a student to take his place? Tertullian believed that authority was given by a teacher to his student. I know he isnt a name we like here, but could you find patristic proof? I was mentored by a protestant prof that is a world-known expert in patristics and this was his sticky point with catholicism. The structure of succession did not seem biblical or validated by tradition before the late middle ages. I have never looked at it much myself, but this is a common argument from the protestant perspective.[/quote]

Rev,

I left Catholicism because I did not know why I believed what I was taught. In the process of looking for the truth I frequented many denominations and their services, visited differing boards on the internet and came to the conclusion that God is not the author of confusion. I am no world-known expert, yet when I studied the early church and when I came to the learn about how the apostles sent others to preach, they were given the authority by the laying on of the hands, it is very biblical and there are many scirpture verses which point to this tradition as passing on the baton. It is not a sticky point with me, what so ever. Jesus did not intend for any Joe schmoe to get on their soap box and preach and teach.

This is what I found. I am sure there is more out there if you really do the research.

[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html[/url]

"And to Timothy he says: 'Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.'… For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." Jerome, To Evangelus, Epistle 146:1 (ante A.D. 420).

When a priest is ordained, while the bishop is blessing [him] and holding his hands over his head, let all the priests also, who are present, hold their hands close to the hands of the bishop above his head." Council of Chalcedon, Canon 3 (A.D. 451).

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine "office." An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it's not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word "episcopoi" (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul's use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul's life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

[II Thess 2:15] “So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.”

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1383195' date='Sep 10 2007, 11:54 PM']You seem to have a serious beef with catholicism. Im sure whatever I could say about sinners and saints would be something you have heard before, but the church is imperfect in her practice, but perfect in her teaching. We have the assurance to not teach false doctrine in order to transmit the apostolic oral and written tradition to her people in order to have salvation. God has always used sinners to transmit this message because there are no other kinds of people around. But if your faith can take a heavy hit cause a pastor or priest did some things he shouldnt, is it really your faith in God or in that leader?[/quote]I have tremendous faith in God. I don't have the same faith in humans. I have no doubt that God is operating in the Catholic Church. I also have no doubt that God is participating in all Christian Churches. I will concede that the amount of God's involvement in the various organizations can be debated.
Where I draw the line, and what makes Catholic's go ballistic, is the practical limits that human nature puts on weilding Christ's authority.
For example, Kyrie doesn't recognize the circular logic when he makes the following statement, "If what the bishops or priests institute are within the teachings of the church and their authority and it is not a sin, we are obliged to obey. In the end the Pope exercises full and immediate universal authority."
Sounds good on the surface, but let's examine the qualifications of discerning whether what the Bishop is teaching is within the teachings of the Church.

For example, Bishop Mahoney was preaching disobedience against US laws concerning illegal immigrants when legislation was being considered. B.Mahoney did not disobedience to providing basic humanitarian aid, but was preaching that illegal immigrants had every right to disobey US immigration laws and that citizens should work to thwart the US establishing border security. In my opinion, that violated the Catechism teaching that a Country has rights to establish and protect it's borders and that immigrants should obey the laws of the land. Only in the specific act of providing basic needs such as food, should US citizens be obliged to disobey US law.

So who's right? In my conscience, Mahoney is very wrong, but many, many Catholics would defend him as being right. So where is the standard of establishing whether the Bishop is teaching correctly or not? The Bishop is the Teaching Authority, so does that mean whatever the Bishop says is right? Other Bishops disagree with Mahoney, and others agree, so there is no clear standard. The Pope is just another Bishop, albeit, the leader. Where is the practical infallibility? Where is the 'clear teaching authority' that cannot be disagreed with and MUST be obeyed?

Where I disagree with Catholics, is believing in the fairytale of Church Infallibilty that they've created. Catholics tell you on one hand that the Church has infallibility in the 'Ordinary Magisterium' and 'Teaching Authority', as well as in the Body of Bishops and the Office of the Pope, which demands obedience and assent of religious will. Kyrie quotes the same scriptures that do not establish 'infallibility' in these roles. I would agree that Church leaders should get the benefit of initial respect and assumption they are probably right, but the idea that 'obedience' and 'assent of will' is required due to 'infallibility' operating in an expanded fashion as Catholics claim is indefensible and not founded in Tradition or Scripture.

The simple fact is, the Catholic Church knows that a heirarchy of truths exist. It's infallibility is limited exclusively to defining Dogma and communicating and protecting Dogma through the ages. Period. End of story. Doctrine, discipline, practice, etc., is all open to the best that humans can accomplish, given the specific circumstances of the times. Authorative, yes. Infallible, no. Demanding and requireing respect, yes. Demanding and requireing obedience and assent of will, no.

Kyrie is stuck with circular logic. Obey the Bishop when they teach what the Church teaches. Bishops are the infallible teaching authority of the Church. But Bishops disagree constantly and the Pope doesn't 'infallibly decree' on every matter. But if you are disobedient, you're not Catholic because you reject the Catholic Church's teaching that it's Ordinary Magisterium is infallible.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1383329' date='Sep 11 2007, 07:10 AM']For example, Bishop Mahoney was preaching disobedience against US laws concerning illegal immigrants when legislation was being considered. B.Mahoney did not disobedience to providing basic humanitarian aid, but was preaching that illegal immigrants had every right to disobey US immigration laws and that citizens should work to thwart the US establishing border security. In my opinion, that violated the Catechism teaching that a Country has rights to establish and protect it's borders and that immigrants should obey the laws of the land. Only in the specific act of providing basic needs such as food, should US citizens be obliged to disobey US law.

So who's right?[/quote]
You basically gave the answer. In this case the universal Catechism promulgated from the highest authority in the Church trumps Mahony's antics. Cardinal Mahony is a constant cause of scandal in the Church, we all know that.

I don't totally disagree with you about infallibility. Infallibility should not be exaggerated to some kind of ludicrous level that distorts the real nature of this charism of the Church. Bishops and even Popes are not walking oracles of infallible truth. They are guardians and stewards of a sacred deposit of truth and they are capable of acting according to said supernatural charism in unique situations and insofar as they represent the collective voice of the Church united to Christ the one teacher.

The Catechism is a very trustworthy statement of the ordinary magisterium for matters not explicitly defined since it is intended to express the faith that is affirmed by all those in union with the Pope. If an individual bishop starts flapping his trap in a way that goes against the authentic magisterium (for example a bishop supporting abortion or women's ordination) he has clearly damaged that essential communion with the universal Church which is a scandalous and grevious thing when we're talking about a bishop. A bishop in such a position may be putting his very salvation in jeopardy.

[Dismas]

Dear Anomaly,

I too have faith in God, and I too have very little faith in humans. Of course, I count as human. The fact that I am mildly clever, and considering how much I've managed to damage myself in 30 years, I really don't trust myself.

Cardinal Mahoney, by himself, does not have any share in the charism for infallibility, and certainly has no claim to a charism of impeccability. Even when the USCCB gathers, it is not infallible in teaching. Entire nations, with bishops in the vanguard, have marched off to apostasy. Even so, we have an anchor in the full body of the bishops united. We also have an anchor in Rome, an anchor that has proven solid in teaching since the reign of Clement I (Linus and Cletus have no available writings to my knowledge). Even in the maelstrom of the late 1960's, did not the liberal Pope Paul VI deliver to us Humanae Vitae, thus challenging the Catholic Church to stand strong against Onanism while even conservative Protestant denominations sullied themselves with impurities of the flesh?

Yet Cardinal Mahoney does have authority, and he will be responsible for his every action as priest, bishop and cardinal come his Judgment. So then, when he issues a command that is contrary to the fullness of Catholic teaching as best you know, being the CCC, you are not obligated in that matter. If, however, he declares every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to be a fast of black tea and water in penance for our sins, which considering who we are discussing is unlikely, I'd suggest getting some Irish Breakfast and Earl Grey.

Now I know things are bad in L.A. right now. Just remember that some of us had it worse. Milwaukee, for instance, had none other than the author of "Folk Mass" as her archbishop. The Canadians have it even worse, with that thrice damned blasphemy known as the "Winnipeg Statement" hanging over them. Anomaly, your soul can survive the blunders of a relic such as Cardinal Mahoney. Pity him, as he lives in the glory of a past that was never real, nor glorious. Moreover, pray for his soul.

I chose the Catholic Church only because she could withstand, and withstand in excellence, my skepticism.

[jeffpugh]

Whoa... never heard of the Winnipeg Statement... can't believe that slipped under the radar

[Dismas]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1383815' date='Sep 11 2007, 08:53 PM']Whoa... never heard of the Winnipeg Statement... can't believe that slipped under the radar [/quote]
My condolences. Of course, you could petition your bishop to denounce it. Or be really naughty and buy a few dozen copies of said encyclical [edit: Humanae Vitae] and leave them in the pews of the cathedral.

Edited September 12, 2007 by Dismas

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1383815' date='Sep 11 2007, 06:53 PM']Whoa... never heard of the Winnipeg Statement... can't believe that slipped under the radar [/quote]

So...I can kill someone, and that's fine, as long as it's in "good conscience"?

[Dismas]

[quote name='T-Bone _' post='1383862' date='Sep 11 2007, 09:39 PM']So...I can kill someone, and that's fine, as long as it's in "good conscience"?[/quote]

Please, SMM is probably suffering from shock right now. He probably has no idea of the true horrors of the 70's - and I'm not just talking about disco.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='BG45' post='1383151' date='Sep 10 2007, 10:36 PM']Kyrie (hope you don't mind the abrieviation,

I had a lovely reply thought out, supported in depth by Scripture. However, I told myself before hitting reply, I should do something that would take "just a minute". That was five hours ago...so please forgive the sloppiness of this.

Isaiah 22:22 is a passage which speaks of Eliakim, whom is given "And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open." It goes on to describe a nail/peg that will hold him up, only to be cut down later; a temporary giving of authority.

Matthew 16:19 sounds awfully familiar after the reading of Isaiah 22:22, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.""

Interestingly, whereas the authority is in a way revoked in the case of Eliakim in a few short verses, the authority given unto Peter is not; at least as far as I can tell in a reading of Scripture. Now I know by this point I'm probably getting from some a "This has nothing to do with the quoted text", but it does in a way. It's a paltry, on my part, defense of the Apostolic Succession in which I have never believed in, but am willing to admit that it (Apostolic Succession) makes a good deal of sense both Biblically in and a Historic context.[/quote]

Sorry I missed this post, BG. So are you saying by the scripture verses that you have read you are leaning towards the validity of Apostolic succession. Jesus didn't wouldn't promise to be with his apostles till the end of time and not make provisions to propogate this succession. Let me remind you also that Jesus renamed Simon Peter, to Kepha. A name change in the bible is very significant and it signifies passing on authority as God renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations' in Gen 17:5. God also renamed Sara to Sarah when He made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16.

[Anomaly]

It's wonderful that Catholics have patted themselves on the back and shown the Apostolic succession and the authority.

Where's the scripture that establishes the parameters/limits of the authority as well as the parameters/limits of supposed 'infallibility'?

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384047' date='Sep 12 2007, 07:07 AM']It's wonderful that Catholics have patted themselves on the back and shown the Apostolic succession and the authority.

Where's the scripture that establishes the parameters/limits of the authority as well as the parameters/limits of supposed 'infallibility'?[/quote]

I am not disagreeing with you in that there are those throughout the catholic church who have abused their authority and are wrong in their actions and teachings, yet this is another command from Jesus in the same situation.

"The Scribes and Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. ALL things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works; for they talk but do nothing."
Matthew 23:2-3

[Anomaly]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1384101' date='Sep 12 2007, 10:49 AM']I am not disagreeing with you in that there are those throughout the catholic church who have abused their authority and are wrong in their actions and teachings, yet this is another command from Jesus in the same situation.

"The Scribes and Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. ALL things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do. But do not act according to their works; for they talk but do nothing."
Matthew 23:2-3[/quote]Exactly! Just because Jesus has shared His authority does not mean that we humans can or will utilize that authority with 'infallibility'. Repeatedly Jesus reminds us of that as well as chastises those who misuse what they've been gifted with.

Respect for the authority does not mean blind 'obedience'. Removing the requirement of 'blind obedience' does not undermine the requirement for respect. The human clergy of the Catholic Church constantly forget about the nuances and work themselves into bad spot. They tell the lay to be obedient to the Bishops and submit their will to them, while also acknowledging the Bishops aren't perfect, but then telling the lay the Bishops have 'infallible' teaching athority. The Church then further confuses things by being reluctant to discipline errant Bishops because their fear they'll undermine their authority and faith of the people in the fairy tale of the infallibility of the 'Ordinary Magisterium'.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote]The Church then further confuses things by being reluctant to discipline errant Bishops because their fear they'll undermine their authority and faith of the people in the fairy tale of the infallibility of the 'Ordinary Magisterium'.[/quote]

Those who have made a vow to serve Jesus and his church will have to answer for scattering the flock, as they are responsible for nuturing Jesus' sheep.

"Woe to the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture, said the Lord."
Jeremiah 23:1

Those of his sheep who have scattered because of the sins of the clergy do not have a firm understanding of the church and it's teachings and the authority that she holds. The Church is greater than any of its members and their sins. The Mystical Bride of Christ, and Jesus is the head.

Each member is one of many branches of the vine. Branches that are fruitless will be pruned, yet the vine lives.

If a member is cut off it is likened to the parable of the vine-dresser:
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vine-dresser. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he will take away; and every branch that bears fruit he will cleanse, that it may bear more fruit."
John 15:1-2

It is God that does the pruning.

"I know that after my departure fierce wolves will get in among you, and will not spare the flock. AND FROM AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES MEN WILL RISE SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS, TO DRAW AWAY THE DISCIPLES AFTER THEM."
Acts 20:29-30

Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli were Catholic priests and did not heed to the warnings of the church and what has their uprising cause but more splits in the body of christ, with more interpretations than ever.

"They shall go about seeking the Word of the Lord, and shall not find it."
Amos 8:12

[Anomaly]

Kewl. So you agree with me. God is participating in the Earthly Church not with Infallible 'Perfection', but with Divine Correction.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384311' date='Sep 12 2007, 02:38 PM']Kewl. So you agree with me. God is participating in the Earthly Church not with Infallible 'Perfection', but with Divine Correction.[/quote]

Yes, this is what I have been attempting to convey from the beginning. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church on which Jesus founded, regardless of the imperfection of it's member's.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1384321' date='Sep 12 2007, 03:58 PM']Yes, this is what I have been attempting to convey from the beginning. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church on which Jesus founded, regardless of the imperfection of it's member's.[/quote]Exactly. So we can reject imperfection and Catholics shouldn't get upset when people reject what they see as error in the Catholic Church.

["Kyrie eleison"]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384357' date='Sep 12 2007, 04:01 PM']Exactly. So we can reject imperfection and Catholics shouldn't get upset when people reject what they see as error in the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Error and imperfections in it's members but not in the teachings and the manifold of wisdom that Jesus promised would be upheld through his Church, to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3

10So that the manifold wisdom of God might now be [b]made known through the church [/b]to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1384388' date='Sep 12 2007, 05:38 PM']Error and imperfections in it's members but not in the teachings and the manifold of wisdom that Jesus promised would be upheld through his Church, to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3

10So that the manifold wisdom of God might now be [b]made known through the church [/b]to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.[/quote]But you just said the Chuch has imperfect people speaking imperfectly for it.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1384391' date='Sep 12 2007, 03:47 PM']But you just said the Chuch has imperfect people speaking imperfectly for it.[/quote]
Did anyone bring up the point that the members of the church can be in error,the bishops of the church can be in error,that infallibility of teaching isn't something that any person who's a bishop or pope exercises every time they teach or say anything.Personal opinions don't fall under infallibility.