Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Having said that, though, how do you think their ordination of females to the episcopate and presbyterate impacts this?
Currently their bishop of Lund is Christina Odenberg. She will be replaced by Antje Jackelén. Stockholm's bishop is Caroline Krook.
Do you see it as a matter of the female 'ordinations' as causing them to lose that distinction or as a matter of an eventual watering-down of the legitimacy?
But not in that pagan cemetery on top of Vatican Hill, right?
Well good. One would expect to find Paul's burial place there in Rome as he died there, and his burial place somewhere other than in a pagan cemetery where the likes of Simon Magus would be buried.
And it is a fact that neither Peter's tomb nor his bones have been found in Rome, under the basilica that bears his name, or anywhere there. Isn't that right?
And in fact Peter's bones are in an ossuary with others on the grounds of a Franciscan monastery on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, right? and that is documented in a book called , "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests, wrote it, right?.
The excavation on the site of this monastery named Dominus Flevit uncovered ossuaries with the names of many, including "Simon Bar Jona", and Mary and Martha, and Lazarus, their brother, and other names of early Christians who would have wanted to be buried where Jesus would first set foot when he returns to Jerusalem.
Isn't it high time to "bone" up on the facts that the Vatican is even aware of?
"Do you see it as a matter of the female 'ordinations' as causing them to lose that distinction or as a matter of an eventual watering-down of the legitimacy?"
It is a violation of the canons of the One Church to ordain women beyond minor orders such as reader and likely some special form of the diaconate. Ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopacy is a clear violation. From my pov these women are not bishops and cannot ever become bishops, thus they are not within the Apostolic Succession or would any bishop consecrated by them. For that matter, one must also question the validity of the ordination of any priests ordained by them.
As to the male bishops within the Apostolic Succession who consecrated these women, well I don't think that their violation of the canons vitiates the Apostolic Succession. The history of the early Church is filled with bishops and patriarchs who were raging heretics but their position in the Apostolic Succession was never questioned nor to my knowledge the validity of the ordinations they performed before being anathemized as heretics. Even today we see vagante bishops running around ordaining people. The ordinands are certainly not ordained into the Church but there is clearly something there (absent an anathema/excommunication)even if it is uncanonical and irregular.
I do not see this as an internal problem as they have been properly consecrated; but it does create an ecumenical crisis parallel to the Anglican crisis over female Priests, Bishops, and now, a Primate.
There is a similar situation here in the US in that ELCA Bishop Carol S. Hendrix (ironically, one of the most conservative and tradionalist of all the synodical Bishops) was elevated to the episcopate following the provisions of the Called to Common Mission agreement with the Episcopal Church, so technically she is within the apostolic succession. At the time of her elevation the Roman Catholic Bishop of Harrisburg was Nicholas Datillo, and he simply could not even acknowledge her existence. Her predecessor, Guy S. Edmiston had been consecrated in St. Patrick's Cathedral. Not so for Bishop Hendrix. There is a new Bishop of Harrisburg so things have changed so greatly that in late May an ecumencial Vespers will be celebrated with Cardinal Keeler preaching and Bishop Hendrix officiating.
Complicated, not?
No, it doesn't sound like America, especially in today's age. But remember, our country, that is full of idolatry, is also full of wonderful people that truly love God.
Many of us are misled by false teachers, etc, just as they were in the time of the prophets. Our lesson, from the scripture you quoted, would be to follow the LORD, God of Israel, only and His Word. One of those ways would be to "keep the commandments, especially the 4th". I agree with you in that Saturday is the Sabbath.
For all our idolatry I still believe that America is the "wilderness" God sent the woman (Israel) to.
Rev.12:6. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
I believe that place, prepared of God, is America. As well as children of God living here we also have children of Satan and they are busy doing their jobs (and doing it very, very well). America isn't heaven so it isn't perfect but it is where the tribes of Israel are being gathered and are "being called out of Babylon". Babylon is confusion and many of us are waking up from the confusion. Our eyes and ears are being opened. Get ready for the battle.
Of course not...But then Mary is NOT the Queen of Heaven...There's plenty of scripture in the OT about the Queen of Heaven...And you are warned not to have anything to do with her...
And it looks as tho she filtered on over into the NT as the goddess Diana...She's the one people worshipped around the same time as Jesus, the apostles and Mary were living...In fact, lots of people made and sold little trinkets, statues of Diana and stuff for the pagans to display on their dashboards...
And then what happened after 1260 days??? Why is the number of days significant???
The testimony of church father Hippolytus may be instructive to us all here:
"The disciples, then, of this (Magus), celebrate magical rites, and resort to incantations. And (they profess to) transmit both love-spells and charms, and the demons said to be senders of dreams, for the purpose of distracting whomsoever they please. But they also employ those denominated Paredroi. "And they have an image of Simon (fashioned) into the figure of Jupiter, and (an image) of Helen in the form of Minerva; and they pay adoration to these." But they call the one LORD and the other LADY. And if any one amongst them, on seeing the images of either Simon or Helen, would call them by name, he is cast off, as being ignorant of the mysteries." [Hippolytus: Refutation: Book VI; Chapter XV]
Simon Magus's mistress was worshipped as "Our Lady" --- and church father Eusebius tells us that the disciples of Simon were bringing her worship into the early church.
That, in of itself, brings up two interesting questions. First, what about their status after they have done the heretical act? In the Latin Church, there is the concept of latae sentinae excommunication. Do the concilliar councils call for automatic anathemization, or must it be declared? If so, who has the authority to declare it? (As they unequivicobly fell under the authority of the Latin Patriarch before the schism, would it be his perogative to anathemize them?)
Secondly, after they were anathemized, would they have the ability to perform valid, but illicit, ordinations? (I concur that their episcopal ordination cannot be removed)
I'm pretty certain I know what the Catholic position is on this, but curious what the Orthodox one would be.
Gee, didn't realize you were such a fan of the Divinci Code!
Gee, didn't realize you were such a fan of the Divinci Code!
Then apparently so are the keepers of the Franciscan Monstery of Dominus Flevit.
I won't quibble.....but the Orthodox consider him an Apostle. Others do as well. Personally, I don't think he was as he never saw the Lord....and this was one of the requirements. [1 Corinthians 9:1]
And as I've pointed out before, I think we've both presented our evidence. We both think we're right. And neither of us are convinced.
The difference in our positions on this matter is the same as it usually ends up....I provide scripture to support my position....you present tradition.
LOL--LMAO--ROTFLMAO!!! Well, maybe the American Indians are actually descendents of Israel, too. Maybe that's why the angel Moroni came and gave them the plates. (No offense to any Mormons who might be reading the thread.
Not knowing too much about the Mormons...I cannot say. But I do know a little about the word of God. [Amos 9:9] For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.
Why would the Holy Spirit....in your opinion inspire those words to be written?
You say so...
I am leaving this thread now. I hope you have a good evening.
You say so...
I am leaving this thread now. I hope you have a good evening.
I remember hearing of this as a young man and recall my Grandfather remarking that this won't sit well with the Romans. LOL!
My entire family of well-educated and knowledgeable Catholics who thought they knew everything about the church knew nothing about this. They lived and died in the dark thinking that the Vatican was the compendium of religious truth.
Shame on every Catholic who knows about this and is unwilling to tell as many of their own as possible.
BTW The link at the end of the article called "Peter's Bones and Rome's Truth" is most interesting ----
I think a more accurate description would be to say "He was fond of talking about things like this" and had heard rumors...from ???? He always seemed to know something about things like this.....and of course had his own "startling opinions".
"According to the venerable Bede's (673-735 A.D.) Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book III, chapter XXIX, the bones (relics) of Peter and Paul were shipped by Vitalian, bishop of Rome, to Oswy, king of the Saxons in 665 A.D. The librarian at Canterbury Cathedral has aparently confirmed that church inventories do record the arrival of the remains of Peter and Paul into the church's safekeeping, shortly after Pope Vitalian sent them to Britain. Unfortunately though, the remains were apparently lost, or record of their location was lost, probably in the aftermath of the Cromwellian Rebellion of the mid 17th century."
How many sets of bones did these two apostles have?
Thank you for the ping and the link - I also read a link you have on another post - both are very interesting.
Israelites in India?
Peter's tomb in Jerusalem
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.