tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2102746897739687811..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Verifying apostolic successionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86715976737346817472009-05-15T14:10:00.000-04:002009-05-15T14:10:00.000-04:00"But I don’t think that Stoic and Aristotelian fau..."But I don’t think that Stoic and Aristotelian faulty biology which saw in the spermatikos the whole child is something I am bound by."<br /><br />No one said you were. There are other reasons for opposing barrier methods of contraception (whether to have no children at all, or just to decrease the number).<br /><br />"As for marriage, I agree with Jesus that it can be dissolved via adultery. (matt 5:32)"<br /><br />Matthew 5:32 reads, "Everyone who divorces his wife, except for reason of <I>porneia</I> (often translated unchastity), makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Gordon Wenham comments, "Matthew 5:32 is unusual in that it says the act of divorce causes the woman to commit adultery. How can divorce by itself cause adultery? The most likely explanation is that the woman will be forced by economic or social pressure to remarry. The husband who initiates the divorce has thereby himself caused her to break the seventh commandment… Within this context, the exception clause simply notes that should a wife have already committed adultery – one type of sexual immorality – her husband can hardly be said to have made her commit adultery. There is no suggestion here that a husband gains the right to marry again." Another interpretation of this passage is that <I>porneia</I> refers to incest, which would render the marriage unlawful and invalid from the beginning. Hence, Jesus’ prohibition of divorce remains absolute as regards validly (or actually, however you want to put it) contracted marriages.Ben Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31334542310577931272009-05-15T05:22:00.000-04:002009-05-15T05:22:00.000-04:00Acolyte -- you asked about "not having masters," a...Acolyte -- you asked about "not having masters," and then you cited a couple of Scriptures. <br /><br />Look at Hebrews 13:7: Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.<br /><br />Also 2 Tim 3:17 in greater context: "10You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."<br /><br />Consider this in light of the Bereans: "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."<br /><br />This is a judgment on character by Luke, who traveled with Paul. Luke himself "carefully investigated everything from the beginning."<br /><br />I clearly stated "God has given us individuals with minds to "search the Scriptures" (not to be their masters), pastors and teachers, textual scholars who devote their lives to this understanding. I praise God for such gifts." I understand their need to work together. I also understand the need to "carefully investigate" things. <br /><br />The Catholics, in Practice, view themselves as the masters of Scripture, being the "interpreter." The Orthodox, too, make "Holy Scripture" only one part of "Holy Tradition." Neither gives Scripture its due as the sole source of God's revelation that we have today.<br /><br />As for the filioque, how do you know that I stand with the papists on that?John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7691583747415755812009-05-15T01:27:00.000-04:002009-05-15T01:27:00.000-04:00Steve,
Your example of Jesus and the Jewish leade...Steve,<br /><br />Your example of Jesus and the Jewish leadership would be germane if all things were equal, but all things are not equal so it is not an apt comparison. Jesus has a commissioning superior to theirs. Jesus’s commissioning is attested to by the miracles and prophecy. (Jn 10:38) In a similar fashion the prophets had a commissioning superior to the ordinary commissioning of the Levitical priests, which is why they could correct them. The judgment in both cases is that of a superior degree of normativity. <br /><br />Further, when you ask among the bystanders, who was to judge, there is an equivocation on the term , judge. For the question is not, who is to ascertain the truth of the matter for their own conscience, but who can settle the matter with a normativity that goes beyond in application their own conscience to that of others. The judgment of the prophets and Jesus was not on a normative par with the ordinarily commissioned Hebrew/Jewish leadership. At best they can claim Abraham and Moses, since they have no miracles and prophecy since they were ordinarily commissioned, through a succession. (Neh 7:64) Jesus clearly one-ups them through an appeal to the Father directly with attesting miracles.<br /><br />Jesus and the prophets by virtue of their superior commissioning and attestation with miracle and prophecy were in a position to challenge those lower down on the commissioned and normative ladder.<br /><br />So the question is, in the church, who is to act as the judge in terms of normatively settling a matter or dispute in applying the rule or is there to be as many judges applying the rule as there are readers of the rule? In which case, there is no judge which can settle a matter with the normativity to bind the conscience of any man other than himself and all ecclesiastical judgments are in principle revisable. Clear problems arise in say cases of excommunication.<br /><br />In 2 Tim 3, Paul seems to indicate the Scripture is the rule to be employed by the “man of God” and the way that Scripture uses that term doesn’t seem to indicate that the “man of God” is just any believer. The Scriptures are a rule to be employed by those appropriately sent and commissioned such that the question becomes, who sent these ministers? For how will they preach, unless they have been sent? Who commissioned the Reformers and with what commissioning, ordinary or extraordinary?Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12426331826757131492009-05-15T01:01:00.000-04:002009-05-15T01:01:00.000-04:00John Bugay,
As for not having masters, that bring...John Bugay,<br /><br />As for not having masters, that brings to mind Hebrews 13:7. When I read 2 Tim 3:17 it seems to me that Paul has in mind “the man of God.” Is the “man of God” there a “textual critic?” I don’t think so. How does Scripture apply the phrase “the man of God.” Just it apply it to just anyone?<br /><br />How odd, you are with me with denying papal supremacy but with the papists on the insertion of the filioque into the creed by papal perogatives. Seems like you have more protesting to do. :)Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58428712734073315732009-05-15T00:56:00.000-04:002009-05-15T00:56:00.000-04:00Ben,
I think you are confused on the supposed log...Ben,<br /><br />I think you are confused on the supposed logical necessity of the filioque. It is not a truth of logic. What I think you mean is that given certain other revealed things, it is deducible. If so, you’d need to give a deductive proof. Good luck with that. Secondly, advocates of it historically claim not that it is deducible but rather that it can be shown to be consistent, which is all we can ask of reveled doctrines. Consistency is much weaker than the necessity of truth preservation in deduction. And on that score, you’d have to show that it was reveled first. Good luck finding it in Scripture. Third, if it were reveled, then it seems odd that the Platonists were using the same arguments to prove the procession of Spirit or the Wold Soul from the joint activity of the One and Nous. The Middle and Late Platonists weren’t reading the NT.<br /><br />I maintain that abortive contraceptives are intrinsically immoral and that non-abortive methods employed with the intention never to have children are immoral as well. But I don’t think that Stoic and Aristotelian faulty biology which saw in the spermatikos the whole child is something I am bound by.<br /><br />If validity were a concept translatable to Orthodox theology you might have a coherent question. As for marriage, I agree with Jesus that it can be dissolved via adultery. (matt 5:32) Besides, ecclesiastical divorce has a long pre-schism history in the canons.<br /><br />Christ not only has two wills according to the Sixth council, but also two natural energies, which shows that there is a distinction of essence and energy in God. I’d strongly suggest you study the theology of the Sixth Council, its architect Maximus and the teaching of John of Damascus.<br /><br />“We hold, further, that there are two energies in our Lord Jesus Christ. For He possesses on the one hand, as God and being of like essence with the Father, the divine energy, and, likewise, since He became man and of like essence to us, the energy proper to human nature .But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (δραστική) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say all creation, meaning creatures.” On the Orthodox Faith, 3.15. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iii.xv.htmlAcolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39829412085977917402009-05-14T00:04:00.000-04:002009-05-14T00:04:00.000-04:00Why should we grant that despite gaps in the recor...<I>Why should we grant that despite gaps in the record?</I>To repeat myself, because we can know that apostolic succession is a necessary characteristic of the true Church in the abstract. Hence the true Church will have apostolic succession. If we can eliminate all but one of the claimants to apostolic succession as candidates for the true Church on other grounds, then the one remaining Church must have apostolic succession.<br /><br />"Meaning what? Specific examples–or the abstract principle of whether a rigged papal election is valid?"<br /><br />I need to know what you mean by "rigged."<br /><br />"This is also bound up with the issue of whether the priesthood, episcopate, and papacy represent variations on one office, or three distinct offices."<br /><br />Diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy are the only sacramental ordinations in the Catholic Church. There are indeed certain distinct graces associated with being the bishop of Rome, but one is not ordained to the position.<br /><br />"As I recall, the article is discussing canonical impediments to the right reception of holy orders."<br /><br />In that case I'd have to see the article for myself.<br /><br />"How do you break into [the circle] to verify the claim?"<br /><br />See above, and other independent arguments for the Catholic Church being the true Church.Ben Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91424631526950202142009-05-13T23:50:00.000-04:002009-05-13T23:50:00.000-04:00"Care to take a walk through Eunomianism? Care to ..."Care to take a walk through Eunomianism? Care to make a refutation of my paper on Gregory of Nyssa? We'd really love to see that."<br /><br />I'll put it on my list of projects. I may not get to it between now and September, when I plan on losing access to the internet for several months.<br /><br />"If the Filioque is logically necessary, then it’s a piece of natural theology and not revelation, which contradicts just about every advocate of it in Rome."<br /><br />Logically necessary from the premises of the Trinitarian revelation, not from premises accessible to reason alone.<br /><br />"As for sexual mores, I think you refer to the comments of a few bishops about contraception."<br /><br />If you maintain that contraception is sinful (even barrier methods), congratulations. Do you also affirm the indissolubility of valid Christian marriage?<br /><br />"And if the essence/energy distinction is false, then Christ can’t have two natural energies"<br /><br />Christ has a divine will and a created human will. There is no distinction of essence and energies <I>within the godhead</I>.Ben Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1611140545859126842009-05-13T10:42:00.000-04:002009-05-13T10:42:00.000-04:00"Clearly the religious establishment was not the f..."Clearly the religious establishment was not the final arbiter, for Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles were challenging the religious establishment."<br /><br />Steve, in Orthodoxy, authority is predicated on the spiritual life such that the prophets, apostles, and saints in seeing the glory of the Lord have this authority.<br /><br />Christ is the sovereign King of all Creation and the many rational principles in which it was created. He is in the strict sense the Bishop of Creation. What God does in Creation, He does in Redemption, to echo the recapitulatory theme.<br /><br />What you say proves a perfect example though, anytime the church's cultural autonomy was compromised or viewed as being surrendered, it was severely challenged. The Monothelite case is a perfect example (the first ecumenism), or in the case of St. Justinian closing the Academy (in recognizing Hellenistic philosophy as the root paradigm of all heresy). That cultural autonomy allows Orthodoxy to be particular, vernacular, and liturgical. So much so that the Byzantine empire was allowed to die to the Turks to maintain that cultural autonomy of Orthodoxy. This in an of itself allows Orthodoxy to be transplanted into any culture. The prize won being Russia who never had or knew of a "classical" culture like the Greeks did.<br /><br />Those who know and are of God are the final arbiter. Like the men you quote. The Religious establishment was compromised and subverted.<br /><br />"Bystanders overheard the debates. Who was to judge which side got the better of the argument?"<br /><br />The prophets, Christ, and the apostles held men accountable to their testemony whether some judged it true or not. The fact that you wish to be a good Berean in testing all things should never be a part of an Orthodox rebuff to you. Except for Mark of Ephesus and George Scholarius, the laity held the patriarchal representatives as bringing back heresy after Florence.<br /><br />Where we differ and what we see is inadequate is the 'Augustinism' you have inherited which we believe operates as both a distorted and distorting principle.<br /><br />PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51982966833921096822009-05-13T08:51:00.000-04:002009-05-13T08:51:00.000-04:00ACOLYTE4236 SAID:
"So here is my question for you...ACOLYTE4236 SAID:<br /><br />"So here is my question for you, if scripture is the only infallible rule, who is the judge to apply the rule?"<br /><br />Perry,<br /><br />As you know, Jesus conducted public debates with members of the religious establishment. So did John the Baptist. So did the Apostles.<br /><br />Bystanders overheard the debates. Who was to judge which side got the better of the argument?<br /><br />Clearly the religious establishment was not the final arbiter, for Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostles were challenging the religious establishment.<br /><br />As a practical matter, every man (or woman) in the crowd had to judge for himself. Some judged rightly and some judged wrongly. <br /><br />That's a leading theme in the Gospel of John (to take one example).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71739699681174291312009-05-13T03:47:00.000-04:002009-05-13T03:47:00.000-04:00Acolyte -- what, specifically, is "revealed" outsi...Acolyte -- what, specifically, is "revealed" outside of Scripture? <br /><br />As far as "who is the judge to apply the infallible rule," God has given us individuals with minds to "search the Scriptures" (not to be their masters), pastors and teachers, textual scholars who devote their lives to this understanding. I praise God for such gifts. <br /><br />I am with you, by the way, on the notion that no papal supremacy of any kind was accepted in the east.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22685226580055851452009-05-12T22:34:00.000-04:002009-05-12T22:34:00.000-04:00Ben,
If the Filioque is logically necessary, then...Ben,<br /><br />If the Filioque is logically necessary, then it’s a piece of natural theology and not revelation, which contradicts just about every advocate of it in Rome.<br /><br />As for sexual mores, I think you refer to the comments of a few bishops about contraception. The opinion of a few bishops does not amount to an alteration of teaching either on Orthodox or Catholic polity. And furthermore, the earlier patristic opposition to barrier methods was predicated on the belief that the child was a whole already from the male and simply given to the female, which is false. A barrier would materially contribute to an abortion. If the Eastern Fathers accepted papal supremacy, then perhaps you can explain their expression that no apostle needed the help of another in the carrying out of their ministry, and by extension, no bishop does either, in the synodal horos of the fifth council. And if the essence/energy distinction is false, then Christ can’t have two natural energies, in which case you reject the Sixth council, not to mention the Nicene and Cappadocian Trinitarian theology of Nicea and 1st Constantinople.Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3587312108025681662009-05-12T22:24:00.000-04:002009-05-12T22:24:00.000-04:00John Bugay,
The standard for right teaching is of...John Bugay,<br /><br />The standard for right teaching is of course right teaching itself, namely revelation, which will include Scripture.<br /><br />So here is my question for you, if scripture is the only infallible rule, who is the judge to apply the rule?Acolyte4236https://www.blogger.com/profile/06247421363309732839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76658502774945413972009-05-12T13:21:00.000-04:002009-05-12T13:21:00.000-04:00David said...
“But the stated defect with the rit...David said...<br /><br />“But the stated defect with the rite is the intent expressed in the rite. Not the mere fact of change of rite.”<br /><br />i) That’s not the issue. On Catholic grounds, it’s possible to verify a defective rite.<br /><br />ii) But it’s not possible, as Leo himself admits, to directly and unmistakably verify defective intent. <br /><br />iii) Leo can try to infer a defective intent from a defective rite, although even that is precarious since many or most Anglican ordinands seriously intend the rite to confer holy orders.<br /><br />iv) Moreover, even if a defective rite casts doubt on the intent, there’s the additional fact that one can use the correct right with the wrong intent.<br /><br />v) This is Leo’s argument under #33:<br /><br />a) Right intent is a prerequisite of valid ordination.<br /><br />b) Since right intent is an essentially private affair, the Church cannot directly or unmistakable verify right intent. <br /><br />c) At best, the Church can only render a probable judgment (presumption) based on the rite. To the extent that the intent is expressed through the rite, then to that extent, and that extent only, the church can render a probable judgment.<br /><br />d) But, according to Leo, the intent of the ordinand or officiate is not conterminous with the particular rite. <br /><br />Therefore, by Leo’s own argument, valid orders are unverifiable. <br /><br />And if valid orders are unverifiable, then succession is unverifiable.<br /><br />vi) Indeed, that’s the larger point which Leo is getting at. The Church of England cannot lay claim to apostolic succession. <br /><br />“The intent of the officiate and ordinand is not the issue. The issue is the intent of the church instituting the rite.”<br /><br />No, that is not what Leo says. Leo, under #33, singles out the mind or intent of the “person” who presents himself for ordination.<br /><br />So the issue of intent is personal and individual. Not merely institutional.<br /><br />You are misrepresenting Leo’s stated position to salvage your own position.<br /><br />“Yes, give me a list of all the people the docuements passed through to get to you today.”<br /><br />An ignorant request, since textual criticism doesn’t require on a succession of scribes or succession of MSS.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89997712775456900422009-05-12T12:51:00.000-04:002009-05-12T12:51:00.000-04:00BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
“Yes, what's your point?”
You...BEN DOUGLASS SAID:<br /><br />“Yes, what's your point?”<br /><br />You said “Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.”<br /><br />But if the church fathers lay down certain conditions for office-holders, then you’d need to confirm, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not those conditions were met. That would be inside the fold. <br /><br />“Which is why one should pare the field down to one by process of elimination. This need not involve exhaustive historical demonstration of any claimant's episcopal succession. I'm perfectly willing to grant that all three have valid episcopal succession, in spite of gaps in the historical record.”<br /><br />i) Why should we grant that despite gaps in the record?<br /><br />ii) Moreover, even if we had exhaustive records, such records can’t record the mind or intent of the interested parties. They only record the external action. What rite was used. Who was ordained by whom according to said rite.<br />While that’s a necessary condition to verify succession, it’s hardly a sufficient condition.<br /><br />“Well, this is a bit off the topic of apostolic succession (given that all the papal claimants were validly consecrated bishops)”<br /><br />i) To begin with, how do you know that they were validly consecrated? At best, you can verify the rite, but not the mind or intent of the officiate or ordinand. <br /><br />ii) Moreover, papal succession is a subset of apostolic succession, is it not? Aren’t there parallel arguments regarding the legitimacy of papal elections (e.g. simoniacal papal elections)? <br /><br />“I need more particulars to answer this question.”<br /><br />Meaning what? Specific examples–or the abstract principle of whether a rigged papal election is valid?<br /><br />“There are many arguments for the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ, many of which you are doubtless aware of.”<br /><br />That’s the problem. I’ve heard all the arguments. <br /><br />“A papal election is not a Sacrament. Sacraments can be conferred validly but illicitly. On the other hand, papal elections confer jurisdiction, and jurisdiction (i.e., lawful right to rule) by nature can only be conferred licitly. Hence illegal papal elections are null and void.”<br /><br />i) When Catholicism asserts apostolic succession, there are different elements that go into that claim. The valid ordination of a priest. The valid consecration of a bishop. The valid election of a pope. Validity (or the lack thereof) operates at different levels. <br /><br />ii) This is also bound up with the issue of whether the priesthood, episcopate, and papacy represent variations on one office, or three distinct offices. <br /><br />iii) Isn’t there a sacramental dimension to papal office, according to which the office confers certain graces on the incumbent to which an ordinary priest or bishop isn’t privy? <br /><br />Put another way, isn’t there a transference of distinctive graces and prerogatives from a papal predecessor to his successor? <br /><br />“Hence it is hypothetically possible that some Catholic ‘priests’ and ‘bishops’ have been invalidly ordained.”<br /><br />Over the past 2000 years, given the sheer number of sacerdotal ordinations, episcopal consecrations, and papal elections, there are plenty of opportunities for the lines of succession to break down.<br /><br />“That passage from the encyclopedia describes the requirements for "lawful" (licit) reception of orders. One who failed these requirements could still meet the criteria for bare validity.”<br /><br />As I recall, the article is discussing canonical impediments to the right reception of holy orders. <br /><br />“A Catholic would again appeal to the general superintendence of the Holy Spirit to assure that such aberrations would remain aberrations.”<br /><br />Again, aren’t you moving in a circle. The Holy Spirit superintends the true church. The true church is superintended by the Holy Spirit. How do you break into circular to verify the claim? <br /><br />It’s not as if Catholics can make a direct appeal to the Holy Spirit to validate their system.<br /><br />For one thing, isn’t the providential action of the Holy Spirit supposed to be expressed through the church itself? Mediated by the organs of the church?<br /><br />For another thing, if Catholics can make direct appeals to the Holy Spirit, so can other Christians.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83476343900387005442009-05-12T10:03:00.000-04:002009-05-12T10:03:00.000-04:00"I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has compromi..."I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has compromised essential Christian sexual morality, that the Eastern Fathers accepted the papal supremacy prior to the Schism, that the circumstances of their rupture with the papacy are indefensible, that the Filioque is logically necessary, that the essence/energies distinction is false, etc."<br /><br />Filioque logical necessity and essence/energy distinction false?<br /><br />Of course, the Romanists don't seem to fair very well when they come argue with us. They are akin to the big infallible church that acts tough behind your back, but when confronted and showed their error they put on their ecumenist hat.<br /><br />Care to take a walk through Eunomianism? Care to make a refutation of my paper on Gregory of Nyssa? We'd really love to see that.<br /><br />PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-82371432318993222412009-05-12T00:34:00.000-04:002009-05-12T00:34:00.000-04:00"In your opening move you posited a tautology. Whe..."In your opening move you posited a tautology. When challenged, you bolster your tautology with a string of IOUs."<br /><br />I'm just responding to the logic of your arguments. If you want biblical and patristic studies from me in defense of the doctrine of apostolic succession, that will have to wait. Right now I need prayer and sleep.<br /><br />"didn’t the church fathers lay down certain qualifications for episcopal office?"<br /><br />Yes, what's your point?<br /><br />"But if there are three different claimants to the 'fold,' then each claimant regards the rival claimant as 'outside the fold.'"<br /><br />Which is why one should pare the field down to one by process of elimination. This need not involve exhaustive historical demonstration of any claimant's episcopal succession. I'm perfectly willing to grant that all three have valid episcopal succession, in spite of gaps in the historical record. Claimant Churches can be invalidated as candidates for the true Church of Christ on other grounds. For example, I would argue that Eastern Orthodoxy has compromised essential Christian sexual morality, that the Eastern Fathers accepted the papal supremacy prior to the Schism, that the circumstances of their rupture with the papacy are indefensible, that the Filioque is logically necessary, that the essence/energies distinction is false, etc. <br /><br />"In the Great Schism, tell me which claimant was the true successor to St. Peter, and which claimants were usurpers to the papal throne?"<br /><br />Well, this is a bit off the topic of apostolic succession (given that all the papal claimants were validly consecrated bishops), but here's the answer: http://www.popechart.com/<br /><br />Do you want a justification of any particular point?<br /><br />"Catholic historians admit the existence of rigged papal elections. Is a rigged election a valid election?"<br /><br />I need more particulars to answer this question.<br /><br />"Why should we accept your monopolistic claim on the superintendence of the Holy Spirit?"<br /><br />Good grief, you're firing buckshot. There are many arguments for the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ, many of which you are doubtless aware of.<br /><br />"Didn’t Julius II declare simoniacal papal elections null and void? Yet simoniacal papal electors intended to elect a pope. And simoniacal candidates intended to be elected pope."<br /><br />A papal election is not a Sacrament. Sacraments can be conferred validly but illicitly. On the other hand, papal elections confer jurisdiction, and jurisdiction (i.e., lawful right to rule) by nature can only be conferred licitly. Hence illegal papal elections are null and void.<br /><br />"That requirement is more expansive than the bare intent to become a priest."<br /><br />That passage from the encyclopedia describes the requirements for "lawful" (licit) reception of orders. One who failed these requirements could still meet the criteria for bare validity.<br /><br />"Leo XIII admitted that, due to the unverifiable condition of right intent, the validity of ordination was presumptive rather than demonstrable."<br /><br />Hence it is hypothetically possible that some Catholic "priests" and "bishops" have been invalidly ordained. I remember, for example, either reading or hearing about a racist Spanish bishop in South America who withheld his intent whenever he "ordained" native clergy. He fessed up on his deathbed, and the situation was rectified. A Catholic would again appeal to the general superintendence of the Holy Spirit to assure that such aberrations would remain aberrations.Ben Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45294302176876694052009-05-11T23:04:00.000-04:002009-05-11T23:04:00.000-04:00"His primary objection is that Anglican orders are..."His primary objection is that Anglican orders are invalid, not due to their defective intent, but due to their defective rite."<br /><br />But the stated defect with the rite is the intent expressed in the rite. Not the mere fact of change of rite.<br /><br />"A list of succession fails to document the intent of the officiate or ordinand. "<br /><br />The intent of the officiate and ordinand is not the issue. The issue is the intent of the church instituting the rite.<br /><br />"Standard evangelical commentaries, monographs, and NT introductions discuss the provenance of the NT documents. Do you have a specific objection to raise?"<br /><br />Yes, give me a list of all the people the docuements passed through to get to you today.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941498186429116250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-39502742937930097142009-05-11T22:58:00.000-04:002009-05-11T22:58:00.000-04:00"If it's on the internet, could you provide a link..."If it's on the internet, could you provide a link to it?"<br /><br />Visit a web site of any of the major patriarchates and they will give succession lists.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04941498186429116250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15756965930385117292009-05-11T16:19:00.000-04:002009-05-11T16:19:00.000-04:00BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
“Biblical arguments, patristic...BEN DOUGLASS SAID:<br /><br />“Biblical arguments, patristic testimony, arguments from fittingness, etc.”<br /><br />i) Ben, you’re running in place. In your opening move you posited a tautology. When challenged, you bolster your tautology with a string of IOUs. <br /><br />ii) Moreover, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept patristic authority for apostolic succession, didn’t the church fathers lay down certain qualifications for episcopal office? <br /><br />“I agree that proving Apostolic Succession in the abstract does not narrow the candidates for the true Church down to just Catholicism. But it does narrow the field to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, or the church catholic of high Anglican ecclesiology. One can proceed from there by process of elimination.”<br /><br />Well, let’s compare that with what you originally said:<br /><br />“Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.”<br /><br />But if there are three different claimants to the “fold,” then each claimant regards the rival claimant as “outside the fold.” Therefore, each claimant would have to verify its episcopal succession through historical and documentary investigation. Each claimant is outside the fold relative to every other claimant. <br /><br />And that’s even after we grant your tendentious tautology about apostolic succession. <br /><br />“The Catholic Church claims to be the only church which meets all the criteria for the true Church, while admitting that other societies may meet some of the criteria.”<br /><br />i) In which case the stray sheep have, at best, one hoof inside the fold and one hoof outside the fold.<br /><br />ii) And, of course, the rival claimants make the same self-serving claims about themselves, to the detriment of their rivals.<br /><br />“And all the historical evidence which exists is consistent with Catholic claims of episcopal succession.”<br /><br />i) Really? In the Great Schism, tell me which claimant was the true successor to St. Peter, and which claimants were usurpers to the papal throne? (To take one example.)<br /><br />ii) What about rigged papal elections? Catholic historians admit the existence of rigged papal elections. Is a rigged election a valid election? <br /><br />“My point in bringing up the superintendence of the Holy Spirit is to explain why we can maintain our certainty of holding valid apostolic succession in spite of gaps in the historical record and our inability to read men's minds as they consecrate.”<br /><br />Which assumes the Holy Spirit signed an exclusive contract with the Vatican. Why should we accept your monopolistic claim on the superintendence of the Holy Spirit?<br /><br />“A bishop who sells his services is perfectly capable of intending to confer orders when he performs the rite. What relevance does simony have to this discussion?”<br /><br />Well, that raises several issues:<br /><br />i) Didn’t Julius II declare simoniacal papal elections null and void? Yet simoniacal papal electors intended to elect a pope. And simoniacal candidates intended to be elected pope.<br /><br />ii) Apropos (i), isn’t the underlying objection to simoniacal papal elections that the candidate only wants the job for the fringe benefits? There’s no good faith intention to discharge the duties of the papal office. Rather, he’s in it for the perks of high office. <br /><br />And the same reasoning would logically apply to other simoniacal transactions, would it not?<br /><br />iii) To take another example, <br /><br />“The lawful reception of Orders demands outstanding and habitual goodness of life, especially perfect chastity. Solid possession of this latter virtue is an indispensable condition of a clerical vocation and its presence must be positively evident," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:89a.<br /><br />That requirement is more expansive than the bare intent to become a priest. The ordinand must be properly motivated in other respects as well. <br /><br />iv) Leo XIII admitted that, due to the unverifiable condition of right intent, the validity of ordination was presumptive rather than demonstrable.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31239489995496114832009-05-11T15:00:00.000-04:002009-05-11T15:00:00.000-04:00Steve,
Without correct doctrine, there is no apost...Steve,<br />Without correct doctrine, there is no apostolic succession, and without it succession is ruptured. Apostolic succession involves not only right sacramental form, but also passing down paradosis : scripture and the apostolic hermeneutic. That would also commit us to a certain manuscript tradition.<br /><br />"When Orthodox writers say they acknowledge the pope as the first among equals, is that acknowledgement actual or hypothetical?"<br /><br />That would be a hypothetical based on a confession of Orthodoxy and continuance. He's the first See based on the legacy of both Peter and Paul.<br /><br />"Does the Orthodox church take the position that the Roman succession is unbroken? Does the Orthodox church regard any particular pontiff as a legitimate successor to St. Peter?"<br /><br />It's hard to tell these days in the age of Ecumenism since Athenagoras of unhappy memory lifted the anathemas against Rome. It really depends on who you talk to today that consider themselves "Orthodox." The authentic Orthodox position would be no they don't have apostolic succession since the sacramental form is not sufficient in and of itself to grant the ordination, you must also pass on right doctrine.<br /><br />PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47678426242736258102009-05-11T13:02:00.000-04:002009-05-11T13:02:00.000-04:00"That’s a hypothetical syllogism. How do you prove..."That’s a hypothetical syllogism. How do you prove the conditional premise?"<br /><br />Biblical arguments, patristic testimony, arguments from fittingness, etc.<br /><br />"If, for the sake of argument, we grant the truth of apostolic succession, that abstract doctrine doesn’t select for any particular ecclesiastical claimant. You still have to prove, at a concrete level, which rival claimant has a valid claim."<br /><br />I agree that proving Apostolic Succession in the abstract does not narrow the candidates for the true Church down to just Catholicism. But it does narrow the field to Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, or the church catholic of high Anglican ecclesiology. One can proceed from there by process of elimination.<br /><br />The Catholic Church claims to be the only church which meets all the criteria for the true Church, while admitting that other societies may meet some of the criteria.<br /><br />"You need some independent evidence, apart from the self-serving claims of your denomination, to validate your episcopal succession."<br /><br />And all the historical evidence which exists is consistent with Catholic claims of episcopal succession. My point in bringing up the superintendence of the Holy Spirit is to explain why we can maintain our certainty of holding valid apostolic succession in spite of gaps in the historical record and our inability to read men's minds as they consecrate.<br /><br />"Once more, what about simoniacal transactions (to take one prominent example)?"<br /><br />A bishop who sells his services is perfectly capable of intending to confer orders when he performs the rite. What relevance does simony have to this discussion?Ben Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17781033703792209212009-05-11T12:31:00.000-04:002009-05-11T12:31:00.000-04:00BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
“If the doctrine is true, the ...BEN DOUGLASS SAID:<br /><br />“If the doctrine is true, the truth of the fact necessarily follows.”<br /><br />A tautology. That ducks the question of how you prove the tautology. <br /><br />“If apostolic succession is an essential attribute of the true Church of Christ, then the true Church of Christ has valid apostolic succession.”<br /><br />Two basic problems:<br /><br />i) That’s a hypothetical syllogism. How do you prove the conditional premise?<br /><br />ii) If, for the sake of argument, we grant the truth of apostolic succession, that abstract doctrine doesn’t select for any particular ecclesiastical claimant. You still have to prove, at a concrete level, which rival claimant has a valid claim.<br /><br />“Hence Catholics derive their certainty regarding the validity of our bishops' apostolic succession from its being passed down lawfully within the true Church under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit.”<br /><br />Ben, that’s viciously circular. Since apostolic succession is a criterion for the true church, you can’t very well invoke the auspices of the true church to validate succession of its bishops. You need some independent evidence, apart from the self-serving claims of your denomination, to validate your episcopal succession. <br /><br />“Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.”<br /><br />What about simoniacal transactions? What about antipopes?<br /><br />“You misunderstand the requirement of right intent. It does not mean that one must have pure motives…”<br /><br />I never said he did.<br /><br />“Just that one must intend to confer the sacrament, as the Church does (as opposed to play acting, or conferring something other than the Catholic sacrament, or conferring nothing out of unbelief or spite).”<br /><br />Once more, what about simoniacal transactions (to take one prominent example)?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57083287887625717772009-05-11T12:05:00.000-04:002009-05-11T12:05:00.000-04:00Even if you could prove the idea of apostolic succ...<I>Even if you could prove the idea of apostolic succession in the church fathers, that doesn’t begin to prove the reality of apostolic succession.</I>If the doctrine is true, the truth of the fact necessarily follows. If apostolic succession is an essential attribute of the true Church of Christ, then the true Church of Christ has valid apostolic succession. Hence Catholics derive their certainty regarding the validity of our bishops' apostolic succession from its being passed down lawfully within the true Church under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit. Claims to orders only become a matter of doubt, requiring historical and documentary investigation and verification, when these orders are conferred outside of the fold.<br /><br /><I>And, to my knowledge, it’s quite possible in Catholic sacramentology to use a proper rite with a wrongful intent. Take simoniacal transactions, which–as you know–have been widespread in different periods of church history.</I>You misunderstand the requirement of right intent. It does not mean that one must have pure motives, just that one must intend to confer the sacrament, as the Church does (as opposed to play acting, or conferring something other than the Catholic sacrament, or conferring nothing out of unbelief or spite).<br /><br />TUAD,<br /><br />I'm not sure if these lists are on the internet, but I've seen the big yellowed volumes in the Catholic University of America library. Unfortunately, they relate who succeeded whom in the possession of various sees, but not necessarily who ordained whom. There's a serious difficulty in tracing the chain of episcopal ordination itself because so many bishops' orders derive from Cardinal Rebiba and it's not certain who consecrated him.Ben Douglasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12251222044837915281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45592753139627547972009-05-11T10:33:00.000-04:002009-05-11T10:33:00.000-04:00David: "We have a list of of the succession of bi...<B>David</B>: "We have a list of of the succession of bishops, we don't have a list of who passed on the epistles from the apostles down to the present."<br /><br />If it's on the internet, could you provide a link to it?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43185694481240938272009-05-11T06:34:00.000-04:002009-05-11T06:34:00.000-04:00Acolyte: without the right teaching What is the...Acolyte: <I> without the right teaching</I> <BR> <BR> What is the standard for judging "right teaching"?John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.com