Protestants and Mary

[CWBetts]

CWBetts;5777378:

Could I not say to you that just because you don’t see what some of us are trying to tell you, doesn’t make it wrong?​

If I haven’t been given the grace to see it your way, then it’s not my fault.​

The Church is made up of fallible people so it can’t be 100% correct. Guess what? That’s not a big deal for God. He knows our frame and it’s but dust. He knows we are all sinners prone to mistake. He and He alone is able to deal with it so that His Gospel will go forth.

If you say that the Church cannot be 100% correct then it is you who are denying not only the Scriptures, but the power of the True and Living God. If the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, which we know is the case, then how can it not be 100% correct? Can God lie? No, He cannot. To call the Church anything but infallible is to “turn the Truth of God into a lie” Why do I say this? There is the promise of the Holy Spirit in the aforementioned John 16:13. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus promises that “the gates of death shall not prevail against [the Church].” We are told that all things are possible with God (Matthew 19:26, Mark 9:23, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:27, Philippians 4:13). Are you denying the power of God, saying that He cannot preserve the Church that He started from error? From the fractious nature of Protestantism, it is easy to see that they enjoy no such protection. Think about it. In the roughly 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, it still stands united against all heresy. In the roughly 500 years since the Protestant reformation, there are 30,000+ denominations, some with as few as a single congregation. Is that conducive with the Scriptures? No. Where does it say in the Scriptures that anyone has the right to start their own Church? Nowhere. So much for only using the Scriptures to determine true doctrine.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella;5776937:

You all really know your church’s teachings, I’ll give you that. I just don’t see it matching up Scripture with Scripture, though. You teach one thing and the Bible teaches something different.

Would you care to explain what it is exactly the Bible teaches about Mary? Then maybe we can help you.

“The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3, 15

Meanwhile here’s the problem. You abide by the unbiblical principal of Sola Scriptura by attempting to privately interpret the Scriptures in any way you please in accord with what you feel is a personal guidance by the Holy Spirit. This attitude has created the dilemma which plagues the Protestant tradition(s): the absence of an authoritative, certain, and unified interpretation of the Scriptures of the most fundamental texts. In a nutshell, no central teachings at all with regard to the essential articles of the Christian faith. The irony is that Protestants like yourself refuse to believe that a central authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures is possible, while you place absolute faith in your own fallible private interpretations as individuals. Hence, you have countless denominations independently founded by countless religious leaders ad finitum.

The division and fragmentation of Protestantism was inevitable once Luther opened Pandora’s box by making the Scriptures the sole rule of faith in his rejection of the central teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The defrocked monk actually believed that his private novel doctrines were dogmatic. He never expected the likes of Calvin and company. Every different private interpretation of the Scriptures pertaining to essential doctrines by different religious founders in the turbulent Protestant movement has supposedly been reached by the guidance of the same Holy Spirit. Rather odd, isn’t it? One would have to brandish a white cane to legitimately fail to see this contradiction of our Lord’s promise to guide the Church in all truth in a unity of faith. There is nothing authoritative and definitive in the miscellaneous teachings of Protestantism. With Protestants that’s fine and fundamentally unimportant. So why on earth would Jesus establish one universal Church on the foundation of the Apostles and send the Paraclete if that is so?

Addressing his apostles with their valid successors - the episcopacy of the Church - in mind, not private individuals, Jesus said:

“These things have I spoken to you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.”
John 14, 25-26

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you in all truth, and reveal to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 12-13

The community of the faithful has always believed that it is guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit through the central Apostolic magisterial teaching authority of the Church. The Scriptures must be interpreted in light of the sacred Tradition of the Church and in accord with the infallible teachings of the universal Magisterium. Since there is no authentic central Apostolic teaching authority in Protestantism, only a tiny minority of Protestants have given their assent to some or all of the Church’s Marian doctrines. The Apostles Creed, developed in Rome (c. A.D. 150), long before the canon of Scripture was established in A.D. 382, is the one fundamental set of beliefs that both Catholics and mainstream Protestants commonly profess. It is part of Sacred Tradition and comes to us purely by the guidance of the Paraclete.

PAX :harp:

 

[2nd_Adam]

“Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
Luke 1, 42-43

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 110)

Mary is the Mother of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. She is most blessed among women in virtue of her divine maternity and spiritual maternity as mother of us all in place of Eve, the fallen biological mother of humankind.

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

“For as Eve was seduced by an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying His Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through the act of a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.”
Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

Mary’s faith working through love should certainly be modelled by anyone who wishes to be saved, but more importantly it made a vital contribution to our salvation by helping make it available to all who love God. Mary’s free and active collaboration with the Holy Spirit in the divine order of redemption was causative of our salvation in a secondary and dispositive manner in and through the redemptive merits of Christ. Mary was favoured with a privilege that was never granted to any other human being, and so she has merited for us in congruo proprie the gift of salvation. By modelling her perfect faith and love, we have cause to hope that we will be saved provided we persevere to the end.

Pax Christu :harp:

I am quite interested in the view of Catholics who receive Mary as a co-reedmer along side with Jesus Christ as redeemer. I know it is not Catholic dogma. However, please let me know if Mary is considered your personal co-redeemer and in what way has she redeemed you in regards to the doctrine of redemption and atonement? Do you see Mary as part of the bride of Christ and the new Eve at the same time? I am having a difficult time reconciling Mary as a co-reedmer since she recogonizes and rejoices that God is her Savior. Who needs a savior but sinners?

Mary’s Song of Praise: The Magnificat

And Mary said,

“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, - Luke 1

 

[2nd_Adam]

The Written Word of God never definitively said she had other children. The revealed Word of God from the magesterial authority of His Church says that she did not.

LOL… well I believe all Protestant translations reveal that Mary definitely had children including the Apostle James (Jesus’s half-brother in the flesh). I think 1 Cor 7 required Mary to have marital relations with Joseph. If Mary did not have sex with Joseph in married life, she could have caused Joseph to stumble in the flesh.

Principles for Marriage

7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[RickHolland]

Would you care to explain what it is exactly the Bible teaches about Mary? Then maybe we can help you.

“The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3, 15

Meanwhile here’s the problem. You abide by the unbiblical principal of Sola Scriptura by attempting to privately interpret the Scriptures in any way you please in accord with what you feel is a personal guidance by the Holy Spirit. This attitude has created the dilemma which plagues the Protestant tradition(s): the absence of an authoritative, certain, and unified interpretation of the Scriptures of the most fundamental texts. In a nutshell, no central teachings at all with regard to the essential articles of the Christian faith. The irony is that Protestants like yourself refuse to believe that a central authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures is possible, while you place absolute faith in your own fallible private interpretations as individuals. Hence, you have countless denominations independently founded by countless religious leaders ad finitum.

The division and fragmentation of Protestantism was inevitable once Luther opened Pandora’s box by making the Scriptures the sole rule of faith in his rejection of the central teaching authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The defrocked monk actually believed that his private novel doctrines were dogmatic. He never expected the likes of Calvin and company. Every different private interpretation of the Scriptures pertaining to essential doctrines by different religious founders in the turbulent Protestant movement has supposedly been reached by the guidance of the same Holy Spirit. Rather odd, isn’t it? One would have to brandish a white cane to legitimately fail to see this contradiction of our Lord’s promise to guide the Church in all truth in a unity of faith. There is nothing authoritative and definitive in the miscellaneous teachings of Protestantism. With Protestants that’s fine and fundamentally unimportant. So why on earth would Jesus establish one universal Church on the foundation of the Apostles and send the Paraclete if that is so?

Addressing his apostles with their valid successors - the episcopacy of the Church - in mind, not private individuals, Jesus said:

“These things have I spoken to you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.”
John 14, 25-26

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you in all truth, and reveal to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 12-13

The community of the faithful has always believed that it is guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit through the central Apostolic magisterial teaching authority of the Church. The Scriptures must be interpreted in light of the sacred Tradition of the Church and in accord with the infallible teachings of the universal Magisterium. Since there is no authentic central Apostolic teaching authority in Protestantism, only a tiny minority of Protestants have given their assent to some or all of the Church’s Marian doctrines. The Apostles Creed, developed in Rome (c. A.D. 150), long before the canon of Scripture was established in A.D. 382, is the one fundamental set of beliefs that both Catholics and mainstream Protestants commonly profess. It is part of Sacred Tradition and comes to us purely by the guidance of the Paraclete.

PAX :harp:

Why can’t Catholics ever get Scripture correct when it comes to the citing of :

1Ti 3:15
but in case I am delayed, {I write} so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the **pillar and support **of the truth. (NASB)

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (NKJV)

As opposed to the foundation of the church of God, which is described accurately in the following:

Eph. 2::19-22 19Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.(NKJV)

This is not a question of semantics; there are specific terms used to distinquish between foundation and support or ground which is enough to change the meaning entirely.

Albeit off the topic a little, but for clarification purposes, what is the Catholic Church by definition? This way we can move forward with the proper context od what church actually is. Thanks…rick

 

[Good_Fella]

excellent point…it is not about what Christ deserved, after all he did not deserve to be crucified, but he chose to undergo that death for us. During the incarnation he chose to lower himself and take on human flesh. To claim that he could/would not dwell in the womb of a sinner is to diminish the extent by which he lowered himself to save our souls.

The ark of the Old Covenant was constructed of the purest gold and of incoruptible wood to contain God’s Word. By her Immaculate Conception, Mary was fashioned to be the pure and undefiled ark of the New Covenant, who would bear the Word of God become flesh. Uzziah touched the ark of the Old Covenant to prevent it from toppling. In spite of his good intentions he was slain, for the ark was a holy vessel which must not make contact with what is profane. Jesus was like us in all things but sin. He took on a naturally weak and impaired human nature, but not a sinful one. His humanity, in union with his divinity, was sacred, not profane.

Pax Christu

:harp:

 

[RickHolland]

The Written Word of God never definitively said she had other children. The revealed Word of God from the magesterial authority of His Church says that she did not.

You are wrong on that; let me clarify. The word of God states explicitly that Mary had other children, but the Catholic Church, who has no authority from scripture, says she did not have any children. That is the accurate way to put it and it cannot be refuted because truth cannot be refuted. It can be twisted and tugged-on and slandered, but because it is the truth of God; it cannot be changed. You either accept what God has said or you accept what your church has said because both cannot be true because they contradict each other.

 

[2nd_Adam]

The ark of the Old Covenant was constructed of the purest gold and of incoruptible wood to contain God’s Word. By her Immaculate Conception, Mary was fashioned to be the pure and undefiled ark of the New Covenant, who would bear the Word of God become flesh. Uzziah touched the ark of the Old Covenant to prevent it from toppling. In spite of his good intentions he was slain, for the ark was a holy vessel which must not make contact with what is profane. Jesus was like us in all things but sin. He took on a naturally weak and impaired human nature, but not a sinful one. His humanity, in union with his divinity, was sacred, not profane.

Pax Christu

:harp:

Please answer if you have received Mary as your co-redeemer alongside with Jesus Christ. I know that answer varies within the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

God forbids idolatry read the ten commandments once in a while

Amen prochrist1 !

It is very Catholic of you to point this out!

 

[guanophore]

As I’ve said, I don’t have protestant teaching, I have looked at the Bible and see things quite differently than you.​

Do you think David K. had the Holy Spirit?​

What does this mean?
1John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.

You have been influenced by Protestantism, whether you knot it, or not. That is the REASON you see things differently. Those who have received the faith of the Aposltes read scripture in the light of it, as we are commanded.

The passage you cite here from John is written to Catholics. They are in unity with their bishop and with the Apostle who is writing to them. Once the reader departs from this unity, the verses no longer apply to them.

 

[RickHolland]

Each one of these have been identified with other parents.

Adrift my be rightly stated? This Denis Keohane person intentionally overlooks many details. First how many James were there? At least three and four if you count Judas, not Iscariot father, who also is a James, and every time James the “lesser” is mentioned it is to specifically to identify him as the younger of the two apostles named James. Did you not know this? All these names were so common James, Joseph, Simon etc; the Bible takes great care in many cases to distinquish this fact, but particularly in reference to James’s.

If you can’t read the article and see the many assumptions made and you can’t see one very overglaring fact, that is the James, te brother of the Lord was not in any picture until after the resurrection for the Bible clearly shows that His brother mocked Him before going the the feast of the Booth and they siad none of them believed in Him. James the brother of Jesus, was not a convert until after the resurrection and it is recorded that Jesus appeared to James.

"and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. - 1 Corinthians 15

Click this link I just discovered and it gives a clear references, well click and you will see and at the end, not to anyones surprise it debunks the theory you put out there. This article still misses a crucial point which is the James, the brother of Jesus, was not part of the 12, but was an apostle in the general sense of the word and this occured after He appeared to James as shown in 1 Corinthians 15 (above).
agapebiblestudy.com/charts/The%20James%20of%20the%20New%20Testament.htm

 

[RickHolland]

These teachings of Mary were being written about as early as the 2nd Century by the Early Church and Church Fathers - and you want me to take YOUR word for it?
Uhhhh . . . I don’t think so:

Ireneus, circa 180-199 AD wrote, “Against Heresies”. In it, he wrote of Mary:
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…. having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race;
so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…. Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”
Tertullian wrote in his “The Flesh of Christ” in about 208-212 AD
“For it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight.”

**When I refer to you as an anti-Catholic - it’s *not ***out of acrimony - it’s just a fact.
Ask yourself honestly:
Whay am I on this Catholic forum? To have charitable dialogue or to push an agenda?
I think you’ll find the latter is true . . .

Agenda? If you call presenting the Word of God in an accurate and well-pleasing to the Lord as an agenda, then yes I stand guilty before the Lord, not men.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Amen prochrist1 !

It is very Catholic of you to point this out!

Could you please share your Catholic view on Mary as your co-redeemer? What is your personal view on that particular doctrine, for it appears it varies between sincere Catholic Christians. This is the one doctrine that really puzzles me as one who seeks to glorify God in what He has done for sinners in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

whoa there hold on… like I said I’m here to try to learn not judge or preach whatever

I am willing to accept this, but you might wish to consider coming in with a better attitude. You started posting false accusations and assumptions right away, instead of framing things as questions. That kid of approach seems aggressive to us, and you can be sure that you will get a quick and sure defense. Dialogue works much better, so instead of mounting baseless accusations, maybe you can bring the rumors you have heard one at a time, and we can address them. This thread is about Mary, and you have brought in all these other issues that have nothing to do with the topic (like holy water, etc). Stay on topic, and it will go better.

Your tone sounds judgemental, especially when you make condescending remarks like “try reading your bible once in a while” and things like that.

thanks all for the replies but I have a few issues that I cannot grasp
first of all the word of god the bible is gods word what god has taught and from what I can tell in (Psalm 119:160) other examples (John 10:35)

The Word of God is not limited to the Bible.

my other concern is with Revelation 22:18-19 here God has revealed to us that we cannot add nor take away stuff from the bible -

No, prochrist1, you have been misinformed. This verse does not apply to the Bible. The Bible did not exist when it was written.

this brings me to the main topic in hand, it was not hard to search who was considered the first emperor of rome and was supposedly the first pope/roman emperor, constantine was his name I believe anyway there’s tons of literature on this guy that suggest he was a pagan/slash christian, could it be I m just suggesting here that its possible that the interpretations of the bible where being altered or somehow being twisted to meet certain criteria that rome was looking for at that time

prochrist1, please save yourself some embarrassement. Before accusing catholics, study yoru istory. If you really believe that it is easy to find the first emperor of Rome, then please go and do so, and don’t try to suggest that constantine, who came along 300 years LATER had anything to do with the early development of the Church founded by Christ.

The Bible was not created until some time after Constantine, so your speculation is baseless.

I do agree, however, that people definitely twist the meaning of scripture to meet their own ends.

 

[RickHolland]

These teachings of Mary were being written about as early as the 2nd Century by the Early Church and Church Fathers - and you want me to take YOUR word for it?
Uhhhh . . . I don’t think so:

Ireneus, circa 180-199 AD wrote, “Against Heresies”. In it, he wrote of Mary:
“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying: “Behold, O Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve, however, was disobedient; and when yet a virgin, she did not obey…. having become disobedient, was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race;
so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…. Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith.”
Tertullian wrote in his “The Flesh of Christ” in about 208-212 AD
“For it was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise, through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight.”

**When I refer to you as an anti-Catholic - it’s *not ***out of acrimony - it’s just a fact.
Ask yourself honestly:
Whay am I on this Catholic forum? To have charitable dialogue or to push an agenda?
I think you’ll find the latter is true . . .

The text you cited of the ecf’s, what does it say on perpetual virginity? What does it say concerning immaculate conception? What does it say as to other children? What does it say concerning Roman Catholic doctrine? Nothing, nothing and more nothing. Do you read what you post?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think the Reformed Protestant agenda is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I am here to help fellow Christians to grow in our desire and ability to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I need all the help I can get, therefore, I love to discuss God and His glorious gospel with Christians from different traditions, including sincere Catholics who love God in Christ. How can we grow in our love for God in greater capacity as fellow heirs (Christians) from one body? Christ is not divided in spiritual reality… for all Christian communities and traditions are made up of sheep and goats.

 

[guanophore]

I think what I’m starting to realize is that in order for me to grasp the fact that mary is in heaven right now watching us and is in fact a saint I will have to believe what the catholic books teach, and I think there are a lot of them correct? does anyone know of a link where I can find them

coming from a protestant background this is really fascinating stuff and my GF is RC so I’d like to discuss things with her
also I must say the CC has so much history! and tradition and its kind of mystic to read on sometimes lol

It is good that you are beginning to grasp that you need a more receptive attitude, and instead of coming in with guns flaming, telling us what you think we believe, it will work better just to ask. However, stay on topic, so you don’t get banned before you settle all your questions.

You are right that you need to receive Catholic teaching, but that comes from the authorities appointed by Christ through the Apostles. You are right, there are 2000 years worth of books, but it is best to begin with Scripture. If you can learn to understand scripture the way it was meant by those that wrote it, that will be a good start.

For the moment, the only other book you should consider is the catechism. The Catechismn will reference the early fathers, which are essential reading to understand the catholic perspective. All of these are available free online.

 

[RickHolland]

Not pride - just defending the faith and fighting the good fight against spiritually prideful dissenters from Christ’s only Church and other rebellious men with their own agendas.

Let’s rephrase; no humility. Defending what faith? Catholic or otherwise? I spoke of agenda in previous post.

 

[Good_Fella]

Why can’t Catholics ever get Scripture correct when it comes to the citing of :

1Ti 3:15
but in case I am delayed, {I write} so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the **pillar and support **of the truth. (NASB)

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (NKJV)

As opposed to the foundation of the church of God, which is described accurately in the following:

Eph. 2::19-22 19Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.(NKJV)

This is not a question of semantics; there are specific terms used to distinquish between foundation and support or ground which is enough to change the meaning entirely.

Albeit off the topic a little, but for clarification purposes, what is the Catholic Church by definition? This way we can move forward with the proper context od what church actually is. Thanks…rick

You have cited only two versions of 1 Timothy which, by the way, means the same thing I cited. So what’s all the fuss? As for Ephesians 2:20, the word “foundation” shows that the Apostolic teaching authority of the Church did not expire with the death of the last apostle. It couldn’t have, since Christ hasn’t yet returned at the end of this age. St. Paul refers to the divine office of his time as a “first installment”. He himself ordained Timothy and Titus as bishops before his departure by the “laying on of hands”. But Apostolic Succession is a different topic which shouldn’t be persued here. Nuff said.

PAX :harp:

 

[guanophore]

so is it oral tradition or god? or both or a pope declared this?

The teaching of Christ was committed once for all to the Church by Christ. It is in two forms, Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both are the Word of God. The Church cannot affirm as dogma anything that is contrary to what we were given by the Apostles.