(Mad Dawg wrote) And your last paragraph is the basis for our disagreement with what looks to us like do-it-yourself apostolic succession among most Protestants.
Absolutely, yet it is also what the Catholic Church also affirms, though with one caveat... that the Holy Spirit only (?) works and resides through members of the RC church, and especially with a ‘special’ charism which only the Pope possesses. Please correct me if I’m misinformed here.
It is precisely these later points that both limit the Spirit of God, and which assign special and unbiblical powers to the Catholic clergy with which I have the greatest personal difficulty.
I think I’m talking to you more than I am to my wife right now. This may have to be addressed in some type of future therapy.
LOL! Well, you see, Doc: I can always turn off my computer.....
What exactly is a Protestant?
SUCH an interesting question! In the old days I would have thought a Protestant was somebody who thought the Pope wasn't catholic (note the lower case 'c'.) But on FR some who think the Pope is wrong claim that they aren't Protestant and some who call themselves Protestants seem, as far as I can discern, to think that a "real" Protestant is mostly Calvinist, though some traces or Arminianism seem to be allowed.
I guess my 'natural' use of the term would be most elegantly defined as those who do not believe in the tactile apostolic succession. Just for convenience. It's a diagnostic rather than an essential definition, if you take my alleged meaning.
If you mean non-Roman Catholics, then what you are saying is virtually all believers outside of your own church disagree with you, which might be a pretty strong case for re-evaluation.
If I understand you, it could work both ways. I mean that IF ecclesiology is "of the essence", then one could expect that placing oneself in an adversarial relationship with 'the one true Church' (this is for the sake of argument right now; humor me and stipulate it, please) would lead to a decline in sound doctrine.
On the other hand, if one maintains that the Bible is like a jewel passed through the filthy hands of filthier men, then it would be part of that notion that the men and everything they have except the Bible is filthy. So it depends on how one reads and understands the ecclesiological parts of the NT and whether or not one thinks the historical patriarchates are organically related to the so-called 'primitive church'. It's all a package either way, as far as I can see.
As I see it, Roman Catholics ascribe God’s powers, roles, and authority to men (though the RC would say that these men are appointed by the Spirit). In essence creating gods or mediators who stand between God and man.
To get away from the spatial imagery of "between", I'd like to submit "Catalysts". For example, in priestly absolution, I, graced by God, have to "supply" the knowledge of my sins and the contrition and intention to cut them out. Without my (grace-filled) presenting of those things, the forgiveness mojo does not happen. And, of course, if no priest were around, and a tree fell on me, while Dante suggests there might be consequences, we would hesitate to say that fer shur I was shut out of forgiveness. Crudely put, the absence of priestly absolution does not mean fer shur that one is NOT forgiven. It's presence, along with the other stuff I said, means one is fer shur forgiven. That's how I think of it anyway. I'll submit to an inquisition on this (or on anything I say, now that I mention it.)
And, of course, not ALL powers, roles, and authority are entrusted (for reasons best known to Himself - I sure wouldn't have done it like that) to men. God still gets to work the weather and stuff. But, incomprehensibly, He seems to have deputized some authority and to have agreed to be in some way bound by the acts of His agents.
Absolutely, yet it is also what the Catholic Church also affirms, though with one caveat... that the Holy Spirit only (?) works and resides through members of the RC church, and especially with a ‘special’ charism which only the Pope possesses. Please correct me if I’m misinformed here. The "only' is the only (heh heh) debatable part. I am currently arguing with a priest about this, thus: I maintain that when I presided at the Eucharist as a Pepsicola priest, there was no GUARANTEE that Jesus was sacramentally present. But (I maintain) God is generous and people sincerely trusting in the validity of my orders and sincerely believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, surely were not shut out of ALL the graces, uh, thereunto appertaining. The very excellent priest with whom I am arguing this, in a leisurely fashion, is not prepared to commit himself on either side.
And, as to the charism of 'Infallibility' it's more like a dead-man's switch, in my diseased imagination. I think one way to say it is that God won't let the Holy Father rear back and "declare and define" something that ain't so.
As to limiting the Spirit of God, just as I take some comfort in thinking that God is sometimes laughing at me, so I take comfort, knowing that I am wicked, in the line in the Psalms about "with the crooked you are wily."I mean that it seems to me the word of our Lord on Easter afternoon is precisely (and astonishingly) a limiting of the Spirit, at least "formally". God says what you bind on earth is bound in heaven. That there is limiting.
But, He is wily, and maybe can and does work around our crookedness.
....I have the greatest personal difficulty.
You and me both. And I KNOW (and love) some of these guys. (And most assuredly do NOT love some other of these guys! Many of us still refer to our former bishop as "Walter the Pink".)
As I said somewhere recently, being Catholic SEEMS to outsiders like it piles all sorts of stuff between us and God. But my experience is that it strips stuff away and forces me (precisely because I know some clergy and possess the common knowledge about how authority can twist men and their intentions) to trust that God will keep what I take to be His promises to the Church.
Back to confession. We all agree that in Christ our sins are put behind us, that though we were scarlet we can be whiter than snow. We agree that when the trumpet sounds, for the faithful their sins will be forgotten, unimportant, and that the most important thing about me is not me at all, but Jesus.
Still when itch comes to scratch, we find it very hard to take that confidence with us as we go to confide in someone else, even in a dark closet through an anonymity-assisting partition. We SAY we believe that the forgiveness of Christ makes our pasts unimportant, but we DO "These sins are embarrassing, and this embarrassment is so powerful, that I would just die if anyone knew them."
So, for me at any rate, the custom of going to a priest and admitting that I know, oh, what some movie star looks like with her shirt off, and enjoyed acquiring the knowledge, that's a real rubber meets the road moment about living into what I profess about the grace of Christ.
It's one thing to know the rope is strong and your knots are good. It's quite another to back off a 50 yard high cliff. But when you've rappelled to the bottom, then you really know the rope was strong enough and the knots good enough.
Sometime you ought to see how much blather I can type when I'm actually awake! Thanks for the conversation. It's a blessing.