S
StTommyMore
Guest
How charitable of you
- Status
B
bjryman
Guest
Even though I previously stated that we will only “know” for 100% certainty, at the time of our death, the posting on apostolic succession shows again the misconception of our non catholic community…sometimes.
Apostolic succession is not based on the Pope, exactly. It is based upon the Apostles who set up , mostly through Paul administratively, a a group of church leaders. These leaders, when finally a title was considered appropriate, were called Bishops. At the same time Deacons were assigned to help with the workload.
Paul and others in the bible indicate that the Bishops were indoctrinated into the local community by the “laying on of hands” by one of the apostles or Paul, who remember is a de factor apostle for purposes of this topic. (God really laid his hands on Paul when he fell of the horse
) Once a Bishop was “consecrated” in this manner, he then could consecrate additional Bishops. BTW, Priests only came later as the workload grew.
OK, so the Bishops “ran” the local churches. Each new Bishop then was indoctrinated into the church by the laying on the hands of other Bishops. (Watch out non-catholics, this is where the church’s tradition merges with biblical reference, and verbal tradition in all cultures is tremendous strong in defining the daily actions and rules of the organization…any organization)
Thus, our tradition calls for the laying on of hands from one Bishop to the next. The reformation broke that tradition. So…for the reformation to be “valid” the importance of laying on of hands HAD TO BE MINIMIZED. Otherwise, the reformers could not complain autonomy. (Kind of like one cannot become a full LEGAL US Citizen without going through the ritual of commitment to USA and receipt of the legal documentation)
Peter, was of course, the Bishop of Rome, and originally shunned the idea of being the de facto “Pope”. He really considered himself something like an elder statesman, of a leader of equals. The larger authority of the Pope was established later, when future Bishops councils pondered the words of Jesus more deeply and concluded that this was Jesus’s intent by stating “you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church”
The verification of Bishops and the Pope is a mixture of Biblical Scripture, and Church Tradition. Once again, if one negates any veracity in Church Tradition teachings, then of course a common ground is difficult to find in a reasonable discussion
Peace to all
Apostolic succession is not based on the Pope, exactly. It is based upon the Apostles who set up , mostly through Paul administratively, a a group of church leaders. These leaders, when finally a title was considered appropriate, were called Bishops. At the same time Deacons were assigned to help with the workload.
Paul and others in the bible indicate that the Bishops were indoctrinated into the local community by the “laying on of hands” by one of the apostles or Paul, who remember is a de factor apostle for purposes of this topic. (God really laid his hands on Paul when he fell of the horse
) Once a Bishop was “consecrated” in this manner, he then could consecrate additional Bishops. BTW, Priests only came later as the workload grew.OK, so the Bishops “ran” the local churches. Each new Bishop then was indoctrinated into the church by the laying on the hands of other Bishops. (Watch out non-catholics, this is where the church’s tradition merges with biblical reference, and verbal tradition in all cultures is tremendous strong in defining the daily actions and rules of the organization…any organization)
Thus, our tradition calls for the laying on of hands from one Bishop to the next. The reformation broke that tradition. So…for the reformation to be “valid” the importance of laying on of hands HAD TO BE MINIMIZED. Otherwise, the reformers could not complain autonomy. (Kind of like one cannot become a full LEGAL US Citizen without going through the ritual of commitment to USA and receipt of the legal documentation)
Peter, was of course, the Bishop of Rome, and originally shunned the idea of being the de facto “Pope”. He really considered himself something like an elder statesman, of a leader of equals. The larger authority of the Pope was established later, when future Bishops councils pondered the words of Jesus more deeply and concluded that this was Jesus’s intent by stating “you are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church”
The verification of Bishops and the Pope is a mixture of Biblical Scripture, and Church Tradition. Once again, if one negates any veracity in Church Tradition teachings, then of course a common ground is difficult to find in a reasonable discussion
Peace to all
J
JustaServant
Guest
And how many Lutherans understand the doctrines of their denomination?
B
bjryman
Guest
Regarding “What does the Church teach that is not Biblical”
The basis for personal salvation in Jesus Christ, the the basic instructions and guidance by HIM (in parables, while performing miracles, in discussion with the local Jewish and Roman leadership) for us to walk down our own pathway to holiness is clear in the Bible.
Once again, however, we must understand that every group of people who form into a formal organization will use their own daily discussions, debate, prayer, etc. to determine how the basic Word will be interpreted and used in daily life…this is called Tradition.
And remember, since the Bible was a collection of writings of different styles, completed over time…and the New Testament was mostly written even after most of the Apostles had died, their (name removed by moderator)ut was first passed down by word of mouth Tradition as well.
The basis for personal salvation in Jesus Christ, the the basic instructions and guidance by HIM (in parables, while performing miracles, in discussion with the local Jewish and Roman leadership) for us to walk down our own pathway to holiness is clear in the Bible.
Once again, however, we must understand that every group of people who form into a formal organization will use their own daily discussions, debate, prayer, etc. to determine how the basic Word will be interpreted and used in daily life…this is called Tradition.
And remember, since the Bible was a collection of writings of different styles, completed over time…and the New Testament was mostly written even after most of the Apostles had died, their (name removed by moderator)ut was first passed down by word of mouth Tradition as well.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
This is an absolute falsehood. The New testament was compiled after the Apostles ha died but, with the exception of 2 books ,Mark and Luke, all were written by Apostles.
N
NewsTheMan
Guest
I lol’d because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.
So… Unless the Pope is not a validly ordained Bishop… and unless his lineage cannot be traced back to the Apostles…
Then you are being unnecessarily critical of someone who does understand what Apostolic Succession is though used it not entirely in the right context (because they probably didn’t expect someone to tear them apart).
B
Being_Brave
Guest
As far back as I know, people have felt that there was a higher power.
What if the oldest religions (pagans) started naming multiple higher powers because they knew there was something, but had no guidance as to what it was.
From what I’ve read, Judaism was the beginning of one-God religion. I think the Jewish people trace their beginning to Abraham in about 1800 BC, when he refused to worship multiple gods. What if Judaism was how God planned to guide all the pagan religions to him? It wasn’t until much later that historians can place the beginning of Islam, in about the year 570 AD.
If Judaism was intended by this Higher Power to guide and organize people, then Christianity was the natural progression of religion. What if God decided that, by sending an actual person to represent him to all these people, He would give them not only organization and guidance, but someone they could visibly see and learn from first hand? And what if the people that witnessed all of this actually wrote it down!!? Can you imagine how big that book would be!?
What if that person clarified questions, showed them miracles, taught them how to worship, and even gave his life so that they would know the God that created them? If a guy like that came along, and made it very clear how things were to be organized and how to live and worship the right way…I’d do it.
I know that with so many “what if’s” thrown in there it might be hard to find the actual statements, but if you use the common sense that God gave us, you can definitely see them.
I also know that other Christian denominations that came much much later took what they liked about and threw out the rest.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Sounds right to me, Acts is also written by the author of Luke. Marks work is considered by Jerome to be of significant importance and the first written account on the life of Christ.
Regardless, what continues to remain true, the more this is researched the more its realized the facts are correct. Luke and Matthew both borrowed heavy from Mark.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I read that above but I get the feeling we are about to hear a new profound understanding that none of us “got”?
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Mea culpa. I forgot that Luke wrote both Luke and Acts. However, I was under the impression that the Fathers held that Matthew, and not Mark was written first, which is logical ,since Matthew’s audience is Jews, and Mark’s audience is gentiles.
B
bjryman
Guest
No, please study the history closer. Our tradition teaches that the Gospels were all “written” by the apostles in that their words were eventually written down…by someone. Remember, it is quite likely that the simple fishermen and the like of the apostles were illiterate (not the business folks or tax collectors maybe). Thus, they carried the Word with them and passed it on verbally first. They may have had some help by volunteer scribes which was the norm of the time. Other books like Revelation are attributed to a person named John, though maybe not the apostle John himself.
But, the dating of the actual transcripts for most of the Gospels is after the death of the apostles. The one person we do know absolutely wrote down his own thoughts is Paul, of course. He was a very educated and articulate man.
But again folks, if you believe in verbal Tradition, then you know that all the Word started out verbal…from Jesus. It continued to be spoken over and over until a certain thread of commonality in the message was agreed upon. This is not bad at all. It really matters not who the actual transcriber was, only that what was finally moved from verbal tradition to written dogma was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
I’m not sure why one would get all concerned about whether the first written word was actually transcribed by the apostles or their delegates…it matters not as long as what was written is THE Word.
Peace
B
bjryman
Guest
…and, Peter was absolutely Ordained and Consecrated as the first Bishop by Jesus
S
StTommyMore
Guest
It is vitally important that the Apostles wrote (and Peter, John, Matthew and Luke were DEFINITELY educated men, and not just Paul.) If you can claim that someone else wrote, then you are robbing the Scriptures of Apostolic Authority. You must provide compelling evidence contrary to the testimony of the Fathers if you want me to accept than anyone other than the tradition authors wrote the Scriptures. You have simply been convinced by faithless Bible Scholars of th fad that is called “Q”.
B
Being_Brave
Guest
"Just because something is written down, dow not make it true." : For the most part, you’re right. However, you didn’t witness the fall of Rome. You didn’t witness the assasination of Lincoln. You didn’t witness the fire at Alexandria. We know those things happened because people wrote about them. They’re easy to believe because we can see how those events significantly affected society…just like the events written in the Bible did. Some of the miracles of the bible are hard to believe, but the more research that scientists to do disprove them, the more evidence we find that they did happen. (The flood, parting of the Red Sea, the plagues, etc…)
"There is no way possible that in todays world I can prove jesus was really born of a virgin. Because scientifically, that is impossible…" :There’s a physicist named Frank J. Tipler that says that a virgin birth of a male child has the probability of 1 and 120 billion from happening naturally. He calculates there have been 60 billion Homo sapiens who have populated the earth, so if those calculations are right the virgin birth of Jesus really could have been a non-repeating, medical phenomenon. Mary would have to have been an XXY chromosomal female (Klinefelter’s syndrome) with a normal womb. The virgin born male child would have a XX chromosomal structure, just like females. I read that something like 1.7% of babies are born with chromosomes of the opposite gender.
Also, I don’t really know enough to have a good opinion on the Shroud of Turin, but the DNA found on it had a double XX structure, which would be exactly what would be expected of a virgin-born male child. There has been dispute about the carbon-dated age because it supposedly has some places on it that were “patched” in mediaeval England that throw off the carbon dating, but is covered in pollen from a thistle brush from Jerusalem in the time of Jesus (like His crown was made of)…It’s just awefully strange that the DNA is XX, while the image is male. ((The Catholic Church currently owns the shroud, and does not claim that it is the shroud of Jesus, only that such a relic would be a greatly important find.))
B
Being_Brave
Guest
…speaking of offering money, Dawkins wouldn’t talk to a Christian group in debate even after they offered to pay him. I wonder if he ever feels like it’s useless saying the same arguments over and over…First off im not a guy! Second off, i already told you im a believer!
I just think dawkins is a very very very smart man who knows what hes talking about… for the most part. I don’t think he truly understands god. However you guys should check out the JREF.
Million dollar prize to anybody who can prove they have the power to speak to god.
When I listen to him I actually become stronger in my faith because I see how flawed it is. It sounds good at first, but I looked into some of the research he cited and he leaves out bits of information (stuff that, if included, makes his arguments suddenly sound not so logical)…so I don’t trust him. For example, he said there is no way there is a God, but then says he believes aliens could have created humans. How much sense can a man like that really make? He’ll argue to the death that we evolved by abiogenesis, but then tries a compromise saying, ~Yeah aliens could have done it. Not God, though.~
He’s good at regurgitating information but I’ve never heard an original idea come out of his mouth, let alone one that I (as a “beginner” Catholic) can’t find a logical refute to.
I like reading his stuff, but just because it’s interesting. Nothing he’s said has changed my mind in any way.
B
Being_Brave
Guest
I put my name “Crystal” at the bottom of my posts, and people still call me “he”, “guy”, etc…
I do know a guy named Bretney (goes by Bret), but in all fairness his brother’s names are Kelly and Ashley…so I think his parents just wanted girls
B
bjryman
Guest
Hey everybody…Faith is belief in something you can’t prove.
It is as simple as that. No, I cannot, empirically “know” almost anything I accept on faith.
So be it, end of story, no further debate required.
I am walking my own personal pathway to holiness, accepting Christ and living as best I can the ways that he taught. Also am growing an nurturing the relationship I have with other Catholics within my parish…to the point where I enjoy an extended family relationship in that community as well.
And you know what? Every day that I find myself actually implementing Christ’s way, I feel a little better.
That is good enough for me and I await truly “knowing” at the time of my death.
It is as simple as that. No, I cannot, empirically “know” almost anything I accept on faith.
So be it, end of story, no further debate required.
I am walking my own personal pathway to holiness, accepting Christ and living as best I can the ways that he taught. Also am growing an nurturing the relationship I have with other Catholics within my parish…to the point where I enjoy an extended family relationship in that community as well.
And you know what? Every day that I find myself actually implementing Christ’s way, I feel a little better.
That is good enough for me and I await truly “knowing” at the time of my death.
S
Sufjon
Guest
Hi BlueShadow123: That’s a good question. I think for some people it’s a matter of just following whatever faith they were raised in, and perhaps they don’t give it much thought. For others it comes from a lifetime of searching. For a lot of people it might be a combination of what makes sense to them coupled with their experiences. What I mean by experience, I mean for instance if you were a Catholic and knew someone who was cured of some illness at Lourdes, then this experience would help to support your conviction. If you were a Hindu and saw a leper cured by a holy woman, you would likewise find reassurance in what you believe. Personally, I think they are all taking different paths to the same thing. The paths they follow are the paths God gave them, and it’s good that they follow it, whatever it is.Out of the thousands of religions in the world, how do you know yours is right? I’m asking every individual that read this; how do you know you’re right on this?
Just a question.
Your friend
Sufjon
J
JeanMichel
Guest
In the same way that Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
T
Timothy17
Guest
How do you “know” mine’s wrong ?Out of the thousands of religions in the world, how do you know yours is right? I’m asking every individual that read this; how do you know you’re right on this?
Just a question.
- Status