Truth about succession

[mclees8]

This was an reply by Night to another poster


Night
You need to go back and read your original statement. Your inference was that unordained members of the Catholic Church were "running things". That is nonsense. Only the ordained clergy have any governing authority in the Church, as God intended. Whether they may be the Secretary of State for the Vatican or the Chancellor, or a Primate; all are ordained. The Church worldwide is "run" by her Bishops and Presbyters at the Diocesan level. Mike

As I said Night you are right. The New Testament does speak of the ordination of elders, deacons and overseers. It is also true the  apostles laid hands on those who were worthy to be leadership of the churches established. For the most part the individual church in a certain city was autonomous however they did have certain bishops that over saw what you would call a diocese. The criteria of bishops and elders is laid out in Timothy

There will always be those who seek after leadership position but the office of overseers must first  be recognized in ones personal life of faith in Christ that  he not only reflects faith in the church but in his very personal walk. That is  the integrity of his witness. The apostles did not just ordain anyone. He had to be seen as one worthy. No one is worthy of being a leader if he himself is not first one who will be led. He must display true humility and meekness. Such as were those whom the apostles chose

Having said this we go now to Peter whom RC,s have been taught was specifically chosen and ordained of Christ to be the head of Christ church. This is the visible church leader of C hrist church upon the earth. In this one belief lies the whole foundational position of papal authority. The pope of the church of Rome sits in the seat of Peter.

In another post on another board a Catholic responded to me that the linage of authority of this office went back to 170 AD. to Clement of Rome whom Peter laid hands on and ordained him to be the bishop of the church at Rome. It is also questioned that he may have been third bishop of that church.   The poster  sited a letter of antiquity  to the leadership at Corinth. The question here is was Corinth a part of any Roman diocese or was his letter concerning the deposing of certain leaders there an appeal to the Corinthian overseer. This one thing must be made clear that the ordination of Clement by Peter was not an ordination of his seat as head of all the Christian Church. He was just the bishop of Rome at that time. Secondly not one of the succession of Bishops of Rome ever had the seat of Peter. This also tells us that the Church of Rome was never the chosen capital of Christianity.

Because I cited that Peter was the head even over the other apostles he rightly said no that all the apostles were equal, but this would go against the foundational seat of the papacy. Even Paul and John ordained bishops so they all couldn't be primates. So something is very much amiss here. So much amiss is the fact that there was no known succeeding primate of Peters seat until the fifth century AD.  An amazing void of over three hundred years.  Makes one kind of wonder doesn't it? Not only that but these fifth century Roman bishops were not received in their quest for this position by all the Bishops of that time. They did not get the position by divine appointment  but had to conceive a forgery saying the position was given to them by the secular ruler Constantine. So much for meekness,  humility, honesty and integrity.

Why am I so relentless about the papacy and their so called linage of authority. It is not that we shouldn't have respect of those who are leaders.   Why should I challenge the authority. We should have respect and I would not say any Catholic should stop respecting their authority. But our salvation is not in the authority of the visible church but in the invisible Christ who was visible but now sits in the invisible kingdom of God. This is why he sent the Holy Spirit. Even though they mention the Holy spirit as part of the trinity the Holy Spirit has little if anything to do with the outward forms of visible religion of the RCC. 

You might cry blasphemer! Remember what Jesus said 5If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. #

Please note that this is not a reference to the established church system and order but a promise  that the gift of the Holy Spirit would be indwelt by every believer
If Peter  being filled with the Holy Ghost ( third invisible person of the Godhead ) laid hands on Clement then he must have seen the Holy Spirit in Clement. He must have displayed all the qualities that only the Holy Spirit can work in a person. So given the fact that Peter never ordained anyone after him to carry  on with being primate of Christianity and we also have to believe the fact that the fifth century bishops successfully secured their position by deception we must also know that these men were not true men of God filled with the Holy Spirit but men of personal ambition.

Should we leave the RCC and stop honoring the pope? Honor the pope and all that are in authority over you in all matters of true faith and godliness, whether you be Catholic or Protestant, but know this that Christ Himself warned of great deception in these last days by men who ware robes of white.

Men who will mislead his church to put more faith in the institution than in Christ. When the church puts more emphasis on the world to lead the world in matters of morality and the politics of the world we cease keeping Christ and his second coming as the one promise and hope for his church. We focus on men who are wanting peace on the earth religiously and politically When the bible teaches us that the world without Christ is lost and Christ never taught that the church would save the world, or that it would bring peace and religious harmony to the world,  but only those who will believe. The world would be saved if all the world would believe. There is a move in the world and by the Vatican to achieve world peace through the UN and an effort to unite other religions. This is not to evangelize in the name of Christ for he is an offense to most of other religions, but to have peaceful relations. Jesus said be in world but not of it. Our hope is not in the worlds religions or its politics to achieve world peace and control.

Remember we must be about the eternal things and that is the hope of eternal salvation, not the temporal things of the world that will come to not.

1st John 2:15,17
5Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. #

So what is the will of God? His will is that none should be lost . His will is that all believers be a witness for Christ, and that Christ be lifted up so that all men will be drawn to him. To present Christ as the only way of salvation unashamedly and boldly before a world that for the most part rejects Him. It is not enough that we put an arm around those of other religions but that they be brought to a knowledge of Christs gospel to show him to be the Son of God and the only ark of safety.  Many have died for that witness. It would be a slap in the face of Jesus and the many who were martyred for him for the church to then except other religions for their own beliefs and to say I am OK you are OK we can all get along together for the sake of world peace. Yet this is the goal of the Vatican along with the UN to enforce a New world order that will lead to antichrist

1st John 5: 4,5
4For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 5Who is he that overcometh the world,  but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


I have more to share but I do not like long lengthy posts so I will add to this in another post. 
#

[desertknight]

Mike, I am somewhat unclear as to the exact assertion of all of your points, but I will try to answer some of them.

One thing you may be confusing is "Petrine Succession" and "Apostolic Succession".  They are actually two separate things.  In importance to the faith, the later far outweighs the former.  That Petrine authority over the centuries has waxed and waned is clear.  No educated Catholic would say otherwise, but non-Catholics seem to dwell on the Pope to the exclusion of the Church to our great amusement.  The Pope is, and always has been, a very important guy, but Peter, the first "Pope", if you will, was probably a married, semi-educated, fisherman.  I don't think we know for certain, myself included, whether Linus was his successor or Clement, or Anacletus for that matter.  That point is rather unimportant, believe it or not.  The succession of Popes, or what particular authority the time they lived in, may have allowed them to wield, is actually not very important compared to the Apostolic Authority of the whole Church.  The proof of this is that the Catholic Church, fully and completely recognizes, the authority of the Bishops and Presbyters of our Eastern Orthodox brothers and the Holy Sacraments of the Eastern churches.  Until fairly late in history, Popes, were only chosen from the local Roman church.  In theory, that could still be the case.  It doesn't really matter as long as he is properly ordained as the head of the Roman Diocese's chief Bishop.  Some Popes have been saints.  Some, great sinners.  So what is the Pope?  Well, for starters, the word "Pope", as I am sure you know, is just a term of endearment.  It just means "papa" or "dad".  The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome and the successor of Peter's See.  That's it.  Not much else to it.  Now was the "See, or Chair, or Throne", of Peter always thought of as the "first "Bishop of the Church, or chief Bishop's See?  Well, you can't find more sharp critics of Papal primacy than the Eastern Orthodox, and yet as late as 2007, a joint commission of their Bishops and ours said, "Both sides agree ... that Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love', occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs."  This goes back to the dispute among the Corinthians in the 1st Cent. where, (And they were not part of any Roman 'Diocese'), HH Clement, interceded in those disputes.

As to your assertion that there was an "amazing void of over three hundred years".  I, and others, would be baffled by this.  Not only is there a fairly complete list of the Bishops of Rome, (Although there clearly is some occasional dispute over dates and writings.), but many Popes during the first three hundred years of the Church are quite well known and have left their legacy and writings, or writing about them, on history.  Here is a link...(Just click on the name of each one to get a history.).

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/ChurchHistory220/lectureone/EarlyPopes.htm

But our salvation is not in the authority of the visible church but in the invisible Christ who was visible but now sits in the invisible kingdom of God. This is why he sent the Holy Spirit."

The problem with this recurring argument Mike, is that it is so contrary to what Holy Scripture says.  Why do you think Christ continually called the "Church", His Body?  Why do you think that the first act of His ministry was to go out, and pick 12 rather ordinary men, and then give them immense power and authority?  Why do you think that Scripture is so specific as to what offices the Church had, and how those offices would be considered valid by the handing down of that authority by succession is considered so important in NT Scripture?

No good Catholic believes we are saved by any Pope, Presbyter, or Bishop.  We are saved by the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, only!  Every faithful Catholic Christian believes that the Church, is Christ's Body, both visible, and invisible.  We believe that the NT is not wrong in it's establishment of a clear, earthly, visible, Church.  Protestants are at a loss as to how that is no longer the case.  Your assertion that the Catholic Church accepts other faiths is ludicrous.  Many Protestants may do that, but as a very crucial point of theology, we Catholics do not!  The position of the Church is that there is no salvation outside of the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.  We are called to love and live in peace with people of other faiths, but other faiths are not valid.  As to your UN comments, you seem to be saying that if one "works with the UN", that it somehow, is the work of the "Anti-Christ".  That is a very powerful charge, and completely without Biblical foundation.  It is just your opinion, like evils of fluoride in drinking water, you may hold it, but you sin, when you use it to bash your fellow Christians, or their Church, as if it is clear Biblical "fact".  I don't know if the UN may not some day be the One World Government of which you speak.  Maybe so.  It may be a One World American Government, or perhaps the Bible is referring to no government, per say, at all.  Perhaps it will be a One World Islamic government, given the growth of Islam.  Perhaps the "end times" will begin next year.  Perhaps not for another thousand years when the UN may not even exist.  One thing I can say with absolute certainty is, the end times and it's details, have been predicted by tens of thousands of people who "know", for almost two thousand years.   Each and every single one of them, have been absolutely... wrong!  I don't know the exact details of when or with whom the end times will involve, and neither do you.  If, for the sake of working for peace in say, the former Yugoslavia, or Africa, the Church occasionally acts with the UN, in order to feed war orphans or help hammer out a peace accord, then good on them...(Matt. 5:9).

"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they will be called the Children of God."

What does this mean to you Mike?  

As to your constant consternation over "robes", I will let this pass.  You really need to get over it...  

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome and the successor of Peter's See.  That's it.  Not much else to it.

That's funny - the Catholic Encyclopedia assigns him several titles and much more importance that than.  It claims him as High Priest (Pontifex Maximus), an intercessory function necessary to salvation.

My Bible applies that title to the already-risen-and-ascended Lord, but I guess since the the Pope is also Vicarius Christi that's just par for the course.

No good Catholic believes we are saved by any Pope, Presbyter, or Bishop.  We are saved by the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, only!

...but only if you also submit to the absolute authority of the pope, who is acting in the capacity of Steward because Jesus apparently is not in the building.

From the official Papal Bull Unam Sanctum:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You know...I have a question about succession.

What are the conditions for a successor to be considered legitimate?

[mclees8]

The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome and the successor of Peter's See.  That's it.  Not much else to it.

That's funny - the Catholic Encyclopedia assigns him several titles and much more importance that than.  It claims him as High Priest (Pontifex Maximus), an intercessory function necessary to salvation.

My Bible applies that title to the already-risen-and-ascended Lord, but I guess since the the Pope is also Vicarius Christi that's just par for the course.

No good Catholic believes we are saved by any Pope, Presbyter, or Bishop.  We are saved by the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, only!

...but only if you also submit to the absolute authority of the pope, who is acting in the capacity of Steward because Jesus apparently is not in the building.

From the official Papal Bull Unam Sanctum:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

Thanks for keeping the records straight. Don't you love all that greekl lingo

[desertknight]

That's funny - the Catholic Encyclopedia assigns him several titles and much more importance that than.  It claims him as High Priest (Pontifex Maximus), an intercessory function necessary to salvation.

As the head Presbyter of Christ's Holy Church that would be correct, he is still however, only a bishop and priest.  He has no special "power" other than as the chief Bishop and as a priest.  No other at all.

My Bible applies that title to the already-risen-and-ascended Lord, but I guess since the the Pope is also Vicarius Christi that's just par for the course.

Yes, par and holed.  That is correct.  So as Christ our Lord commissioned it.

No good Catholic believes we are saved by any Pope, Presbyter, or Bishop.  We are saved by the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, only!

...but only if you also submit to the absolute authority of the pope, who is acting in the capacity of Steward because Jesus apparently is not in the building.

From the official Papal Bull Unam Sanctum:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

If you can show me in that quote where it contradicts what I stated and that what I stated contradicts the dogma of the Church, I will eat my hat.  Where in your quote does it say that we are "Saved by the Pope, Bishop or Presbyter."?  Of course it does not.  If your going to argue against Catholic belief, we only ask that you argue against what we really believe, not what you imagine it to be.

Every Catholic Christian is subject to those authorities anointed by God in His Church.  That is clear.  It is equally clear that there is no salvation outside of the Body of Christ, His Church.  That is what your cite refers to in Unam Santum.  Please see my reply to you on the other active thread, (The Root..),  and I provide numerous NT passages to that effect.

[mclees8]

No good Catholic believes we are saved by any Pope, Presbyter, or Bishop.  We are saved by the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, only!
Quote from: Wycliff
...but only if you also submit to the absolute authority of the pope, who is acting in the capacity of Steward because Jesus apparently is not in the building.

From the official Papal Bull Unam Sanctum:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

If you can show me in that quote where it contradicts what I stated and that what I stated contradicts the dogma of the Church, I will eat my hat.  Where in your quote does it say that we are "Saved by the Pope, Bishop or Presbyter."?  Of course it does not.  If your going to argue against Catholic belief, we only ask that you argue against what we really believe, not what you imagine it to be.

Every Catholic Christian is subject to those authorities anointed by God in His Church.  That is clear.  It is equally clear that there is no salvation outside of the Body of Christ, His Church.  That is what your cite refers to in Unam Santum.  Please see my reply to you on the other active thread, (The Root..),  and I provide numerous NT passages to that effect.

Concerning unam sactum. Imagine what? that you say it says what it doesn't say or it doesn't say what it says. What was the date of the papal bull. remember we are looking at what the papacy believed itself to be from its very onset, That the catholic papcay was the supreme authority that sat in Peters seat. Therefore it read very plainly to me that it was believed that sense they were the only reprenitive authority of christ church before the reformation. There fore they said you must honor and respect the seat of Peter. (the papacy.) If one did not reconize the pope as the supreme authority then you were either a heritc or not saved.  so we are not saying that one is saved by the authotirty but not honor the authority one is not saved. Sounds purty plain to me.   

[desertknight]

If you are reading that we are "saved" by the authority of the Pope...then it obviously isn't "perty plain" to you.  It says no such thing, nor could it.  It says that every faithful Catholic is subject to the authorities of the Church, just as Scripture says.  It says that there is no salvation outside of the Church, the Body of Christ, just as Scripture says.  In no way does it say that we are "saved" by the Pope.  I would be kicked off a Catholic message board if I were to proffer such a heresy.

It should also be noted that there are no true believers in other denominations (even allowing for the use of "denomination" to refer to the Catholic Church). A true believer is one who believes everything Jesus said, which includes the existence of a visible Church and the necessity of belonging to it. People who do not believe this might not necessarily be "false believers", but they are definitely incomplete believers, not true ones.

That may sound harsh, but it is a reality.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

That's funny - the Catholic Encyclopedia assigns him several titles and much more importance that than.  It claims him as High Priest (Pontifex Maximus), an intercessory function necessary to salvation.

As the head Presbyter of Christ's Holy Church that would be correct, he is still however, only a bishop and priest.  He has no special "power" other than as the chief Bishop and as a priest.  No other at all.

Come now, he's more than that.  Since salvation isn't possible without the cooperation of the High Priest, (and submission to him in your liturgy), he's certainly a bit more important than just "a priest" or "a bishop" or even "chief bishop."  He's more like "bishop of bishops," or perhaps we should add a few more levels of hierarchy in between.  Bishop of cardinals of archbishops of bishops.

My Bible applies that title to the already-risen-and-ascended Lord, but I guess since the the Pope is also Vicarius Christi that's just par for the course.

Yes, par and holed.  That is correct.  So as Christ our Lord commissioned it.

At least you admit it.  But I don't remember the phrase "Vicar of Christ" in my Bible.  Well, I suppose vicarius IS a Latin word, so that's not really surprising...what would the Greek equivalent be?  Oh yes...Anti.  Well, by gar, you're right, that IS my Bible.  I take it back.

No good Catholic believes we are saved by any Pope, Presbyter, or Bishop.  We are saved by the Grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, only!

...but only if you also submit to the absolute authority of the pope, who is acting in the capacity of Steward because Jesus apparently is not in the building.

From the official Papal Bull Unam Sanctum:

"Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" (Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronuntiamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis).

If you can show me in that quote where it contradicts what I stated and that what I stated contradicts the dogma of the Church, I will eat my hat.

As much as I would like to see that, I wasn't trying to contradict your statement so much as expand upon it in a way that emphasized my previous points.

If "it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" then he is a bit more important than merely "bishop" or "priest."  It's like you've added fine print at the end of the contract...

$200 CASH REBATE!...but only if you sell $2000 worth of our merchandise, refer half a dozen of your friends to us, and the sale occurs at midnight on the fourth of July, in a hailstorm during a stampede that includes a kangaroo, 3 elephants, and one baby giraffe.

Receive the FREE GIFT OF SALVATION!...but only if you submit to everything I say, give me 10% of your gross income, perform enough hail mary's and tell me everything you ever did wrong.

Free can sometimes become expensive, it seems.

Where in your quote does it say that we are "Saved by the Pope, Bishop or Presbyter."?  Of course it does not.

Of course not.  He doesn't have the power to save.  Only the power to keep you from being saved by retaining your sins against you, or expelling you from communion with God in a permanent fashion.

If your going to argue against Catholic belief, we only ask that you argue against what we really believe, not what you imagine it to be.

Not my fault you didn't understand that the last part of my argument was a continuation of the former and not a refutation of an independent point. 

[desertknight]

Since salvation isn't possible without the cooperation of the High Priest,

No, the Pope has no authority to grant or not grant us our "saved" status with God.  That is the point that I was making.  Unam Sanctum says no such thing.  I have already pointed that out to you and yet, you come at the same point with slightly different wording.  No worries though.  We are quite used to you Protestants simply making up what you want our doctrine to be, and then burning it up like the straw man that it is.  When your done debating whatever doctrine you are and wish to discuss Catholic doctrine, I will be happy to oblige.

(and submission to him in your liturgy)

What does this mean?  If you mean as in the role all priests play in the liturgy, then yes.

But I don't remember the phrase "Vicar of Christ" in my Bible.

Funny, I don't remember the term "Trinity" in mine, or even the concept of "Sola Scriptura", and yet look how many derive those from Scripture.  As the Father sent Him, so He sent His Apostles who in tern anointed His Bishops and Presbyters.  He expressly charged them to act in his name.  To be His Ambassadors, as Paul put it.  To act as...wait for it...Vicars!

If "it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff" then he is a bit more important than merely "bishop" or "priest."  It's like you've added fine print at the end of the contract...

Not at all.  There is nothing hidden or fine, or at the end of anything.  One must submit to the anointed authority of Christ's true Church.  Scripture is very clear on that.  As much as you would like it to be otherwise, the fealty to the Pope is seamlessly linked to the fealty to all of Her Bishops and to Her Priests of the whole Body of Christ.  

Of course not.  He doesn't have the power to save.  Only the power to keep you from being saved by retaining your sins against you, or expelling you from communion with God in a permanent fashion.

John 20:21-23   "Peace be with you, as the Father has sent Me I am sending you, receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Darn that pesky Holy Bible!  Always getting in the way of those Protestant arguments!  One would almost think that our Lord intended His ministers to act as His...wait for it...Vicars!

Not my fault you didn't understand that the last part of my argument was a continuation of the former and not a refutation of an independent point.

I don't mind arguing against any part of your argument, but when you insist that something is Catholic dogma or doctrine and then proceed to argue against it when I know full well that it is not, it becomes pointless for me to stick around and engage you.  I will always have no idea what it is that you are really arguing against as it doesn't really exist.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

No, the Pope has no authority to grant or not grant or our "saved" status with God.  That is the point that I was making.  Unam Sanctum says no such thing.

Ummm...but he has the power to un-grant it.  You even confirm so below...

But I don't remember the phrase "Vicar of Christ" in my Bible.

Funny, I don't remember the term "Trinity" in mine, or even the concept of "Sola Scriptura", and yet look how many derive those from Scripture.

Yea, it's sad, I know.  For the record, I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, and the formulation of the trinity I hold to doesn't involve a God with multiple personality disorder (though it is still a trinitarian formulation).

Of course not.  He doesn't have the power to save.  Only the power to keep you from being saved by retaining your sins against you, or expelling you from communion with God in a permanent fashion.

John 20:21-23   "Peace be with you, as the Father has sent Me I am sending you, receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." "

Darn that pesky Holy Bible!  Always getting in the way of those Protestant arguments!

Not at all.  I was specifically referencing that verse as I wrote that argument.  So then, he can prevent salvation, but not grant it.  And yet that same verse would, if your interpretation is symmetrical at all, give him the unlimited ability to forgive sins.  But that doesn't cause salvation?  Can you explain to me how it doesn't?

I don't mind arguing against any part of your argument, but when you insist that something is Catholic dogma or doctrine and then proceed to argue against it when I know full well that it is not, it becomes pointless for me to stick around and engage you.  I will always have no idea what it is that you are really arguing against as it doesn't really exist.

Sorry, I do try to argue against fallacies you currently embrace, but I have a rather historical bent, so I do tend to end up arguing against things the RCC USED TO believe sometimes instead of things you CURRENTLY believe.

[desertknight]

Ummm...but he has the power to un-grant it.

In theory, yes.  Holy Scripture is explicit in that power for all priests.  It is the person's actions, not the priest's, that determine that.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of excommunication however, which is where in the Church, that this power is generally exercised.  The onus, and therefor the power, of one's salvation, rest with you, not with some priest or Pope.

But that doesn't cause salvation?  Can you explain to me how it doesn't?

No.  Because salvation is obtainable only by the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, through our cooperative effort with Him.  No man has any power to determine that whatever.  That priest may have such power to "bind", which is the same with all Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, which is absolute, but it is within the context of the Church, that priest are given authority and only then.  

Sorry, I do try to argue against fallacies you currently embrace, but I have a rather historical bent, so I do tend to end up arguing against things the RCC USED TO believe sometimes instead of things you CURRENTLY believe.

Minus any concrete examples, and I would love to see you quote anything that I have posted that is in violation of Catholic dogma or doctrine...no really, put up or shut up, bub(!), or for that matter, please post some dogma or doctrine that we Catholics "used" to teach, but no longer do, until then, I will just take this to be the cheap shot it was intended to be.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Minus any concrete examples, and I would love to see you quote anything that I have posted that is in violation of Catholic dogma or doctrine...no really, put up or shut up, bub(!), or for that matter, please post some dogma or doctrine that we Catholics "used" to teach, but no longer do, until then, I will just take this to be the cheap shot it was intended to be.

Hahahahahahaha!!!  It was a cheap shot, and it was intended as one.  I think...there's no point in defending against that.  You have me dead to rights there.

Be that as it may, if you'd like I can dig up some nice differences between the Council of Trent and Vatican II.  I don't really relish doing it, as wading through Trent is one of the least fun things on earth to do, right beside trying to spay your own cat and being sent on a blind date to the Rocky Horror picture show.

[desertknight]

Well if it's that fun....then I insist!

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Given my general disinterest in wading through Trent more than once this lifetime, I've taken the low road and grabbed something from a different council:

The Ecumenical Council of Florence:

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; ... and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Vs.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 15:

"...the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium, 15)

or...

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio:

...among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies.

...Large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection....The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

That's a pretty obvious contradiction.

[desertknight]

That's a pretty obvious contradiction.

No, you are simply misreading it, for they are talking about two different things.  It is easier to understand the Church's position if you just reverse the order in which you presented them.

Unitatis Redintegratio:

1.  Are Protestants Christian, (within a certain orthodox definition.)?

The Church says yes!

Lumen Gentium, 15:

2.  Then can Protestants obtain salvation outside of the graces, given by Christ to His Church to bestow, to those same Protestants who remain outside of the Church?

The Church says no.  At some point.  In some manner.  They must reconcile to be redeemed.

There is no contradiction whatever.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

So Protestants are Christians...who aren't saved?

Riiiiiiiiight.

[desertknight]

Ah, but that is a different subject.  You offered something as an inconsistency in basic doctrine.  I simply pointed out that it was not.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

A different subject? It's a paraphrase of your last post.

1.  Are Protestants Christian...The Church says yes!

So Protestants are Christians...

2.  Then can Protestants obtain salvation...who remain outside of the Church?
The Church says no.

...who aren't saved?

At any rate, people can simply read the RCC's official doctrinal statements I posted on the last page for themselves.  Without some sort of hairy exegetical manipulation of the texts, they are clearly in opposition.

[broach972]

Given my general disinterest in wading through Trent more than once this lifetime, I've taken the low road and grabbed something from a different council:

The Ecumenical Council of Florence:

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; ... and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Vs.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 15:

"...the Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christ, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium, 15)

or...

Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio:

...among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day the movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. This movement toward unity is called "ecumenical." Those belong to it who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Savior, doing this not merely as individuals but also as corporate bodies.

...Large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection....The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)

That's a pretty obvious contradiction.

I think that this has been covered before in another thread, and I can resolve the dilemma here.  The resolution is quite simple if one truly understands history.  Everything must be looked at in context.

There is no contradiction.  The important thing is to realize when the Council of Florence was held--prior to the Reformation.  The council's decree were aimed at other Catholics, including pagans, Jews, and heretics.  There were no "Protestants" to speak of at this time.  Catholics who knowingly reject the Church and its doctrines put their salvation in jeopardy.

Fast forward.  The Reformation occurs and spreads throughout the world.  Christianity is fractured and denominations spring up around the world.  The current Church's postion as stated in Lumen Gentium does not contradict the decrees of the Council of Florence or even the Council of Trent.  Those decrees were directed at Catholics who should have known better, and decided to jump ship.

The bottomline: Protestants these days just don't know any better and are ignorant to the truth of fullness of the Catholic faith.  They are not exactly accountable in the Catholic sense.  Are they Christians...yes.  Are they saved...well, only God makes that determination.  Those outside the Church are our separated brethren but through their baptism and belief, we are all connected.  I believe Lumen Gentium says it all.

Hope that I shed some light on the matter.  I know that this is a pretty brief explanation but time is a precious commodity these days.

[desertknight]

Without some sort of hairy exegetical manipulation of the texts, they are clearly in opposition.

They clearly are not.  My answer to you certainly didn't suffer from any "hairiness".  It was short, direct, and on point.  There is no contradiction, because they are directed at two separate questions.  1.  Who can be defined as a Christian.  2.  In which ways can Christians imperil their salvation.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I think that this has been covered before in another thread, and I can resolve the dilemma here.  The resolution is quite simple if one truly understands history.  Everything must be looked at in context.

There is no contradiction.  The important thing is to realize when the Council of Florence was held--prior to the Reformation.  The council's decree were aimed at other Catholics, including pagans, Jews, and heretics.  There were no "Protestants" to speak of at this time.  Catholics who knowingly reject the Church and its doctrines put their salvation in jeopardy.

Fast forward.  The Reformation occurs and spreads throughout the world.  Christianity is fractured and denominations spring up around the world.  The current Church's postion as stated in Lumen Gentium does not contradict the decrees of the Council of Florence or even the Council of Trent.  Those decrees were directed at Catholics who should have known better, and decided to jump ship.

The bottomline: Protestants these days just don't know any better and are ignorant to the truth of fullness of the Catholic faith.  They are not exactly accountable in the Catholic sense.  Are they Christians...yes.  Are they saved...well, only God makes that determination.  Those outside the Church are our separated brethren but through their baptism and belief, we are all connected.  I believe Lumen Gentium says it all.

Hope that I shed some light on the matter.  I know that this is a pretty brief explanation but time is a precious commodity these days.

It's a good explanation, except that it doesn't match the text.  You say that it is aimed at "other Catholics, including..." 

But it actually addresses "ALL those outside the Catholic Church," and even makes special mention of schismatics:

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; ... and that nobody can be saved...unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

The final statement is the easiest.  "Nobody can be saved unless he has persevered the bosom and unity of the Cathoilc Church."

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

They clearly are not.  My answer to you certainly didn't duffer from any "hairiness".  It was short, direct, and on point.  There is no contradiction, because they are directed at two separate questions.  1.  Who can be defined as a Christian.  2.  In which ways can Christians imperil their salvation.

I'm sorry but short as your answer was, it just doesn't compute.  A Christian is, by definition, one who is assured of their salvation (even if that reality isn't fully realized yet).  Separating the two is a non-sequitor.

I believe I understand why you have done so.  I believe your answer is predicated on an entirely different (Catholic) doctrine that I (also) disagree with...the idea of mortal versus venial sins.

To me (and not just me) the very notion that someone could be a Christian, but not eventually be saved, is jibberish.  It's suggesting that someone could be "a Christian without being a Christian."  Not coincidentally, this is the same language that Calvanists use to speak of "blaspheming the Spirit," which is the closest thing to a mortal sin that exists in the Protestant wing of Christendom.

I'm lead to think that reaching a decisive conclusion here may be a lost cause.  We're no longer standing on enough common ground to make arguments that even make sense to each other here.

Tell me if you copy.  10-4, over and out.

Jarrod

[desertknight]

Yes, it seems it is a by-passing of terms.  To us, becoming Christian, i.e., to be "born again", is to be baptized.  Quite necessary for salvation, but certainly no assurance of it.  We, and Holy Scripture, do not buy that, otherwise we would not be instructed to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."  There are no assurances, except the promises of Christ.  The divisions of sin, although it must be clearly understood, is as sensible as understanding that the young boy who lies about breaking a window with the whopper he just hit in stick-ball, and is then hit by a bus and killed before repentance, will suffer the same pains of hell that Adolph Hitler will.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Yes, it seems it is a by-passing of terms.  To us, becoming Christian, i.e., to be "born again", is to be baptized.  Quite necessary for salvation, but certainly no assurance of it.

Does the RCC believe in "spirit baptism?"  If so, do they regard it as a separate event from water baptism?

For myself, I consider what many would call "spirit baptism" to be the beginning of actual Christianity, and to be an assurance of salvation.  Water baptism is (to me) the church's recognition of an individual as a Christian - but in my view, the church is not always correct in her recognitions (wolves among the flock, etc).

I think that ideally, the two should occur together, but that this is, sadly, not always (or even usually) the case.

I've simplified a bit, and skewed towards baptism without mentioning other necessities here.  Hopefully you will forgive me; it was done in the hopes of re-establishing some common ground on which to debate.

We, and Holy Scripture, do not buy that, otherwise we would not be instructed to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling."  There are no assurances, except the promises of Christ.  The divisions of sin, although it must be clearly understood, is as sensible as understanding that the young boy who lies about breaking a window with the whopper he just hit in stick-ball, and is then hit by a bus and killed before repentance, will suffer the same pains of hell that Adolph Hitler will.

I think you may have put me in the wrong pigeonhole regarding my views on justification and sacrification.  I think Luther was wrong.  Maybe we should talk about that...it would be nice to agree with you for a change. 

And I quite believe in "working out salvation with fear and trembling;" my understanding of the verse and passage is lucid (though I'm fast concluding that it isn't identical with yours).

Nonetheless, I believe in an assurance of salvation, precisely because the Bible does talk about it.  I offer the following apposite verses for your consideration:

2Cr 1:21-22 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, [is] God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts. 

2Cr 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

Eph 1:13-14 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,  Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 

I ask that you consider the definition of Earnest as it is used in these verses.

[desertknight]

Does the RCC believe in "spirit baptism?"  If so, do they regard it as a separate event from water baptism?

I'm really not qualified to answer in this area as I just don't know enough about it.  I think it does, but not in the sense that you mean it.  I believe there is such a thing allowed under exigent circumstances, i.e., one is being held in a Pakistani prison and decides to convert to Catholicism, due to obvious circumstances, there are allowances for a "baptism of the spirit", but I don't really know much about it beyond that.

Hopefully you will forgive me; it was done in the hopes of re-establishing some common ground on which to debate.

There is plenty of common ground, but the nature of the debate and any message board is not very conducive to it.    

And I quite believe in "working out salvation with fear and trembling;" my understanding of the verse and passage is lucid (though I'm fast concluding that it isn't identical with yours).

Probably not, as the soul purpose of Christ's visible Church on earth and it's Sacraments,  is to serve as the very instrument for that goal.  That, by the way, is the theological basis for Lumen Gentium.

Nonetheless, I believe in an assurance of salvation, precisely because the Bible does talk about it.  I offer the following apposite verses for your consideration:

To be technically correct, yes, there is an assurance of salvation because we can believe in the promises of Christ.  The problem with me at least, is I am just such a piss-poor Christian, I can never be sure.  I am faithful, however.  I am not alone in that condition.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Well, by spirit baptism I mean the reception of "the gift of the Spirit."   That is to say, the Spirit is given as a gift to the believer.

For example, in this story:

Act 8:12  But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.  13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

You may have different terminology, but I assume you believe that the Spirit is received by believers at some point?

Nonetheless, I believe in an assurance of salvation, precisely because the Bible does talk about it.  I offer the following apposite verses for your consideration:

To be technically correct, yes, there is an assurance of salvation because we can believe in the promises of Christ.  The problem with me at least, is I am just such a piss-poor Christian, I can never be sure.  I am faithful, however.  I am not alone in that condition.

Ah but there's more than just a promise, there's an earnest payment.  Did you check the definition of earnest that I provided earlier?  I shall provide here the definition of the Greek word which is translated as earnest, from Strong's concordance:

1) an earnest
   a) money which in purchases is given as a pledge or downpayment that the full amount
       will subsequently be paid

In real estate, an "earnest" is often given on a property - it is down payment money that is NOT refundable.  It is given as a show of faith that the person giving it will see the deal through to completion.

And here's one of the verses that uses that word.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

Here it says that the "holy Spirit" IS the earnest.  The Holy Spirit is a downpayment, a guarantee.

I trust you see the link I'm making between spirit baptism and an earnest on our inheritance?

[desertknight]

Your making the link, and I think there is much commonality there, but as I said, it is shaky ground for me as I just don't know enough about it.  I do know that it gets a little complicated if your talking about assurance vs. predestination, and Catholics actually do believe in predestination, but that involves some really complicated theology as to what is God's time and freedom of action vs. ours.  As to assurance after baptism, as I said, it is certainly theoretically possible, but to claim that it is inevitable, no matter what, as in once saved, always saved, makes a mockery of the very idea of good and evil and the justice of God.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Your making the link, and I think there is much commonality there, but as I said, it is shaky ground for me as I just don't know enough about it.  I do know that it gets a little complicated if your talking about assurance vs. predestination, and Catholics actually do believe in predestination, but that involves some really complicated theology as to what is God's time and freedom of action vs. ours.  As to assurance after baptism, as I said, it is certainly theoretically possible, but to claim that it is inevitable, no matter what, as in once saved, always saved, makes a mockery of the very idea of good and evil and the justice of God.

I dislike the past tense of OSAS.  Salvation is present and future, but not a past event.  Actually, the very idea of an earnest - a down payment - hints that the fulfillment of the contract is still in the future.  Nonetheless, it is a guarantee.

I also distinguish that there are multiple things that one can be saved from.  And I believe that there are two that the Bible primarily talks about - being saved from sinning, and being saved from death.  To a great extent they are entangled, first because death is a consequence of sin, and second because both kinds of salvation are contingent on faith.  But the correlation is incomplete: death can be the result of someone else's sin (for isntance, Jesus died despite not  sinning, due to the sin of others in killing Him), and God has sovereignty in election (as in all things).

As to that salvation which is a deliverance from sinning (and the negative consequences thereof), it is an ongoing reality, a present-tense salvation.  It is very much described as "walking out your salvation."  And it is quite possible to not practice faith, and in doing so frustrate this salvation which would keep one from error, and danger, and all manner of bad consequences.  That does not mean that doing so will affect one's fate at the day of judgment, though.

Which brings us to that second salvation, salvation from death, which is also salvation from God's judgment.  Eschatology is in view, so I don't know how much we can agree.  But, everyone will be resurrected - some pass into "the second death" while some pass on into the rewards prepared for them, the foremost of which is a "spiritual body." (1Cor 15)

If the "inheritance" mentioned in Eph 1 is such a "spiritual body," then the natural downpayment (earnest) on such a thing would be a measure of Spirit.  And that is fully consistent with what the Bible says.  In coming full circle, hopefully I have afforded you a proof, or at least something to consider.

In giving an earnest payment, God has declared His intention to save the one to whom it was given.  Can we frustrate this salvation from death (as it is possible to frustrate that salvation from sinning)?  Yes, but only if one returns the earnest payment that has been given them.  That is, they would have to willingly reject the Spirit.  To have it, and then send it away.  Does the Bible talk of such a thing?  It does - the "sin which will not be pardoned" is blasphemy of the Spirit.  And we've come full circle again.

Jarrod

[zoonance]

As I peruse this thread, I am struck once again with the complexity of simplicity.  It is clear that no one has a monopoly on long complicated answers to simple questions.  Does every thing about our faith require a PhD dissertation?   Is this really what God had in mind for His church? 

[mclees8]

That's a pretty obvious contradiction.

No, you are simply misreading it, for they are talking about two different things.  It is easier to understand the Church's position if you just reverse the order in which you presented them.

Unitatis Redintegratio:

1.  Are Protestants Christian, (within a certain orthodox definition.)?

The Church says yes!

Lumen Gentium, 15:

2.  Then can Protestants obtain salvation outside of the graces, given by Christ to His Church to bestow, to those same Protestants who remain outside of the Church?

The Church says no.  At some point.  In some manner.  They must reconcile to be redeemed.

There is no contradiction whatever.

I  think one of the late ecumenical councils has  ruled that protestants can be saved by reason of being less culpable. meaning thaty they were raised up in ignoranrance of the true church. I once said this was like tossing a dog a bone, but I had a dream that night that told me the word for it was condesending. It also gave me another word which i did not even know how to spell but I do now. pseudo," pseudo condesending christiaity"   

[mclees8]

I  think one of the late ecumenical councils has  ruled that protestants can be saved by reason of being less culpable. meaning that they were raised up in ignoranrance of the true church. I once said this was like tossing a dog a bone, but I had a dream that night that told me the word for it was condesending. It also gave me another word which i did not even know how to spell but I do now. pseudo," pseudo condesending christiaity"