It just boggles my mind...

[Victrixa]

...that some Christians have done/are doing profound research or studies - studies which lead up to a Master's degree and/or Doctorate in Theology - who study Patristics and Church History in detail - and still do not see that the teachings of the Catholic Church are apostolic and true and that Peter, was, indeed, the first-among-equals, the leader of the Church, the Rock of the Church and has successors - that they can't see that apostolic succession does exist.

I mention Catholic Church, being Catholic, but I'll include that Orthodoxy is apostolic as well, minus the Papacy... of which I don't understand why our Orthodox brothers don't see the evidence for Papacy as well...

Why is that so? Is it a voluntary denial of facts than to not 'see' these things, which prove Catholicism (and Orthodoxy)? Is it possible to not 'see' these things when one is deep in the study of the Fathers of the Church?

Puzzled,

Caroline

 

[Skripper]

...that some Christians have done/are doing profound research or studies - studies which lead up to a Master's degree and/or Doctorate in Theology - who study Patristics and Church History in detail - and still do not see that the teachings of the Catholic Church are apostolic and true and that Peter, was, indeed, the first-among-equals, the leader of the Church, the Rock of the Church and has successors - that they can't see that apostolic succession does exist.

I mention Catholic Church, being Catholic, but I'll include that Orthodoxy is apostolic as well, minus the Papacy... of which I don't understand why our Orthodox brothers don't see the evidence for Papacy as well...

Why is that so? Is it a voluntary denial of facts than to not 'see' these things, which prove Catholicism (and Orthodoxy)? Is it possible to not 'see' these things when one is deep in the study of the Fathers of the Church?

Puzzled,

Caroline

A brief moderator note here. The highlighted portion above is not an invitation for our Orthodox brethren to debate the papacy. It also requires no "clarification" since, unless I misunderstand the OP, (and she can correct me if I'm wrong), it is rhetorical in nature and is not a solicitation for answers as to "why" the EO deny the papacy.

 

[Victrixa]

I am not asking to debate! Oh no.... I'm just wondering about why some of our brothers and sisters - whatever denomination they're from - do not see proof for apostolic succession and the office of the Pope.... Maybe I worded my post too much..

 

[Skripper]

. . . Why is that so? Is it a voluntary denial of facts than to not 'see' these things, which prove Catholicism (and Orthodoxy)? Is it possible to not 'see' these things when one is deep in the study of the Fathers of the Church?

Puzzled,

Caroline

Well, it must be possible, because it happens. I will say this, though. And this is merely my own opinion, so it's not worth much. In order to deny the apostolic nature of the Church and apostolic succession, while studying the ECF, one must already possess a pretty strong predisposition against both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

 

[Letalis]

I think it has to do with the condition of the heart and God's calling. Theology may have a smaller part in it than you'd think.

 

[princess_ballet]

I find it interesting as well. But I suppose if you're never taught the truth, then you won't see the truth; right?

 

[Rising_Suns]

I think it has to do with the condition of the heart and God's calling. Theology may have a smaller part in it than you'd think.

And that's a very good point. When one reads the lives of the saints, many of them talk very little theology, and focus most of their work in sharing their mystical experiences or giving practical advice. Actually, except for the early saints--who actually had to figure out doctrine while the Church was still a fledgling at the time--the vast majority of them steer clear from too much theology.

That's why we have the Church; she has already figured most everything out, and we don't need to get caught up in rigorous theological discourse. It is very easy to get lost in the complex networks of theology and lose the most basic and fundamental truths in the process. That is why many great theologians made it a point to warn us about the risk of over-intellectualization, as many seem to fall into that trap and even build up great walls of pride in the process.

Actually, I am convinced that it is mostly pride that leads such people astray. Pride will blind people from even the most obvious truths.

 

[stray bullet]

What I can't wrap my mind around is how people can read the bible, see all the references to Simon as "Peter" and still say, with an honest face, that Jesus was not referring to Simon as the "rock" in Matthew 16:17

"He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter)." - John 1:42 NASB

"And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." - John 1:42 KJV

"And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16-17-18


I think people just see what they want to see.

 

[gtsecc]

I mention Catholic Church, being Catholic, but I'll include that Orthodoxy is apostolic as well, minus the Papacy...
Caroline

So.... Anglicans are not Apostolic minus the Pope?

You just asked about Apostolic succesion in STR, so you do know.
It boggles my mind.

In that same thread, I even specifically mentioned that we recognize the Primacy of Peter.

 

[stray bullet]

Anglicans are not Apostolic minus the Pope?
You just asked us about it in STR, so you do know.
It boggles my mind.

IIRC, only the Anglicans think they are apstolic.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Anglicans are not Apostolic minus the Pope?
You just asked us about it in STR, so you do know.
It boggles my mind.

gtsecc,
The Catholic Church does not recognize the Anglican Church as Apostolic, no matter how many times one goes to the Anglican forum and hears otherwise.

 

[Dream]

What I can't wrap my mind around is how people can read the bible, see all the references to Simon as "Peter" and still say, with an honest face, that Jesus was not referring to Simon as the "rock" in Matthew 16:17

An interesting note, Stray: in the original translation of the Bible, the word "Peter" and "rock" are the same word. So Jesus says: Thou art kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church.

 

[Dream]

I knew this thread was doomed from the very begining.

 

[Letalis]

Gtsecc, I think you will find many here who won't hide the truth to make buddies. Myself being one of them.

 

[Rising_Suns]

removed by moderator[/size][/font][/color]

My friend,
You are getting very defensive over a simple reply that was not in any way meant as a snub. It's just what our Church teaches regarding most Anglican Churchs and your previous post made it seem like Victrixia was wrong in her comments speaking for the Church.

With regards to the rest of your post, I do not care to respond to it. There is no need.

 

[gtsecc]

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever made an error in their teaching?

 

[Paul S]

removed by moderator

Heretics, schismatics, and apostates still go to hell. We now recognise, though, that not all non-Catholics are guilty of heresy, schism, or apostasy, since they may not have full knowledge of the Church and the full consent necessary to commit mortal sin.

Holy Orders are either valid or they are not - if they were invalid in 1600, nothing can ever change that. It's possible that apostolic succession could be restored, but this hasn't been examined yet.

Cranmer denied a sacrificial priesthood, and re-wrote the ordination ritual to reflect this. You can't have valid orders without transmitting the power to sacrifice. Since the Anglican church has now re-written the rite and is starting to believe in transubstantion, it's possible that some Anglican priests now have valid but illicit orders.

 

[Letalis]

We just all need to calm down. We're all brothers and sisters in Christ here, yes? Let's just remember to be kind to one another.

 

[gtsecc]

Seriously, it wasn't until 1967 that mutual condemnations were lifted by the Orthox and Roman Catholics. So, I thinks it is obvious that at least the male Anglican orders would be recognized eventually. And, do any of you question anything the Church teaches?

 

[Paul S]

Has the Roman Catholic Church ever made an error in their teaching?

No, and I assume you're referring to Apostolicae Curae. It is possible, though, that Pope Leo got the facts wrong, or that the facts have since changed.

All sacraments require intent, matter, and form. If one is missing, there is no Sacrament, and nothing can ever change that. Whether a particular rite has the proper form and intent can change.