Is your Pastor Valid


#21

One who preaches the Gospel of Grace is the only “valid pastor” in the sight of God.


#22

One who preaches the Gospel of Grace is the only “valid pastor” in the sight of God

But thats not how the bible defines it. The bible says a valid teacher is something else… Someone that must be ordained…

Otherwise, any joe schmoe can pick up the bible and teach… well, what ever they want. Thats why we have JW, Snake handlers, abortion is bad, abortion is good, There is a trinity, no trinity, Infant Baptism, Believers baptism, NO baptism, Christmas trees good, Christmas trees bad, Christ has heirs, Christ Cant possibly have heirs. We all come from aliens…

Need I go on?

No where in the bible does it say someone who picks up the bible and teaches is a valid teacher. However, there are PAGES, not single verses, not even single sections, but pages and chapters worth of material on the importance of valid teachers

In Christ


#23

How about this:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,** but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

I don’t know about the whole validity thingy, but I sure am grateful for the fact that all but one of my pastors are married and have good stable homes of their own. Their advice and preaching has been invaluable to me. I’ve read articles by priests teaching couples on intimacy in marriage…and it all sounds wrong somehow.

Thought I would just raise this point…**


#24

I’d appreciate a more detailed explanation of what this modification entails.

This notion is wholly Biblical, and is found in the statement of St. Paul:

You quoted 1 Timothy 4:14 (please include references for future quotes – thanks). Interesting is that it says the laying on of hands is done by “the presbytery” or, more clearly “the elders”. I don’t see how this shows that he was given this gift by ordination of a validly-ordained minister. In that day, there likely weren’t a ton of “valid” ministers, and as such, the group of elders probably could not have consisted of a number of validly ordained ministers.

Now, some will argue that Paul says he was in this group, and thus Timothy’s ordination was valid, but he clearly sets himself apart from the elders (presbytery) of individual churches, and in this instance, says that it was the laying on of hands of the presbytery that imparted this spiritual gift, not the laying on of his own hands exclusively or specifically.

Could you provide more references, please?

So are these validly-ordained ministers protected from error in teaching of faith, or aren’t they?

As for the benefit of ordination: who would administer the Sacraments if we did not have priests?

First, this doesn’t address the issue if valid ordination. Second, most protestants don’t hold to sacraments being so important as Roman Catholics do.

We have yet to clearly establish the qualifications for valid ordination. Shouldn’t we do that first?

If Not, Does it matter then that your Pastor is not a valid teacher in the eyes of Christ?

If a pastor is teaching the word of Christ correctly, then surely he must be valid. On the other hand, I’d say a heretical Roman Catholic priest wouldn’t be valid.

Are you being disobedient by NOT listening to teachers that are validly ordained?

Valid ordination, no matter its importance, doesn’t change the truth. I trust no single teacher, nor any group of teachers. God promised to lead us (each of us, given my interpretation of scripture) into all truth. So, I do my best to allow that to happen. I study and pray. And honestly, when this brings me to conclusions that are drastically different from the Roman Catholic position, how can I possibly believe Roman Catholic priests to be valid, if they’re teaching something consistently that isn’t the will of God (in my view)?

Bear in mind, I’m just trying to answer your questions, rather than start a debate.

Scripture reference please?

Otherwise, any joe schmoe can pick up the bible and teach… well, what ever they want. Thats why we have JW, Snake handlers, abortion is bad, abortion is good, There is a trinity, no trinity, Infant Baptism, Believers baptism, NO baptism, Christmas trees good, Christmas trees bad, Christ has heirs, Christ Cant possibly have heirs. We all come from aliens…

True – but then again, we have Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Oriental Orthodox, and others who all claim to have valid ordination and succession. They all teach differently. Clearly, this ordination does not protect from error. Thus, your argument has no weight – error is possible, whether ordained “validly” or not.

In your examples above – why is it that teaching whatever they want is bad? Is it because they’re not validly ordained, or is it because they are not teaching in God’s will? I’d say the latter is the important bit. Thus, if that’s the qualification, then anyone who teaches in God’s will must be valid, just as anyone who teaches out of God’s will is invalid, ordained or not.

No where in the bible does it say someone who picks up the bible and teaches is a valid teacher.

You’re right – but like many instances, instead of condemning a sin, scripture serves to give us positive examples of how we should do things, which indirectly will prevent us from sinning.

Continued…


#25

However, there are PAGES, not single verses, not even single sections, but pages and chapters worth of material on the importance of valid teachers

Right – and where does any of it say that one must be validly ordained by the laying on of hands of a validly ordained minister? It speaks of laying on of hands of elders (who themselves were likely not validly ordained in the Roman Catholic view). It speaks of being required to be the husband of one wife. It speaks of being sure to teach the truth. It speaks of those with spiritual maturity being obliged to teach those with less spiritual maturity than themselves.

It speaks of replacing ministers who have passed on with others. It speaks of listening to the holy spirit, and to God, and to the words of the apostles and prophets.

But where are all these verses that supposedly state the requirements for ordination?


#26

Did John the Baptist receive laying on of hands?

Mark 9:38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 “For he who is not against us is for us.”

Jesus should have mentioned laying on of hands here.

Phil 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice,

Paul should have mentioned laying on of hands here.


#27

Does this mean that when the entire church signed off on Arianism including pope Liberius that we must obey them because they were “validly ordained”?


#28

entire church signed off on Arianism

The entire church did NOT sign off on arianism…
It was the holy spirit working through the church, and those members that didnt agree and the Councils that destroyed this heresy. No Pope ever declared that Arianism was valid…

But you are still missing the point. you, not any responders have addressed the point I am making. Instead you have thrown up red hearings to detract from the issue.

for the umpteenth time, I am NOT talking about pastors in sin.
I am not talking about something someone did…
I am talking about the importance of ordination in the bible. not something made up… it is in the bible. To say it is only symbolic, or that it doesnt mean that is twisting scripture plain and simple…

Saying you have to be ordained as a presbyter, but then saying you dont have to have a presbyter is hogwash. Again… I am talking about the importance of Ordained Ministers, a very clear bible teaching. That is what i want to discuss. Not your side issues that you have with those ordained ministers.

All you are doing is avoiding the question.

In Christ


#29

I think you need to recheck your history.

It was Indeed, Liberius, bishop of Rome, who caved in under Imperial pressure, and signed the Arianized Sirmium Creed.

It was Alexandria, under the noble leadership of Athanasius, that led the way and eventually led to the defeat of Arianism.

Hence the famous saying “Athanasius against the world”.


#30

I will do as you say and recheck… but that being said… If it was in a private letter, it doesn’t count. a Popes personal views do NOT consitute a failing of the Church. To my knowledge on what you speak, it was not a public teaching, but a private letter and thus is NOT protected from Infallibility.

I will check, as it is the right thing to do, but this is how I understand the situation you mention, which means, if it is the case, I am still correct in saying NO pope ever taught Arianism

But you still avoid the question…

In Christ


#31

[quote=Ani Ibi]The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in some respects: usually in the teaching of faith and morals.
[/quote]

[quote=PC Master]So are these validly-ordained ministers protected from error in teaching of faith, or aren’t they?
[/quote]

I believe I have explained how it works. Were you hoping for a sound bite?

[quote=Ani Ibi]As for the benefit of ordination: who would administer the Sacraments if we did not have priests?
[/quote]

[quote=PC Master]First, this doesn’t address the issue if valid ordination.
[/quote]

Your question was not about valid ordination. Your question was about the benefit of ordination. I answered your question.

[quote=PC Master]Second, most protestants don’t hold to sacraments being so important as Roman Catholics do.

[/quote]

Exactly my point. How could they, if no ‘valid’ laying on of hands took place?


#32

John the Baptist wasn’t a Christian Minister, but a Jewish Prophet, and the last of the line. Therefore, he’s the last of the old “Annointed by God.”

However, EVEN the Temple Jews ordained their priests by the laying on of hands and annointing with chrism.


#33

You said that the holy spirit “usually” protects from error. Either it does or doesn’t. Does the laying of hands endow protection from heresy on the ordained?

Your question was not about valid ordination. Your question was about the benefit of ordination. I answered your question.

I guess I wasn’t clear. What I was getting at is – Protestants don’t hold the “Eucharist” to be the same as Roman Catholics do. Instead, Protestants hold it to be strictly symbolic.

I’m trying to find out, from the perspective of Roman Catholics, what it is about the preaching and teaching of Protestant ministers that is invalid because they aren’t “validly” ordained.

Exactly my point. How could they, if no ‘valid’ laying on of hands took place?

This is called affirming the consequent, folks.


#34

Why would anyone be valid or not valid in 35AD?

If you had heard many talk about Jesus in 35 AD but wanted to get the truth about Him–who would you ask?

The disicples–they were with Him all the time.

If you couldn’t ask the disicples doesn’t it make sense that you might talk to someone who had talked to the disciples.

When hearing of the disciples laying hands on people either from the disciples or from people who had talked to the disciples–wouldn’t it make sense that that authorization would carry some weight?

That’s not to say that anyone who had heard of Jesus from the teaching or preaching or just general conversation of people of the time might could indeed tell you something about Jesus and His teachings that would certainly be true.

But it’'s a matter of credibility–who would you most believe–one of the disciples themselves!

That’s what Real authority was in 35AD… the words the disiples preached were the oral authoratative gospel with no Bible!

The practices they instituted were Sacred Trdition–and guess whatr? people believed them and followed them without them being written down just as they believed many other people in their everyday lives ad respected what ever authority they had without everything being written down!

the reason that people who had hands laid on them were believed is that people thought that their testimony would be true because they were either first hand witnesses of Jesus or had been taught by the disciples themselves.

Does that mean that they were infallible? No! does it mean that they had a better chance at being right than others? Yes!

Why? Because not only were they taught right but people figured that if the same hands that healed people with power were applied to these people that the Holy Spirit Himself would rest upon these people because they figured that the disicples would only choose such people after prayer and consultation with the Holy Spirit!

The reason that non Catholic pastors are invalid when it comes to preaching the gospel is the fact that they are indeed teaching a different gospel.

The reason that they are teaching a different gospel isn’t because of a lack Magical Power of ordination–it is because the same Holy Spirit that teaches only one gospel hasn’t moved the successors to those apostles to lay hands on such people.

To be blunt–they’re not the Holy Spirit’s choice!

Does that mean that they can’t preach and teach some of the truth/

Of course not!

There are many figures in the gosples who had seen Jesus and could speak about the truths about them that they first hand saw!

Does that mean that because they could preach some truths that they could preach the same gospel as the disicples could who were led into all truth because Jesus promised that this would be so?

No!

They would be invalid in that role because not only were they given that role by the disciples–but by them not being giving that role by the disciples or by others that the disiplces had chosen–such as Paul–who later chose Timothy, etc.

but because the Holy Spirit didn’t indwell them in their teaching or preaching in that ordained role!

Without the Holt Spirit there is no priesthood. Without apostolic succession the Holy Spirit does not ordain!


#35

[quote=PC Master]You said that the holy spirit “usually” protects from error. Either it does or doesn’t. Does the laying of hands endow protection from heresy on the ordained?
[/quote]

I’ve already explained this. And now several other people have as well.

[quote=PC Master]I guess I wasn’t clear. What I was getting at is – Protestants don’t hold the “Eucharist” to be the same as Roman Catholics do. Instead, Protestants hold it to be strictly symbolic.
[/quote]

You were clear. So was I. How can a non-Catholic pastor administer the Sacraments if his ‘ordination’ is invalid?

[quote=PC Master]I’m trying to find out, from the perspective of Roman Catholics, what it is about the preaching and teaching of Protestant ministers that is invalid because they aren’t “validly” ordained.
[/quote]

And we are telling you.

[quote=PC Master]This is called affirming the consequent, folks.
[/quote]

No. It is not affirming the consequent. Not giving the Sacraments or redefining the Sacraments as less important is an example of begging the question of whether or not ordination is valid.

One way to dispute someone’s authority is to do an endrun around it. Redefining the Sacraments as less important or even as symbolic is one example of an endrun. The endrun begs the question of authority.


#36

This is a great explanation. Clear and easy to read. Thank you. great thread.


#37

Hmmmm, Both Luther and Calvin were priests and validly ordained.

Since Rome sees the Orthodox church as valid, the same reasons would suggest that Protestants thru Luther and Calvin have valid succession. :wink:

Is there any supporing scripture that states laying on off hands via apostolic succession is absolutely neccessary to validly teach and preach?

Did Tertulian have valid succession after he left the church?


#38

Yes, kissing the Koran, validating Arminiansm via private letter, etc… all very telling on how ex cathedra works. :wink:


#39

Luther and Calvin were not Bishops, they could not ordain priests. You must have a Bishop in order to ordain Priests.

LOVE your neighbor as yourself.
Amen.


#40

Ahhh, i see. Tertulian WAS a bishop. Why were those he ordained after he left the church not valid?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.