Sorry for the confusion on apostolic succession. The Scripture makes clear that witnesses to the events are Apostles. Those who follow the Apostles yet are not actual eye-witnesses to the events can not be considered Apostles. Your Scripture citation of Acts 1:22 prove MY point.
And you have yet to describe where this unity of “oneness” actually exists. I realize it’s a favorite Romanist polemic to claim that there is no “oneness” amongst the variety of Protestant denominations. But the same argument can be used against the Romanists for all their varying sects and since Romanists and Orthodox claim to be essentially the same we could add that as additional evidence that there is not the “oneness” that is claimed.
However, amongst orthodox Protestants their is an essential “oneness”. This “oneness” is based on the power of God and his grace which brings about faith in his Son who we trust as our substitute for the punishment we deserve and the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide us in our pilgrimage.
This is much different than a trust in a succession of bishops. I’m reminded of the OT stories where the old Israelites often thought that these artificial lineages were what saved them but God would often strike down those notions. These sort of notions are the wisdom of men. It is a notion that God is dependent upon some mechanical human invention.
Jesus did not create a dysfunctional church? The Epistles should be enough to dispel you of any notion that the Church was anythin but dysfunctional. That doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t rule his Church but only that the ravages of sin have not yet been fully eradicated and despite this the Church still exists. I often hear Romanists and the Orthodox say how the Church is functional despite the malfeasance of it’s Bishops. Your argument turns on itself.
Clearly, Thomism is the default doctrine of the Romanist Church. Whatever spin you might want to perpetuate of Aquinas, his philosophy is the controlling factor in Romanism. When “Reason” is accorded such an elevated level as an entity onto itself than whatever theology comes out of that prolegomena will necessarily be man-centered. Reason can never be considered as a separate entity outside of God. When reason is elevated as it is in Romanism it becomes the actual Universe and God and man are merely actors within that universe.
Finally, of the doctors mentioned I noticed you failed to mention Augustine. I’m not surprised. Since so much of the Reformation was based on Augustine’s doctrine of the visible/invisible Church dichotomy it’s no wonder why you slid by him. Romes emphasis on the visible Church and it’s importance must sideline Augustine as a second rate doctor.
Much Appreciated.
Thanks for your reply. I may continue later, it may be that we just disagree.
I didn’t mean to slight Augustine but to juxtapose the doctors least like the scholastics as a balance to St. Thomas.
I think the view of God between Calvinism and Lutheranism is at least an order of magnitude greater than the differences between the East and West in Catholicism.
Theology unavoidably involves reason, we are both using reason here to prove the validity of our theology. Any use of reason in theology to discount the use of reason in theology contradicts itself.
In Catholicism, particularly in Pope Benedict’s appeals, reason and faith are not opposed. Our God transcends reason, does not contradict reason. What we fight together today is the false choice of reason or faith - the false choice of science or faith, reason or superstition. This is the challenge for the Church in the modern world.
Reason have their proper place in knowledge. This is the subject of Pope John Paul II’s “Faith and Reason.” I don’t expect you to read, I’m merely telling you its context.
Pope Benedict, as I mentioned earlier, emphasizes the combined value of scholasticism and monasticism, which I believe contradicts your assertion of reason as elevated or Acquinas as the default today.
FInally, a personal request: “Romanist” sounds like an attempt to denigrate my Church. It also can make Catholics resist your arguments just to resist, so it lessens effectiveness. I’ll do my best to not denigrate your church. Hopefully I get better with practice.
I don’t mean I won’t passionately disagree, but I promise to try not to be disagreeable when doing so. You can slap me if I do.
I appreciate your discussion very much.