What exactly do you think is wrong with the concept of “sacramental magisterial authority”?

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

To the earlier comment who felt I was driving a wedge between “visible” and “invisible”: I think the problem is that the “invisible” church concept tends to drive out the “visible” church. People with an “invisible” church understanding tend to end up regarding that, and that alone, as the “true” church. So yes, I think a robust emphasis on the visibility of the church is what is needed.

There is a parallel with those who emphasise an invisible “baptism of the heart” in distinction from “water baptism”. “Visible” baptism with water tends to become secondary to the “invisible” baptism with the Holy Spirit. But the Bible knows of only one baptism and only one church.

Both these are visible, and need to be (so we can say “I am baptised” and “there is the church” with confidence). What is invisible is the work of the Holy Spirit in working faith in those who are baptised and those sitting among the “assembly of saints” hearing the gospel proclaimed in word and sacrament.

The Vatican definition is “Everyone in communion with the pope at Rome.” Sure that fits Orthodoxy?

I can’t take Bryan Cross too seriously after all his benders on “sacramental magisterial authority.” RCC version of Steve Hays.

It is quite intriguing to realize that, although we Roman Catholics believe that Peter was not only given the leadership role (the keys of the Kingdom, etc.) but was called to be the Shepard of the Lord’s flock (“Feed my Sheep” 3x’s), it is Paul, for the most, who has defined the New Testament theology. Paul was not called and taught by the Lord where the others could see. The Lord called Him after he had ascended, and it was only through convincing miraculous Spiritual evidence that he was accepted by those who had actually walked with Jesus.

But if the Church back then clung to the ideology that Peter, the first Pope, as we RCC’s see it, was “infallible” in his doctrinal decisions, instead of listening to this Johnny-come-lately, there would be an eighth sacrament for men only, and priests would be undergoing some specific medical training along with all the other stuff they study in seminary.

In my opinion, everyone — EVERYONE — must leave room in their theology for God to be God.

Ellen

I’d humbly suggest that your diagnosis of my offendedness is off target. The kinds of conversations we have here is a matter of long-time moderation policy, not what I’m offended by. I’m not offended by hearing these explanations. I simply don’t have a “say whatever you want” comment policy, especially as regards Catholic-Protestant issues. And that’s why there is more civil, inclusive and appreciative Catholic-Protestant dialogue here than any other site on the web. Questions are answered, but every post and every discussion is not a question.

Sorry my flawed attempts at moderation have offended you. Read more of what goes on here and you might find you can say much more than you think.

BtW, you didn’t hear a detailed Protestant answer to your Catholic positions. I hope you noted that.

peace

ms

In Christ,
Ellen

Thanks for the kind explanation. I’ve been reading Catholic writers, apologists, converts, etc. for many years and I hope I have some of an understanding.

It’s because of the view of communion you are sharing that I could never become a Catholic. Among many other reasons.

But my conversion and Catholic apologetics are not the subjects here at IM.

Thanks

ms

When I tried to explain this to my 8th grade CCD students, I told them to imagine the Church as a beautiful car I owned, and I had to leave for a while so I chose one of them and gave that person the keys, and told him to take care of my car and get it back to me in one piece. Only he could determine who got the keys after him, if I didn’t come back for a while, since he was “in charge”. When I do finally get that car back, I imagine it will have a few scratches and bumps, but I will at least know how to find out where it is! Plus, the last person in charge will have the best idea of my original detailed instructions.

The “Reformation” to me is like one of the students–a clean, responsible guy who considers his ways better than the others–who sneaks the car out– (makes a spare set of keys just to get the dirty car washed, for heaven’s sake)–and the bumper falls off, starting a chain reaction of other problems. The “in charge” kid soon realizes that the car is missing, and frantically starts a remorseful search to find it and get it back (he knows it was dirty). But by then the car has been mangled pretty badly. It is missing its entire muffler system, etc… It is missing its wholeness, but it is still the original car. When I return, I’m going to have to gather up the pieces from hither and yon, and I might be pretty ticked, but I want my whole, authentic, classic original car, and I mean to have it.

Meanwhile, the car is having to function without its missing parts (the “denominations”), and it is sounding pretty bad and wobbling all the time, and is much harder to drive. I like to think, however, that if I were Jesus, I would have known all this would happen, and for a purpose, in my plan. I see, for example, that certain denominations are taking awfully good care of their missing pieces, shining them up, adding polish, knowing there is something special about the pieces they have found along the road. Maybe when my car finally gets back together it will be grander than ever.
******

BTW–Closed communion means only that if you do not accept that it is the actual body and blood of Christ, you are desecrating Him in your reception of Him, and He will be coming to you in vain. He will not let His Church do that.

I hope I cause no offense,
In Him,
Ellen

Conversion to another denomination is a big deal in my world. I don’t see it the way Catholics see it. I would never join a closed communion group. My conscience simply will not embrace such a position.

peace

ms