Catholic practices that have no biblical basis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pai_Nosso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow is it your birthday? Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday to You
Happy Birthday Dear Midori
Happy Birthday to You.

From good friends and true,
From old friends and new,
May good luck go with you,
And happiness too.

Forgive me if it isn’t 😆
 
historyfan81 said:
Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
Where is this in the Bible? Instead we see the remaining Apostles choosing a replacement for Judas. We see Jesus laying His hands on them to make them Apostles or bishops. And to this day, we lay hands on those whom we ordain.
 
historyfan81 said:
endulgances, the idea of going to a crusade and killing people would be a remission of sins death penalty to apostates, homosexual, heretics and blaphemers
Click to expand...
Yes, to die for God as martyrs do does allow one the indulgence of entry into Heaven, providing one’s heart was right, and this was not like Islam, because 1) the Crusaders were fighting in defense against the aggressions of the Muslims, and 2) no 72 virgins or anything like that was said to await the Crusaders.

Those who did not repent of their sins were highly unlikely to undertake an arduous, expensive, dangerous, and years-long journey for God.
 
historyfan81 said:
)there both dead , there is no living dead communication here
Click to expand...
You say you are still Christian. Surely you then believe that those who die are still living?

And if they are still living, they are part of the Body of Christ?

And if they are part of the Body of Christ, they are praying for us already, just we pray for those around is?
 
Yeah because my heart is right when I commit massacres , when I break my oaths , when I lie , when I burn down , and loot (steal things ) from a city
  1. one can argue that the crusades where defensive since by 1095 the only power that was being agresive toward the chirstians
    Whene the seljuks , as the fatimids where doing their own thing
So instead keeping the assult on the Turks who had committed all those numerous atrocities

They decided to attack the fatimids because they really wanted jersusalem

Also now the 72 virgin’s is from a Hadith and not accepted by all Muslims .

Dying for the cause of Allah is .

Now IAM not defending the Muslims they where just as brutal as the crusaders.

One can’t justify what happened we can’t give preference on who side had where the good “guys” or not
 
Yeah but it was donuts who asked Constantine to interrvive Wich was unheard of since the church took care of church matters and the emperor of well rhe empire.

Unknow to all of them allowing the emperor to take such big say in church matters if broke of separation of church and state allowin for all the papacy scandals in the middle ages
 
point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “succeed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas) with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles.

I have said this before( in another place ) if we use the previous meaning of apostolic succession you and I are also succesors of the apostoles since we Carry the same message as them .
Now don’t get me wrong Bisophs are important but the thing of apostolic succession is that it’s one the things that evolved evolded over time
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles.
Click to expand...
@Pai_Nosso

1 Timothy 3:15: “if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

The church is the foundation of truth.

The New Testament did not even exist in order to be the foundation of the church the Apostles built. And when the Catholic Church decided which writings belonged in the New Testament and which did not, and which version of the Old was to be used, they included 1 Timothy, in which it is the church which is described as the foundation of truth.

Which is not to say that everything was included. The various writings chosen were in accord with Catholic teachings, but they were each written for particular reasons, none of which was to present a comprehensive set of teachings.
historyfan81 said:
Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority.
Click to expand...
Absence of evidence is not evidence. The fact is that the Apostles did pass on their authority, which is why we even have apostolic succession.
historyfan81 said:
if we use the previous meaning of apostolic succession you and I are also succesors of the apostoles since we Carry the same message as them .
Click to expand...
If you impress your own definitions on things, then you can arrive at any conclusion. If however, one uses the correct definition, then one has a better chance at arriving at the correct conclusion.

Christ breathed on the Apostles and laid hands on them. This set them apart from the rest. While each of is called to carry the message, not all are called to do what the Apostles did, such as to consecrate the bread and wine and to absolve sins.
historyfan81 said:
Bisophs are important but the thing of apostolic succession is that it’s one the things that evolved evolded over time
Click to expand...
Yes, things do evolve over time. For example, being the bishop in a small town where Christians live under persecution and meet in catacombs is much different from being a bishop in a huge city with lots of dedicated church buildings.
 
Last edited:
"The church is the foundation of truth.

The New Testament did not even exist in order to be the foundation of the church the Apostles built. And when the Catholic Church decided which writings belonged in the New Testament and which did not, and which version of the Old was to be used, they included 1 Timothy, in which it is the church which is described as the foundation of truth.

Which is not to say that everything was included. The various writings chosen were in accord with Catholic teachings, but they were each written for particular reasons, none of which was to present a comprehensive set of teachings."

“Bisophs are important but the thing of apostolic succession is that it’s one the things that evolved evolded over time”

kinda how in ancient rome dictador meant one thing and to our modern days the word dictador means another thing

no iam refering that the concept meant one thing in certian period of time and later it evolved to what is the moden undertanding of it

same word diferent meaning
 
the question was is this in the bible and no its not its ok if the church later add it in , but then dont argue that it is biblical

“Absence of evidence is not evidence. The fact is that the Apostles did pass on their authority, which is why we even have apostolic succession.”

true but Evidence of absence is a valid reason , and there is no evdience not only in the bible also not in the didache .

and not only is it the evidence of abscene but

dont take my word for it take the sources

The classic and earliest definition of apostolic succession was to “teach the same” as apostles.

cathlolics claim

but words and pharases evolve over time ,
  1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about [Irenaeus AH Book III, III, 1]
Click to expand...
In other words, Irenaeus is contrasting the false teachers who taught things unknown with and apart from what apostolic churches were teaching, which was handed down in succession. There was no room for “innovation”.
 
[Polycarp] 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 . -ibid, 4
Click to expand...
Again, the definition of “apostolic succession” is detailed as handing down that truth which was learned from apostles. Those teachings alone are true.

morden apostolic succesion:

The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged. -Catechism CC-

Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church,—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth , according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, [looking upon them] either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth. [Irenaeus Book IV, XXVI, 2]

terutilan agrees

in his writting He titles the of his anti-Marcion treatise, The Prescription Against Heretics , as:
“None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. **New Churches Still Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taught and Handed Down **. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any Apostolic Credentials.”
Click to expand...
we only see this shif later on

“And at the time of early dawn our Lord lifted up His hands, and laid them upon the heads of the eleven disciples, and gave to them the gift of the priesthood.”

[The Teaching of the Apostles] this 4th century , so it over a century after tertulian and nearly 2 centuries after igantius.

if there is no evidence of its existance , and the ones that do mention it have a diferent meaning

then theologicaly you can belive what ever you want , historically you cant this as truh unless you explain the lack of evidence and the diferent meanings for the same word used , and when they used the exact same words but didnt use the modern undestanding of it .

by showing sources of that time period , then now its historaclly sound.

until then the lack of evidence and the contradction of sources , shows otherwise ,
 
Last edited:
Pai_Nosso said:
Please excuse my ignorance on this matter but why does the Catholic church bring in such things that aren’t supported by scripture?
Without a strong biblical connection isn’t the introduction of new practices simply the will of humans instead of God?

A lot of doctrines and practices have been introduced over the centuries that have little to no scriptural basis. And now we have a pope who is inventing his own stuff again.
Click to expand...
Since Scriptures have never been the one and only Revelations of God to Man,
nothing taught or said has to be explicitly existing in the Bible.
 
Our (Catholic) understanding of bishops as the successors of the Apostles remains the same. They may do other tasks now as well, but when there is a meeting of the bishops, it is the same task that is described in the meeting in Acts.
 
there is a diference
  1. The classic and earliest definition of apostolic succession was to “teach the same” as apostles.
  2. the later defention is
The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today.

by virtue of a claim to a type of sacerdotal priesthood

do you see the diference? i certanly do
 
Last edited:
like i said you can theologicaly belive what ever you want .

but there is no evidence that the apostoles of church fathers had belived in

that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the Decades and later centuries , even unto today.
by virtue of a claim to a type of sacerdotal priesthood"

now if the church added it later as part of tradition good on them , but the title of this is catholic practices that dont have biblical basis

this is one is one of them
 
Last edited:
also to hand down, i mean we are also apostolic succesors since we can teach as well.

but ok…mate

well i recommend you read igantuis book and tertulian along side the excat historical context of these

well cheers
 
Last edited:
@midori

🎼 “ . . .Happy Birthday, dear midori, Happy Birthday to you!” 🎼
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top