What does "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" mean?

[gtsecc]

?

[higgs2]

The universal church.

[Naomi4Christ]

The fellowship of all believers

[masuwerte]

See post #12:

www.christianforums.com/t673925-an-outline-of-the-faith.html&page=2 (http://www.christianforums.com/t673925-an-outline-of-the-faith.html&page=2)

[AngCath]

Q. Why is the Church described as one?
A. The Church is one, because it is one Body, under one Head, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Q. Why is the Church described as holy?
A. The Church is holy, because the Holy Spirit dwells in it, consecrates its members, and guides them to do God's work.

Q. Why is the Church described as catholic?
A. The Church is catholic, because it proclaims the whole Faith to all people, to the end of time. Q. Why is the Church described as apostolic?
A. The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ's mission to all people.

from the 1979 BCP p. 854 - Catechism

[higgs2]

:clap: Love this part:

Q What is the Church?

A The Church is the community of the New Covenant.

Q How is the Church described in the Bible?

A The Church is described as the Body of which Jesus Christ is the Head and of which all baptized persons are members. It is called the People of God, the New Israel, a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and the pillar and ground of truth.

[AngCath]

Once again, our short and sweet catechism saves the day! :)

[higgs2]

Once again, our short and sweet catechism saves the day! :)
:clap:

Good job on that.

[svdbygrace]

The Universal Church that continues in the Faith of the Apostles... basically everything contained within the Nicene Creed. The Universal Church is made up of all Christians.

[Thomas2618]

I still don't like the description of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" as being synonymous with "Universal".
One: one piece...
Holy:set apart by Christ
Catholic: according to the wholeness
Apostolic: containing the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ

[karen freeinchristman]

Q. Why is the Church described as one?
A. The Church is one, because it is one Body, under one Head, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Q. Why is the Church described as holy?
A. The Church is holy, because the Holy Spirit dwells in it, consecrates its members, and guides them to do God's work.

Q. Why is the Church described as catholic?
A. The Church is catholic, because it proclaims the whole Faith to all people, to the end of time. Q. Why is the Church described as apostolic?
A. The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ's mission to all people.

from the 1979 BCP p. 854 - Catechism
That, I can agree with! :thumbsup:

[svdbygrace]

I still don't like the description of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" as being synonymous with "Universal".
One: one piece...
Holy:set apart by Christ
Catholic: according to the wholeness
Apostolic: containing the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ

Catholic: MW Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Catholic)
Apostolic: MW Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Apostolic)

:)

[higgs2]

I still don't like the description of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" as being synonymous with "Universal".
One: one piece...
Holy:set apart by Christ
Catholic: according to the wholeness
Apostolic: containing the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ
It looks like this is not the way ECUSA looks at it, given what the 1979 BCP says.

[gtsecc]

The Cathecism is a starting off point for discussion, not the fcomplete doctrine.

If there is any doubt about what Anglicans mean by Apostolic in the Creed, you can look at the Lambeth Quatralateral.

(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the Unity of His Church.

[gitlance]

It looks like this is not the way ECUSA looks at it, given what the 1979 BCP says.

Incorrect. Read the Catechism again, please.

[higgs2]

Incorrect. Read the Catechism again, please.
You read it again. :)

[gitlance]

Q. Why is the Church described as catholic?
A. The Church is catholic, because it proclaims the whole Faith to all people, to the end of time. Q. Why is the Church described as apostolic?
A. The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ's mission to all people.

WHOLE FAITH.

CONTINUES IN THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. It can only continue if that teaching and authority have been passed down, just as the Lambeth quad states.

[higgs2]

Q. Why is the Church described as catholic?
A. The Church is catholic, because it proclaims the whole Faith to all people, to the end of time. Q. Why is the Church described as apostolic?
A. The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ's mission to all people.

WHOLE FAITH.

CONTINUES IN THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. It can only continue if that teaching and authority have been passed down, just as the Lambeth quad states.




I disagree that "continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" has to mean "containing the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ". Not that I don't like that we do contain the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ, I'm all for that.

[gtsecc]

I disagree that "continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" has to mean "containing the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ". Not that I don't like that we do contain the unbroken line of succession directly from Christ, I'm all for that.


I will sort of agree with you that the way it is stated there, the meaning is ambiguous.



Which is fine, since this is a starting point for discussion, not THE doctrine of the church.



However, it is a simple matter to know what the creeds have always meant by that, and a simple matter so see if Anglicans affirm it - and they do, clearly in the Lambeth Qutralateral.

[Naomi4Christ]

CONTINUES IN THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. It can only continue if that teaching and authority have been passed down, just as the Lambeth quad states.





No need to shout.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral doesn't 'state' that.

[gtsecc]

No need to shout.

The Lambeth Quadrilateral doesn't 'state' that.
Lambeth unambigously says we have to have Bishops in Apostolic succession.

[AngCath]

From the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:

As inherent parts of this sacred deposit, and therefore as essential to the restoration of unity among the divided branches of Christendom, we account the following, to wit:
1. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the revealed Word of God.

2. The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the Christian Faith.

3. The two Sacraments,--Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of institution and of the elements ordained by Him.

4. The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.


For the entire statement click here: http://anglicansonline.org/basics/Chicago_Lambeth.html

[higgs2]

I will sort of agree with you that the way it is stated there, the meaning is ambiguous.



Which is fine, since this is a starting point for discussion, not THE doctrine of the church.



However, it is a simple matter to know what the creeds have always meant by that, and a simple matter so see if Anglicans affirm it - and they do, clearly in the Lambeth Qutralateral.

So do you consider the Lambeth Quadralateral THE doctrine of the church?

[Naomi4Christ]

The Lambeth Quadrilateral was drawn up to provide a framework for which churches could be included in the Anglican Communion. It was not meant to be any kind of proposal to actively unite with the Roman Catholic Church - it was about adopting smaller local churches into our communion at a time when there was much geographical spread.

Historic episcopate is not one and the same with 'apostolic succession'. If they meant apostolic succession, that is what they would have written. Some parts of the church interpret historic episcopate to mean the fact that we have, and always have had, bishops overseeing local geographical areas.

I can't believe anyone would really think that we wouldn't include those churches that don't have bishops, or don't have an apostolic succession of bishops to not be members of the body of Christ. Do we really need an apostolic succession to pass on the faith in this day and age? No we don't.

Read you bibles, peeps.

[gtsecc]

So do you consider the Lambeth Quadralateral THE doctrine of the church?
No, but it is a minimum starting point that Anglicans, RC, OO, EO, OC etc... do agree upon.
So, if one disagees with Lambeth, then they have basically made up a NEW idea of the Church, and they are not supported by anythign understood to be Church for 2,000 years.

[gtsecc]

Historic episcopate is not one and the same with 'apostolic succession'.

You and I do not speak the same language.
I don't know how you could possibly understand it mean something different without being intellectually dishonest.

[Naomi4Christ]

You and I do not speak the same language.

No kidding.

[gtsecc]

Clement of Rome







"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Hegesippus







"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs 4:22:1 [ca. A.D. 180]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about....Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the churches, and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in devious paths, and on this account the vestiges of their doctrines are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of those, however, who belong to the Church goes around the whole world, for it has the firm tradition of the apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same" (Ibid. 5:20:1).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time" (Ibid. 3:3:4).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles, those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession [of bishops] and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion....The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (Ibid. 4:26:2, 33:8).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Firmilian







"But what is his error and how great his blindness....who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, 'Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven'; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man's sins they shall be retained.' The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place" (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Jerome







"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Epistle to Heliodorus 14:8 [inter A.D. 374-379]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Gregory I







"The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God's stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them [John 20:22-23]. . . . Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden."(Homilies on the Gospels 2:26:4 [A.D. 590-591]).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Naomi4Christ [AD 2000]







Do we really need an apostolic succession to pass on the faith in this day and age? No we don't.

[gitlance]

Clement of Rome







"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Hegesippus







"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs 4:22:1 [ca. A.D. 180]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about....Surely they wished all those and their successors, to whom they handed on their authority, to be perfect and without reproach" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [inter A.D. 180-199]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the apostles handed over the churches, and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in devious paths, and on this account the vestiges of their doctrines are scattered about without agreement or connection. The path of those, however, who belong to the Church goes around the whole world, for it has the firm tradition of the apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same" (Ibid. 5:20:1).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"Polycarp was instructed not only by the apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna by the apostles in Asia. I saw him in my early youth, for he tarried a long time and when quite old departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught those things which he learned from the apostles and which the Church had handed down and which are true. To these things the churches in Asia bear witness, as do also the successors of Polycarp even to the present time" (Ibid. 3:3:4).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Irenaeus







"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles, those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession [of bishops] and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion....The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (Ibid. 4:26:2, 33:8).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Firmilian







"But what is his error and how great his blindness....who does not remain on the foundation of the one true Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ, can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone, 'Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall also be loosed in heaven'; and by this, again in the Gospel, when Christ breathed upon the apostles alone, saying to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive any man his sins they shall be forgiven, and if you retain any man's sins they shall be retained.' The power of forgiving sins was given to the apostles and the churches which these men, sent by Christ, established and to the bishops who succeeded them by being ordained in their place" (Epistle to Cyprian 75:16 [Inter A.D. 255-256]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Jerome







"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Epistle to Heliodorus 14:8 [inter A.D. 374-379]).









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Gregory I







"The disciples receive as their lot the preeminence of celestial judgment, so that, in God's stead, they retain sins for some and for some they forgive them [John 20:22-23]. . . . Certainly it is now the bishops who hold their place in the Church. They receive the authority of binding and loosing, who have as their lot a degree of governing. It is a magnificent honor, but that honor carries with it a heavy burden."(Homilies on the Gospels 2:26:4 [A.D. 590-591]).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Naomi4Christ [AD 2000]







Do we really need an apostolic succession to pass on the faith in this day and age? No we don't.

Once again, the Church of the ages speaks.

:amen:

And don't forget Ignatius, AD 96, who said that NO Church exists outside of the apostolic succession and three-fold ministry.

[AngCath]

And don't forget Ignatius, AD 96, who said that NO Church exists outside of the apostolic succession and three-fold ministry.

YES :)

[gtsecc]

Is it possible that Clement of Rome, Ignasius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Firmilian, Jerome, and Gregory I got it wrong, and God has revealed the truth to Naomi4Christ?

[gitlance]

Is it possible that Clement of Rome, Ignasius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Firmilian, Jerome, and Gregory I got it wrong, and God has revealed the truth to Naomi4Christ?



With God all things are possible, but given the testimony of countless millions of individuals for 2000 years, I somehow doubt that God would all-of-a-sudden reveal the "truth" to one person centuries after his complete revelation in Christ. It makes no sense.

[Fish and Bread]

Is it possible that Clement of Rome, Ignasius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Firmilian, Jerome, and Gregory I got it wrong, and God has revealed the truth to Naomi4Christ?



In fairness, there was a whole movement of great theologians in the 16th century (the reformers) which agreed in large measure with Naomi on this question. It not just her versus the church fathers. :)

John

[gtsecc]

In fairness, there was a whole movement of great theologians in the 16th century (the reformers) which agreed in large measure with Naomi on this question. It not just her versus the church fathers. :)
John

And, the entire Church East and West has said they were wrong.

Eating the apple was disobedient.

Leaving the authority of the Church is disobedient.

Do we not see sin as the same now as it always was?

[higgs2]

Read you bibles, peeps.

In my world, peeps are yellow marshmallow chicks. :D :D :D


Who knows? perhaps that's exactly what you are referring to also...

[Fish and Bread]

In my world, peeps are yellow marshmallow chicks. :D :D :D


Who knows? perhaps that's exactly what you are referring to also...

Lel's CF character was dressed in a yellow chicken suit when last I checked. :) Maybe she was talking to Lel! ;)

John

[Fish and Bread]

And, the entire Church East and West has said they were wrong.

Eating the apple was disobedient.

Leaving the authority of the Church is disobedient.

Do we not see sin as the same now as it always was?

Regardless of the objective truth of the matter, the reformers seemed to believer that the historic episcopate was not God's will, so when they made the decision to break from Roman Catholicism, they did not think of themselves as sinning against God. That is different from the Adam and Eve scenario where God had told them both point blank "Don't eat from the tree" and they ate from it. Adam and Even *knew* they were sinning. If we take the reformers at their word, then they did not believe what they were doing to have been a sin.

John

[higgs2]

Lel's CF character was dressed in a yellow chicken suit when last I checked. :) Maybe she was talking to Lel! ;)

John

You are brilliant, that must be it! :P Maybe we'll find Lel in our Easter basket this Easter.

[gtsecc]

Read you bibles, peeps.


1 Tim 3:1-2 This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach ...

Titus 1:7,9 For a bishop (episcopon) as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.

Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.

Jn 21:15-17 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter's first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21 Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

[Naomi4Christ]

In fairness, there was a whole movement of great theologians in the 16th century (the reformers) which agreed in large measure with Naomi on this question. It not just her versus the church fathers. :)

John

:wave:

[Naomi4Christ]

With God all things are possible, but given the testimony of countless millions of individuals for 2000 years, I somehow doubt that God would all-of-a-sudden reveal the "truth" to one person centuries after his complete revelation in Christ. It makes no sense.

In this vein, what about the works of the Christian writers that you hold so dearly? Why do you think God revealed the truth to them?

[gtsecc]

In this vein, what about the works of the Christian writers that you hold so dearly? Why do you think God revealed the truth to them?
That is a great question actually.
The reason is that for 2000 years the entire church has said they are correct.
Some of the reformers did not knwo what the fathers said becasue they simply did not have access to the documents and the translations.

[gtsecc]

Naomi, don't forget to read post 39 carefully.

[Naomi4Christ]

Naomi, don't forget to read post 39 carefully.

Is there something amazing about it that I shouldn't miss?

[gtsecc]

Is there something amazing about it that I shouldn't miss?
Sure, it shows the Historic Episcopate in the Bible.
It then shows Bishops in the Bible refered to in writings and letters of Early Church fathers.
I think it does a good job of showing all the continuity.

[Naomi4Christ]

Sure, it shows the Historic Episcopate in the Bible.
It then shows Bishops in the Bible refered to in writings and letters of Early Church fathers.
I think it does a good job of showing all the continuity.

I don't think anyone would deny that there were overseers/bishops in the early church - that is clearly scriptural. I think most Anglicans would agree that it is beneficial to the structure of the local church to have a bishop who can provide leadership, pastoral care and discipline to clergy - as well as leading an organisation to handle central tasks and politics in an efficient way. There is nothing wrong, IMV, with an episcopal structure in order to execute tasks - we Evangelicals don't actually believe there is any spiritual hierarchical difference between a vicar and a bishop.

As for it being essential to the faith to have an apostolic succession - did you find strong evidence for this in the New Testament, or was it something that came about a few hundred years later?

[gtsecc]

As for it being essential to the faith to have an apostolic succession - did you find strong evidence for this in the New Testament, or was it something that came about a few hundred years later?
I don't think it was ever really questioned as an essential until the reformation.

[karen freeinchristman]

There is nothing wrong, IMV, with an episcopal structure in order to execute tasks - we Evangelicals don't actually believe there is any spiritual hierarchical difference between a vicar and a bishop.

I believe there is a difference in the nature of the calling of a bishop as opposed to the calling of a priest, whereby the bishop is called to preserve the unity of the church in a wider sense than the parish priest, and called to a wider oversight. The calling comes from God, and from the wider church, and it is a reflection of that person's vocation and gifts and affirmation of those things by other bishops. Yes, the 'job' requires the execution of tasks, but there is a difference of calling as well, which I believe has a spiritual dimension.

[gitlance]

Regardless of the objective truth of the matter, the reformers seemed to believer that the historic episcopate was not God's will, so when they made the decision to break from Roman Catholicism, they did not think of themselves as sinning against God. That is different from the Adam and Eve scenario where God had told them both point blank "Don't eat from the tree" and they ate from it. Adam and Even *knew* they were sinning. If we take the reformers at their word, then they did not believe what they were doing to have been a sin.

John

Do you think most murderers actually consider that what they are doing is a sin?

Do you think people who deny the existence of God are actually thinking that they are committing sin?

There are absolute truths... if we believe Christ and his apostles, then we believe that the Church proclaims absolute truths.

[gitlance]

In this vein, what about the works of the Christian writers that you hold so dearly? Why do you think God revealed the truth to them?

They all make the claim that they received their beliefs not directly from God, per se, but from the scriptures, the apostles, and Jesus himself -- directly. Irenaeus taught vehemently that nobody had any right to innovate new truths, but only to teach those truths which the Church had always believed. The Apostolic Succession was one of them.

[gitlance]

I don't think anyone would deny that there were overseers/bishops in the early church - that is clearly scriptural. I think most Anglicans would agree that it is beneficial to the structure of the local church to have a bishop who can provide leadership, pastoral care and discipline to clergy - as well as leading an organisation to handle central tasks and politics in an efficient way. There is nothing wrong, IMV, with an episcopal structure in order to execute tasks - we Evangelicals don't actually believe there is any spiritual hierarchical difference between a vicar and a bishop.

As for it being essential to the faith to have an apostolic succession - did you find strong evidence for this in the New Testament, or was it something that came about a few hundred years later?

Well, unless AD 96 was hundreds of years after Christ, then we already see the necessity of apostolic succession. (AD 96 is when Ignatius started writing... he was a disciple of St. John. He taught that no church exists apart from the succession and the three-fold ministry.)

[Fish and Bread]

Do you think most murderers actually consider that what they are doing is a sin?

Yes, though they probably wouldn't admit to it.

Do you think people who deny the existence of God are actually thinking that they are committing sin?

Not the ones who really believe that he doesn't exist!

There are absolute truths... if we believe Christ and his apostles, then we believe that the Church proclaims absolute truths.

Yes, but those who don't believe in those truths as a matter of conscience because they truly think they're a perversion of God's will or they truly think that God doesn't exist at all are much less culpable, morally speaking. St. Thomas Aquainas wrote on this subject, I believe.

John

[gitlance]

Yes, though they probably wouldn't admit to it.



Not the ones who really believe that he doesn't exist!



Yes, but those who don't believe in those truths as a matter of conscience because they truly think they're a perversion of God's will or they truly think that God doesn't exist at all are much less culpable, morally speaking. St. Thomas Aquainas wrote on this subject, I believe.

John

That boarders on relativism. St. Aquinas affirmed the belief that "extra ecclesiam nulla salus est." He believed that all truth was indeed Catholic truth, and that those who would be saved would only be saved through Christ's grace and his truth revealed in the Catholic faith.

So is somebody who denies that Christ is the only way to salvation not held morally responsible just because he didn't accept such a statement as true?

[Fish and Bread]

So is somebody who denies that Christ is the only way to salvation not held morally responsible just because he didn't accept such a statement as true?

You'd have to ask God. :) I think one of the questions that God might ask is: Did that person seek the truth in true and complete sincerity?

John

[gitlance]

You'd have to ask God. :) I think one of the questions that God might ask is: Did that person seek the truth in true and complete sincerity?

John

But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that "seeking" is what counts. What counts is believing and living out that faith... that's why Jesus said that the way to heaven was a narrow, hard road. It's one that few are willing to walk.

[Naomi4Christ]

Well, unless AD 96 was hundreds of years after Christ, then we already see the necessity of apostolic succession. (AD 96 is when Ignatius started writing... he was a disciple of St. John. He taught that no church exists apart from the succession and the three-fold ministry.)

From liberalchristian.co.uk:

Church leadership



The first leaders of the Christian movement were the Twelve Apostles, headed by St Peter. These were quickly joined by the new convert St Paul, who believed that God had specially commissioned him as an Apostle, and by Jesus’ brother St James, to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.



St Paul’s letters, written in the 50s and early 60s, refers to a number of different personalities within the communities with which he dealt, including apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle-workers, healers and administrators (see esp. 1.Cor. 12.28). The structures of authority still seem to be fairly vague and fluid. On the other hand, we can see the first traces of the classical hierarchy of bishops (literally, overseers), priests (literally, elders) and deacons: at Phil. 1.1, Paul refers to overseers and deacons at Philippi, and Rom. 16.1 attests to the existence of female office-holders called deaconesses.



In the 70s and 80s, elders start to be mentioned for the first time, notably in Acts (11.30, 14.23, 15.2, 20.17, 28), where they are presented as running the church and are also referred to as overseers. A roughly contemporary letter known as 1 Clement also makes reference to elders and overseers as the governors of autonomous Christian communities, and seems to regard the two offices as identical; he also knows of deacons. Prophets are mentioned at Mt. 7.15 and 23.34.



In the final years of the century, James 5.14 and 1 Pet 5.1 refer to elders as being in charge of contemporary Christian communities. Elders also appear in 1 Tim. 5, though the preceding chapters of the same epistle seem to present local churches as being governed by a single overseer (they also mention deacons). The move towards a monarchic episcopacy had begun.



It had not, however, ended - not until c.150 do singular overseers distinct from the elders emerge as the undisputed leaders of the church communities, and texts such as the letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c.110) which refer to singular overseers are still the exception rather than the rule. In the first half of the second century, it seems that most communities continued to be run by ‘colleges’ of elders who also called themselves overseers, and significant traces of the older arrangement appear to have lingered on for some decades afterwards. Deacons also continue to be mentioned in second-century literature. In the third century, references to the tripartite hierarchy of bishops/overseers, priests/elders and deacons become commonplace.



Charismatic leader-figures such as prophets seem to disappear quite early in the second century, though a reference is made to them in the Didache (c.140). By the end of the second century, writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian were formulating the classical doctrine of the apostolic succession, which left no room at all for the exercise of leadership outside the institutional structures of the Church. The doctrine recurs repeatedly in third-century writings.

[gtsecc]

From liberalchristian.co.uk:
This is a problem if you think the Bible is the final revelation of God.
If you accept Church Authority, then you have no problem.

[karen freeinchristman]

They all make the claim that they received their beliefs not directly from God, per se, but from the scriptures, the apostles, and Jesus himself -- directly. Irenaeus taught vehemently that nobody had any right to innovate new truths, but only to teach those truths which the Church had always believed. The Apostolic Succession was one of them.
Nobody has the right to innovate new truths?


Sure, people do not have the right to innovate new truths themselves. But
in scripture it is never claimed that God could not reveal new truths to mankind.

I think one could say that Irenaeus' teaching itself was a new truth!

[gitlance]

From liberalchristian.co.uk:

What are you? I thought you were conservative evangelical...

Anyway... much of what that thing you quoted states just does not jibe with the writings of the fathers.

Ignatius referred to the apostolic succession in the 1st century, and considered it required for the Church.

Prophets never died out. Tertullian was writing about them well into the 3rd century, and we see them practically up to the medieval times.

And Julian of Norwich said that God was a woman. ;)

[gitlance]

Nobody has the right to innovate new truths?


Sure, people do not have the right to innovate new truths themselves. But
in scripture it is never claimed that God could not reveal new truths to mankind.

I think one could say that Irenaeus' teaching itself was a new truth!

God reveals that truth to the Church.

[Naomi4Christ]

What are you? I thought you were conservative evangelical...

Anyway... much of what that thing you quoted states just does not jibe with the writings of the fathers.



I am a Christian who looks to the bible for what I need to know. I am happy to give credit where credit is due.

The more I look into this topic, I find it bewildering that anyone chooses to defend the apostolic succession.

What do we have to gain by trying to exclude others from our exclusive little social club? There's something a bit disturbing to me about this attitude.

[gitlance]

I am a Christian who looks to the bible for what I need to know. I am happy to give credit where credit is due.

The more I look into this topic, I find it bewildering that anyone chooses to defend the apostolic succession.

What do we have to gain by trying to exclude others from our exclusive little social club? There's something a bit disturbing to me about this attitude.

We are not excluding; we are trying to safeguard the faith!!!

ANYBODY is welcome to join the Church.

[Thomas2618]

I am a Christian who looks to the bible for what I need to know. I am happy to give credit where credit is due.

The more I look into this topic, I find it bewildering that anyone chooses to defend the apostolic succession.

What do we have to gain by trying to exclude others from our exclusive little social club? There's something a bit disturbing to me about this attitude.

Exclusive little social club? I don't see that.
We never say what we say as disrespect for your beliefs. We simply feel a strong responsibility to defend the Faith. Christ promised to lead the Church into all Truth, and he did not promise to lead each person into his own truth. He never said it is ok to believe whatever you want, therefore it is very important for the Church to uphold that which is the Faith.
It is never us who does the excluding,for you are welcome at any time. Don't blame us for your own decision not to adhere to the Catholic Faith.

[Fish and Bread]

The more I look into this topic, I find it bewildering that anyone chooses to defend the apostolic succession.

What do we have to gain by trying to exclude others from our exclusive little social club? There's something a bit disturbing to me about this attitude.

I don't think it's an issue of folks preferring a system of apostolic succession or not preferring a system of apostolic succession. Most of the folks who believe in apostolic succession think it's the will of God, established through the Apostles, and thus think we're bound by it as being part of God's plan for his Church. I don't think they woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's pretend we believe this", they actually *do* believe it, just as you believe the bible should be the only binding rule of Christian life. :)

John

[Naomi4Christ]

We are not excluding; we are trying to safeguard the faith!!!

ANYBODY is welcome to join the Church.

I was thinking of people who are already members of the body of Christ that you refuse to recognise as equal to you because they do not have a bishop.

I don't think that you are trying to safeguard the faith - I think there are risks to the faith by your obsession with non-scriptural writings and obsession with the petty differences in the practice of our faith.

The Christian faith is about love and relationships, and meeting people where they are.

[Naomi4Christ]

I don't think it's an issue of folks preferring a system of apostolic succession or not preferring a system of apostolic succession. Most of the folks who believe in apostolic succession think it's the will of God, established through the Apostles, and thus think we're bound by it as being part of God's plan for his Church. I don't think they woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's pretend we believe this", they actually *do* believe it, just as you believe the bible should be the only binding rule of Christian life. :)

John

As Anglicans, we look to the bible above anything else to discern the will of God. Non-biblical doctrines concern me, especially when they are used to drive a wedge between us and our non-Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ.

Whether we have an apostolic succession or not is not an important doctrine to me in terms of faith. I might get a warm fuzzy about it as much as I get a warm fuzzy at worshipping in a church building that is almost 1000 years old - it's nice to think that I am one of a long line of Christians who have worshipping, serving and sharing fellowship in that place. As evangelicals, we keep our bishop at arm's length - he is not an integral part of church life for us and is there to support us in our ministry rather than the other way about.

[Fish and Bread]

I was thinking of people who are already members of the body of Christ that you refuse to recognise as equal to you because they do not have a bishop.

We were all created equal and all who are baptised using the proper formula are equally members of the body of Christ. Not even the highest Anglo-Catholic would dispute that and the Roman Catholics recognized the latter principle at the second Vatican Council. :) The dispute is over whether or not the churches outside of apostolic succession have valid Eucharists or valid authority ordained by God. Since, aside from Lutherans and some Methodists, most churches outside of apostolic succession don't believe in a real presence, I'm frankly surprised any of them would care that some Anglicans don't think those denominations have the real presence (Since they don't want one to begin with! :)).

The Christian faith is about love and relationships, and meeting people where they are.

I'm not so sure about that last part. There were a lot of folks that Jesus didn't seem to meet where they were. He loved them and socialized with them, but told them quite firmly to repent and prepare for the kingdom of God. So, if he met them where they were, it was only to show them love and then to lead them in a particular direction, not to say "You're cool doing what you're doing, keep up the good work!" if they weren't.

John

[Naomi4Christ]

We were all created equal and all who are baptised using the proper formula are equally members of the body of Christ. Not even the highest Anglo-Catholic would dispute that

I would like to hear that from the highest AC, because it is not the impression I get from their posts.

The dispute is over whether or not the churches outside of apostolic succession have valid Eucharists or valid authority ordained by God.
Ack, I hate when I read about valid this and valid that. Where is the love?


Since, aside from Lutherans and some Methodists, most churches outside of apostolic succession don't believe in a real presence, I'm frankly surprised any of them would care that some Anglicans don't think those denominations have the real presence (Since they don't want one to begin with! :)).

And some Anglicans too - but at least we have bishops, eh?



I'm not so sure about that last part. There were a lot of folks that Jesus didn't seem to meet where they were. He loved them and socialized with them, but told them quite firmly to repent and prepare for the kingdom of God. So, if he met them where they were, it was only to show them love and then to lead them in a particular direction, not to say "You're cool doing what you're doing, keep up the good work!" if they weren't.

John

I didn't say anything about live and let live. But we are called to love the unloveable and come alongside them. However, becoming a Christian, or living out the Christian life, involves change. We can help those who are struggling to make those changes.

[Fish and Bread]

Ack, I hate when I read about valid this and valid that. Where is the love?

As Christians, I think everyone here very likely feels that Jesus is the valid Savior and that other folks who have claimed to be Saviors through the years are invalid. We've got nothing against folks who are in religions devoted to them, we just think their beliefs are inaccurate in some respects. I think that's how the Anglo-Catholics feel the same way about Apostolic Succession being the marker of the Church -- they don't dislike the folks without it, they just think they're inaccurate in some respects. Sometimes I think that people in general on message forums should consider ultilizing a little bit more in the way of diplomacy on sensitive topics and go a bit more out of their way to ensure they don't accidently offend people with harsh language, but I could probably use some improvement in that category as well! :) We all get a little carried away sometimes. :)

I didn't say anything about live and let live. But we are called to love the unloveable and come alongside them. However, becoming a Christian, or living out the Christian life, involves change. We can help those who are struggling to make those changes.

I agree. :)

John

[karen freeinchristman]

As Christians, I think everyone here very likely feels that Jesus is the valid Savior and that other folks who have claimed to be Saviors through the years are invalid. We've got nothing against folks who are in religions devoted to them, we just think their beliefs are inaccurate in some respects.
John
:scratch:
I don't think Naomi was referring to whether our Saviour is valid or not, but whether other denominations Eucharists' are valid or not. I also feel strongly that people taking Holy Communion in other protestant denominations are taking a valid Eucharist.

[Simon_Templar]

Well, unless AD 96 was hundreds of years after Christ, then we already see the necessity of apostolic succession. (AD 96 is when Ignatius started writing... he was a disciple of St. John. He taught that no church exists apart from the succession and the three-fold ministry.)


this is a great example of the inherent logical problems with Catholic/Orthodox reasoning and arguing on these issues. It is essentially circular. In other words, you have to assume that the position is correct, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the position is correct.

Ignatius does indeed write that the church does not exist outside the authority of the three fold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons. But I've read all of ignatius' letters and I have never once seen him mention apostolic succession or the idea of succession except in the statement that he knew his teachings were true because he received them from the apostles. Which is not a statement of inherited authority but of credability and verifiability.

When someone of the Catholic/Orthodox mindset reads ignatius and he says "if someone acts apart from their bishop they are outside the church" in their mind it clicks like this "bishops hold apostolic succession.. thus when he says outside the bishop.. he means outside apostolic succession".. but this is not what he says, nor is it the only conclusion that can be logicaly drawn from what he says. It is simply the result of starting with the assumptions inherent in the Catholic/Orthodox view point.

In fact upon a close reading of Ignatius you will find that in every case where he refrences the authority of a bishop, he describes that authority as derived directly from God through Jesus Christ... Not apostolic succession.

Now, I'm not saying that the catholic/orthodox interpetation of this issue is wrong.. I'm just saying it isn't demanded by the material available to us. The idea of apostolic succession certainly did come in somewhere.. the question is where and when.
Tertullian for example seems to have a very strong idea of apostolic succession (originaly before he goes off the reservation as it were) but there again, he relates the succession more to the succession of teachings and doctrines, rather than authority. In pretty much every case that succession is mentioned within the first couple of centuries, it seems to be linked entirely to the credability of the teachings passed down.. rather than the authority of the bishops. In other words they say over and over "We know this doctrine is true and correct because it has been passed down in a straight line from the apostles." I have yet to see anything from the first two or three centuries which says "respect my authority because I have received it from the apostles (or in a direct line from the apostles)."

Instead what you find is that whenever authority of church leaders is spoken of in the first few centuries it is always depicted as deriving from God, through Jesus Christ. Which in a way is actually more authoritative for the church because they repeatedly say that if you rebel against the leaders of the church, you are rebeling against God. However, it leaves room for God to appoint people as leaders independantly of having succession avaiable.


As for catholic = universal.. I believe catholic does mean universal.. but you simply have to understand what universal means... universal doesn't only mean "all believers" (that is only part of it) it also means all of the faith, and for all time. It is universal in every sense. If you wanted to say of something "the entire thing, for all people, for all time" the only word that expresses that is "universal".

[gtsecc]

The Christian faith is about love and relationships, and meeting people where they are.
I have a feeling you don't aproach homosexuals that way.

[gtsecc]

I would like to hear that from the highest AC, because it is not the impression I get from their posts.

There is no doubt that a water baptism in the name of the Trinity is a valid Baptism.

[gtsecc]

this is a great example of the inherent logical problems with Catholic/Orthodox reasoning and arguing on these issues. It is essentially circular. In other words, you have to assume that the position is correct, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the position is correct.

Not at all.
Either the Chruch was not corrupt then or it was.
If it was, then we haev no reason to believe the Bible which was put forth later.
So, basically, if you accept the Bible, you accept that the teachings of the Church were nto corrupt, at least until cannonization.

[Simon_Templar]

Not at all.
Either the Chruch was not corrupt then or it was.
If it was, then we haev no reason to believe the Bible which was put forth later.
So, basically, if you accept the Bible, you accept that the teachings of the Church were nto corrupt, at least until cannonization.

No.. the point was that you guys see the mere existence of bishops etc as evidence of apostolic succession, because that is part and parcel of your view point.. however, that is completely assumption, there is nothing in those writings which actually demands the understanding that a bishop must have apostolic succession.

[gtsecc]

No.. the point was that you guys see the mere existence of bishops etc as evidence of apostolic succession, because that is part and parcel of your view point.. however, that is completely assumption, there is nothing in those writings which actually demands the understanding that a bishop must have apostolic succession.
I have never even heard that questioned.
I think I can produce those writings for you.

[gitlance]

:scratch:
I don't think Naomi was referring to whether our Saviour is valid or not, but whether other denominations Eucharists' are valid or not. I also feel strongly that people taking Holy Communion in other protestant denominations are taking a valid Eucharist.

John is right... it is the EXACT same concept. We consider Eucharistic validity to be so important because the Eucharist becomes Christ incarnate in our midst! Those who do not have valid eucharists are, sadly, experiencing a lie -- just as the Mormons who believe in a demi-god Jesus are also experiencing and beleiving a lie.

We don't wish to condemn... we wish to point to the fact that there is something better, fuller, truer that God has revealed. If you KNEW that Jesus Christ became present incarnationally in the Eucharist, and if you KNEW that it was only through the apostolic succession that the authority for such a miracle was granted, why would you want to reject it? It is truly beyond our understanding how someone who loves Christ could reject Him in the Blessed Sacrament.

[gitlance]

this is a great example of the inherent logical problems with Catholic/Orthodox reasoning and arguing on these issues. It is essentially circular. In other words, you have to assume that the position is correct, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the position is correct.

Ignatius does indeed write that the church does not exist outside the authority of the three fold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons. But I've read all of ignatius' letters and I have never once seen him mention apostolic succession or the idea of succession except in the statement that he knew his teachings were true because he received them from the apostles. Which is not a statement of inherited authority but of credability and verifiability.

When someone of the Catholic/Orthodox mindset reads ignatius and he says "if someone acts apart from their bishop they are outside the church" in their mind it clicks like this "bishops hold apostolic succession.. thus when he says outside the bishop.. he means outside apostolic succession".. but this is not what he says, nor is it the only conclusion that can be logicaly drawn from what he says. It is simply the result of starting with the assumptions inherent in the Catholic/Orthodox view point.

In fact upon a close reading of Ignatius you will find that in every case where he refrences the authority of a bishop, he describes that authority as derived directly from God through Jesus Christ... Not apostolic succession.

Now, I'm not saying that the catholic/orthodox interpetation of this issue is wrong.. I'm just saying it isn't demanded by the material available to us. The idea of apostolic succession certainly did come in somewhere.. the question is where and when.
Tertullian for example seems to have a very strong idea of apostolic succession (originaly before he goes off the reservation as it were) but there again, he relates the succession more to the succession of teachings and doctrines, rather than authority. In pretty much every case that succession is mentioned within the first couple of centuries, it seems to be linked entirely to the credability of the teachings passed down.. rather than the authority of the bishops. In other words they say over and over "We know this doctrine is true and correct because it has been passed down in a straight line from the apostles." I have yet to see anything from the first two or three centuries which says "respect my authority because I have received it from the apostles (or in a direct line from the apostles)."

Instead what you find is that whenever authority of church leaders is spoken of in the first few centuries it is always depicted as deriving from God, through Jesus Christ. Which in a way is actually more authoritative for the church because they repeatedly say that if you rebel against the leaders of the church, you are rebeling against God. However, it leaves room for God to appoint people as leaders independantly of having succession avaiable.


As for catholic = universal.. I believe catholic does mean universal.. but you simply have to understand what universal means... universal doesn't only mean "all believers" (that is only part of it) it also means all of the faith, and for all time. It is universal in every sense. If you wanted to say of something "the entire thing, for all people, for all time" the only word that expresses that is "universal".

You do the same thing.

The only way to reconcile Scriptural verses that on the one hand identify Christ with God, but then say that Christ is in some way less than the Father -- or verses where Christ takes the position of not knowing something that the Father knows -- or verses where Christ seems to want and desire two different things, you AUTOMATICALLY click "oh, that's the two natures of Christ operating as two wills in one person!"

Where do you get that "click" from? The Councils of the Church which defined the hypostatic union.

Revelation and tradition are progressive. They develop into greater understandings over time. No Christian with an ounce of historic knowledge can dispute that.

We all beleive in the Trinity, yet such a word (as well as the concept of one ousia with three hypostases) is not to be found explicitly in Scripture. St. Tertullian invented that word nearly 200 years after Christ... yet do we dispute the accuracy of such a word, simply because it is not found in the Bible? I think not...

[gitlance]

I would like to hear that from the highest AC, because it is not the impression I get from their posts.

ALL persons who have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are brought into the catholic Church.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that all the baptized are automatically within the visible manfestation of the Church, as well as the fullness of the Catholic faith.

[Naomi4Christ]

HOWEVER, that does not mean that all the baptized are automatically within the visible manfestation of the Church, as well as the fullness of the Catholic faith.

See? There you go.

[gtsecc]

See? There you go.
Naomi, you have to learn to distinguish between Gitlance and the teachings of the entire church for the last 2000 years.

It isn't imporant that he likes them, nor is it important that you don't like them.

The fact of the matter is there are teachings that have been held for 2,000 years, and if you want anyone to take your disagreement with them seriously, you cannot just respond by saying, "I don't read church history" or ,"It isn't in the Bible."

[Naomi4Christ]

Of course I can.

[higgs2]

ALL persons who have been baptized with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are brought into the catholic Church.

HOWEVER, that does not mean that all the baptized are automatically within the visible manfestation of the Church, as well as the fullness of the Catholic faith.
The only time I have heard anglicans go on like this is on this board.

[gtsecc]

The only time I have heard anglicans go on like this is on this board.

But this is the appropraite place to go on about that sort of stuff.

[higgs2]

But this is the appropraite place to go on about that sort of stuff.
Oh, absolutely, and I'm glad that I am being exposed to these viewpoints!

My point was that this "stuff" just doesn't seem to be emphasized elsewhere. I know it is very important to some of us but obviously not at all important to others. And my experience is that it's not important in general in my church.

[Naomi4Christ]

The only time I have heard anglicans go on like this is on this board.

Me too.

Ach well, at least they aren't out on the streets shouting "we have bishops, we have bishops". :D

[higgs2]

Me too.

Ach well, at least they aren't out on the streets shouting "we have bishops, we have bishops". :D

Now, now! Be nice.

:D


:cool:

[spirit1st]

We only belong to one church ever!
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Or we allow ourselfs to be led by other people?
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
We are too be led or we can say?guided by HIS HOLY SPIRIT.We yeild only yo HIm.HE said?My sheep will follow me.Not the words of other men.What father wants others teaching his kids?
NOT GOD.Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Mosy people do not even know they have a spirit?Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
The LORD JESUS CHRIST shed HIS HOLY BLOOD FOR OUR SPIRITS.

[gtsecc]

Me too.

Ach well, at least they aren't out on the streets shouting "we have bishops, we have bishops". :D

Most of the world's Christian know this, and know that they have basically choices 3 to 5 choices in order to have Bishops. I am sort of shocked any cradle Christian would be so unaware. My Jewish friends growing up knew this in fact. I would say that you would basically have to be anti-intellectual, or generally hostile to general knowledge of Christianity to be unaware of Apostolic Succession.

[higgs2]

We only belong to one church ever!
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
1Pe 1:16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.
Or we allow ourselfs to be led by other people?
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
We are too be led or we can say?guided by HIS HOLY SPIRIT.We yeild only yo HIm.HE said?My sheep will follow me.Not the words of other men.What father wants others teaching his kids?
NOT GOD.Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Mosy people do not even know they have a spirit?Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Gal 6:18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
The LORD JESUS CHRIST shed HIS HOLY BLOOD FOR OUR SPIRITS.
I think it's one of the Church Parents! :clap:

[higgs2]

Most of the world's Christian know this, and know that they have basically choices 3 to 5 choices in order to have Bishops. I am sort of shocked any cradle Christian would be so unaware. My Jewish friends growing up knew this in fact. I would say that you would basically have to be anti-intellectual, or generally hostile to general knowledge of Christianity to be unaware of Apostolic Succession.
Know what specifically? I don't mean to be a pain, but I kind of lost track of exactly what we're talking about.

[gtsecc]

I think it's one of the Church Parents! :clap:
Why cheer?
What she quoted says nothing that would distinguish Jehovahs Witness or Momons from any other Christian belief. So, by that line of thinking, everyone is just as valid.

[gtsecc]

Know what specifically? I don't mean to be a pain, but I kind of lost track of exactly what we're talking about.
Apostolic Succesion and how you never heard about it outside this board.

[higgs2]

Know what specifically? I don't mean to be a pain, but I kind of lost track of exactly what we're talking about.

Oh, I see you changed your post.

Apostolic Succession? I grew up Presbyterian, Methodist and congregational and never ever heard of it, except perhaps as a vague notion something like it was important to (Roman) Catholics. And I was neither anti-intellectual or generally hostile to knowledge of Christianity. I didn't know anything, really, about it until I came to the Episcopal church in my 30's.

[higgs2]

Why cheer?
What she quoted says nothing that would distinguish Jehovahs Witness or Momons from any other Christian belief. So, by that line of thinking, everyone is just as valid.
I'm just kidding. I didn't think she made any sort of point whatsoever.

[gtsecc]

I'm just kidding. I didn't think she made any sort of point whatsoever.
LOL
Me either.
I swear that is the tendancy of some folks, they just cut and past some scripture, and cheer and think something great has happened. :doh:

[higgs2]

LOL
Me either.
I swear that is the tendancy of some folks, they just cut and past some scripture, and cheer and think something great has happened. :doh:
And kind of random scripture at that. :eek:

[Simon_Templar]

You do the same thing.

The only way to reconcile Scriptural verses that on the one hand identify Christ with God, but then say that Christ is in some way less than the Father -- or verses where Christ takes the position of not knowing something that the Father knows -- or verses where Christ seems to want and desire two different things, you AUTOMATICALLY click "oh, that's the two natures of Christ operating as two wills in one person!"

Where do you get that "click" from? The Councils of the Church which defined the hypostatic union.

Revelation and tradition are progressive. They develop into greater understandings over time. No Christian with an ounce of historic knowledge can dispute that.

We all beleive in the Trinity, yet such a word (as well as the concept of one ousia with three hypostases) is not to be found explicitly in Scripture. St. Tertullian invented that word nearly 200 years after Christ... yet do we dispute the accuracy of such a word, simply because it is not found in the Bible? I think not...

Your right that I do that as well, (begin with certain assumptions in mind.) the point is I'm aware, or trying to become aware of the assumptions inherent in my positions, as well as those in your views. If you go over to the spirit filled forums, and read posts regarding catholicism there (the few that exist) you'll find that I defend the catholic view point more there.

Your example is a good illustration of the fact that you do not understand the protestant position on things. You (and gtsecc from comments he has made) clearly do not understand the mindset of non-denominational protestantism and the lack of knowledge present in it.
You say that when we read certain verses about Jesus and his relationship to God we click in with the assumptions about Christ's two natures and the hypostatic union. But the church background I come from doesn't click in that thought at all. Most of the people I grew up going to church with or know in churches around my area, were you to start talking about christ's two natures and especially hypostatic union would respond with "huh.. what the heck are you talking about?"

Most of the people from the church tradition I come from would interpet those verses based on the idea of differing "roles" or "role" vs. Essence. Christ is divine and equal with the Father in Essence.. but his purpose on earth.. the "role" he claim to play was that of a suffering servant, his role was humility.
Most of the churches I was familiar with had no concept of bishops or apostolic succession.. the pastors of the churches are the only people even likely to have ever heard of that, except for maybe a few people here and there who have read more because they are interested in history or theology.

You can call it anti-intellectualism, and there is alot of truth to that because alot of those types of churches are very anti-intellectual.. however, the real fact is they simply live in a different world. Their mindset is totaly different than yours. Most of them have never even heard of the church councils, let alone have any idea what they decided or stated.

You may say that you have no desire or need to understand the protestant mindset.. and in a way I can see that because so much of it is wrong. Yet you have to be able to examine your own assumptions in order to begin to have any kind of real search for truth. And if you can't see, or grasp the underlying assumptions of other people's view points, you will probably never begin to see your own because you have nothing to compare or contrast to.
Gitlance, in your post you put forth one basic assumption that underlies your (the traditional mindset) reading of scriptures regarding JEsus and his relationship to God. I contrasted it with the basic assumption from my old church background.
Now, there are many things from the Holy Tradition and the early writings that are not clear, in my opinion, from the text and require interpetation, but there are also many things which are clear from the texts of the early writings. Especially those things dealing with the nature of the Godhead and Jesus Christ.. they took extreme pains to make sure those were clear, and unmistakeable. Thus little or no interpetation is necessary for those topics.


coming around to your guys view point. The problem is that things like the writings of the early fathers, the Holy Tradition and so on, require as much interpetation for us now days, as the bible itself does.. thus to say that those things teach us in interpeting scripture and teach us doctrine is all well and good but we still have to interpet those things themselves. You guys have accepted an interpetation given to you by the "traditional churches", who claim that it is the original and traditional interpetation of those early writings. But how do you know that it is? The undivided church and whatever authority it had vanished 1000 years ago. Do you have any idea the gap of understanding and room for distortion that exists in a 1000 years of history?
Most of us here agree that the church since the schizm has added or amended or in some ways changed elements of doctrine and dogma, but those churches claim that they haven't at all... so you say to me.. how can I believe the church on one thing and not believe the same church on another.. I ask you the same thing.. how can you believe the church that their interpetation of apostolic succession is the original historical version, when you don't accept the same church's doctrine on petrine supremacy?

Right now your saying "but petrine supremacy was added later by the Roman church etc etc.." but the roman church says that it wasn't and they quote dozens of citations from both scripture and the early church fathers... so how come you have the authority to reject their claims on that, but not to question their claims on how we should interpet apostolic succession? In fact the issues are almost identical and deal with essentially the same topic.. one is a specific case and the other general.

In fact that raises another question, one side or the other must be wrong in the great schizm... no matter which side is wrong both sides have valid apostolic succession. So how is this possible? The Nicean creed links clearly the nature of the church as "catholic" and "apostolic" I doubt seriously that one can exist without the other... if the church is divided, in truth it is no longer catholic (neither side is catholic in the true sense)... I do not believe this could come about unless apostolic succession (if it is the idea that the church claims it is) had failed or ceased some how. Yet the situation does exist. It is not merely a case of the church kicking out some heretics.. the church itself split.

[Fish and Bread]

In fact that raises another question, one side or the other must be wrong in the great schizm... no matter which side is wrong both sides have valid apostolic succession. So how is this possible? The Nicean creed links clearly the nature of the church as "catholic" and "apostolic" I doubt seriously that one can exist without the other... if the church is divided, in truth it is no longer catholic (neither side is catholic in the true sense)... I do not believe this could come about unless apostolic succession (if it is the idea that the church claims it is) had failed or ceased some how. Yet the situation does exist. It is not merely a case of the church kicking out some heretics.. the church itself split.

In stating that the true marks of the Church are that it is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic", it is not stating that all of these things are the exclusive purview of the one true Church, but rather that the one true Church most always possess those elements. Thus, the fact that there are several apostolic Churches does not constitute a barrier to any individual church declaring that she is *the* Church in and of itself. It is on the other marks that she distinguishes herself from her apostolic competitors, in the eyes of those who believe the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches are the true ones.

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches each most likely maintain (Though I haven't researched it) that the other lacks full catholicity. The Eastern Orthodox would say that the Roman Catholics have deviated from the faith by changing holy tradition by enacting a papal primacy of juristiction (Demonstrated by excommunicating the east, adding the filoque clause to the Nicene Creed unilaterally, etc.). The Roman Catholics would counter that it is by the very denial of such a primacy that the Eastern Orthodox have ceased to be fully catholic. In losing the mark of being fully catholic in those fashions, both churches would consider the other to have also lost the marker of being "one", forfeiting to the other. The Roman Catholics would say they are the one true church and they simply excomunicated a largesque number of hereticial schismatics with the Papal excomunication bull that finalized the Great Schism. The Eastern Orthodox would counter that because of their notions of authority, adoption of the filoque clause, etc., that the Roman Catholic Church walked away from the one true Church and that the Eastern Orthodox churches are the faithful remnant and thus the true Church.

It actually all holds together quite well, though of course if the Church is visible, one side must be the true Church insitutionally and the other most be in error somewhere -- it'd just be a question of which one. :)

John

[Naomi4Christ]

I wish someone would say what they mean by catholic, catholicity, full catholicity etc.

I belong to a congregation that is clearly part of the Church of England, with a bishop from the apostolic succession, ordained clergy etc. Yet we never, ever talk about catholicity. The only time you hear catholic mentioned in our church is when we say the standard version of the creed.

I suspect that either all Christian (those that believe in the trinity) churches are catholic, or none are - depending on which of the two common definitions you use.

[gtsecc]

The Church is the One Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church.



The reformation threw the baby out with the bath water, including the name of the Church.

Today some people don’t even know what Catholic means, or find it a pergoretive.



I think Anglicans have clearly stated what for them is the minimum for Catholicity in the Lambeth Quatralateral. And, all would want acceptant of the first 4 ecumenical councils, and most would want acceptance of all 7.



I think we should also have a historic liturgy, either Eastern or Western, that ties us back to Jewish Temple worship and includes the parts Justin Martyr writes about.

[gitlance]

Your right that I do that as well, (begin with certain assumptions in mind.) the point is I'm aware, or trying to become aware of the assumptions inherent in my positions, as well as those in your views. If you go over to the spirit filled forums, and read posts regarding catholicism there (the few that exist) you'll find that I defend the catholic view point more there.

Your example is a good illustration of the fact that you do not understand the protestant position on things. You (and gtsecc from comments he has made) clearly do not understand the mindset of non-denominational protestantism and the lack of knowledge present in it.
You say that when we read certain verses about Jesus and his relationship to God we click in with the assumptions about Christ's two natures and the hypostatic union. But the church background I come from doesn't click in that thought at all. Most of the people I grew up going to church with or know in churches around my area, were you to start talking about christ's two natures and especially hypostatic union would respond with "huh.. what the heck are you talking about?"

Most of the people from the church tradition I come from would interpet those verses based on the idea of differing "roles" or "role" vs. Essence. Christ is divine and equal with the Father in Essence.. but his purpose on earth.. the "role" he claim to play was that of a suffering servant, his role was humility.
Most of the churches I was familiar with had no concept of bishops or apostolic succession.. the pastors of the churches are the only people even likely to have ever heard of that, except for maybe a few people here and there who have read more because they are interested in history or theology.

You can call it anti-intellectualism, and there is alot of truth to that because alot of those types of churches are very anti-intellectual.. however, the real fact is they simply live in a different world. Their mindset is totaly different than yours. Most of them have never even heard of the church councils, let alone have any idea what they decided or stated.

You may say that you have no desire or need to understand the protestant mindset.. and in a way I can see that because so much of it is wrong. Yet you have to be able to examine your own assumptions in order to begin to have any kind of real search for truth. And if you can't see, or grasp the underlying assumptions of other people's view points, you will probably never begin to see your own because you have nothing to compare or contrast to.
Gitlance, in your post you put forth one basic assumption that underlies your (the traditional mindset) reading of scriptures regarding JEsus and his relationship to God. I contrasted it with the basic assumption from my old church background.
Now, there are many things from the Holy Tradition and the early writings that are not clear, in my opinion, from the text and require interpetation, but there are also many things which are clear from the texts of the early writings. Especially those things dealing with the nature of the Godhead and Jesus Christ.. they took extreme pains to make sure those were clear, and unmistakeable. Thus little or no interpetation is necessary for those topics.


coming around to your guys view point. The problem is that things like the writings of the early fathers, the Holy Tradition and so on, require as much interpetation for us now days, as the bible itself does.. thus to say that those things teach us in interpeting scripture and teach us doctrine is all well and good but we still have to interpet those things themselves. You guys have accepted an interpetation given to you by the "traditional churches", who claim that it is the original and traditional interpetation of those early writings. But how do you know that it is? The undivided church and whatever authority it had vanished 1000 years ago. Do you have any idea the gap of understanding and room for distortion that exists in a 1000 years of history?
Most of us here agree that the church since the schizm has added or amended or in some ways changed elements of doctrine and dogma, but those churches claim that they haven't at all... so you say to me.. how can I believe the church on one thing and not believe the same church on another.. I ask you the same thing.. how can you believe the church that their interpetation of apostolic succession is the original historical version, when you don't accept the same church's doctrine on petrine supremacy?

Right now your saying "but petrine supremacy was added later by the Roman church etc etc.." but the roman church says that it wasn't and they quote dozens of citations from both scripture and the early church fathers... so how come you have the authority to reject their claims on that, but not to question their claims on how we should interpet apostolic succession? In fact the issues are almost identical and deal with essentially the same topic.. one is a specific case and the other general.

In fact that raises another question, one side or the other must be wrong in the great schizm... no matter which side is wrong both sides have valid apostolic succession. So how is this possible? The Nicean creed links clearly the nature of the church as "catholic" and "apostolic" I doubt seriously that one can exist without the other... if the church is divided, in truth it is no longer catholic (neither side is catholic in the true sense)... I do not believe this could come about unless apostolic succession (if it is the idea that the church claims it is) had failed or ceased some how. Yet the situation does exist. It is not merely a case of the church kicking out some heretics.. the church itself split.

1st of all -- i was raised for 18 years non-denominational Charismatic protestant. I know fully well how they think. No, they have no regard for any ounce of genuine theology. All they care about, primarily, is feeling God and following what they perceive to be the will of God.

2nd -- Yes, the writings of the Fathers do need interpreting, but there are certain things they said that have been practically universally interpreted the same way for hundred of years.

3rd -- I do not reject, nor do I deny, the writings of the Fathers which speak of petrine primacy. The church fully accepted the primus inter pares status of Peter, along with that of the Church in Constantinople. But Irenaeus, in his defense of Rome, also said that no man could add or subtract from the doctrine which was already in place. It's one thing for a council to more precisely clarify an understanding of the Trinity, but it is something else entirely to introduce required priestly celibacy and indulgences; things which had no place in the early church. Additionally, while Rome had primacy, Rome did not have the authority to go into other provinces and tell people what to do. Remember the council of Constantinople. There was no supreme bishop, and none of the councils rendered Rome as such.

I am not denying that I have certain leanings. But those leanings came from an honest, anti-catholic reading of the Fathers many years ago when I first started approaching the Church. It was reading them as an anti-Catholic that convinced me of the Catholic Church.

And it is not easy to convince someone who hated Catholicism as much as I did that those men and their councils were right.

[Simon_Templar]

In stating that the true marks of the Church are that it is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic", it is not stating that all of these things are the exclusive purview of the one true Church, but rather that the one true Church most always possess those elements. Thus, the fact that there are several apostolic Churches does not constitute a barrier to any individual church declaring that she is *the* Church in and of itself. It is on the other marks that she distinguishes herself from her apostolic competitors, in the eyes of those who believe the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches are the true ones.

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches each most likely maintain (Though I haven't researched it) that the other lacks full catholicity. The Eastern Orthodox would say that the Roman Catholics have deviated from the faith by changing holy tradition by enacting a papal primacy of juristiction (Demonstrated by excommunicating the east, adding the filoque clause to the Nicene Creed unilaterally, etc.). The Roman Catholics would counter that it is by the very denial of such a primacy that the Eastern Orthodox have ceased to be fully catholic. In losing the mark of being fully catholic in those fashions, both churches would consider the other to have also lost the marker of being "one", forfeiting to the other. The Roman Catholics would say they are the one true church and they simply excomunicated a largesque number of hereticial schismatics with the Papal excomunication bull that finalized the Great Schism. The Eastern Orthodox would counter that because of their notions of authority, adoption of the filoque clause, etc., that the Roman Catholic Church walked away from the one true Church and that the Eastern Orthodox churches are the faithful remnant and thus the true Church.

It actually all holds together quite well, though of course if the Church is visible, one side must be the true Church insitutionally and the other most be in error somewhere -- it'd just be a question of which one. :)

John

I would generally agree, however, the problem for this line of thinking comes in when you look at the idea of magisterium held by both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. The Authority of magisterium derives from apostolic succession, and the magisterium of the church is essentially held to be infallible. Thus if you have two churches, both having valid apostolic succession, then the authority and thus the infallability of the church's magisterium should reside in both. If one or both of the branches are "wrong" and have false doctrines put forth under their magisterial authority, then there are only two logical possabilities.. #1 One of them does not have valid apostolic succession, #2 the church's magisterial authority is not infallible.

Further, since both clearly have valid apostolic succession in the sense that their lines of bishops can be traced directly back to the apostles... If you conclude that #1 is true and one of the branches does not have valid apostolic succession, then it demands that true apostolic succession is not achieved merely by laying on of hands in direct lineage from the apostles, but rather by some other factor, most likely simply the maintaining of the true apostolic teachings. In other words apostolic succession's validity, if the preceding is true, is able to be broken by the actions of the bishops.

Our situation then is this. The Roman Catholic church has valid apostolic succession according to the accepted definitions of both churches and according to the traditional understanding. Apostolic succession provides the authority for the church's magisterium. Thus the Roman Catholic church should have valid magisterium. Both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic hold positions which teach that the church's magisterium is infallible. Elements within the church can err, but the church itself in setting dogma and doctrine can not err.
We, and the Orthodox agree that the Roman Catholic church has errored in several doctrines and even dogmas that they have instituted. The Roman Catholic church insists that these things are correct and that they are the product of the magisterium.

Thus, logic demands that 1. Either the RCC or EO church is wrong 2. Whichever church is wrong must either not have magisterium, or its magisterium is fallible. 3. If one of the churches does not have valid magisterium then its apostolic succession (the source of magisterium) must be invalid in some way. 4. Since its Apostolic succession was valid, if it is now invalid something must have caused it to become invalid.

there is only one valid alternative to the statement above that I can see.. the authority of magisterium could be qualified to reside not simply in apostolic succession but in universal apostolic succession, in otherwords all successions must be united in agreement for magisterium to work.. but then that brings us back to the problem that we have no such agreement since about the 8th century (yes I know the split occured in 1054 but the disagreements leading to the split began long before that and the last unified council was in the 8th century).
Thus everything said or written by the churches in the last 1200 years, including their transmission and interpetation of Holy Tradition. So, if your not reading something written during or before the 8th century (and this includes anything that is used to interpet tradition or the early fathers) It is suspect and can not be validated by the church's magisterial authority.

[Simon_Templar]

1st of all -- i was raised for 18 years non-denominational Charismatic protestant. I know fully well how they think. No, they have no regard for any ounce of genuine theology. All they care about, primarily, is feeling God and following what they perceive to be the will of God..

I made an unfounded assumption about your background, I appologise.



3rd -- I do not reject, nor do I deny, the writings of the Fathers which speak of petrine primacy. The church fully accepted the primus inter pares status of Peter, along with that of the Church in Constantinople. But Irenaeus, in his defense of Rome, also said that no man could add or subtract from the doctrine which was already in place. It's one thing for a council to more precisely clarify an understanding of the Trinity, but it is something else entirely to introduce required priestly celibacy and indulgences; things which had no place in the early church. Additionally, while Rome had primacy, Rome did not have the authority to go into other provinces and tell people what to do. Remember the council of Constantinople. There was no supreme bishop, and none of the councils rendered Rome as such.

I am not denying that I have certain leanings. But those leanings came from an honest, anti-catholic reading of the Fathers many years ago when I first started approaching the Church. It was reading them as an anti-Catholic that convinced me of the Catholic Church.

And it is not easy to convince someone who hated Catholicism as much as I did that those men and their councils were right.

I understand this, and can agree with most of it but the question is why can you question or deny the claims of the Roman Catholic church on the issue of the Pope's authority (note in my post I said Petrine Supremacy, not primacy). You say it was an innovation, but the church says it was not.. why can you question that and disagree with that?

[gtsecc]

I understand this, and can agree with most of it but the question is why can you question or deny the claims of the Roman Catholic church on the issue of the Pope's authority (note in my post I said Petrine Supremacy, not primacy). You say it was an innovation, but the church says it was not.. why can you question that and disagree with that?

It is a simple matter to read letters that Gregory the Great wrote to other Bishops on the matter.

[Simon_Templar]

1st of all -- i was raised for 18 years non-denominational Charismatic protestant. I know fully well how they think. No, they have no regard for any ounce of genuine theology. All they care about, primarily, is feeling God and following what they perceive to be the will of God..


Coming from the same kind of background my tendancy is to deny the abuses of the non-denom charismatics, emotionalism, anti-intellectualism, complete focus on the gifst of the Spirit and none on the fruit, bad doctrine and theology, all focus on the individual, internal response (ie feeling God) etc etc. Yet the whole point of our worship is supposed to be about what God wants of us, is it not?

Now, in the traditional churches we have some more idea of what that is, because it has been passed down in the liturgy for 2000 years. First, the word liturgy itself tells us that the "service" is oriented to God.. the priest and the people are performing the service to God He is the audience if you will, and we are ministering to him.

Secondly, we know that God desires the focal point of the worship service to be the eucharist.
Scripture reading is also prominant as is confession of sin, and prayer

We also know that the early church had time for teaching, singing, and there is evidence for the activity of the "gifts of the Spirit" as well, prophecy, speaking in tongues etc.

We've talked some about community vs. individual on other topics, and there is no doubt that the charismatic protestant church has done quite a bit of baby tossing (throwing the baby out with the bath water)

But don't you think there is a good deal of the same on the other side.. I mean yes we function and worship as a community.. but How can a community have the response God desires, if the individuals of the community do not? Through out the bible God likens his relationship with his people to that of a marriage, even a heated romance. Jesus told the whole parable about the shepard who leaves the 99 sheep to go find the 1 that is lost...

Don't you think that God wants us to respond emotionally to him, as well as spiritually and intellectually? We are Emotional, spitirual, and intellectual beings.. does God not desire a complete relationship with us.. and how can such a relationship exist on the communal level, if it does not exist on the individual level. If the individuals do not respond.. then the community does not respond.

This is a little off topic, but your reply above got me thinking about this stuff. The protestant charismatics are, generally, pitifully anemic on the theological, doctrinal, intellectual side of things, and completely out of balance emotionaly.
But most of the traditional churches I've been in, including the one I attend on a regular basis, the congregations are not excited about worship, rather they seem bored and disinterested, is this really the worship God desires from his people? Sure the church itself has better knowledge and better doctrine.. but most of the people are so disinterested that they don't know half of the teachings of their own church because they don't even bother to listen when they are at church...
and I know this is the case because I have talked with quite a few people over the last couple years who had no idea what their churches taught.

[gitlance]

I made an unfounded assumption about your background, I appologise.

It is no problem!




I understand this, and can agree with most of it but the question is why can you question or deny the claims of the Roman Catholic church on the issue of the Pope's authority (note in my post I said Petrine Supremacy, not primacy). You say it was an innovation, but the church says it was not.. why can you question that and disagree with that?

I have trouble accepting Rome's claims due to the fact that there is no clear example of papal infallibility/supremacy in the early fathers. In fact, more than once, we see one of the bishops of the Church calling the Pope on something, and the pope relenting in his error. St.'s Origin and Athanasius both condemned the bishop of rome for false doctrine, and they ended up being the ones credited by the Church as being orthodox. IF papal supremacy/infallibility was indeed Christ's will, how is it that the popes could ever officially mess up on doctrine. One of the popes even gave his official seal to a document that denied 1st Nicaea.

I would be more than willing to accept Rome's claims if I could see some consistency with papal authority, but it's difficult to find much consistency among the fathers. Not to mention the whole embarassment of the few bad popes in the middle ages...

[gitlance]

Coming from the same kind of background my tendancy is to deny the abuses of the non-denom charismatics, emotionalism, anti-intellectualism, complete focus on the gifst of the Spirit and none on the fruit, bad doctrine and theology, all focus on the individual, internal response (ie feeling God) etc etc. Yet the whole point of our worship is supposed to be about what God wants of us, is it not?

Now, in the traditional churches we have some more idea of what that is, because it has been passed down in the liturgy for 2000 years. First, the word liturgy itself tells us that the "service" is oriented to God.. the priest and the people are performing the service to God He is the audience if you will, and we are ministering to him.

Secondly, we know that God desires the focal point of the worship service to be the eucharist.
Scripture reading is also prominant as is confession of sin, and prayer

We also know that the early church had time for teaching, singing, and there is evidence for the activity of the "gifts of the Spirit" as well, prophecy, speaking in tongues etc.

We've talked some about community vs. individual on other topics, and there is no doubt that the charismatic protestant church has done quite a bit of baby tossing (throwing the baby out with the bath water)

But don't you think there is a good deal of the same on the other side.. I mean yes we function and worship as a community.. but How can a community have the response God desires, if the individuals of the community do not? Through out the bible God likens his relationship with his people to that of a marriage, even a heated romance. Jesus told the whole parable about the shepard who leaves the 99 sheep to go find the 1 that is lost...

Don't you think that God wants us to respond emotionally to him, as well as spiritually and intellectually? We are Emotional, spitirual, and intellectual beings.. does God not desire a complete relationship with us.. and how can such a relationship exist on the communal level, if it does not exist on the individual level. If the individuals do not respond.. then the community does not respond.

This is a little off topic, but your reply above got me thinking about this stuff. The protestant charismatics are, generally, pitifully anemic on the theological, doctrinal, intellectual side of things, and completely out of balance emotionaly.
But most of the traditional churches I've been in, including the one I attend on a regular basis, the congregations are not excited about worship, rather they seem bored and disinterested, is this really the worship God desires from his people? Sure the church itself has better knowledge and better doctrine.. but most of the people are so disinterested that they don't know half of the teachings of their own church because they don't even bother to listen when they are at church...
and I know this is the case because I have talked with quite a few people over the last couple years who had no idea what their churches taught.

I agree with you.

I have a good Roman Catholic friend, and he was raised Pentecostal holiness. We agree that the Church has, in some respects, lost sight of the operation of the Spirit that was so evident among the Fathers. Whereas St. Irenaeus said that wherever the bishop was, there was the Church -- St. Tertullian said that wherever the charismata were, there was the Church.

The Church needs both. She needs both the supernatural charismata, and the episcopal succession. Now, I believe that the Church does still possess certain charismata, but I think many of her members have indeed turned "Church" into a religious activity where they go through the motions and only do things because it is their duty. That is part of a big reason why I w went to ECUSA as opposed to the RC. Every RC Mass I have been to has been one of absolute lifeless ritual. ECUSA, while upholding the truth of the ancient liturgy, is in my experience not dry like Rome tends to be. I am just as much against fake religiosity as I am against altering/compromising the faith -- and I think that a neglect of the