Post by Pacelli on Nov 1, 2022 8:45:55 GMT -5
Someone has written me about another issue that goes along very closely with my previous post, "A New Heresy - The Denial of the Apostolic Succession" linked HERE - dealing with the relatively new heresy of denying that bishops are essential to the Church, and therefore can never be wanting. There are some Catholics that will not deny the previous teaching of the Church, but, in order to maintain their theory of the crisis, will deny what an apostolic successor is, and replace the Catholic definition with their new definition.
Such a process is not Catholic. This is always why terms mattered so much in the history of the Church, at Councils, in all papal teachings, catechisms, etc. Any misunderstanding of terms, can easily lead to a misunderstanding of doctrine, and by that every easily lead to a belief in a new doctrine opposed to the teaching of the Church, while using the same terms! Those who are not better educated in their Faith, not seeing the sleight of hand with a new definition for the same term, are easy prey for this type of heresy.
It's also worth saying that in the history of heresies, one can find this type of sleight of hand throughout Church history, where the unsuspecting Catholic may fall for the new doctrine, as the terms remain the same, and perhaps the person doesn't have the critical thinking ability to ask the right questions or know his Faith well enough to see the change.
With all of that said to introduce the problem, let me now get to specifics: Our Lord founded a Church and in this Church there would be rulers, who would be the authorized teachers sent by Him and acting with his authority. These rulers would be the Pope who would be the supreme ruler of the Church, who would be identical to the Apostles, as his jurisdiction would extend to the whole world, and the bishops, who would rule individual dioceses (specific geographical territories). These bishops individually are successors of the apostles, but it is only in their corporate body that they are identical to the original apostles, in that their jurisdiction is limited to specific territory, while the apostles all had universal jurisdiction.
During this crisis, some, from what appears to be a distrust of Our Lord's promises, and a desire to formulate a new theory on how the Church can continue, are under the false assumption that are no more bishops from the ruling structures that came from the pre-Vatican II Church, have contrived a heretical new theory that re-defines what a successor of the Apostle is, so that they may now pretend that those with episcopal orders (traditional bishops) are now the successors of the Apostles.
One last point: Those propagating this novel teaching, very akin to those denying the necessity of living men in the world who are the Apostolic Successors, have ABSOLUTELY NO CATHOLIC SOURCES to support their new ideas, so they must be rejected out of hand by Catholics, but sadly, this is not the case, and both of these new heresies are growing, and are not being stamped out by the faithful Catholics. (Boldfacing and caps added to very strongly emphasize this point).
This post will deal with this specific problem: what does the Catholic Church teach on how one becomes a successor of the apostles, and also that episcopal orders is not the same as the apostolic succession. I will be posting sources, many which have already been posted on this forum, but as they are buried now, hopefully this thread will shine the light on the Catholic teaching yet again.
Such a process is not Catholic. This is always why terms mattered so much in the history of the Church, at Councils, in all papal teachings, catechisms, etc. Any misunderstanding of terms, can easily lead to a misunderstanding of doctrine, and by that every easily lead to a belief in a new doctrine opposed to the teaching of the Church, while using the same terms! Those who are not better educated in their Faith, not seeing the sleight of hand with a new definition for the same term, are easy prey for this type of heresy.
It's also worth saying that in the history of heresies, one can find this type of sleight of hand throughout Church history, where the unsuspecting Catholic may fall for the new doctrine, as the terms remain the same, and perhaps the person doesn't have the critical thinking ability to ask the right questions or know his Faith well enough to see the change.
With all of that said to introduce the problem, let me now get to specifics: Our Lord founded a Church and in this Church there would be rulers, who would be the authorized teachers sent by Him and acting with his authority. These rulers would be the Pope who would be the supreme ruler of the Church, who would be identical to the Apostles, as his jurisdiction would extend to the whole world, and the bishops, who would rule individual dioceses (specific geographical territories). These bishops individually are successors of the apostles, but it is only in their corporate body that they are identical to the original apostles, in that their jurisdiction is limited to specific territory, while the apostles all had universal jurisdiction.
During this crisis, some, from what appears to be a distrust of Our Lord's promises, and a desire to formulate a new theory on how the Church can continue, are under the false assumption that are no more bishops from the ruling structures that came from the pre-Vatican II Church, have contrived a heretical new theory that re-defines what a successor of the Apostle is, so that they may now pretend that those with episcopal orders (traditional bishops) are now the successors of the Apostles.
One last point: Those propagating this novel teaching, very akin to those denying the necessity of living men in the world who are the Apostolic Successors, have ABSOLUTELY NO CATHOLIC SOURCES to support their new ideas, so they must be rejected out of hand by Catholics, but sadly, this is not the case, and both of these new heresies are growing, and are not being stamped out by the faithful Catholics. (Boldfacing and caps added to very strongly emphasize this point).
This post will deal with this specific problem: what does the Catholic Church teach on how one becomes a successor of the apostles, and also that episcopal orders is not the same as the apostolic succession. I will be posting sources, many which have already been posted on this forum, but as they are buried now, hopefully this thread will shine the light on the Catholic teaching yet again.