Ask a Catholic

[Jason_J]

You are asking for more and more evidence, putting God to the test. I apologize now, but your above quote is nitpicking to the point of absolute ridiculousness, I mean, really? I read it and see words wrapped around words which cause more confusion, rather than illuminating Gods divine love, power, mercy and justice, and calls into question the very omnipotence of God by denying Him his role as our Father who takes care of us. I see human "wisdom" attempting to manipulate Gods wisdom to fit their own ideas, "they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand" Matt 13:13.

Faith4, I think we're talking passed each other (and I'm not sure where I'm "putting God to the test" or "nitpicking to the point of absolute ridiculousness").

My question is simple, and very specific (and as mentioned, hasn't received an answer): I'm not talking about mere authority. I'm not talking about martyrs. My question is: Where can I read evidence of the foundational claim of Catholic/Orthodox Apostolic Succession: that the Apostles appointed Bishops as their Successors, to take their place? That's all. The quotes from Father Sullivan's book elaborate on that question, and demonstrate the problematic nature of it, and why the quotes you provided aren't addressing this question. Where did Peter, James, John, Paul, etc appoint a Bishop(s) as their successor and/or replacement in authority? That's all I'm asking, so I don't see any validity in your assessment of my post (and frankly find it odd).

Either way (and yes, I'm very interested in whether or not there is evidence for it, since I approach these things pretty objectively, even if I am firm in my beliefs as a member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ), thank you for sharing your beliefs. For me, I am content with knowing that when I read the Bible, I see cycles of apostasy and restoration, beginning with Adam and Eve. Through that, I see God's continuous mercy and love (no matter how "long" it takes (we could ask why God took "so long" to establish the New Testament Church), since God's ways are not our ways, and time appears completely different to God), as well as justice. I see that, although the ancient Church apostatized, as predicted in the Bible, through Christ's restoration of His Church, God has provided the means by which all may receive eternal life, whether or not they lived on the earth when saving ordinances where not available (this includes prior to Christ, or times when Christianity wasn't even known to people around the world). I'm also grateful for the knowledge that there are Apostles of the Lord that guide the Church today, as well as Bishops that guide their local flocks, just like it was in the New Testament Church.

Have a great weekend!

[faith4]

Lol! Yes, I admit my writing can get strange after a while! :) All in good fun for me, I've never stopped smiling, don't take my strangeness too seriously friend or as an actual measuring rod for Catholocism I am who I am and I love God for making me this way, keeps me humble! I sincerely hope you find what I can not adequately give you.

I will indeed have a great weekend, I hope your is good too

Stay objective my friend! Peace and blessings!

[StMonica]

I have a question. How and why did the Catholics on here become former Catholics?

How did you give up the Eucharist?

[Guest]

I have a question. How and why did the Catholics on here become former Catholics?

How did you give up the Eucharist?

This question does not really belong in a thread called "Ask a Catholic".

I suggest that out of respect for Catholics in this forum, that you open a different thread to discuss this question.

Thanks!

[StMonica]

This question does not really belong in a thread called "Ask a Catholic".

I suggest that out of respect for Catholics in this forum, that you open a different thread to discuss this question.

Thanks!

I'd be happy to open a different thread. But I am a Catholic and was curious as to why they gave up their faith.

What sub forum would you recommend?

[Guest]

I'd be happy to open a different thread. But I am a Catholic and was curious as to why they gave up their faith.

What sub forum would you recommend?

I'm thinking it would be fine under Christian Beliefs Board but as it would be more a discussion about conversion to LDS teaching, I, personally, would put it under General Discussion as it would not be a discussion on specific Christian/LDS beliefs.

Just put it where you feel best. The mods are usually pretty good at moving discussions to the sub-forum that it should be under, if necessary.

[Irenaeus]

I have a question. How and why did the Catholics on here become former Catholics?

How did you give up the Eucharist?

While my conversion actually went the other way (LDS to Catholic), I think I can answer this question.

The Catholic Church teaches that the consecration of the Eucharist by the priest causes it to truly become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The fact of the matter is, however, that your average Catholic in the pew is either not familiar with or overtly does not believe this doctrine. Rather, they tend to hold to the belief more proper to other denominations that the Eucharist is a symbol of Christ's body and blood. As such, conversion to Mormonism or some protestant denomination doesn't represent any substantial loss as the perceived symbol is maintained. In fact, in the case of Mormonism, the symbol may be perceived as carrying more weight if consecrated at the hands of what one perceives to be a validly ordained priesthood holder.

Also, I would like to touch on the earlier question about the origin of the Catholic/Orthodox claim to apostolic succession.

The first thing that should be noted is that the doctrine that scripture alone is the source of doctrine is a very protestant one. As such, while there are certainly scriptural passages that can be interpreted to support the concept, the best evidence lies in traditions found outside of scripture. That being said, there are some compelling early church documents that lend credence to the concept.

Some of the best evidence in my opinion can be found in the epistles of Saint Ignatius of Antioch. He was the bishop of Antioch around the year 100 AD when he was sentenced to death by the Roman authorities. While being transported to Rome, he wrote a series of epistles extolling various Churches to maintain fidelity to their bishops.

The writings of Saint Irenaeus in the mid second century are also compelling. Irenaeus was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle. This would seem to give Irenaeus a fairly reputable source for his information. In his work "Against Heresies," Irenaeus wrote against a slew of false teachings prevalent at the time, particularly Gnosticism. In it, he stressed the fact that the teachings of Christ were safeguarded first by the Apostles, who passed that authority along to the bishops. In particular, in the beginning of the third part of that work, he traced out the succession of bishops in the city of Rome, emphasizing the authority granted by this chain and the fact that the true Church could be identified by its being in line with the bishop of Rome.

[Over43]

I find Catholicism fascinating, am not Catholic, and find this thread interesting. I might be a blunt instrument because I'm not sure I see a need to address it (the thread) in any other manner for which it was intended. Let me answer my built in question, I am a blunt instrument.

[mordorbund]

I'll answer for KountC and he can add to it when he gets back on here.

Sacrament in Catholic parlance are specific ordinances in one's life in which the power and grace of God is made manifest to His children.

There are 7 Sacraments recognized by the Catholic Church:

1.) Baptism

2.) Reconciliation

3.) Holy Eucharist

4.) Confirmation

5.) Holy Matrimony

6.) Holy Orders

7.) Anointing of the Sick

A Catholic in the normal circumstance can only avail of 6 because Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are mutually exclusive. All of these Sacraments are of equal importance in the life of a Catholic.

The Sacraments don't need to be received in this specific order (this is the order I received it - I received the first 4) but some sacraments by its nature require other sacraments first.

Baptism, for example, has to be the very first Sacrament. This is one's acceptance and commitment to accept Jesus Christ as one's Savior and to commit to following a Christian life. Most Catholics are baptized as infants or toddlers. In this case, the parents/guardians and godparents accept and commit to raising and teaching the child to follow a Christian life. Through this Sacrament all others are possible.

Reconciliation is one's act to turn away from sin and reconcile with God. Because of the nature of this Sacrament, one needs to be at the age of reason (around 8 years old or 3rd grade in Catholic School regardless of age) to be able to receive this Sacrament. One must, by his own choice, recognize the sin, confess the sin, and be penitent.

Holy Eucharist is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as a physical sign of His Atonement. Because of the nature of this sacrament, one must be at the age of reason to receive this Sacrament. And because one must be clean to partake of this Sacrament, then one must have gone through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Confirmation is when one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost and is a deeper commitment to the Christian life. Those baptized as infants must now take on their commitments separate from their parents/godparents therefore it also requires the age of reason. Some people get confirmed before they partake of the Holy Eucharist or even Reconciliation. Although, if going to a Catholic School, Confirmation is given after 3rd grade so it occurs after.

Holy Matrimony requires Baptism, Reconciliation, and Holy Eucharist as the Eucharist is given to the married couple during the ordinance of Matrimony.

Holy Orders requires the first 4. This is where one gets ordained as a priest or a nun.

Anointing of the Sick is also called Last Rites. It's basically a blessing to prepare one's self spiritually, mentally, and physically for the after life.

This should at least have scratched the surface a bit.

Is there a common thread in all the sacraments? Either in form (X must officiate, state the following, etc) or in principle (said sacraments were all performed or spoken of by Jesus and apostles, etc)?

[Irenaeus]

I should start out by making a few minor clarifications/corrections to Anatess' original post.

First, the three sacraments of initiation are Baptism, Confimation, and Eucharist. Historically that was also the order in which the sacraments were received, though in the mid 20'th century there was a push to have children receive the Eucharist at a younger age, which caused that sacrament to begin preceeding confirmation. Currently some dioceses are reverting to the earlier model of baptism, confirmation, then Eucharist, though the majority (in the US anyway) still do Eucharist before confirmation. Adult converts always receive Confirmation before first Eucharist. A convert who had been previously validly baptized will typically do reconciliation before being confirmed and receiving the Eucharist (which usually happen during the same mass).

Also, nuns do not receive holy orders. Holy orders constituted ordination to the priesthood as a deacon, priest or bishop. People who enter the religious life take special vows to join an order and become a monk or nun, but those vows are not a sacrament.

Now to the question at hand. What constitutes a sacrament has been something of a dicey subject in the Church throughout its history. The number has varied a good deal over the years, ranging from 2 (baptism/eucharist) to 40+. While Christianity in the west has tended to set hard fast numbers on the subject, eastern churches (which Catholics regard as having valid sacraments) tend to not have a definitive set in the same way that the west does. A member of an Eastern Orthodox Church may give you a funny look if you asked about the "seven sacraments."

Pin-pointing an exact time where the modern seven came into vogue is a bit difficult, as it was a gradual and organic process. They were definitively "set in stone" at the Council of Trent in the 1500's, but they were fairly broadly accepted for several hundred years before that. The main reason it was dogmatically defined at that point was in response to the rejection of many of the sacraments by the Protestant Reformation.

Catholics regard the seven sacraments to be outward signs that point to inner graces at work in the individual. They all have a traditional and biblical basis to them, with each having something of its own unique history.

On the subject of form, there is a form that must be observed for each sacrament for it to be valid. In addition to form, the proper substance and intent must be observed. For example, in baptism, the proper form is the pouring of water or immersion of the recipient with the proper words being used ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). The substance is water (no baptizing with diet coke). The intent is simply to affect a baptism and a proper understanding of what's going on (one criteria is a Trinitarian understanding of God, so Mormon baptisms are not considered valid). Baptisms and matrimony are unique in that the person performing the sacrament does not have to be a priest or bishop (though marriages are generally blessed by a priest or deacon, who acts as a witness to the union on behalf of the church. The sacrament itself is affected by the couple). Each sacrament has its own set of rules.

Anyway, I think that covers it. Let me know if you have any follow-ups.

[Jamesa]

Hello, I was wondering what Catholics believe in order to be justified or made right before God. I believe the Bible teaches faith alone saves but the faith that saves is not alone. I was just wondering what Catholics think on this topic. Thanks!

[Irenaeus]

Before delving too deeply into this topic, I should start out by saying that there is a murky quality to it. For example, while the Church will state definitively that certain people are in heaven (i.e. the saints), it has never stated definitively that anybody is in hell. Ultimately, anybody who hasn't been canonized is still something of a question mark.

Now then, onto the dogma. Catholics believe that everybody is born with "original sin," meaning that we all share in Adam's sin. Obviously there has been some controversy around this doctrine, but it should be noted that the Judaism of the old testament held that sins of the father were shared by the son, and that this stance makes a certain amount of sense in light of the communal nature both of sin and its remedy, the Church.

Moving along, what this ultimately means is that we are born with concupiscence, or an inclination to sin, along with a measure of built in sin. In other words, everybody needs Christ right from the get-go.

In Catholicism, sacraments are regarded as outward signs of graces taking place within an individual. When a person is baptized, they take part in Christ's atoning sacrifice, and receive forgiveness for their sins. At this point the person is said to be in a "state of grace," which could be oversimplified as being without sin.

There are two kinds of sin a person can commit, venial and mortal, with the latter being more severe. A venial sin is relatively minor. It damages your connection to God, but it doesn't destroy it. Venial sins do not necessarily endanger a persons salvation, and can be forgiven by reception of the Eucharist (i.e. communion). Mortal sins are severe ones, and place the person in a "state of mortal sin." A person who dies in a state of mortal sin is at serious risk of damnation.

Mortal sins cannot be forgiven by the Eucharist, and while in a state of mortal sin the person should refrain from taking communion (per Paul's commentary on eating and drinking unworthily). Mortal sins can be forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation, commonly known as confession, where the individual confesses their sins to a priest, who gives them a penance and absolves of them of their sins.

Confession largely has its historical roots in the Church's trying to figure out what to do with people who sinned after baptism. The very early Church would typically impose various restrictions, at a minimum including not partaking of the Eucharist, for periods of time lasting upwards to a decade. That practice is actually where indulgences come from, in that early bishops would often truncate a penance several years of the offending party showed that they had truly repented, allowing them to "indulge" in the Eucharist. There were some early sects, like the Montanists, who argued against there being any forgiveness for sins committed after baptism, but those beliefs were historically condemned by the orthodox Christianity.

I feel I would be remiss without pointing out that much of the modern debate of "salvation by faith" versus "faith and works" is a bit overblown. When the Lutheran's first promulgated the Augsburg Confessions, which their doctrine on justification, the Catholic response was something to the extent of "this could use some fleshing out, but we pretty much agree." People who advocate faith alone tend to be worried that people in the other camp are trying to "earn their own salvation" without Christ, while people in the "faith and works" camp are worried that the other group is trying to justify unChristlike behavior by ignoring the significance of their own actions. I would argue that both groups typically reject both extremes.

Really, what I think it boils down to is what James said in his epistle, that "faith without works is dead." This isn't saying that you need works to be saved, but rather that a person who claims they have faith without acting on it doesn't really have faith at all. In other words, faith allows salvific graces to work in us, and the outward manifestation of those graces is good works.

Anyway, I think that covers anything.

[James1]

Ok thank you for that detailed response. I really like the Christian pastor John Piper. The question came from this video:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lQvtAd7WEOY

If you could watch that and tell me what you think. That would be great. It sounds as if you agree with the video. Thanks!

[mordorbund]

Things are heated in the other thread, so I thought it might be better to post my question here.

 

How is papal authority transferred? When JP2 died and there was no longer a Bishop of Rome, where was the authority vested? Is it really among all the bishops with the Pope "first among equals", so when the first is absent you have a group of equals in authority? Or is there a sort of hierarchy of 1st Pope, 2nd Cardinals (as a group - and I just realized I don't know what a Cardinal is), 3rd ....?

[Guest]

Things are heated in the other thread, so I thought it might be better to post my question here.

 

How is papal authority transferred? When JP2 died and there was no longer a Bishop of Rome, where was the authority vested? Is it really among all the bishops with the Pope "first among equals", so when the first is absent you have a group of equals in authority? Or is there a sort of hierarchy of 1st Pope, 2nd Cardinals (as a group - and I just realized I don't know what a Cardinal is), 3rd ....?

 

I'm in a kind of hurry so I'll just answer this quickly... I'll expand on it later or maybe faith4 will come along to expand on it.

 

The authority of the Church is held by the cardinals.   The primacy of the pope among the cardinals is made by election.

 

When a pope dies, the new pope is elected by the college of cardinals from the college of cardinals by ballot.  Certain rules can be added/removed in the election process according to the Apostolic Consitution that can be changed by the Pope.

[pam]

So what exactly is a Cardinal?

[mordorbund]

So Rome has primacy because that's where Peter's chair is? And in the absence of a bishop, the priests (cardinals) then are the presiding officers? And those priests then meet together to select and vet papal candidates? Is that accurate?

[andypg]

So what exactly is a Cardinal?

 

A cardinal is a "Prince of the Church" and as I understand it, someone correct me if I'm wrong (there are some things 17 years in Catholic school can't explain), a more elevated bishop. They are given much more responsibilities within the magestarium of the Church. The way I see if, if you are going to compare it to the LDS Church, a cardinal is an apostle (though in Catholicism all bishops are heirs of the apostles). They have administrative roles in running the church. They also are the ones who vote for the next pope. Although Canon Law says any baptized male can be pope, generally the pope is chosen from the cardinals.

[andypg]

So Rome has primacy because that's where Peter's chair is? And in the absence of a bishop, the priests (cardinals) then are the presiding officers? And those priests then meet together to select and vet papal candidates? Is that accurate?

 

You are correct about Rome. Peter went to Rome and was bishop of Rome and not only that, he was made head of the Church on earth so the successor of Peter fills in the role of both Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff. Currently Pope Francis likes to stress his role a Bishop of Rome.

 

The order of authority goes like this:

1- Pope (oversees the entire Catholic Church)

2- Cardinals-Ecclesiastical leader, ecclesiastical prince, and ordained bishop. They assist the pope with the administration of the Church. Cardinals oversee the different departments of the Church (like Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was overseen by Pope Benedict XVI when he was a cardinal)

3-Archbishops- They are in charge of Archdiocese (imagine a stake president to a very large stake)

4-Bishops- They are in charge of a Diocese (stake president)

5-Priests- Assist the bishops in overseeing the needs of the people, saying Mass, administering the sacraments (6 of 7) and overseeing parishes

 

A diocese is the equivalent of a stake. Catholic Priest=LDS Bishop, Catholic Bishop=LDS Stake President

 

Papal Elecions

When it comes time to elect a new Pope when the previous one dies (or like recently, resigns), the college of cardinals (all cardinals) meet in Rome. For a few days they discuss different issues that are facing the Church and the world. Then they lock themselves in the Sistine Chapel and cast votes for the next Pope. There are no candidates. Canon Law says that any adult male can become Pope (ordination to the priesthood is not necessary to be elected). Although that is the case, cardinals only vote among themselves, so it is a very safe bet that a Cardinal will be elected (almost guaranteed, but technically speaking, Joe Biden can get elected to replace Pope Francis and it will be valid). In order to win the candidate must have a 2/3 majority, which is difficult amongst so many cardinals.

 

Recent Conclaves

The 2005 election took 4 ballots to elect Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pope. That is actually a pretty small amount of ballots, but Ratzinger was John Paul II's right hand man so it was expected that he would become Pope.

 

The most recent elections, 5 ballots were cast to elect Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio. To be honest, I thought it would be at least 6 or 7 ballots as there was no clear "leader" going into the Sistine Chapel like in 2005. According to Cardinal Dolan of New York, the college of Cardinals were very impressed with what Cardinal Bergoglio said about the state of the world and the Church and the direction it needs to go in so throughout the election process it was just a matter of getting to the 2/3 majority. To outsiders, he was a long shot, but going in the Cardinals loved him and most made up their mind about him.

 

The October 1978 conclave that elected Karol Wojtyła took 8 ballots (2 ballots per day). It was the second conclave in a matter of 2 months and they ended up electing the first non-Italian in centuries, Saint John Paul the Great.

[mordorbund]

Where do the cardinals derive their authority in the absence of a Pope? Is it because they are in essence the "equals" in the phrase "first among equals"? Or is there some doctrine on this (either in scripture or tradition)?

 

For instance, for us the scripture states the Quorum of the 12 Apostles form a governing body "equal in authority" to the First Presidency, so when that quorum is dissolved the other takes over.

 

So during the interregnum, who holds Peter's keys?

 

And bonus question: How are the keys passed?

[Guest]

Where do the cardinals derive their authority in the absence of a Pope? Is it because they are in essence the "equals" in the phrase "first among equals"? Or is there some doctrine on this (either in scripture or tradition)?

 

For instance, for us the scripture states the Quorum of the 12 Apostles form a governing body "equal in authority" to the First Presidency, so when that quorum is dissolved the other takes over.

 

So during the interregnum, who holds Peter's keys?

 

And bonus question: How are the keys passed?

 

The Catholic Church do not have the same understanding of Keys of Authority as the LDS.

 

In Catholic Tradition, full Priesthood Authority is equal among ALL Bishops.  This Authority is passed by ordination.  A Priest, who is not a Bishop does not have this same authority in some ways similar to Aaronic Priests not having the same authority as Milchezedek Priests (although, those terms are not used in Catholic organization).  So, who holds the keys of Peter in the Catholic Church?  All the Bishops.  Yep.

 

A Catholic Bishop is usually assigned to oversee a georgraphic area.  These Bishops are called "ordinary Bishops" - they directly oversee the secular and spiritual needs of the diocese that he is assigned to.  The ordinary Bishops delegates some of this authority to Priests and Deacons to govern Parishes within the Diocese.

 

As the Church grows, it became necessary to group diocese together and have a Bishop oversee these groups.  These Bishops are called Archbishops... The Priesthood Authority of Bishops are the exact same as Archbishops.  The only difference is what they are assigned to do.  Ordinary Bishops report to Archbishops for governance.

 

There are Bishops who are not assigned to govern geographic areas.  There are many jobs in the Catholic Organization that requires the work of a Bishop... There are Bishops who work at the Roman Curia (administrative functions of the Vatican), there's the papal nuncio (it's similar to an Ambassador), etc... and then there's the Cardinals.

 

Cardinals are assigned as direct Assistants/Advisers to the Pope.  I believe the Pope elects Cardinals usually from the college of Bishops - but there are rare occurrences when a non-Bishop is chosen to be a Cardinal.  The Cardinals address political issues outside and inside the Church and maintains the ecclesiastical direction of the Church against the magesterium (the correct body of teaching of the Church).  They also have the main job of electing the next Pope.  I honestly don't know if a Cardinal who is not a Bishop gets to do anything more than to provide advisory and gopher assistance to the Pope.  It's so rare that I've never really wondered about it.

 

Now, notice here that the Catholics consider Priesthood Authority equal among all Bishops regardless of what their job function is - from ordinary Bishop to Archbishop to Cardinal to Pope.  Therefore, there is no need to ordain a Bishop to be a Cardinal, etc.  This is the same Priesthood Authority talked about in Matthew that binds on earth as it is in heaven...

 

Now, as far as who has the keys to lead the Church... it is different from LDS because the Catholic Church do not believe in continuing Revelation.  Therefore, the keys of any Bishop is the same as the keys of the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) all of which must align with the Authority of the Magesterium.  A Bishop cannot just say - "I received Revelation that females can now be Priests in my diocese" because that doesn't align with the Magesterium.  Now, there might be a Council held that discusses the matter to see if it is in line with the Magesterium - with all the Bishops in attendance - and the Council might decide that the Magesterium aligns with female priests.

 

Now, the PRIMACY of the Bishop of Rome over all the Bishops is patterned after the Primacy of Peter (believed to be the first Bishop of Rome) over Paul and all the other Apostles.  Any righteous Catholic male can become the next Pope.  Basically, he gets ordained a Bishop of Rome by the other Bishops, granting him the proper Priesthood Authority and he becomes the Pope.  This was more common in the very early days of the Church... But, canon law (this is administrative law - not doctrinal law) was passed sometime ago (like 1200AD or so - I might be off a couple hundred years here) where the Pope will now be chosen from the college of Bishops ... and then recently, it's been the practice (not sure if this is in canon law) that the Pope is elected from the college of Cardinals and only Cardinals under 80 years old gets elected - I think those over 80 don't even get to go inside the Sistine Chapel, so they don't vote either.

 

Now, the only way the Catholic Church can lose Apostolic Authority is if lightning struck every single Catholic Bishop dead in one fell swoop... because, if at least one of them remain, he can get himself to the seat of Rome and start ordaining other Bishops.

 

Ask more questions!  This is kinda fun trying to see if I still remember my Catholic schooling...

[mordorbund]

When I say "keys" in this thread, I mean "the keys of the kingdom" promised to Peter in Matt. 16. So we're on the same page there.

 

I'm still a bit muddled on the statement "the keys of any Bishop is the same as the keys of the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) all of which must align with the Authority of the Magesterium".

 

Is this to say that each bishop hold's Peter's keys? In other words, there is no other ordination or ceremony to transfer papal authority on a bishop? Does that mean the Bishop of New York holds Peter's keys of the kingdom?

[Guest]

When I say "keys" in this thread, I mean "the keys of the kingdom" promised to Peter in Matt. 16. So we're on the same page there.

 

I'm still a bit muddled on the statement "the keys of any Bishop is the same as the keys of the Pope (the Bishop of Rome) all of which must align with the Authority of the Magesterium".

 

Is this to say that each bishop hold's Peter's keys? In other words, there is no other ordination or ceremony to transfer papal authority on a bishop? Does that mean the Bishop of New York holds Peter's keys of the kingdom?

 

ALL Bishops holds Peter's Keys of the Kingdom as promised in Matt 16.  The Catholic Church don't have separate keys - keys for this and keys for that.  There's one set of keys - the keys of the kingdom that binds in heaven what they bind on earth.  There is one ordination (well two, if you count being ordained a Priest first off) to the authority to hold this keys.  Once ordained a Bishop, you have the keys.

 

What makes a Pope different than the Bishop is the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.  Not a separate ordination, no.  Simply a Church Organizational function patterned after Sacred Tradition for Apostolic Succession.

 

That's why it really got me upset when SpamLDS and SeminarySnoozer pointed out all those things with Benedict V and Formosus, etc. etc. etc. and about how the Church lost Authority through those events... They come at it in the lens of LDS understanding of Authority.  It is stupid to point to all the "Break in Authority" when they have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER what Catholics believe about what Authority and Apostolic Succession means!  I was so disgusted by it that I can't even continue in those threads.  I feel really bad for faith4 and I am just very amazed that she is still contributing to these forums.

[mordorbund]

I know this is a forum (and someone else's thread to boot) and as such the discussion can meander and wander, but since this is about Catholic beliefs, let's leave the other thread out of this. I'd hate for this to get contentious when this sub-forum is specifically a place where people of other faiths should feel most welcome, safe, and comfortable.

[Guest]

I know this is a forum (and someone else's thread to boot) and as such the discussion can meander and wander, but since this is about Catholic beliefs, let's leave the other thread out of this. I'd hate for this to get contentious when this sub-forum is specifically a place where people of other faiths should feel most welcome, safe, and comfortable.

 

I agree.