Was the Reformation an Experiment gone wrong?

[Pfaffenhofen]

Its an unbiblical hiearchy of power and authority

Unbiblical?

You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Heaven will not prevail against it.

2000 years later, with a late frail and Parkinson-Ridden Pope and now with a frail 80 year Pope, Here She rides on the waves, not by the strength of frail looking Popes and sin-ridden men but by the wind of the Holy Spirit. Up to now, the promises have been fulfilled and nothing in the Church makes us believe it wont be fulfilled in the future.

 

[ebia]

Pope, Priest, Cardinals, most of all Catholicism is a manmade hiearchy, Its unbiblical at every turn, but since you follow tradition more than the biblical mandates you get what you pay for. your hiearchy is simple, simply in error of the living Word of God.

Presbyters (priests) and episcopoi (bishops) are in the NT. The pope is formally the Bishop of Rome. The Cardinals are bishops and deacons nominally appointed to a parish in Rome so that they elect the bishop of Rome.

You can argue that some or all of those have become distorted over time, but not that they were flatly made up out of thin air.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Old testiment= old covenant In the new covenant there are only the God appointed positions in the church Ephesians 4:11 apostles, prophets, evangelist, pastors and teachers .......also in each church there were Elders and deacons and bishops...........every position beyond the scope of these God given appointments is an unbiblical position and merely a man made hiearchy of error

The role of Peter in the NT was forgotten? Lead my sheep, thrice Jesus said to Peter after resurrection.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Pope, Priest, Cardinals, most of all Catholicism is a manmade hiearchy, Its unbiblical at every turn, but since you follow tradition more than the biblical mandates you get what you pay for. your hiearchy is simple, simply in error of the living Word of God.

You mentioned all the Catholic Hierarchy except the Pope.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

just so you understand your protestant counter parts are not in line either with the God appointed positions

Boy, who knows God's orders? You?

 

[whitetiger1]

just so you understand your protestant counter parts are not in line either with the God appointed positions

bet your the only one that knows the truth huh

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

no post worry.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Unbiblical?

You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the Gates of Heaven will not prevail against it.

2000 years later, with a late frail and Parkinson-Ridden Pope and now with a frail 80 year Pope, Here She rides on the waves, not by the strength of frail looking Popes and sin-ridden men but by the wind of the Holy Spirit. Up to now, the promises have been fulfilled and nothing in the Church makes us believe it wont be fulfilled in the future.

Presbyters (priests) and episcopoi (bishops) are in the NT. The pope is formally the Bishop of Rome. The Cardinals are bishops and deacons nominally appointed to a parish in Rome so that they elect the bishop of Rome.

You can argue that some or all of those have become distorted over time, but not that they were flatly made up out of thin air.

I have a question for my Catholic brothers and sisters...

We know that St. Peter appointed Pastors (Presbyters) and Bishops.

It would seem logical (and as a Lutheran I understand that applying human logic to theology usually ends up with a very flawed interpretation) that in order for Apostolic Succession to be truly intact, the Pope should himself appoint a successor. The present tradition of the Cardinals, who are first and foremost Pastors, electing the Pope seems to me no different than our Lutheran practice of Prsebyterial consecration of Bishops and Presidents. Considering this, it would seem to me that our hierarchy and that of the Anglican Church would remain valid (but illicit in the light of Catholic Canon Law); if I'm missing something here please enlighten me.

 

[ebia]

I have a question for my Catholic brothers and sisters...

We know that St. Peter appointed Pastors (Presbyters) and Bishops.

It would seem logical (and as a Lutheran I understand that applying human logic to theology usually ends up with a very flawed interpretation) that in order for Apostolic Succession to be truly intact, the Pope should himself appoint a successor. The present tradition of the Cardinals, who are first and foremost Pastors, electing the Pope seems to me no different than our Lutheran practice of Prsebyterial consecration of Bishops and Presidents. Considering this, it would seem to me that our hierarchy and that of the Anglican Church would remain valid (but illicit in the light of Catholic Canon Law); if I'm missing something here please enlighten me.

Bishops have to be consecrated by bishops who themselves are in the apostolic succession. That succession exists in the whole college of bishops.

The method of choosing has varied over time.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

I have a question for my Catholic brothers and sisters...

We know that St. Peter appointed Pastors (Presbyters) and Bishops.

It would seem logical (and as a Lutheran I understand that applying human logic to theology usually ends up with a very flawed interpretation) that in order for Apostolic Succession to be truly intact, the Pope should himself appoint a successor. The present tradition of the Cardinals, who are first and foremost Pastors, electing the Pope seems to me no different than our Lutheran practice of Prsebyterial consecration of Bishops and Presidents. Considering this, it would seem to me that our hierarchy and that of the Anglican Church would remain valid (but illicit in the light of Catholic Canon Law); if I'm missing something here please enlighten me.

That is something that only specialists may answer. You have to know if the succession was broken or not. Moreover, if you consecrate for the same purposes or not.

It is different to consecrate so that you celebrate the Eucharistic which is the Body and Blood of Christ and consecrate so that you Celebrate the Eucharist which is the symbol of Christ. You consecrate with 2 completely different objectives.

But I am an ignorant on the subject. The Holy See has got specialists on the matter but even these get such problems that they cannot see clearly what they got on hands.

 

[Albion]

I have a question for my Catholic brothers and sisters...

We know that St. Peter appointed Pastors (Presbyters) and Bishops.

It would seem logical (and as a Lutheran I understand that applying human logic to theology usually ends up with a very flawed interpretation) that in order for Apostolic Succession to be truly intact, the Pope should himself appoint a successor. The present tradition of the Cardinals, who are first and foremost Pastors, electing the Pope seems to me no different than our Lutheran practice of Prsebyterial consecration of Bishops and Presidents. Considering this, it would seem to me that our hierarchy and that of the Anglican Church would remain valid (but illicit in the light of Catholic Canon Law); if I'm missing something here please enlighten me.

It may not be necessary to add this, but because "appoint" is part of your question...for Apostolic Succession to be intact, it is necessary for the consecrating bishop to actually lay hands upon the candidate. How the latter is chosen to be consecrated varies from communion to communion. We Anglicans believe, for example, that he has in some way to be elected by the people of God, not merely selected by the Pope or some other bishop, etc.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Bishops have to be consecrated by bishops who themselves are in the apostolic succession. That succession exists in the whole college of bishops.

The method of choosing has varied over time.

That is something that only specialists may answer. You have to know if the succession was broken or not. Moreover, if you consecrate for the same purposes or not.

It is different to consecrate so that you celebrate the Eucharistic which is the Body and Blood of Christ and consecrate so that you Celebrate the Eucharist which is the symbol of Christ. You consecrate with 2 completely different objectives.

But I am an ignorant on the subject. The Holy See has got specialists on the matter but even these get such problems that they cannot see clearly what they got on hands.

"It is different to consecrate so that you celebrate the Eucharistic which is the Body and Blood of Christ" Such is indeed the intent of both Lutheranism and Anglicanism.

It may not be necessary to add this, but because "appoint" is part of your question...for Apostolic Succession to be intact, it is necessary for the consecrating bishop to actually lay hands upon the candidate. How the latter is chosen to be consecrated varies from communion to communion. We Anglicans believe, for example, that he has in some way to be elected by the people of God, not merely selected by the Pope or some other bishop, etc.

This is why Anglicans and Lutherans accept the validity of both our Churches polity and our Eucharist; my question is regarding why Rome neither considers Anglican and Lutheran polity and Eucharist as valid. I understand why they would consider it illicit.

 

[Albion]

"It is different to consecrate so that you celebrate the Eucharistic which is the Body and Blood of Christ" Such is indeed the intent of both Lutheranism and Anglicanism.



This is why Anglicans and Lutherans accept the validity of both our Churches polity and our Eucharist; my question is regarding why Rome neither considers Anglican and Lutheran polity and Eucharist as valid. I understand why they would consider it illicit.

There is, of course, the famous 19th century decision of Rome to find Anglican orders invalid on the basis of a change in the ordinal several centuries earlier. This is still official but is widely considered today--by both Catholic and Anglican theologians--to have been a political decision made for reasons similar to the declaration of Papal Infallibililty that came at about the same time. It is untenable for a number of reasons, frankly. However, I feel that the bigger reason for the opposition to both Anglican and Lutheran orders that you asked about is this...

The Vatican has taken to qualifying the historic doctrine of Apostolic Succession by adding a proviso that the bishops in question be in communion with the Pope. This has the practical effect of curtailing Catholic vagantes who, here or there, have ordained bishops without Papal permission. In the process, it precludes also the Anglican and Lutherans who are in Apostolic Succession. The Old Catholics are an exception because their orders come through an already-recognized line of bishops in Utrecht who may be considered an historical oddity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It may not be necessary to add this, but because "appoint" is part of your question...for Apostolic Succession to be intact, it is necessary for the consecrating bishop to actually lay hands upon the candidate. How the latter is chosen to be consecrated varies from communion to communion. We Anglicans believe, for example, that he has in some way to be elected by the people of God, not merely selected by the Pope or some other bishop, etc.

I don't know if you're right here. Paul was an apostle without ever having hands laid on him, until much later in his ministry.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have a question for my Catholic brothers and sisters...

We know that St. Peter appointed Pastors (Presbyters) and Bishops.

It would seem logical (and as a Lutheran I understand that applying human logic to theology usually ends up with a very flawed interpretation) that in order for Apostolic Succession to be truly intact, the Pope should himself appoint a successor. The present tradition of the Cardinals, who are first and foremost Pastors, electing the Pope seems to me no different than our Lutheran practice of Prsebyterial consecration of Bishops and Presidents. Considering this, it would seem to me that our hierarchy and that of the Anglican Church would remain valid (but illicit in the light of Catholic Canon Law); if I'm missing something here please enlighten me.

The Pope does not ever name his own successor. He's dead before there's a conclave.

 

[Albion]

I don't know if you're right here. Paul was an apostle without ever having hands laid on him, until much later in his ministry.

Well, all the Apostles are at the head of the line for having been chosen directly by Christ.

The question about Apostolic Succession deals with....well, you know, those who succeeded the Apostles.

 

[Root of Jesse]

point taken.

 

[kql314]

Interesting question, and thread.
As a novice church historian, I would say that the Reformation was needed at that time, and that over the centuries since the RCC has made certain alterations and its tone has changed. Generally, for the better.
But I think most Protestants would have to admit and acknowledge that the rampant splintering of groups within Protestantism is generally not a great thing. If you dig into things closely, both groups would see that there are important aspects to learn from the other end of the spectrum.
Best,
Ken

 

[Albion]

But I think most Protestants would have to admit and acknowledge that the rampant splintering of groups within Protestantism is generally not a great thing.

Yeh, I could agree to that wording. No splintering would be better, but of course the church that has had the greatest splintering of all is the Roman church that splintered at the time of the Reformation.

We can't pretend that this happened outside the Roman Catholic Church or that for the Protestant churches to have splintered is bad while the church that produced them by itself splintering somehow also remained intact.

 

[Pfaffenhofen]

Interesting question, and thread.
As a novice church historian, I would say that the Reformation was needed at that time, and that over the centuries since the RCC has made certain alterations and its tone has changed. Generally, for the better.
But I think most Protestants would have to admit and acknowledge that the rampant splintering of groups within Protestantism is generally not a great thing. If you dig into things closely, both groups would see that there are important aspects to learn from the other end of the spectrum.
Best,
Ken

From my Catholic viewpoint, I do not see one change in Reformation that would make splintering worthwhile.
The way forward is to go back to Unity, whatever it takes.