Catholic practices that have no biblical basis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pai_Nosso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
historyfan81 said:
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
Click to expand...
@historyfan81

The first successor, the replacement of Judas, was suggested/ordered/encouraged by whom?

How many years before the books of the Bible were formed did that occur?

How do the answers to these questions support your charge that the Catholic Church invented the practice of succession?
 
Simple: because Catholics aren’t protestants. We don’t adhere to Scripture Alone because God didn’t teach it and the first Christians didn’t believe it.
 
atholics 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.

apart from lack of evidice like i mentioned , when we do get the word use , its not the moden undestanding of the pharese today

we dont see that in the historical record until the late thrid century / early 4th

so like i said theologicaly one can belive what ever he wants , but (to other catholics) dont claim that this originiates in the early years of the relgion , unless you have suficient sources and non contradicory evidence to prove it

other wise the belive is based on assumption that is based on an assumption repeat
 
Last edited:
Actually, I wonder if maybe you do not understand the teaching authority.

You and I are to be prepared to give a reason for our faith, and to some extent to share the Good News.

However, you and I are not among those who decide what is to be taught in order to maintain and clarify what Christ taught the Apostles.

Just as the apostles/early bishops gathered together to clarify the teaching with regard to certain conflicts which had arisen among the first Christians, so do they still gather to determine these issues, as they have all along.
 
tertulian ( early years ) though and clarified he was not a bishop
 
though and clarified , he even wrote a book against herectis , teaching them poiting out the flaws , and clarifyng doctrine

he is not the only one Justin Martyr as well though as well and he was no bishop either
 
that if what you said is true of only of the succesors can have the authority to teach

when these 2 where not “succesors” but they still clarified and though

but they dont have authority to do so , unless iam missing something
 
Last edited:
The authority is to be the determiners of what aligns with what Christ taught, just as they did in the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts.

Tertullian did not think he had the authority to determine Church teaching, but he was a theologian who certainly had the right, under the authority of his bishop, to teach.
 
ok that makes sense , gota do more research on that lets see if i find the historical sources i have been trying

but i guess with your interpretation may just maybe ill find something

this is what boggles my mind and what cause my to leave the church in the first place its …how to put it… historical condtracidtion of the historical concesus evidences and revisionisim
 
Last edited:
what’s the biblical basis that everything must have a biblical basis?
 
historyfan81 said:
when these 2 where not “succesors” but they still clarified and though [taught?]
Click to expand...
Yes, but they clarified what had been determined by the bishops to be Church teaching.

Look at it this way, before the Council of Jerusalem, there was conflict as to whether non-Jewish converts had to be circumcised. What would be in accord with the teachings of Christ? This was determined by the apostles/bishops at the Council and the purpose was to clarify Church teaching regarding whether circumcision in addition to baptism was necessary.

And there may have been preachers or writers or theologians of the time who wrote about the decision clarifying the decision, but not themselves involved in the determination itself.
 
historyfan81 said:
this is what boggles my mind and what cause my to leave the church in the first place its …how to put it… historical condtracidtion of the historical concesus evidences and revisionisim
Click to expand...
I can see how rigorous current ideas about what works in the study of history would cause a problem.

However, for me the issues are different. First, I do not believe that current rigorous historical ways of determining reality provide for absence of evidence. I think that that rigorous way of thinking needs to be balanced by common sense or other, less rigorous forms of knowledge as well.

For example, there is no evidence that my ancestor was born. However, I met her, so I know for a fact that she was born. She is said to have been born in a certain place. All her brothers and sisters were born there, and there is no evidence that her family moved from there in a period of time during which she was born.

From a rigorous historical point of view: no documents, no birth! From a regular point of view: person who existed, birth!

With regards to the Catholic Church, I believe the ultimate question at any time comes down to whether or not the authority of the Church is accepted.

When I returned/came to the Church (knowing very little of the Church into which I had been baptised), there were some teachings I did not agree with, but my thought was that the Church had the authority and the promise of protection from Christ against teaching error.

Therefore, I concluded, I was wrong.

We may not have sufficient documentation to rigorously prove without a doubt that the Church did this or that, but we have the consistent teaching and the consistent practice around those particular areas to show that the areas themselves are as the Church tells us, just as I have my meeting with my ancestor to show that, yes, she was indeed born.
 
Last edited:
Does the bible have a biblical basis? Apparently not. There is nothing in the bible that says what books constitute the bible, and nothing which says that these books alone provide a comprehensive definitition of the Faith which was handed down from the Apostles.

In fact, if someone were to try to determind from the bible alone the content of Christian doctrines and practice, one would likely find a wide variety of interpretations, which is exactly what had happened with Protestantism.

In fact the Church was preaching the gospel to the nations long before the New Testamet books were even written and decided upon. The New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics.
 
the bad things i hate the idea of blidy beliving heck i only became a chirstian due to the overwhelming evidecen of the resurection

“From a rigorous historical point of view: no documents, no birth! From a regular point of view: person who existed, birth!”

actually no , there are more accounts to be had , lack of documents does not invalidate that one

and not only lack of sources but contradiction of others, for example one of my biggest concerns is

did peter found the church of rome?.. he went there most likely did he found it? …most likely no

the sources both eccliastical and secular dont help it

and here comes the big one if enough evidence comes to disprove a tradition …

then why should i trust it?
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
atholics 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.

apart from lack of evidice like i mentioned , when we do get the word use , its not the moden undestanding of the pharese today

we dont see that in the historical record until the late thrid century / early 4th

so like i said theologicaly one can belive what ever he wants , but (to other catholics) dont claim that this originiates in the early years of the relgion , unless you have suficient sources and non contradicory evidence to prove it

other wise the belive is based on assumption that is based on an assumption repeat
Click to expand...
@ historyfan81

What is “pharese” and what does today have to do with apostolic succession?
 
historyfan81 said:
lack of documents does not invalidate that one
Click to expand...
Yes, but this something that happened to someone of a generation whom I met, not something that happened close to 2000 years ago.

We assume because I met my ancestor that she was born. As a Catholic I believe that the initial council and later similar practices show that apostolic succession and apostolic authority “was a thing” from the beginning, especially given that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit for the teachings He gave them.

To me, logic and surrounding evidences show this to me: I have no reason to doubt it.

As to Peter, as far as I can tell, we have no rigorous records to tell us when, where, or how he died. I think that listening to those committed to truth and to the Church are telling the truth, despite the lack of records. I would certainly believe those early historians and writers over today’s Protestants who have a vested interest in casting doubt on Peter.
historyfan81 said:
here comes the big one if enough evidence comes to disprove a tradition …

then why should i trust it?
Click to expand...
I’d say the main point would be how good is the exculpatory evidence and how important is the tradition?
 
Depends in some its overwhelming and it’s a important tradition
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top