Apostolic Succession? | Roman Catholic Belief

Catholics & Catholicism » Roman Catholic Belief » Apostolic Succession?

Apostolic Succession?

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (SNIP) Now I have a stupid question, why would God create people, know they were going to be ungodly then allow them to live ungodly lives so they could die then go to hell, then on the final resurrection be made with perfect bodies so they could be tormented forever. Does that make any sense to you at all ? Why would you want to see people suffer ? I will answer you the way my Mom answered me when I asked such questions. If you took an ant to school (or work) with you tomorrow, would the ant understand anything? No. You as a mere human cannot understand the mind of God, you cannot understand the infinite and complex tapestry that He weaves throughout all creation in His Eternal Plan for You.

So you believe it is good tormenting people for eternity? You would have no problem knowing that you can cause an ant to suffer for eternity? Or would you eventually learn compassion? — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan arc’s Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm ICQ UIN: 12811297

Response:

: There is no authority within the RCC for its heretical claims of its : continuing ‘Apostolic Succession’, because such an office or position : never existed. : : .. etc., etc., etc. : : Your whole posting is based on a false premise. I now know you believe the Bible to be a ‘false premise’.

Good brief, another Huldah clone who would prefer to read other people’s minds instead of reading what they write. The "false premise" is in your understanding of Apostolic Succession, which is not the Catholic Church’s own under- standing of it. Get that straightened out, and your whole argument falls to the ground. I shall rate the remainder of your reply on your opening heresy.

Another self-appointed heresy hunter, I see. Get a life. : "Apostolic Succession" does not mean that the bishops are : themselves Apostles; I stated this fact in my message; but the leaders in the RCC disagree with you.

As it happens, *I* have bothered to read what "the leaders of the RCC" actually say on this subject. Apparently you have not. : it means that they received their office in a : chain of succession that can be traced back to the first : bishops appointed by the Apostles. History disagrees with your statements. History proves that the RCC did not exist prior to 606 A.D.

You obviously don’t know a lick of real history, or you wouldn’t write stupid stuff like this. : Thus Paul ordained Titus as bishop of Crete and Timothy as : bishop of Ephesus; John ordained Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna : and Papias as bishop of Hierapolis; Which references and Scholars do you employ for your conclusions. Are any from within the RCC?

No, they are early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius. Since they wrote long before 606 A.D., by your reckoning they can’t possibly be "from within the RCC", can they? eter ordained Clement as bishop of Rome and There is not factual or verifiable proof that Peter was ever in Rome.

No reputable scholar, not even Protestant ones, would agree with you on this. This whole "Peter was never in Rome" line was invented by rabid anti-Catholics to try to undermine the papacy. No one in his right mind takes that argument seriously anymore. The Clement you mention above had not ties with the RCC. He was dead before the RCC’s first Pope was named.

Clearly you know nothing about the history of the papacy. : Evodius as bishop of Antioch; and so forth. Cite your historical references for your above statement.

Already done in another posting in this thread. : That generation of bishops ordained the next generation : of bishops after them, and so on down the line until today, : in an unbroken succession. In short, Apostolic Succession : is not a succession *of* Apostles, but a succession *from* the : Apostles. Your desire to promote ‘Apostolic Succession’ is not Scriptural.

I don’t have any particular "desire" to promote Apostolic Succession. It’s simply a fact of history, whether you like it or not. Nowhere in Scritpure is the Church commanded to do so.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Church cannot do things which are not commanded in Scripture. This is a worldly religion thing, and promote secular humanism.

Do you even know what "secular humanism" is? The Catholic Church has been the staunchest enemy of secular humanism ever since secular humanism was invented–which was a millennium or so even after your much-too-late date for the founding of the Catholic Church. : The Apostolic Age died with the death of the last Apostle, : St. John the Beloved. : : The Catholic Church teaches exactly the same thing. You know that is not true.

I know that it *is* true: The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made. [Ludwig Ott, _Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma_ (1960), p. 7.] All the ‘real’ political leaders within the governement of your religion still preach ‘Apostolic Succession’ and believe themselves to all be partakers of the same succession.

As I said, they succeed *from* the Apostles, not *as* Apostles. The Apostles all died before the end of the first century. There will not be any others. This is the settled teaching of the Catholic Church, whether you want to believe it or not. : How many Popes have received a personal and literal : audience with God, for the calling of their manmade office? : : Not necessary, since Popes do not claim to be Apostles. Either you don’t know much about your RCC, or you aren’t being altogether truthful; which is it?

I think that question should more accurately be addressed to you, since you clearly don’t understand the Church’s teaching on this subject. : Where are the miracles from today’s self-proclaimed Apostles? : : Good question. Go ask the pentecostals who claim to have : "Apostles" among them. Catholics don’t make any such claim. Why do you mention the Pentecostal religion, when you have many a claim of ‘miracles’ within your own religion? Are you ashamed of the claims from within the RCC? You state above "Catholics don’t make any such claim", regarding miracles.

Sure there are still miracles, in the Catholic Church and elsewhere. What I meant was that Catholics do not make any such claim that their bishops are Apostles. You do sometimes hear pentecostals making that claim for their leaders, but no informed Catholic would make such a claim for our leaders. How about any current ‘Eucharistic Miracles’? Heard of them. I could go on for pages; but I won’t. For some unknown reason, you have chosen to lie about alleged miracles within the RCC.

For some unknown reason, you–like many of your bigoted co-religionists, can’t read plain English, and prefer to jump to conclusions and sling baseless accusations instead of trying to clarifying things you don’t understand. : Christ was certainly "separated" and "special", Excuse me for informing you, but the Christ is GOD!

Duh. We recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday, so this is not news. He is not ‘just’ separated and special,

I never said he was, did I? HE IS GOD!!!! And NO, those leaders and followers within the RCC do not have the same authority, Grace or Power as GOD! They only foolishly believe they do.

More fundie lies. This garbage gets so tiresome after a while. When are you people ever going to grow up?

Response:

(SNIP) Now I have a stupid question, why would God create people, know they were going to be ungodly then allow them to live ungodly lives so they could die then go to hell, then on the final resurrection be made with perfect bodies so they could be tormented forever. Does that make any sense to you at all ? Why would you want to see people suffer ?

I will answer you the way my Mom answered me when I asked such questions. If you took an ant to school (or work) with you tomorrow, would the ant understand anything? No. You as a mere human cannot understand the mind of God, you cannot understand the infinite and complex tapestry that He weaves throughout all creation in His Eternal Plan for You. — "Do Not Be Afraid" – JPII CHRIS

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : : : : : : : : :

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader : is : the : : : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic : : Succession’; : : : : inform them they are either deceived, : : : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by : : successors : : : of : : : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : : : : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : : : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet : him. : : : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : : : performed? Think about it. : : : : : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what : verifiable : : : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret : scripture? : : Where : : : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the : truth? : Tell : : me, : : : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? : : : : Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours. : : : : LOL : : Proverbs 9:13 : 13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. : : The fool immediately shows his anger, but the shrewd man passes over an : insult. : : : "point Set And Match to Scout Lady" Proverbs 14:18 18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge. Folly is the destiny for the ‘foolish clamorous’ woman who is simple and ‘knoweth nothing’. ‘She is as a natural brute beast, made to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil of the things she cannot understand; and shall utterly perish in her own corruption;’ ( a very loose paraphrase of 2 Peter 2:12, but it fits. ) The ungodly perish through their religious pride, religious deceit and self-deception; as taught to them by their lost religious leaders.

Now I have a stupid question, why would God create people, know they were going to be ungodly then allow them to live ungodly lives so they could die then go to hell, then on the final resurrection be made with perfect bodies so they could be tormented forever. Does that make any sense to you at all ? Why would you want to see people suffer ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Paul was an apostle. His writing dates from the middle of the first century. He does not quote from any other source than the Old Testament, other than Jesus’ sayings. Actually, he quotes quite a number of things besides the OT and the sayings of Jesus. See, for example, Titus 1:12, which is a direct quotation from the pagan poet Epimenides.

Well spotted, James, but while you score high points for technical accuracy you do not gain quite so many for relevance, I’m sure you will agree! His evidence may be regarded as of the first quality. His writings do not have any reference at all to what is alleged above. Paul says that he left Titus behind in Crete for a specific purpose, and then tells us what that purpose was: to appoint presbyters in every town, and to put everything in order. He goes on in the rest of the letter to explain exactly what that entails, including teaching sound doctrine and disciplining the local congregations. These are exactly the functions of the episcopal office as we find it described, for example, in Ignatius.

Presbyter and bishop are the same thing. Titus was acting on behalf of Paul as an apostle and church planter, and Timothy also had an apostolic role, ‘holding the fort’ for Paul. As they were both to appoint elders/prebyters/bishops (plural), the conciliar nature of early Christian polity is confirmed. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.1]< Eusebius was not an apostle. Which proves what?

It does not prove anything; it is not intended to. I think you misunderstood my meaning. If you are going to insist that we can know nothing about the history of the Church except what we find written in the Apostles, then the history of the Church ended in 96 a.d. and we can all go home.

I agree. I would only add that the history of the church after about 60 AD has not really been written. He was a monarchical Bishop, after a time of persecution, and there was rumour that he compromised with the Roman authorities. He was involved to some extent with Arianism. He revised his work a great deal. His writing is far from contemporary with the events in question, dating from the early fourth century. So? Most histories are written after the fact, often long after, by people who were not personally involved in the events. Historians base their work on documents–of which Eusebius clearly had a large number, since he quotes them, sometimes extensively.

But we have plenty of evidence about the church within Scripture. There is no need for anyone to add to that information, unless, of course, they belong to a non-Scriptural church. If it was the Scriptures, why was it necessary to make this comment, unless the Scriptures were already unfamiliar to at least some people? The Scriptures are always unfamiliar to "at least some people", in any age. So what?

They should not be unfamiliar to God’s church at any time. If it is not a reference to Scripture, then where are these records? If Eusebius had access to them, did he not preserve them carefully, or make sure that he made a copy verbatim? In many cases, he did. His history is thick with verbatim quotes from his sources.

That does not answer these questions. Irenaus was not an apostle. Neither are you. So what?

I am not regarded as a church ‘father’. Irenaeus is, by a body that describes itself as ‘apostolic’. His influence may be a reason for many people regarding the RCC is anything but apostolic. He was a monarchical Bishop after a time of persecution. Which proves what?

Nothing at all. His principle work is dated c. 180. Formal discussion of the ‘office’ of a single Bishop dates from his writing, although it can be found by suggestion earlier in Ignatius "By suggestion"? Ignatius harps on the office of the bishop more than just about any other subject.

Harps on? He’s got the whole orchestra plus Sousaphones! I have been considering running a word check on Ignatius, comparing his percentage frequency of ‘bishop’ to that in the Scriptural epistles. But he does not really bother with theology, as Irenaeus tries to. (though by no means early enough). Early enough for *what*?

You are right. It would not matter how early Ignatius was, he would not have got recognition in any church where apostles had any say. It is anyway extraordinary that there is so little writing surviving from the immediately post-apostolic church. Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Didache … enough to fill a good-sized book. Given the tenacity with which the Roman authorities sought out and destroyed Christian writings, what’s extraordinary is that *anything* survived from that era.

Ah, but see what did survive! (None of it in the canon.) Almost all that does survive is in a curious, hermetically-sealed world of its own, its only new and distinctive feature being disagreement with Scripture. Odd, since all these authors are steeped in Scripture and quote it on almost every page.

What else would they do? But Scripture-quoting doth not a Christian make. They quoted it to make themselves look like Christians. People do it all the time. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tertullian was not an apostle. Much of what is known of him is uncertain, dating from historians who wrote well after his death. What is fairly certain is that he left the official church and joined the Montanists, and later broke away from them too. From his own writing it is evident that he was a pagan in early life, but he nowhere records his conversion. His interest seems to have lain in legalistic morality rather than Christianity. I don’t see how anyone who has actually read Tertullian could say this. Obviously he had a moralistic streak in him, and a "legalist" tendency which is not surprising in someone who was a lawyer by profession. But to say that he was uninterested in Christianity per se is absurd.<

Oh what naivete, James. There are more people in the churches that are not interested in Christianity than people who are; it has never been otherwise since the early church. Legalistic morality is the opposite of Christianity, and most people who call themselves Christians believe in that. In literary terms, Clement started them off! Where is this roll now? Where are the autographs of the New Testament now?

Who cares? Jesus was not setting up a constitutional body, not in the opinion of Christians, anyway. They don’t need autographs. The early church had mostly word of mouth, and never grew as fast again. That is good enough for us, if need be. It is false teachers who need documents. Lost to the ages. We know the New Testament from the copies that were made, just as we know the lists of early bishops from the copies that were preserved in Eusebius. If you demand autographs, then the Bible is just as lost to us as the rolls of the bishops.

If the RCC wants to convince of the legal justification for itself, with a piece of Italy being taken from the Italians, and all that follows from its existence, including its continued interference in society for a very long time, it needs autographs. It does not have them. If John had really put Polycarp in that position he must have acted completely out of character. I would say he acted very much within character, given the deep devotion to the gospel and deeply Christian behavior that Polycarp demonstrated at his martyrdom.

That event/account may not be what it seems. It seems like a right old yarn to me. ‘We gathered up his bones- more precious to us than jewels, and finer than pure gold…’ Who wrote this? The duty legate? He was intensely aware of the continuity of the new dispensation with the old, and, like Paul, James and Peter, would have retained the conciliar and divinely approved form of government that characterised the synagogues. The "conciliar form of the government" that characterized the synagogues has no Scriptural warrant whatever.

It was the polity utilised by Jesus and the apostles wherever they went. It accords with Jesus’ teaching that Christians are all brothers. It reflects the form of government used by the Israelites before, against God’s will, they got monarchy. It accords with the prophecy of the nature of the church which is not primarily to be of a preacher/preached to composition. It uniquely permits the gifts of the Spirit to be properly utilised by the whole body of Christ. Experientially, it helps to foster humility in church elders and teachers, and genuine brotherly kindness amongst all. It also makes it difficult for those external to the church to exert influence, and helps to prevent internal corruption. In other words, there’s nothing like it, and no church is a real church without it, and that goes beyond the RCC as you will be aware. The form of government that is divinely ordained in the Old Testament

Ah, no wonder you cannot understand why Clement is a heretic. Things have moved on, you know! Those OT practices were but a shadow of things to come. It is very true that Catholicism has much in common with Pharisaism. After the Temple was destroyed, Jews who did not wish to follow their Messiah would have no doubt found Clement and Ignatius congenial company. Where better for these displaced persons to find a home but Rome, where they could perhaps agitate against the faithful … read more »

Response:

: : Satan can quote Scripture fluently. Welcome to my killfile. Ditto

Response:

Would you supply evidence for these events, please. Please also supply similar information for all other applicable places. brachypodium

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic Succession’; : inform them they are either deceived, : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by successors of : the Apostles. Think about it. Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle performed? Think about it. LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture?<

This reminds me of Joseph Smith and the golden plates. He had the sense to ‘lose’ them, however. brachypodium

Response:

: : There is no authority within the RCC for its heretical claims of its : continuing ‘Apostolic Succession’, because such an office or position : never existed. : : .. etc., etc., etc. : : Your whole posting is based on a false premise. I now know you believe the Bible to be a ‘false premise’. I shall rate the remainder of your reply on your opening heresy. : "Apostolic Succession" does not mean that the bishops are : themselves Apostles; I stated this fact in my message; but the leaders in the RCC disagree with you. : it means that they received their office in a : chain of succession that can be traced back to the first : bishops appointed by the Apostles. History disagrees with your statements. History proves that the RCC did not exist prior to 606 A.D. : Thus Paul ordained Titus as bishop of Crete and Timothy as : bishop of Ephesus; John ordained Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna : and Papias as bishop of Hierapolis; Which references and Scholars do you employ for your conclusions. Are any from within the RCC? eter ordained Clement as bishop of Rome and There is not factual or verifiable proof that Peter was ever in Rome. The Clement you mention above had not ties with the RCC. He was dead before the RCC’s first Pope was named. : Evodius as bishop of Antioch; and so forth. Cite your historical references for your above statement. : That generation of bishops ordained the next generation : of bishops after them, and so on down the line until today, : in an unbroken succession. In short, Apostolic Succession : is not a succession *of* Apostles, but a succession *from* the : Apostles. Your desire to promote ‘Apostolic Succession’ is not Scriptural. Nowhere in Scritpure is the Church commanded to do so. This is a worldly religion thing, and promote secular humanism. : The Apostolic Age died with the death of the last Apostle, : St. John the Beloved. : : The Catholic Church teaches exactly the same thing. You know that is not true. All the ‘real’ political leaders within the governement of your religion still preach ‘Apostolic Succession’ and believe themselves to all be partakers of the same succession. : How many Popes have received a personal and literal : audience with God, for the calling of their manmade office? : : Not necessary, since Popes do not claim to be Apostles. Either you don’t know much about your RCC, or you aren’t being altogether truthful; which is it? Would you care to think about your reply, and restate your position. The teachings within your religion refute your statement. : Where are the miracles from today’s self-proclaimed Apostles? : : Good question. Go ask the pentecostals who claim to have : "Apostles" among them. Catholics don’t make any such claim. Why do you mention the Pentecostal religion, when you have many a claim of ‘miracles’ within your own religion? Are you ashamed of the claims from within the RCC? You state above "Catholics don’t make any such claim", regarding miracles. Have you ever heard of the term ‘Stigmata’? You, being a Roman Catholic, I find it difficult to believe you, regarding your stance on miracles within your RCC. How about any current ‘Eucharistic Miracles’? Heard of them. I could go on for pages; but I won’t. For some unknown reason, you have chosen to lie about alleged miracles within the RCC. : The fact is, that not no miracle ever occurred in the entire New : Testament record except in the presence of an Apostle or someone : directly commissioned by an Apostle. : : Not true. Read Luke 9:49-50. Exorcism is not a miracle. They were performed by vagabond Jews and Bob Larson. Miracles are from God, through chosen people, sometimes, for the edification of the Church. Neither of my example exorcists are within the Church. : The Apostles of Christ were unquestionably a Divinely called and : separated special breed unto themselves; : : True. : : they have no successors. : : False. No, not ‘false’; but true! : Christ was certainly "separated" and "special", Excuse me for informing you, but the Christ is GOD! He is not ‘just’ separated and special, HE IS GOD!!!! And NO, those leaders and followers within the RCC do not have the same authority, Grace or Power as GOD! They only foolishly believe they do. : yet he commissioned Apostles to continue his mission after his : departure. Yes, as God, He commissioned His Apostles to build His Church on the foundation He alone founded, and to pen the Scriputures to give to the Church for guidance, after the Apostolic age ended. We now have the Church established and the written Word of God. No further need for Apostles. : The Apostles themselves did the same thing, by : appointing successors who would carry on their work. Those : successors did not have all the authority of the Apostles : themselves–they could not issue new revelations or bear : personal witness to the resurrection–but they *could* : continue the task of teaching and shepherding the faithful, : based on the divine revelation and the divinely ordained : authority which the Apostles had passed on to them. No, they did not. The Apostle’s never had the authority to pass anything of a ‘Divine’ nature to anyone. The Apostle’s penned the Scriptures for the Church; this is what we are to search for truth and guidance. Not the traditions of men. There is no Scriptural support for the RCC’s claim of any type of ‘Apostolic Succession; it doesn’t exist. The Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God. Oral traditions of men are unreliable and fallible. Don’t bring up the traditions of the Apostles. The Apostle’s traditions were penned down for the Church to read. The Apostles were chosen by God alone; the traditions of the RCC were not!

Response:

Paul was an apostle. His writing dates from the middle of the first century. He does not quote from any other source than the Old Testament, other than Jesus’ sayings.

Actually, he quotes quite a number of things besides the OT and the sayings of Jesus. See, for example, Titus 1:12, which is a direct quotation from the pagan poet Epimenides. His evidence may be regarded as of the first quality. His writings do not have any reference at all to what is alleged above.

Paul says that he left Titus behind in Crete for a specific purpose, and then tells us what that purpose was: to appoint presbyters in every town, and to put everything in order. He goes on in the rest of the letter to explain exactly what that entails, including teaching sound doctrine and disciplining the local congregations. These are exactly the functions of the episcopal office as we find it described, for example, in Ignatius. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.1]< Eusebius was not an apostle.

Which proves what? If you are going to insist that we can know nothing about the history of the Church except what we find written in the Apostles, then the history of the Church ended in 96 a.d. and we can all go home. He was a monarchical Bishop, after a time of persecution, and there was rumour that he compromised with the Roman authorities. He was involved to some extent with Arianism. He revised his work a great deal. His writing is far from contemporary with the events in question, dating from the early fourth century.

So? Most histories are written after the fact, often long after, by people who were not personally involved in the events. Historians base their work on documents–of which Eusebius clearly had a large number, since he quotes them, sometimes extensively. If it was the Scriptures, why was it necessary to make this comment, unless the Scriptures were already unfamiliar to at least some people?

The Scriptures are always unfamiliar to "at least some people", in any age. So what? If it is not a reference to Scripture, then where are these records? If Eusebius had access to them, did he not preserve them carefully, or make sure that he made a copy verbatim?

In many cases, he did. His history is thick with verbatim quotes from his sources. Irenaus was not an apostle.

Neither are you. So what? He was a monarchical Bishop after a time of persecution.

Which proves what? His principle work is dated c. 180. Formal discussion of the ‘office’ of a single Bishop dates from his writing, although it can be found by suggestion earlier in Ignatius

"By suggestion"? Ignatius harps on the office of the bishop more than just about any other subject. (though by no means early enough).

Early enough for *what*? It is anyway extraordinary that there is so little writing surviving from the immediately post-apostolic church.

Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Didache … enough to fill a good-sized book. Given the tenacity with which the Roman authorities sought out and destroyed Christian writings, what’s extraordinary is that *anything* survived from that era. Almost all that does survive is in a curious, hermetically-sealed world of its own, its only new and distinctive feature being disagreement with Scripture.

Odd, since all these authors are steeped in Scripture and quote it on almost every page. Tertullian was not an apostle. Much of what is known of him is uncertain, dating from historians who wrote well after his death. What is fairly certain is that he left the official church and joined the Montanists, and later broke away from them too. From his own writing it is evident that he was a pagan in early life, but he nowhere records his conversion. His interest seems to have lain in legalistic morality rather than Christianity.

I don’t see how anyone who has actually read Tertullian could say this. Obviously he had a moralistic streak in him, and a "legalist" tendency which is not surprising in someone who was a lawyer by profession. But to say that he was uninterested in Christianity per se is absurd. Where is this roll now?

Where are the autographs of the New Testament now? Lost to the ages. We know the New Testament from the copies that were made, just as we know the lists of early bishops from the copies that were preserved in Eusebius. If you demand autographs, then the Bible is just as lost to us as the rolls of the bishops. If John had really put Polycarp in that position he must have acted completely out of character.

I would say he acted very much within character, given the deep devotion to the gospel and deeply Christian behavior that Polycarp demonstrated at his martyrdom. He was intensely aware of the continuity of the new dispensation with the old, and, like Paul, James and Peter, would have retained the conciliar and divinely approved form of government that characterised the synagogues.

The "conciliar form of the government" that characterized the synagogues has no Scriptural warrant whatever. The form of government that is divinely ordained in the Old Testament is the priesthood, which is hierarchical throughout and focussed in the office of one man, the high priest. Clement, in fact, makes this very point in his letter. If you want "continuity of the new dispensation with the old", Clement displays that continuity quite nicely. there is no contemporary evidence that Peter even went to Rome; all the evidence is later, and from people with vested interests in propagating the idea.

What "vested interests" did the churches of North Africa have in propagating the idea that Peter was at Rome? The African churches were often in contention with Rome, and could have benefited greatly from a denial of Peter’s residency there; yet they never dispute the Roman claim, but explicitly accept it. The N.T. seems to preclude his influence there, Rome being Paul’s ‘territory’.

Nonsense. Paul’s letter to the Romans is addressed to a church which already existed, a church he had never visited and had no authority over. There was of course considerable motive for later Roman Emperors to encourage such a superstition, as they did many others in order to influence the plebeians. The absence of any mention of any special role for Peter in Clement, Ignatius and ther Didache, all early(ish) writers, shows that those who would have most gained from that role could not do so.

First you tell us that very little has survived from the early Church; then you argue that the absence of data from that same early Church proves that Peter had no special role in it. You can’t have it both ways. To him succeeded Anacletus;< Again, the existence of this man, as a monarchical bishop, could well be pure conjecture, the convenience of hindsight. There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of either of them. It is all ‘after the fact’.

Most history is "after the fact". Much of even modern history is reconstruction based on inferences from passing references and "must have been" analysis. If you set the standard too high, you end up with the position that "history is bunk" and that we know nothing at all about what happened before we were born. You either do the best you can with the data that’s available, or you decide that in fact we can know nothing at all. You can go that route if you want to, but all it does is reduce the world to nihilistic meaninglessness. Because somebody writes something down about purported events nearly three hundred years after they were supposed to occur, it does not mean that they did occur.

It doesn’t mean they *didn’t*, either. Secular historians do not take that sort of evidence seriously at all,

Hogwash. Secular historians are continually mining the ancient historians for evidence about what happened hundreds of years before those historians were born. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There is Paul’s first-hand evidence for Timothy and Titus, but not John’s for Polycarp, nor Peter’s for Clement and Evodius. There is no record, even second-hand, of John ordaining Papias. He may not even have met John. He does not say so himself, although he leaves just enough doubt for Ireneaus to jump to that conclusion. It makes little difference anyway. He, Clement, and many others may have heard John, Peter, and Paul, but that does not mean at all that they agreed with them, any more than the Pharisees agreed with Jesus. Had they disagreed with them, but wanted to stay in the church for some reason, they would have certainly said they agreed with John, Peter and Paul, and referred to them flatteringly, as they invariably did (which would have been completely rejected by those Christians). But Clement’s writing actually flatly contradicts Paul’s, as does that of Ignatius, and Polycarp supports him. That should certainly arouse our suspicions. Why would the apostles ordain people who disagreed with them? The people who did agree with the apostles did not favour anything other than a conciliar church, and would not have allowed themselves to be made single bishops. Anyone who does do so, cannot claim apostolic authority. It is a self-cancelling claim.

Essentially what you are doing here is imposing your own preconceived interpretation of the data onto the data, and then deleting from the data set anything that doesn’t agree with your interpretation. With that approach one can prove, or disprove, virtually anything that is not accessible to direct perception. You prefer the congregational model of the Church to the episcopal model, so you impose that model on … read more »

Response:

Satan can quote Scripture fluently. Welcome to my killfile. -Tony Proverbs 14:18 18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge. Folly is the destiny for the ‘foolish clamorous’ woman who is simple and ‘knoweth nothing’. ‘She is as a natural brute beast, made to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil of the things she cannot understand; and shall utterly perish in her own corruption;’ ( a very loose paraphrase of 2 Peter 2:12, but it fits. ) The ungodly perish through their religious pride, religious deceit and self-deception; as taught to them by their lost religious leaders.

– "It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." — Mother Theresa

Response:

Paul ordained Titus as bishop of Crete and Timothy as bishop of Ephesus; John ordained Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna and Papias as bishop of Hierapolis; Peter ordained Clement as bishop of Rome and Evodius as bishop of Antioch; and so forth. < Would you supply evidence for these events, please. Paul ordaining Titus and Timothy: See the New Testament epistles of those names.

Paul was an apostle. His writing dates from the middle of the first century. He does not quote from any other source than the Old Testament, other than Jesus’ sayings. His evidence may be regarded as of the first quality. His writings do not have any reference at all to what is alleged above. Also: Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.1]<

Eusebius was not an apostle. He was a monarchical Bishop, after a time of persecution, and there was rumour that he compromised with the Roman authorities. He was involved to some extent with Arianism. He revised his work a great deal. His writing is far from contemporary with the events in question, dating from the early fourth century. There is no actual quote here either. What records was Eusebius referring to, unless it was the Scriptures? If it was the Scriptures, why was it necessary to make this comment, unless the Scriptures were already unfamiliar to at least some people? If it is not a reference to Scripture, then where are these records? If Eusebius had access to them, did he not preserve them carefully, or make sure that he made a copy verbatim? John ordaining Polycarp: But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried a very long time and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4]<

Irenaus was not an apostle. He was a monarchical Bishop after a time of persecution. His principle work is dated c. 180. Formal discussion of the ‘office’ of a single Bishop dates from his writing, although it can be found by suggestion earlier in Ignatius (though by no means early enough). His theory of apostolic authority being passed only to monarchical figures, which was based on rhetoric in contradiction to Scripture, would have certainly have been assisted by a claim for John’s ordination of Polycarp. If all the Asiatic churches testified to Polycarp’s ordination, where is that testimony? It is anyway extraordinary that there is so little writing surviving from the immediately post-apostolic church. Almost all that does survive is in a curious, hermetically-sealed world of its own, its only new and distinctive feature being disagreement with Scripture. Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning … as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John … [Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32.]

Tertullian was not an apostle. Much of what is known of him is uncertain, dating from historians who wrote well after his death. What is fairly certain is that he left the official church and joined the Montanists, and later broke away from them too. From his own writing it is evident that he was a pagan in early life, but he nowhere records his conversion. His interest seems to have lain in legalistic morality rather than Christianity. He was one of the first to propose that tradition was of greater value than Scripture. Where is this roll now? When was it written? If John had really put Polycarp in that position he must have acted completely out of character. He was intensely aware of the continuity of the new dispensation with the old, and, like Paul, James and Peter, would have retained the conciliar and divinely approved form of government that characterised the synagogues. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – John ordaining Papias: Papias, a hearer of John and bishop of Hierapolis … [Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 18.] And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp … [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4] And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known … [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.36] Peter ordaining Clement: The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy.

That is almost certainly a guesswork on the part of Irenaeus. There is no real evidence that this bishop ‘Linus’ ever existed. Nothing whatever is known of any supposed ‘Bishop’, at a time when other evidence indicates that the Roman church had multiple bishops like other churches. In addition, there is no contemporary evidence that Peter even went to Rome; all the evidence is later, and frompeople with vested interests in propagating the idea. The N.T. seems to preclude his influence there, Rome being Paul’s ‘territory’. There was of course considerable motive for later Roman Emperors to encourage such a superstition, as they did many others in order to influence the plebeians. The absence of any mention of any special role for Peter in Clement, Ignatius and ther Didache, all early(ish) writers, shows that those who would have most gained from that role could not do so. To him succeeded Anacletus;<

Again, the existence of this man, as a monarchical bishop, could well be pure conjecture, the convenience of hindsight. There is no contemporary evidence for the existence of either of them. It is all ‘after the fact’. and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2]

Clement himself does not anywhere describe himself as bishop of any sort. In the circumstances of his writing, the ‘office’ would certainly have been referred to by a monarchical bishop. … as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [Tertullian, Prescrip- tion Against Heretics 32.]<

Tertullian tellingly only notes the claim of the Roman church. Peter ordaining Evodius: At Antioch, where Evodius had been the first bishop, Ignatius was becoming famous at this time … [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.22] … Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter … [Ibid., 3.36] Please also supply similar information for all other applicable places. Read Eusebius.<

Because somebody writes something down about purported events nearly three hundred years after they were supposed to occur, it does not mean that they did occur. Secular historians do not take that sort of evidence seriously at all, even when there are no great consequences if they do not do so. This approach is surely even more necessary for those considering claims made in today’s world that depend on history. The acceptance of these claims by earlier generations does not mean that they are justified. We are actually in a much better position to judge the evidence than they often were, although there was much more scepticism of these claims in earlier times than is often thought. There is Paul’s first-hand evidence for Timothy and Titus, but not John’s for Polycarp, nor Peter’s for Clement and Evodius. There is no record, even second-hand, of John ordaining Papias. He may not even have met John. He does not say so himself, although he leaves just enough doubt for Ireneaus to jump to that conclusion. It makes little difference anyway. He, Clement, and many others may have heard John, Peter, and Paul, but that does not mean at all that they agreed with them, any more than the Pharisees agreed with Jesus. Had they disagreed with them, but wanted to stay in the church for some reason, they would have certainly said they agreed with John, Peter and Paul, and referred to them flatteringly, as they invariably did (which would have been completely rejected by those Christians). But Clement’s writing actually flatly contradicts Paul’s, as does that of Ignatius, and Polycarp supports him. That should certainly arouse our suspicions. Why would the apostles ordain people who disagreed with them? The people who did agree with the apostles did not favour anything other than a conciliar church, and would not have allowed themselves to be made single bishops. Anyone who does do so, cannot claim apostolic authority. It is a self-cancelling claim. Eusebius cannot be regarded as an historian proper, because his methods were imprecise and selective, and he accepted second-hand evidence without checking. He, Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote well after the events they referred to, and two of them had vested personal interests in the acceptance of these alleged facts. It may be that … read more »

Response:

: : : : : : : : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic : Succession’; : : : inform them they are either deceived, : : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by : successors : : of : : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. : : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : : performed? Think about it. : : : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable : : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture? : Where : : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the truth? Tell : me, : : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? : : Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours. : : LOL Proverbs 9:13 13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.

Response:

Paul ordaining Titus and Timothy: See the New Testament epistles of those names. Also: Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.1] John ordaining Polycarp: But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried a very long time and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.4] Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning … as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John … [Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 32.] John ordaining Papias: Papias, a hearer of John and bishop of Hierapolis … [Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 18.] And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp … [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.33.4] And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known … [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.36] Peter ordaining Clement: The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2] … as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [Tertullian, Prescrip- tion Against Heretics 32.] Peter ordaining Evodius: At Antioch, where Evodius had been the first bishop, Ignatius was becoming famous at this time … [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.22] … Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter … [Ibid., 3.36] Please also supply similar information for all other applicable places.

Read Eusebius.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : : : : : :

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic : Succession’; : : : inform them they are either deceived, : : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by : successors : : of : : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. : : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : : performed? Think about it. : : : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable : : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture? : Where : : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the truth? Tell : me, : : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? : : Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours. : : LOL Proverbs 9:13 13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. The fool immediately shows his anger, but the shrewd man passes over an insult.

"point Set And Match to Scout Lady" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader : is : the : : : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic : : Succession’; : : : : inform them they are either deceived, : : : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by : : successors : : : of : : : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : : : : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : : : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet : him. : : : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : : : performed? Think about it. : : : : : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what : verifiable : : : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret : scripture? : : Where : : : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the : truth? : Tell : : me, : : : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? : : : : Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours. : : : : LOL : : Proverbs 9:13 : 13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing. : : The fool immediately shows his anger, but the shrewd man passes over an : insult. : : : "point Set And Match to Scout Lady" Proverbs 14:18 18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge. Folly is the destiny for the ‘foolish clamorous’ woman who is simple and ‘knoweth nothing’. ‘She is as a natural brute beast, made to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil of the things she cannot understand; and shall utterly perish in her own corruption;’ ( a very loose paraphrase of 2 Peter 2:12, but it fits. ) The ungodly perish through their religious pride, religious deceit and self-deception; as taught to them by their lost religious leaders.

Response:

There is no authority within the RCC for its heretical claims of its continuing ‘Apostolic Succession’, because such an office or position never existed.

.. etc., etc., etc. Your whole posting is based on a false premise. "Apostolic Succession" does not mean that the bishops are themselves Apostles; it means that they received their office in a chain of succession that can be traced back to the first bishops appointed by the Apostles. Thus Paul ordained Titus as bishop of Crete and Timothy as bishop of Ephesus; John ordained Polycarp as bishop of Smyrna and Papias as bishop of Hierapolis; Peter ordained Clement as bishop of Rome and Evodius as bishop of Antioch; and so forth. That generation of bishops ordained the next generation of bishops after them, and so on down the line until today, in an unbroken succession. In short, Apostolic Succession is not a succession *of* Apostles, but a succession *from* the Apostles. The Apostolic Age died with the death of the last Apostle, St. John the Beloved.

The Catholic Church teaches exactly the same thing. How many Popes have received a personal and literal audience with God, for the calling of their manmade office?

Not necessary, since Popes do not claim to be Apostles. Where are the miracles from today’s self-proclaimed Apostles?

Good question. Go ask the pentecostals who claim to have "Apostles" among them. Catholics don’t make any such claim. The fact is, that not no miracle ever occurred in the entire New Testament record except in the presence of an Apostle or someone directly commissioned by an Apostle.

Not true. Read Luke 9:49-50. The Apostles of Christ were unquestionably a Divinely called and separated special breed unto themselves;

True. they have no successors.

False. Christ was certainly "separated" and "special", yet he commissioned Apostles to continue his mission after his departure. The Apostles themselves did the same thing, by appointing successors who would carry on their work. Those successors did not have all the authority of the Apostles themselves–they could not issue new revelations or bear personal witness to the resurrection–but they *could* continue the task of teaching and shepherding the faithful, based on the divine revelation and the divinely ordained authority which the Apostles had passed on to them.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : : : : : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic : Succession’; : : : inform them they are either deceived, : : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by : successors : : of : : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. : : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : : performed? Think about it. : : : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable : : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture? : Where : : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the truth? Tell : me, : : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? : : Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours. : : LOL Proverbs 9:13 13 A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.

The fool immediately shows his anger, but the shrewd man passes over an insult.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : : : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic Succession’; : : inform them they are either deceived, : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by successors : of : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : performed? Think about it. : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture? Where : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the truth? Tell me, : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours.

LOL

Response:

: : : : : So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic Succession’; : : inform them they are either deceived, : : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by successors : of : : the Apostles. Think about it. : : Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? : Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. : What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle : performed? Think about it. : : LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable : supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture? Where : can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the truth? Tell me, : are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying? Answer my questions, all of them, then I shall answer yours.

Response:

LOL, somehow I knew that would be your reply. Tell me, what verifiable supernatural miracle teaches you to be able to interpret scripture? Where can I met this teacher, and how come he only teaches you the truth? Tell me, are you deceived, ignorant, or simply lying?

Response:

There is no authority within the RCC for its heretical claims of its

continuing ‘Apostolic Succession’, because such an office or position never existed. Should anyone closely examine the Biblical teachings and mandates of the Apostle’s, they would quickly conclude the teaching within the RCC is but mere fantasy. Ask yourself this question: How many Apostle’s were called or given by the Church? The answer is; none! In Ephesians 2:19-20 the Apostle Paul, the last Apostle, proclaimed that the Church was "built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the Chief Corner Stone." Ephesians 2:19-20 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but

fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus

Christ himself being the chief corner stone; – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Apostolic Age died with the death of the last Apostle, St. John the Beloved. There was an occasion when the Apostles, acting through the flesh, because the empowerment of the Holy Ghost had not yet been given to them, gambled to determine who would be the successor to Judas. This non-Spiritual event was instigated and led by none other than the impetuous Peter. His intentions, motives and zeal may all have been correct, but he was still working only through his flesh, outside the will of God, trying to usurp the authority of God. Only God called Apostles. Even though the Apostles could not appoint an Apostolic successor to Judas, the arrogant Peter did know the qualifications for those called by God to be an Apostle. (1) The original qualification of an apostle, as stated by St. Peter on

the occasion of electing a successor to the traitor Judas, was that he should have been personally acquainted with the

whole ministerial course of our Lord, from his baptism by John till the day when he was taken up into heaven. (2) They were all personally chosen by Christ himself; face to face. Hand picked. (3) They all had the power of working miracles. (4) They were all inspired by God, personally. (5) Their work was preeminently that of founding the Churches and

upholding them by supernatural power specially bestowed to them or one directly commissioned by an Apostle, those for that purpose only. (6) The office ceased, as a matter of course, with all those who were personally called by the Christ; all continuation of it, from the very conditions of its

existence (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1), being impossible. 1 Corinthians 9:1 1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our

Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine

apostleship are ye in the Lord. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Those claiming a type of ‘Apostolic Succession’ today are self-deceived and believe the lies of men above the Bible. How many Popes have received a personal and literal audience with God, for the calling of their manmade office? Where are the miracles from today’s self-proclaimed Apostles? The true miracle is God doesn’t strike them all dead for such blatant and willful disobedience against Him. The fact is, that not no miracle ever occurred in the entire New Testament record except in the presence of an Apostle or someone directly commissioned by an Apostle. You may state others in the New Testament were also called "Apostles". This is true, but it had no bearing on the not yet existent RCC. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, people were called "apostles of the Church". This is a general reference to those in the Church. There is a great and distinct

difference or separation here between ‘those in the Church’ and the Apostles chosen by Christ. The ‘Apostles of the Church’, were sent out by the body of believers. The Apostles of Christ were personally chosen and sent out by "GOD"! Also, there are no recorded miracles in Scripture as having been performed

through any ‘Apostle of the Church’. This is true even to this day. The Apostles of Christ were unquestionably a Divinely called and separated special breed unto themselves; they have no successors. The Age of Christ’ Apostles and what they did in founding the Church is forever in the past. The Apostolic Age was unique, created by God for founding His Church, and it is ended. Church history verifies it. Jesus the Christ proclaims it through His Word. Correct Theology proves it, and the New Testament repeatedly attests to the end of the Apostolic Age. So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the

successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic Succession’; inform them they are either deceived, ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying.

There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by successors of the Apostles. Think about it.

Response:

: So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the : successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic Succession’; : inform them they are either deceived, : ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying. : : There is a miracle performed thousands of times everyday by successors of : the Apostles. Think about it. Tell me; are you ‘deceived’, ‘ignorant’ or simply ‘lying’? Post the name and location for your apostle; I want to greet him. What ‘verifiable’ supernatural miracle from God has your apostle performed? Think about it.

Response:

There is no authority within the RCC for its heretical claims of its continuing ‘Apostolic Succession’, because such an office or position never existed. Should anyone closely examine the Biblical teachings and mandates of the Apostle’s, they would quickly conclude the teaching within the RCC is but mere fantasy. Ask yourself this question: How many Apostle’s were called or given by the Church? The answer is; none! In Ephesians 2:19-20 the Apostle Paul, the last Apostle, proclaimed that the Church was "built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the Chief Corner Stone." Ephesians 2:19-20 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; The Apostolic Age died with the death of the last Apostle, St. John the Beloved. There was an occasion when the Apostles, acting through the flesh, because the empowerment of the Holy Ghost had not yet been given to them, gambled to determine who would be the successor to Judas. This non-Spiritual event was instigated and led by none other than the impetuous Peter. His intentions, motives and zeal may all have been correct, but he was still working only through his flesh, outside the will of God, trying to usurp the authority of God. Only God called Apostles. Even though the Apostles could not appoint an Apostolic successor to Judas, the arrogant Peter did know the qualifications for those called by God to be an Apostle. (1) The original qualification of an apostle, as stated by St. Peter on the occasion of electing a successor to the traitor Judas, was that he should have been personally acquainted with the whole ministerial course of our Lord, from his baptism by John till the day when he was taken up into heaven. (2) They were all personally chosen by Christ himself; face to face. Hand picked. (3) They all had the power of working miracles. (4) They were all inspired by God, personally. (5) Their work was preeminently that of founding the Churches and upholding them by supernatural power specially bestowed to them or one directly commissioned by an Apostle, those for that purpose only. (6) The office ceased, as a matter of course, with all those who were personally called by the Christ; all continuation of it, from the very conditions of its existence (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1), being impossible. 1 Corinthians 9:1 1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. Those claiming a type of ‘Apostolic Succession’ today are self-deceived and believe the lies of men above the Bible. How many Popes have received a personal and literal audience with God, for the calling of their manmade office? Where are the miracles from today’s self-proclaimed Apostles? The true miracle is God doesn’t strike them all dead for such blatant and willful disobedience against Him. The fact is, that not no miracle ever occurred in the entire New Testament record except in the presence of an Apostle or someone directly commissioned by an Apostle. You may state others in the New Testament were also called "Apostles". This is true, but it had no bearing on the not yet existent RCC. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, people were called "apostles of the Church". This is a general reference to those in the Church. There is a great and distinct difference or separation here between ‘those in the Church’ and the Apostles chosen by Christ. The ‘Apostles of the Church’, were sent out by the body of believers. The Apostles of Christ were personally chosen and sent out by "GOD"! Also, there are no recorded miracles in Scripture as having been performed through any ‘Apostle of the Church’. This is true even to this day. The Apostles of Christ were unquestionably a Divinely called and separated special breed unto themselves; they have no successors. The Age of Christ’ Apostles and what they did in founding the Church is forever in the past. The Apostolic Age was unique, created by God for founding His Church, and it is ended. Church history verifies it. Jesus the Christ proclaims it through His Word. Correct Theology proves it, and the New Testament repeatedly attests to the end of the Apostolic Age. So, the next time anyone proclaims there religion’s leader is the successor to St. Peter through the religion’s ‘Apostolic Succession’; inform them they are either deceived, ignorant of the teachings in the Bible, or they are lying.

Response:

I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts: With regard to the Reformation, couldn’t it be viewed that the reformers, who were concerned with abuses of power displayed by the Church at that time, felt they had to split from Rome in order to PRESERVE the spirit of teachings originally offered by Christ, and originally spread by his first disciples? In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts:

Maby you do, but from your discussion it seems you might not understand it fully, so allow me to give a quick explenation of apostolic succession. Christ established his church upon the twelve Apostles. The Apostles in turn, ordained two different types of people, who would eventually be known as "deacons" and "priests." Many of the apostles considered themselves "elders" (which was the word which evolved into the english word priest) but also "overseers" (or bishops) as well. They ordained fellow ovserseers by the laying of hands. Apostolic succession is the sucession of episcopal ordination from one generation of bishops to the next, passing down apostolic authority as well as the authority to ordain futher bishops. For the majority of protestant denominations, the notion the sacraments, especially that of ordination was abhorent. They did not therefore ordain anyone, especially in the sense which the church uses. In the case of England, a dispute over the wording of the rite of ordination, during the Anglican’s Churches more protestant swings, has caused the Catholic Church to declare their succession null and void. However, many schismatic churches, some splitting after various Ecumenical Councils, like the Old Catholics are considered to have valid Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is not a measure of how much faithful a particular group is towards the Apostolic Tradition. — Peace & Good! Christopher Beattie SFO KOC, SPEBSQSA, et.al. Before you buy.

Response:

Yes, I have no doubt this is precisely what motivated Luther, Zwingli, et al. In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor?

Well if you put "apostolic succession" in quotes like that, implying that you’re using the term metaphorically rather than literally, then, yes, I suppose many denominations could (and probably do) make that metaphoric claim. But most denominations can not make a literal apostolic claim – and the Catholic church does make the claim literally. In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"?

I don’t think the judgment of a denomination’s faithfulness to Christ’s teachings starts or stops with whether their leaders possess apostolic succession. IOW, our Protestant brothers and sisters believe and teach many things which are true and right and good, even though their denominations lack a line of succession to the apostles. Or, to put it another way, just because they lack apostolic succession doesn’t mean they’re completely wrong on every teaching – quite the opposite, they are right on much more than they’re wrong. (For which assertion I’m sure they’re grateful. ). For all that, one of the marks that identifies the Catholic Church as subsisting in the true church is that it is apostolic. And we know Christ promised he never would abandon the true church. Do we therefore conclude that He has in fact abandoned the non-apostolic churches? Not at all! At least, I know of no basis for believing that. For all we know, nobody has been abandoned. I agree with you that many non-Catholic and non-Christian belief systems can be tested by what they teach. Obviously, I would use Catholic teaching as a baseline standard for judging whether what the other churches and religions teach is truthful or not. And selfless love for others surely is part of that baseline standard. Jim Before you buy.

Response:

Thank you for a very thoughtful answer Jim. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts: With regard to the Reformation, couldn’t it be viewed that the reformers, who were concerned with abuses of power displayed by the Church at that time, felt they had to split from Rome in order to PRESERVE the spirit of teachings originally offered by Christ, and originally spread by his first disciples? Yes, I have no doubt this is precisely what motivated Luther, Zwingli, et al. In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? Well if you put "apostolic succession" in quotes like that, implying that you’re using the term metaphorically rather than literally, then, yes, I suppose many denominations could (and probably do) make that metaphoric claim. But most denominations can not make a literal apostolic claim – and the Catholic church does make the claim literally. In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? I don’t think the judgment of a denomination’s faithfulness to Christ’s teachings starts or stops with whether their leaders possess apostolic succession. IOW, our Protestant brothers and sisters believe and teach many things which are true and right and good, even though their denominations lack a line of succession to the apostles. Or, to put it another way, just because they lack apostolic succession doesn’t mean they’re completely wrong on every teaching – quite the opposite, they are right on much more than they’re wrong. (For which assertion I’m sure they’re grateful. ). For all that, one of the marks that identifies the Catholic Church as subsisting in the true church is that it is apostolic. And we know Christ promised he never would abandon the true church. Do we therefore conclude that He has in fact abandoned the non- apostolic churches? Not at all! At least, I know of no basis for believing that. For all we know, nobody has been abandoned. I agree with you that many non-Catholic and non-Christian belief systems can be tested by what they teach. Obviously, I would use Catholic teaching as a baseline standard for judging whether what the other churches and religions teach is truthful or not. And selfless love for others surely is part of that baseline standard. Jim Before you buy.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

No, for His Real Presence would have, necessarily, went with them. As it was, history witnessed a gradual watering-down of that spirit; the earliest with the Lutherans and their possession of, arguably, a close semblance of the Eucharist, to the vacant symbolism of the far more recent denominations. In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out?

The lack of direct Apostolic Succession only entails the lack of His Real Presence as gloriously manifested within the holy Eucharist. As if that were not enough? However such a lack does not ensure damnation, as I take it that you’re fearing, particularly for those unwittingly born into the many denominations. I may not state that the progenitors of these separations…Luther…Calvin…Knox…et cetera…are damned, but one does tend to reflect… Whether one chooses to be about Him, now, in this life, as well as in the next, is entirely up to that individual soul. Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others?

Like that of the "Mahatma"? I trust. Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"?

All religions are feeble, clumsy, and fickle attempts to perceive "I AM", and, terribly… …His creature. Alan

Response:

Why? As it was, history witnessed a gradual watering-down of that spirit;

How so? the earliest with the Lutherans and their possession of, arguably, a close semblance of the Eucharist, to the vacant symbolism of the far more recent denominations.

What do you mean by vacant symbolism? Can you give some examples? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? The lack of direct Apostolic Succession only entails the lack of His Real Presence as gloriously manifested within the holy Eucharist.

Says who? As if that were not enough? However such a lack does not ensure damnation, as I take it that you’re fearing,

No, God will not damn someone because of what they believe, as long as that belief leads one toward love of others. God knows what’s in our hearts, regardless of what denomination we might belong to. The test is love. And Jesus himself, at least to the extent Jesus’ words were represented in the gospel, told us that we will be judged by how we treat others. particularly for those unwittingly born into the many denominations. I may not state that the progenitors of these separations…Luther…Calvin…Knox…et cetera…are damned, but one does tend to reflect…

If you do reflect you will hopefully see that God cares about the extent to which we love one another, and nothing else. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Whether one chooses to be about Him, now, in this life, as well as in the next, is entirely up to that individual soul. Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Like that of the "Mahatma"? I trust. Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? All religions are feeble, clumsy, and fickle attempts to perceive "I AM",

True. And I place Catholicism in this category along with all other religions. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

If you have to ask… …then you are among them. As it was, history witnessed a gradual watering-down of that spirit; How so?

Read on… the earliest with the Lutherans and their possession of, arguably, a close semblance of the Eucharist, to the vacant symbolism of the far more recent denominations. What do you mean by vacant symbolism? Can you give some examples?

The Campbellite churches of Christ, for one, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, for another… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? The lack of direct Apostolic Succession only entails the lack of His Real Presence as gloriously manifested within the holy Eucharist. Says who?

Specifically, an assurance of same, and says I, or me whichever the case may be. As if that were not enough? However such a lack does not ensure damnation, as I take it that you’re fearing, No, God will not damn someone because of what they believe, as long as that belief leads one toward love of others. God knows what’s in our hearts, regardless of what denomination we might belong to. The test is love. And Jesus himself, at least to the extent Jesus’ words were represented in the gospel, told us that we will be judged by how we treat others.

Love is indeed the greatest of the Three, but I suspect that your interpretation may be just a tad too liberal, in that no rendering may contraindicate His clear Scriptural commandments. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -particularly for those unwittingly born into the many denominations. I may not state that the progenitors of these separations…Luther…Calvin…Knox…et cetera…are damned, but one does tend to reflect… If you do reflect you will hopefully see that God cares about the extent to which we love one another, and nothing else. Whether one chooses to be about Him, now, in this life, as well as in the next, is entirely up to that individual soul. Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Like that of the "Mahatma"? I trust. Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? All religions are feeble, clumsy, and fickle attempts to perceive "I AM", True. And I place Catholicism in this category along with all other religions.

As though I stated otherwise, really? Alan

Response:

Translate to read: You don’t have a reasonable answer the question. As it was, history witnessed a gradual watering-down of that spirit; How so? Read on…

What you posted below offers no answers. the earliest with the Lutherans and their possession of, arguably, a close semblance of the Eucharist, to the vacant symbolism of the far more recent denominations. What do you mean by vacant symbolism? Can you give some examples? The Campbellite churches of Christ, for one, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, for another…

I asked for specific examples of "vacant symbolism" to which you were referring. What about these churches represent vacant symbolism? And keep in mind that if you say "everything," you’re ignoring the basic teachings of Christ which they do adhere to, and those teachings are far from vacant symbolism. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? The lack of direct Apostolic Succession only entails the lack of His Real Presence as gloriously manifested within the holy Eucharist. Says who? Specifically, an assurance of same,

An assurance of same by who? and says I, or me whichever the case may be.

Just because you believe it, does not make it so. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -As if that were not enough? However such a lack does not ensure damnation, as I take it that you’re fearing, No, God will not damn someone because of what they believe, as long as that belief leads one toward love of others. God knows what’s in our hearts, regardless of what denomination we might belong to. The test is love. And Jesus himself, at least to the extent Jesus’ words were represented in the gospel, told us that we will be judged by how we treat others. Love is indeed the greatest of the Three, but I suspect that your interpretation may be just a tad too liberal, in that no rendering may contraindicate His clear Scriptural commandments.

Such as? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -particularly for those unwittingly born into the many denominations. I may not state that the progenitors of these separations…Luther…Calvin…Knox…et cetera…are damned, but one does tend to reflect… If you do reflect you will hopefully see that God cares about the extent to which we love one another, and nothing else. Whether one chooses to be about Him, now, in this life, as well as in the next, is entirely up to that individual soul. Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Like that of the "Mahatma"? I trust. Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? All religions are feeble, clumsy, and fickle attempts to perceive "I AM", True. And I place Catholicism in this category along with all other religions. As though I stated otherwise, really?

No, I was just agreeing with you that Catholicism is as feeble, clumsy and fickle as all other forms of man-made organized religions. But now that I think of it, I would have to say that Catholicism exceeds other religions in these areas, particlarly the religions of the east, which are much more tolerant and much less fickle. As such, they are less feeble as well. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts: With regard to the Reformation, couldn’t it be viewed that the reformers, who were concerned with abuses of power displayed by the Church at that time, felt they had to split from Rome in order to PRESERVE the spirit of teachings originally offered by Christ, and originally spread by his first disciples? No, for His Real Presence would have, necessarily, went with them. Why? If you have to ask… ….then you are among them. Translate to read: You don’t have a reasonable answer the question. As it was, history witnessed a gradual watering-down of that spirit; How so? Read on… What you posted below offers no answers. the earliest with the Lutherans and their possession of, arguably, a close semblance of the Eucharist, to the vacant symbolism of the far more recent denominations. What do you mean by vacant symbolism? Can you give some examples? The Campbellite churches of Christ, for one, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, for another… I asked for specific examples of "vacant symbolism" to which you were referring. What about these churches represent vacant symbolism? And keep in mind that if you say "everything," you’re ignoring the basic teachings of Christ which they do adhere to, and those teachings are far from vacant symbolism.

Why, the lack of His Real presence, of course. Are you Catholic? If not, what then? <snip Love is indeed the greatest of the Three, but I suspect that your interpretation may be just a tad too liberal, in that no rendering may contraindicate His clear Scriptural commandments. Such as?

I’ve one too many "Expede" ’s as it is. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -particularly for those unwittingly born into the many denominations. I may not state that the progenitors of these separations…Luther…Calvin…Knox…et cetera…are damned, but one does tend to reflect… If you do reflect you will hopefully see that God cares about the extent to which we love one another, and nothing else. Whether one chooses to be about Him, now, in this life, as well as in the next, is entirely up to that individual soul. Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Like that of the "Mahatma"? I trust. Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? All religions are feeble, clumsy, and fickle attempts to perceive "I AM", True. And I place Catholicism in this category along with all other religions. As though I stated otherwise, really? No, I was just agreeing with you that Catholicism is as feeble, clumsy and fickle as all other forms of man-made organized religions. But now that I think of it, I would have to say that Catholicism exceeds other religions in these areas, particlarly the religions of the east, which are much more tolerant and much less fickle. As such, they are less feeble as well.

Right, as though you’re reincarnations of their respective adherents. Alan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – W. I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts: With regard to the Reformation, couldn’t it be viewed that the reformers, who were concerned with abuses of power displayed by the Church at that time, felt they had to split from Rome in order to PRESERVE the spirit of teachings originally offered by Christ, and originally spread by his first disciples? No, for His Real Presence would have, necessarily, went with them. Why? If you have to ask… ….then you are among them. Translate to read: You don’t have a reasonable answer the question. As it was, history witnessed a gradual watering-down of that spirit; How so? Read on… What you posted below offers no answers. the earliest with the Lutherans and their possession of, arguably, a close semblance of the Eucharist, to the vacant symbolism of the far more recent denominations. What do you mean by vacant symbolism? Can you give some examples? The Campbellite churches of Christ, for one, and the Seventh-Day Adventists, for another… I asked for specific examples of "vacant symbolism" to which you were referring. What about these churches represent vacant symbolism? And keep in mind that if you say "everything," you’re ignoring the basic teachings of Christ which they do adhere to, and those teachings are far from vacant symbolism. Why, the lack of His Real presence, of course.

That’s fine if you believe that, as long as you’re aware that it is a mental fantasy — a creation of your own mind. Are you Catholic? If not, what then?

Irrelevant. <snip Love is indeed the greatest of the Three, but I suspect that your interpretation may be just a tad too liberal, in that no rendering may contraindicate His clear Scriptural commandments. Such as? I’ve one too many "Expede" ’s as it is.

Translate again to read "Alan can’t answer the question." – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -particularly for those unwittingly born into the many denominations. I may not state that the progenitors of these separations…Luther…Calvin…Knox…et cetera…are damned, but one does tend to reflect… If you do reflect you will hopefully see that God cares about the extent to which we love one another, and nothing else. Whether one chooses to be about Him, now, in this life, as well as in the next, is entirely up to that individual soul. Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Like that of the "Mahatma"? I trust. Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? All religions are feeble, clumsy, and fickle attempts to perceive "I AM", True. And I place Catholicism in this category along with all other religions. As though I stated otherwise, really? No, I was just agreeing with you that Catholicism is as feeble, clumsy and fickle as all other forms of man-made organized religions. But now that I think of it, I would have to say that Catholicism exceeds other religions in these areas, particlarly the religions of the east, which are much more tolerant and much less fickle. As such, they are less feeble as well. Right, as though you’re reincarnations of their respective adherents.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

<snip That’s fine if you believe that, as long as you’re aware that it is a mental fantasy — a creation of your own mind.

Just as yours is of your own? Heh… Are you Catholic? If not, what then? Irrelevant.

Step out into the Light, so that we may see you. Only demons and cowards hide. Alan

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<snip That’s fine if you believe that, as long as you’re aware that it is a mental fantasy — a creation of your own mind. Just as yours is of your own? Heh… Are you Catholic? If not, what then? Irrelevant. Step out into the Light, so that we may see you. Only demons and cowards hide.

How silly. I don’t adhere to any particular denomination. And just remember, whatever conclusions you may draw from that are nothing more than creations of your own mind – fantasies; just like your nonsense regarding the Real Presence. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip That’s fine if you believe that, as long as you’re aware that it is a mental fantasy — a creation of your own mind. Just as yours is of your own? Heh… Are you Catholic? If not, what then? Irrelevant. Step out into the Light, so that we may see you. Only demons and cowards hide. How silly. I don’t adhere to any particular denomination. And just remember, whatever conclusions you may draw from that are nothing more than creations of your own mind – fantasies; just like your nonsense regarding the Real Presence.

If you want to check out the true source of real presence, go up to the thread, A question about lent. And dont worry about Craft, he’s a cannibal cultist from way back. He’s just forgotten who he really is. PeterT – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

No what you describe is a vast departure from what the original church was, and as it exists today as the Roman Catholic Church. Your ideas on Apostolic succession are also wrong as you have to have been directly decended from the Apostles, which Catholics are, and Fundies and Prots are not. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts: With regard to the Reformation, couldn’t it be viewed that the reformers, who were concerned with abuses of power displayed by the Church at that time, felt they had to split from Rome in order to PRESERVE the spirit of teachings originally offered by Christ, and originally spread by his first disciples? In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Indeed, a divided, bickering, often warring and hurtful Christian movement, now smashed into 30,000+ fragments- sects. "I have come with a sword." Given what has transpired as a direct result of this Apostolic succession, one must deduce that the spirit behind such an evolution of ideas and actions can hardly be of that of Christ.."By their fruits we shall known them" PeterT – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No what you describe is a vast departure from what the original church was, and as it exists today as the Roman Catholic Church. Your ideas on Apostolic succession are also wrong as you have to have been directly decended from the Apostles, which Catholics are, and Fundies and Prots are not. Pax I understand the orthodox Catholic understanding of apostolic succession. But here are some thoughts: With regard to the Reformation, couldn’t it be viewed that the reformers, who were concerned with abuses of power displayed by the Church at that time, felt they had to split from Rome in order to PRESERVE the spirit of teachings originally offered by Christ, and originally spread by his first disciples? In that case, can’t many denominations claim "apostolic succession?" And shouldn’t the test of whether a denomination is living in the spirit of Christ be the extent to which that denomination lives out Christ’s command that we love our neighbor? In other words, should the term "apostolic succession" be viewed as connecting people through a temporal line of authority, or should it be viewed as whether a particular group of Christians are "successors" to the spirit of Christ’s teachings? And again, shouldn’t the test of that succession be whether Jesus’ command to love is being carried out? Further, shouldn’t the test of whether *any* belief system, Christian or not, is truly from God, be the extent to which that belief system promotes selfless love of others? Can there really be a single belief system that has a copyright on the "truth"? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed. Subscribe via RSS

Posted in: Roman Catholic Belief |

Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Leave a Reply

Recent Entries

Search

Categories