a question for "Bible Only" churches

[jmcrae]

We also see the presbyter laying hands.

How a man becomes a presbyter, is he has hands laid on him by the Bishop.

I mean there is nothing to prove your point

.

There is also nothing to indicate that the laying on of hands was ever considered optional. As you’ve pointed out earlier, in 200 AD, nobody knew of an instance where it hadn’t been done.

I am not the one claiming it must it must be some kind of direct line.

Of course it has to be from a direct line, or else there is no way to know that it is originally from Christ. We contend that the direct line runs through Holy Tradition and the Succession of the Apostles, while the Protestants generally claim that the line runs through the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

How a man becomes a presbyter, is he has hands laid on him by the Bishop.

.

There is also nothing to indicate that the laying on of hands was ever considered optional. As you’ve pointed out earlier, in 200 AD, nobody knew of an instance where it hadn’t been done.

Of course it has to be from a direct line, or else there is no way to know that it is originally from Christ. We contend that the direct line runs through Holy Tradition and the Succession of the Apostles, while the Protestants generally claim that the line runs through the Bible.

No, not back then. You are operating under your present understanding of what they are doing now. This long article from the Catholic Encyclopedia even states that.
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

There is not the distinction in the early church. Catholic and Protestant scholars both agree on that much. No, it does not have to be a direct line. That is a later view. It is absent from scripture and not supported by the Apostolic Fathers and their writings. The church (the local church I will add) did the appointing.

 

[Dokimas]

You brought it on yourself by inferring you might have some documentation to prove Catholic history different than what it is.

There are many ‘anti-Catholics’ out there who would love to prove the Catholic Church wrong. If there was any such evidence, we’d have seen it before and alot more prominently than a forum.

Now, you’re going to show the early Church fathers were ‘Protestants’. Not going to happen. If you want to really look at their writings, you’re going to see Catholic doctrine in it’s beginning stages. Sorry, but you’re just stacking a deck against yourself.

I see you’re too tired to respond to the quotes from the early Church fathers. I’ll be looking forward to your response on them tomorrow.

Who said anything about the early church being protestant? There you go again making wild assumptions.​

BTW, I never said I had any documentation about anything. I ask a question which you’ve dodged, and good thing you did.​

There is historical evidence that differs from what you think but you’d reject it, so why spend any time getting you links.

 

[Dokimas]

What? You claim the Catholic Church wrote a self serving history, somehow insinuating that the secular world would have allowed that to happen, then you want to use the early Church fathers, who wrote about Catholic doctrines, as proof of your view. Oh, private interpretation at work again?

I have NO clue what you’re ranting about.

 

[jmcrae]

No, not back then. You are operating under your present understanding of what they are doing now. This long article from the Catholic Encyclopedia even states that.
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

There is not the distinction in the early church. Catholic and Protestant scholars both agree on that much. No, it does not have to be a direct line. That is a later view. It is absent from scripture and not supported by the Apostolic Fathers and their writings. The church (the local church I will add) did the appointing.

The local church (the Diocese; not the parish) held an election. The person elected then went to the Pope to receive his Ordination and laying on of hands. This was to receive the Apostolic Succession, and to show that the Pope approved of the choice made by the Diocese.

If there is no direct line, then how do you know that what you are passing on, came from the Apostles? (And if you are just making stuff up, then why bother passing it on? The next generation can make up their own stuff.)

 

[Dokimas]

One thought before you retire. What is the prize? What do you win if you could “prove” us wrong and you right, what would you gain. I don’t understand the ever present notion that preotestants need to “save” Catholics who are already in His Church and are already children of God.

Do you see my soul as in danger of eternal damnation if you do not pull me out of Mother Church?

That is the part that always leaves me wondering. Why the need to change history?

You came into a thread that was interesting because it never is discussed here, the “other” books that is. You hijacked it by writing a comment that you know would start the very debate you got to show how much of a better Christian you are than us Catholics.

You come off as pompus and arogant at times. You never provide any documentation when we bring Early Church Father writings and scripture, you bring opinion and accusation.

Good night sweet pea!

Another example of thinking you know and you don’t. I’m not here to save anyone. I don’t assume anyone’s unsaved here except those who are not Christians.​

With that obvious mistake on your part, the rest of the post isn’t worth commenting on; IMO, its just as mistaken and the ‘save’ catholics crack.

 

[jmcrae]

Who said anything about the early church being protestant? There you go again making wild assumptions.

If you do not think that the early Church was of the same religion that you are, then why follow your religion? Why not convert to the religion that the early Church was following?

 

[CWBetts]

No, not back then. You are operating under your present understanding of what they are doing now. This long article from the Catholic Encyclopedia even states that.
newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm

There is not the distinction in the early church. Catholic and Protestant scholars both agree on that much. No, it does not have to be a direct line. That is a later view. It is absent from scripture and not supported by the Apostolic Fathers and their writings. The church (the local church I will add) did the appointing.

The idea of an autonomous “local church” was completely foreign to the early Church. To maintain unity, Councils were held (such a gathering is shown in Acts 15), over which a single Bishop presided (in Acts it was clearly Peter).

 

[Nicea325]

I believe he was referencing doctrinal differences though. What are you confused about? Thanks.

I am not confused about anything. I am wondering,why non-Catholics are confused about the canon set back in the 4th and 5the centuries? Was the doctrine of the Trinity settled as well? The fact some reject it ( JW’s,Mormons,etc) does not negate the fact it was ‘officially’ settled. Whether Protestants accept or reject the 46 OT canon,does not make a bit of difference. It was settled as was the 27 NT and that is accepted by the majority of Protestants.

The U.S. Constitution was written and ratified,whether those rejected it or not,made no difference to the gov’t. It was a done deal!

 

[Nicea325]

Who said anything about the early church being protestant? There you go again making wild assumptions.​

BTW, I never said I had any documentation about anything. I ask a question which you’ve dodged, and good thing you did.​

There is historical evidence that differs from what you think but you’d reject it, so why spend any time getting you links.

Dokimas,

You make more excuses then a 5th grader writing a book report. Why are you so afraid of providing those links/sources? It is evident you only say what you want others to believe.

Hit us with your best shot,provide it or simply quit making false claims.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The local church (the Diocese; not the parish) held an election. The person elected then went to the Pope to receive his Ordination and laying on of hands. This was to receive the Apostolic Succession, and to show that the Pope approved of the choice made by the Diocese.

If there is no direct line, then how do you know that what you are passing on, came from the Apostles? (And if you are just making stuff up, then why bother passing it on? The next generation can make up their own stuff.)

No evidence of this whatsoever. Can you prove this statement as well?

 

[Rightlydivide]

The idea of an autonomous “local church” was completely foreign to the early Church. To maintain unity, Councils were held (such a gathering is shown in Acts 15), over which a single Bishop presided (in Acts it was clearly Peter).

What councils were held from 50 to 200 AD and what did they discuss?

 

[jmcrae]

No evidence of this whatsoever. Can you prove this statement as well?

Read the story of St. Ambrose. It shows all of the customs surrounding these elections.

 

[CWBetts]

No evidence of this whatsoever. Can you prove this statement as well?

Matthias had hands laid on him to fill the office of Judas, as shown in the 1st chapter of Acts. Paul also had hands laid on him.

 

[Nicea325]

Rightlydivide:

There is not the distinction in the early church. Catholic and Protestant scholars both agree on that much. No, it does not have to be a direct line. That is a later view. It is absent from scripture and not supported by the Apostolic Fathers and their writings. The church (the local church I will add) did the appointing.

And it is not supported in scripture and the early church fathers for everyone to open up shop and do as they please.The local church did the appointing? That in itself does not equate or prove for individual churches to do as they please. If that is the case,then explain why not ONE bishop,priest,deacon or lay person bothered to rebuke St.Clement’s letter to the church at Corinth? If each is free to do as they please,then why no rejection to Clement he had no authority to tell them what to do?

 

[Nicea325]

What councils were held from 50 to 200 AD and what did they discuss?

And what does that prove? And what ecumenical councils were held between 325 and 381 A.D.?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Matthias had hands laid on him to fill the office of Judas, as shown in the 1st chapter of Acts. Paul also had hands laid on him.

Matthias was chosen by lot. The “office” of Judas simply refers to his position among the twelve. He did not supervise anything because they had nothing to supervise yet! Yes, paul had hands laid on him. We just talked about that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

And what does that prove? And what ecumenical councils were held between 325 and 381 A.D.?

The statement was made the councils were held. I asked for evidence. Of course they hold councils later on.

 

[jmcrae]

And what does that prove? And what ecumenical councils were held between 325 and 381 A.D.?

Or from 1967 until now.

Can we say that we have no Pope, because the current Pope has never held an ecumenical council?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide:

There is not the distinction in the early church. Catholic and Protestant scholars both agree on that much. No, it does not have to be a direct line. That is a later view. It is absent from scripture and not supported by the Apostolic Fathers and their writings. The church (the local church I will add) did the appointing.

And it is not supported in scripture and the early church fathers for everyone to open up shop and do as they please.The local church did the appointing? That in itself does not equate or prove for individual churches to do as they please. If that is the case,then explain why not ONE bishop,priest,deacon or lay person bothered to rebuke St.Clement’s letter to the church at Corinth? If each is free to do as they please,then why no rejection to Clement he had no authority to tell them what to do?

Why are these always taken to drastic extremes?
Clement wrote to Corinth because they asked for his help.
Clement was associated with Paul. Paul wrote to Corinth and Clement doing so is not a stretch. Polycarp wrote to churches. Ignatius wrote to churches. A LOT of people wrote to churches. Patristic literature is filled with examples. Eusebius writes about letters between churches as well. Christians cooperate and seek advice from other Christians. That is why all these letters occured and certainly not just from people in Rome as Polycarp and Ignatius and many others show.
I never said they “did what they pleased”. No Christian states that whether they believe in tradition, scripture, or the tooth fairy.
Fill me in if anyone says…“do what you please” because I missed that part. I do wish people would actually discuss what I say instead of what they want me to say.