a question for "Bible Only" churches

[Rightlydivide]

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

St. Ambrose is going to show that Papal approval extends back to the first century?

 

[jmcrae]

Why are these always taken to drastic extremes?
Clement wrote to Corinth because they asked for his help.

Why would the congregations have asked for St. Clement’s help with the problems they were having with their Bishops, unless he had the authority to tell their Bishops what to do? But if he was just another Bishop, equal to those Bishops, then why would they have to listen to him?

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.

All of these were Bishops, and all of them were writing to Churches (Dioceses, parishes, etc.) over which they had Apostolic authority.

 

[Dokimas]

Then you do not know what infallible means I hate to be blunt.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infallible

Disagreeing with someone and saying they are wrong does not constitute infallibility. That is a whole new meaning of the word.

There’s been several times I’ve had similar problems with this concept and others. I’m purposely being vague.

 

[CWBetts]

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.

Since Judas had to be replaced, does that not infer that the position of Apostle was to be ongoing? All Christians, everywhere concluded it did until the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Why would the congregations have asked for St. Clement’s help with the problems they were having with their Bishops, unless he had the authority to tell their Bishops what to do? But if he was just another Bishop, equal to those Bishops, then why would they have to listen to him?

All of these were Bishops, and all of them were writing to Churches (Dioceses, parishes, etc.) over which they had Apostolic authority.

It does not say. But we know that people wrote letters to deal with issues in other churches. You know that I am sure. I never said Clement was a bishop by the way. I now know that my link (despite it being Catholic) was not read by you. That is your choice. But rest assured, for people interested, they can read it.

 

[Dokimas]

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?

What religion am I IYO?​

 

[jmcrae]

St. Ambrose is going to show that Papal approval extends back to the first century?

In that what happened with St. Ambrose is what they were doing in those days, yes. Do you think that St. Ambrose was going to do anything he thought didn’t have the force of Holy Tradition behind it?

 

[jmcrae]

It does not say. But we know that people wrote letters to deal with issues in other churches.

People with the authority to do so, yes. If I were to write to your pastor and tell him he’s doing something wrong, would he feel bound to follow my directions? I strongly doubt it, since I have no authority over him.

I never said Clement was a bishop by the way.

Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome - this is common knowledge.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Since Judas had to be replaced, does that not infer that the position of Apostle was to be ongoing? All Christians, everywhere concluded it did until the Protestant Reformation.

The “position of Apostle” is not ongoing. Catholicism does not teach that. Be accurate about what it states about authority in regards to apostles and bishops.
From a biblical perspective, Apostles have no successors. Apostles must have seen Christ or they cannot be apostles. While there were obviously other factors that is the one that scripture states.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

So you will accept as truth any historical evidence that shows the present day CC is not exactly the church Jesus set up? WOW. I’ll get right on looking for the documentation.

 

[Rightlydivide]

People with the authority to do so, yes. If I were to write to your pastor and tell him he’s doing something wrong, would he feel bound to follow my directions? I strongly doubt it, since I have no authority over him.

Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome - this is common knowledge.

There was no single monarchial bishop in
Rome for a hundred years. That is common knowledge

 

[jmcrae]

There was no single monarchial bishop in
Rome for a hundred years. That is common knowledge

“Monarchial,” no - those trappings came later. But there was certainly a Bishop, and he was certainly the head of the Church, which is why the pagans and the Jews were both so single-mindedly interested in finding and killing him.

 

[jmcrae]

So you will accept as truth any historical evidence that shows the present day CC is not exactly the church Jesus set up?

As long as it was written by a credible eye-witness at the time.

 

[Lapey]

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.

Not even going to comment on the “good night sweet pea” wish? Man you are tough!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

*Nicea:
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?

You mean disobeying authority is not drastic? It was to the early church. Read St.Paul.

Clement wrote to Corinth because they asked for his help.

Why ask him for help,if the bishop of Rome is only an equal? Didn’t they have a bishop at Corinth? Why not settle the issue in-house? I wonder if the Bishop of Rome had a primacy? Hmmmmm?

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.

Yep! And were they just ordinary lay people or BISHOPS? Was Timothy a bishop or just some ordinary dude given special privileges by Paul?

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.

And to whom were most of the letters written to?

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.

I never said you said such a comment. I was making a distinct point that is one the major errors with non-Catholics. They believe Christianity revolves around a book and that is all we are supposed to obey and follow. That is an error and Christ never set up His church in such a fashion. He left a church with authority and the NT makes it very clear as to who had authority and most certainly was not the laity. One flock not thousands of conflicting churches are claiming they are the ‘true’ church or have it down all right. See my point?

 

[Nicea325]

So you will accept as truth any historical evidence that shows the present day CC is not exactly the church Jesus set up? WOW. I’ll get right on looking for the documentation.

Ah no! Because I have yet to read your so-called ‘proof’ that you believe is the true documentation.? I spent years earning my B.A. and Masters in History and reading scores and sources records and documenation,but you happen to have the documentation no else has had the past 2,000 years?

Go for it…present it and let me see how you happen to have the TRUE documentation?

 

[CWBetts]

The “position of Apostle” is not ongoing. Catholicism does not teach that. Be accurate about what it states about authority in regards to apostles and bishops.
From a biblical perspective, Apostles have no successors. Apostles must have seen Christ or they cannot be apostles. While there were obviously other factors that is the one that scripture states.

In one sense, you are correct, but in quite another sense, we are all apostles. The Bishops are most definitely successors of the Apostles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

The ‘universal’ Church as some Protestants continue to describe it. Differing doctrines, all of the same ‘Church’. It’s not wild assumptions and I apologize if I’m not making my thoughts clear, even though I really think it’s a ‘misunderstanding’ on your part.

Your second paragraph and your third paragraph conflict. ‘I never said I had any documentation about anything.’ ‘There is historical evidence that differs from what you think…’

Now, so you don’t accuse me of ‘putting words in your mouth’, I am providing the quote where you inferred you had access to documentation, but felt it was limited by time, energy, posting space and desire.

Oh, make no mistake about it, there’s historical record that tells a different tale that your record does. The ‘if I could’ refers to time, energy, posting space and desire.

You are presupposing our reactions to your ‘documentation’ and to be perfectly honest, it really seems to be a ‘dodge’.

Lastly, let’s discuss your accusation of me ‘dodging your question’.

If I could produce enough supporting documentation to prove my point, would you stop believing the history written by the CC?

I’m not going to blindly answer a question without seeing your ‘documentation’. I told you this question reminds me of a young child asking their mother, ‘mom, if I ask you a question, will you say yes?’

We interpret scriptures differently, yet I’m supposed to say that I will accept your documentation and stop believing the history written by the Catholic Church. Qualify this question. Based on whose measurement of truthful history? Whose discernment takes place on this ‘evidence’?

By the way, as your first quote in this post says, ‘BTW, I never said I had any documentation about anything. I ask a question which you’ve dodged, and good thing you did.’ the post above conflicts, yet again. ‘If I could produce enough supporting documentation to prove my point, would you stop believing the history written by the CC?’ Why demand a answer to a question about something you never said you had, in the first place?

Now, if you still want to run around stating I dodged a question, then you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since you insist you using just. I can clearly state that I would never refer to it as just a meal. The reason he said that is because the way they were conducting themselves. People were starting ahead of one another. Clearly you see that everyone is to eat at the same time…when was the last time that occured in your church?

Maybe it’s just semantics, but I doubt it. When do we sit down to a meal that makes us ‘guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord’? When do we sit down to a meal that is ‘eating and drinking judgment unto ourselves, not discerning the body of the Lord’?

1Co 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Co 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Co 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

To Catholics, the Lord’s Supper is the Eucharist. We do it at every Mass, 7 days a week, 365(6) days a year.

To answer your question about our Church sharing a meal for physical nourishment, we have done it every Friday during Lent. It happens more throughout the year, and I know other Catholic Churches that do the same.

What do you mean by authority? Churches had authority and they imposed hands. They had the authority to send out people from their congregation…kind of like my church does and almost all of Christianity.
The apostles laid hands but it does not say they had to lay hands only.
The presbytery laid hands, but it does not say they had hands laid on them prior.
Who does Ananias get his authority to lay hands on Paul? God.

There was an apostolic succession through the imposition of hands. That’s from the Apostles, the men they appointed and the men they appointed and on to present time.

Congregations did not have authority to impose hands and make appointments. The authoritative men of the Church did.

Ananias was a ‘disciple’.

Act 9:10 Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias, And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.

 

[PJM]

=Rightlydivide;6460772]It is hard to respond to so many points. I will certainly try. There is a reality though. Long before there were Protestants, there were different canons in place. I cannot historically ignore that. We all agree on that.
I also cannot ignore that they had several different councils. These councils from what I have read were local in nature and never set the canon for the entire church. If they did, it did not work. Remember, this is before Protestants for the most part, although the date of some groups are open but it will distract.
So I see all of these different groups who recognize different canons and yet…I am supposed to think that the Reformers were bound to something that apparently did not bind the groups that preceded them?
Since I have become a Christian, I have been trying to understand infallible tradition. But I do not really think that is the case. Catholicism holds to an infallible church. That is the bottom line. But I evaluate that against scripture and what Christ says with the rest of the Bible that talks about the church. The earliest churches that we know quite a bit about occur in Revelation. They had serious doctrinal and behavioral errors or actions. You see, that is one of the problems. How does Catholicism claim infallibility only in the realm of teaching and not actions? Its a distinction based upon what?
I will try not to spam the thread with too many ideas at once.
If there is a very specific question you would like me to answer, please ask.

Based on two facts:

Infallibility of the Church Teachings ONLY on matters of Faith and or Morals… See John Chapters 14 and 17.

Catholics do not claim infallibility “in actions” because: 1. we ourselves are NOT God; and 2. Like all of humanity, we are created by this same God with minds, intellects and freewills; that can be far less than perfect [EXCEPT FOR DEFINED, FORMAL TEACHINGS ON FAITH AND MORALS BY THE POPE AND THE CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM.] Which have the personal assurence of God Himself.

The formalized Canon of the Catholic Bible was approved by Church Council and God, about 1,200 years before the KJB. But I recon that’s insignifiant, right?

Love and prayers Brother,
Pat