Protestants and Mary

[Luna_Lovegood]

I also believe God wants us to more fully love and venerate one another. Here I’m not talking about abandoning our own decision-making power and mindlessly following anyone with cult-like obedience.

I’m just talking about looking at one another with love and awe, because of how very precious we all are, that God paid such a dear price for us.

I recently read Anne of Green Gables to my daughter – and it struck me how the Presbyterian Marilla held back for so long from showing Anne the depth of the love she felt for her. At the moments when she felt the most affection toward her – this was usually when she felt the need to make some sharp-tongued remark so Anne wouldn’t think too highly of herself.

And she (Marilla) worried that it was wrong for her to love another mere mortal so much – but she fell in love with Anne in spite of herself. And at the end she finally did open her heart and tell Anne how much she loved her.

I’m sure this is no reflection on Presbyterians – but having grown up Protestant myself, I can’t help thinking that this is the sort of hesitance I’ve sensed whenever I’ve heard my fellow Protestants (and probably myself in the past) talking about Mary, as if it would be sacriledge to just open up to Mary and even allow ourselves to love her.

And I think God is saying that we don’t have to worry about feeling too much love for another human – whether it’s our newborn baby or our elderly neighbor, or especially the Mother of God – we can just rejoice in this wonderfual presence that God has graced our lives with. More love for one another doesn’t mean less love for God – because the more we love, the more love we have to give.

 

[guanophore]

• Please show us the faith of the original apostles includes the fact that Mary never had children.

This is preserved in the Liturgies and prayers of the Church​

• Show us where Mary chose to live a life of chastity.

This is what she meant when she said “how shall this be, since I know not a man”? A woman who is about to get married has already been educated by the older female members of her family about these matters. She is well aware of where babies come from! She was being given in marriage to Joseph so that he could be her guardian. In Jewish culture, as is common among the Palestinian and other Arab nations to this day, traditional women do not rattle around “single”. Women were in the care of their father, older brother, or husband, or they were a prostitute. This is why the care of widows was so critical in the early church. Anyway, Mary has no intention of physically consummating the marriage. Joseph, according to the Mosaic Law, accepted her vow of chastity.

• Here’s the Scripture in question:

Matthew 1:25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.​

Not only does it say ‘until’ but it calls Jesus her firstborn. The Holy Spirit would most probably said it differently because firstborn that there were more following.

No, the HS expects the Scripture to be read in the light of the Teachings of Jesus. When this is done, there is no contradiction between what is written, and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The word “until” does not imply any action after the fact. This point has been discussed frequently here on the threads, if you are interested in learning more about it.

Secondly, the first born son had privileges and resposibilities that were his regardless of any children that may (or may not) follow. It was a title, and also bears no implication about what came after.

 

[guanophore]

Amen to God honoring the marriage covenant. However, James was not an apostle except in the general sence of the word as referred to Mark and Barnabas. James was not a believer until after the resurrection and He appeared to James and then the apostles as noted in 1 Corinthians 15.

You have been misinformed, Rick. The James who was bishop of Jersalem (the Lord’s brother) was one of the 12. The reason He appeared to James was because James was one of the Apostles.

The other two Jaes were part of the 12, which is why one James is referred to James the lesser to distinquish him from the other James of Zebadee (sons of thunder); with the less referring to age, he was the younger of the two James.

And the son of Mary and Alphaeus, the near kindred of Jesus. The mother of James is referred to as the “sister” of Mary the mother of our Lord. The mother of this James may have been a sister of Joseph, or Alphaeus could have been a sibling of Joseph, or of Mary , the mother of the Lord.

 

[CWBetts]

This is preserved in the Liturgies and prayers of the Church​

This is what she meant when she said “how shall this be, since I know not a man”? A woman who is about to get married has already been educated by the older female members of her family about these matters. She is well aware of where babies come from! She was being given in marriage to Joseph so that he could be her guardian. In Jewish culture, as is common among the Palestinian and other Arab nations to this day, traditional women do not rattle around “single”. Women were in the care of their father, older brother, or husband, or they were a prostitute. This is why the care of widows was so critical in the early church. Anyway, Mary has no intention of physically consummating the marriage. Joseph, according to the Mosaic Law, accepted her vow of chastity.

No, the HS expects the Scripture to be read in the light of the Teachings of Jesus. When this is done, there is no contradiction between what is written, and the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The word “until” does not imply any action after the fact. This point has been discussed frequently here on the threads, if you are interested in learning more about it.

Secondly, the first born son had privileges and resposibilities that were his regardless of any children that may (or may not) follow. It was a title, and also bears no implication about what came after.

Guan, you are wasting your time with this one. He refuses to accept any point of CAtholic doctrine. He has shown himself to be of the “If the CAtholics believe it, it must be wrong” school of thought

 

[historyb]

The Church knows, and it also knows that the Bible is not a science text. Looking for scientific answers in the Bible is like going to a mechanic to fix your broken leg! The point of the Creation account is that humans are the Creation of God, and that Adam and Eve were the first family, and it was through them that sin entered into the world. The Creation account tells nothing of “how” God created, just that he created. The how is open to speculation, and when it comes down to it, irrelevant.

The problem with that kind of think is that it sets one up to believe that the inerrant God let a lie slip in so that man then could understand and we now know better. It allows men to say “look at us we are so smart we know the mind of God, we know God did not really mean what He said in His book”

If God is inerrant than even His Creation account is true, rather we want to believe it or not.

 

[guanophore]

So by default is it okay to add to Scripture?

No. the Catholic Church closed the canon in 382. No further books are considered part of the canon.

I think your fault is that you have embraced the erroneous idea that all of the Apostolic faith has been committed to scripture. You seem to believe that everything should be found in it, or else it is not pertinent to your salvation.

Which in effect is saying that God either said too much (subtracting) or God did not say enough (adding); therefore the burden on you is to show everyone what God said outside of the Bible and show it came form God.

How did I inherit such a burden? On the contrary, the burden is upon you to show where in scripture it says that everything pertaining to the Christian life will be found there.

Good luck; no one has ever been able to do it, so it is unlikely you will fair any differently, but you are welcome to try as we sit back and learn.

No, it is impossible to prove a negative. The Apostles made no effort to commit everything to scripture. There was no need for that, as the infalible HS could preserve all that Jesus taught in the Church. Unlike you, Catholics trust His very great and precious promises to lead the Church into all Truth. We do not believe He left them orphaned, and we believe He has kept His word to remind them of all that He taught.
’
The NT is not the Source of Apostolic Teaching. It reflects that teaching, but the Source is Jesus Himself.

 

[CWBetts]

The problem with that kind of think is that it sets one up to believe that the inerrant God let a lie slip in so that man then could understand and we now know better. It allows men to say “look at us we are so smart we know the mind of God, we know God did not really mean what He said in His book”

If God is inerrant than even His Creation account is true, rather we want to believe it or not.

I choose to believe the Creation Account in Genesis, but I choose not to read it as a literal seven creation. Given that “day” can also refer to an unspecified period of time, and that “evening” and “morning” can also be used stylistically to refer to simply “beginning” and “ending” accepting some form of evolution is not necessarily incongruous with Christian faith. The point is that I can choose to accept a literal seven day interpretation, or an interpretation based on a figurative use of the word day in terms of creation. We just don’t know, and can’t know, from the context.

 

[historyb]

I choose to believe the Creation Account in Genesis, but I choose not to read it as a literal seven creation. Given that “day” can also refer to an unspecified period of time, and that “evening” and “morning” can also be used stylistically to refer to simply “beginning” and “ending” accepting some form of evolution is not necessarily incongruous with Christian faith. The point is that I can choose to accept a literal seven day interpretation, or an interpretation based on a figurative use of the word day in terms of creation. We just don’t know, and can’t know, from the context.

Correct you can choose pride over the clear word of God, or you can believe God when He said He created within 6 days and on the 7th God rested. Nothing in the passage lends itself to spans of time, but in literal days

 

[guanophore]

We all agree on that point, so it begs the question, why do you follow that which is contradictory of both God and the apostles concerning Jesus and His brothers?

The only thing that is contradictory here Rick, are your modern innovations to explain scriptures. There is nothing consistent in your view with history. In fact, history contradicts your perspective. For some reason, it seems importatn to you to deny history, because you find it expedient to deny Catholicism.

Even if you disdain modern day Catholics, how are you going to explain away the response of Jerome to Helvidius?

 

[Justy90]

**So you have no **valid answer.
**I thought **not.

And you have no valid purpose here but to fight and argue with those who do not share your opinions.

 

[guanophore]

No you did not answer and in fact intentionally avoided, which is par for ones that do not understand the Word.

On the contrary, Rick, you will find no one here at CAF who is more willing to enter into a discussion of Marian doctrines, nor one who is better prepared, not only scripturally, but historically.

Such an ad hominum attack is very ill placed in this instance, and shows that you are already off balance. I am always relieved when Good Fella enters a Marian thread.

Foundation in contrast to support or ground are two entirely different concepts in the Biblical context or any other context.

Oh, this is going to be good! I can’t wait to hear!

What a saltation of Ephesion 2:20 to nonsensical apostolic succession.  No one was given the miracle and healing poweres of the apostles; this is why it is refered to as the apostolic age; it is ancient history.

Oh, dear. It is worse than I thought!

Good Fella, this one might be a waste of your time. He does not believe even the basics. Something as advanced as the Theotokos is beyond grasp, I fear.

  What is the Biblical reference to Paul as "first installment"?  1 Timothy 4:14?

Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

This is an example of Apostolic Succession. What has that got to do with Mary?

It is true that the truths about Mary have been preserved in the Apostolic succession. Is that why you reject, them? You reject the succession?

 

[guanophore]

Really? Do you actually believe that?

Yes.

Please explain to all of us misinformed Protestants those “sacred traditions” that are the word of God and outside of the written word of God. Please be specific so we might be blessed and learn something unheard of.

One of them is that the Holy Scriptures of the NT were never intended to contain the compendium of the faith.

Another is that Mary never had other Children.

 

[Justy90]

Yes.

One of them is that the Holy Scriptures of the NT were never intended to contain the compendium of the faith.

Which is completely anti-Scriptural and promoted to serve the purpose of the circular-reasoning of Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

You are wrong; they cannot change doctrine; they just explain it further to increase understanding by further defining what was really meant.

Glad you “got” this.

Yeah..that's right further defining and it doesn't matter if the meaning is totally changed either; it is just as written..further defining that which was originally meant but was only stated as clear as it needed to be at the time.

It is true that one purpose of doctrinal development is to make it more applicable to the present time. however, I don’t think it is accurate to say that the meaning can be “totally changed”. the Church does not have the authority to depart from the Apostolic meanings.

 Times have changed and more defintiontion needs to be clarified to adjust to the changing times and circumstances...do you see and understand the difference?

I am not sure you do, but maybe it is just your cynicism talking.

Are you from the Southern Baptist tradition? I know they believe the gifts of Pentecost no longer operate today.

 

[guanophore]

The following random quotes from the book Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary, by John Ferraro, is intended to give an overview of Roman Catholic dogma concerning the Virgin Mary. Ferraro’s book was given the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, which is an official statement by the Roman Catholic Church that the book “is free of doctrinal or moral error.” Therefore, we can take these quotes as official Roman Catholic doctrine:

No, Rick. You have made an incorrect conclusion about teh Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.

The book is not “official Roman Catholic Doctrine”.

The Catholic Church is not Roman, and neither are the Marian doctrines.

The catechism would be a more reliable source for you to use. No private individual is permitted to speak for the Church in the matter of official doctrine.
RickHolland;5778761:

I know this is where you have a tiny bit of wiggle room, but semantics is not an argument nor the grave reality of the situation

I would say I am in perfect agreement of this statement. Your assertion that this Marian devotee is speaking the doctrine of the Church is a “wiggle” that is unacceptable in such a grave matter as this.

   (a) ***She [Mary] is co-Redemptrix ***

of the human race.

This is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.

(b) The church and the saints greet her thus: "You, O Mary, together with Jesus Christ, redeemed us

."

Do you have a problem with humans participating in the plan of salvation? If so, one would have to wonder what place, if any, evangelism would have in your life.

 (c) ***God has ordained that no grace will be granted to us except through Mary***

.

Catholics believe that all grace is found in Jesus, and when she brought Him into the world, she brought “all grace”.

You are taking one man’s private devotions opinions, and speculations and trying to purport that they are the doctrine of the Church. I hope you have done this in ignorance, because if you are doing this knowingly, then it is an example of bearing false witness against your brethren. Unless of course, you are one of those that don’t consider Catholics one of your brethren?

• There is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for any of the beliefs or practices detailed in this report.
  Source: rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/mary.htm

I wouldn’t say "none’ but it is pretty thin comparitively.

Please excuse the use of the word cult if you decide to look at the source; I do not ascribe to the use of such term in relation to Catholics and checked through the part of said article to make sure the term was not in there.

Catholics of the Latin Rite do refer to this type of Marian devotion as “cult”. In the old sense of the word, it is it’s own culture.

The good news is that so many Catholics believe which is written above concerning “Mary”; that all will be certainly saved and purgatory will be emptied if ever occupied.

rick

It seems that you have a sarcastic tone, Rick. In fact, so many Catholics do not. It is rare to find any that carry their personal infatuation of Mary to this degree.

Why are you here at CAF, Rick? Is it your desire to mock the catholic faith?

 

[Radical]

Hi guanophore, I see that you have been busy

We do not rely upon our own human reason, but the revelation of God to establish the Truth.

no, (IMHO) you rely on your human reasoning that the only way God could work is through a infallible teaching magesterium…and from there you claim that infallible magesterium for you and yours.

Catholics understand Scripture in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. The Children of the Reformation were separated from this light.

It seems that your high school debating team taught you that if you are faced with a lack of evidence to support your argument, then simply repeat your claim that your side is right.

No, I just understand that the credal statements, though they reflect the infallible teaching of the Church, just as scripture does, are not intended to encompass the whole faith.

yep,…and Mary just got left out in the beginning …over and over again…Do you believe that if you repeat your claim that Catholic teaching is infallible then the absence of Marian doctrine in the earliest historical records is no problem? Is this how you account for the fact that Mary just isn’t given much consideration by the earliest writers? Let’s see.

Catholics receive the faith from the Apostolic Succession. we don’t try to reconstruct it from the extant writings in isolation from the teaching authority appointed by Christ.

once

It is not possible to “add” to the Apostolic faith. It was whole and entire when it was deposited. Additions to it were, as you have corredclty noted, considered heresies.

twice

You have cited the early creed found in the writings of Irenaeus, but that is not the sum total of the Apostolic faith. It is a summary, used during Divine Liturgy, baptism, and other times to separate truth from heresy. The Faith of the Apostles is all that accompanies those credal statements.

3 times

Absolutely! This ability of the HS to create infallibly through fallen men is indeed a great mystery of God. He used Catholic men, inspired them to write, preserve, canonize and promulgate and preach from the Scriptures. It is the HS that makes all this infallible.

4 times

Jesus trained the Apostles, authorized them to teach, and acted supernaturally to preserve His Truth in the Church.

5 times

The HS obviously felt differently, or He would not have lead the Church to do so. You do not seem to be able to recognize taht the councils that did this were acting under the inspiration of the HS.

6 times

I agree, just as it is not important when certain terms were used about Marian doctrines. what is important is taht they are consistent with apostolic teaching. Since there was no “NT” at the time, both of these issues were settled as Jesus designed, by the Church, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. That same pillar and foundation of the truth later closed the canon of the NT based upon the same criteria that were used to define Trinity and the Marian doctrines.

7 times

The Catholic Church teaches that public Revelation was closed with the death of the last Apostle. That means “further revelation from the OT and the NT” cannot be added. Furthermore, our doctrines do not originiate in the text, as do those of our separated brethren. All Catholic doctrine comes from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles.

8 times

And the Magesterim exercised that free will just as the Apostles had done. They prayed, trusted the HS, and concluded what 'seemed right to the HS and to us".

9 times
Hmmm…repetition does seem to be your strategy. I think I’ve got your point…It is that the CC can only teach what Christ taught and since the CC teaches these things about Mary, then they must be from Jesus. For you it just doesn’t matter that those teachings can’t be found expressly stated in the NT or the earliest church fathers. I realize that this is a matter of faith for you, but those of us who do not share that faith would actually like to see some sort of argument based on the historical evidence that would account for the fact that Mary gets so little mention at the start. (I believe such repetition only works when one is preaching to the choir.) So far, I think that what the venerators have supplied in this thread amounts to: 1) there weren’t any heresies involving Mary at the start and therefore she got the silent treatment; 2) the doctrines involving Mary can be found in the scriptures if one knows how to decifer the (less than plain) meaning; and 3) the world wasn’t ready for it at the start. #1 is a gross assumption that doesn’t account for why other doctrines were discussed w/o a heresy in play. #2 is a matter of faith in the CC and #3 is just wild speculation.

Was the HS down with the flu for a few hundrend years?

You should rather ask if the Holy Spirit has had the flu for almost two thousand years. We Christians are supposed to be guided by the HS and therefore should be a considerable cut above the rest of humanity with regard to the matter of righteousness. The history of Christianity, however, is extremely embarassing when we compare the righteousness of Christ’s followers with the righteousness of Christ himself. It seems that Catholics think that the hierarchy of the CC can sin in every way and in every degree except for that one matter of endorsing doctrinal error. What’s more, is that we are to believe that the hierarchy of the CC (that body that has sinned throughout its history) can’t officially teach error, b/c the hierarchy of the CC says that is what Jesus promised and we know the CC is right in its interpretation of that promise from Jesus b/c the CC can’t teach error. It would seem that repetition is not the only thing required…I suspect that this sort of circular reasoning is also required.

 

[Radical]

continuing…

guanophore:

Jesus trained the Apostles, authorized them to teach, and acted supernaturally to preserve His Truth in the Church. If you dont’ believe this, then you have no basis to believe the creeds you cited, or the canon of scripture. If you accept these elements of Divine Truth, then you have no basis upon which to reject the others, which came from the same Source.

You are just not getting it. The doctrines of Mary lack a solid connection to the start b/c they are absent from the earliest historical record. In contrast, the items in the creeds (earliest descriptions of the rule of faith) can be connected to the start in a much greater degree.

The HS obviously felt differently, or He would not have lead the Church to do so. You do not seem to be able to recognize taht the councils that did this were acting under the inspiration of the HS.

I can easily recognize that this is a matter of faith for you…but again, it is founded on a circle that looks like: The councils of the church could not err, b/c the HS protected them from error. We know that the HS acted in that fashion b/c God promised he would. We know God promised he would, b/c that is how the church says a certain promise must be understood. The church must be right on its interpretation of that promise b/c the church could not err.

Whose authority is it that determines acceptable “evidence”?

does the hsitorical record disclose that the ECFs used certain criteria in considering which books to include or does that record show that they simply asked a magesterium to draw straws? If the former, then why can’t we review both the criteria used and the decision made?

. That same pillar and foundation of the truth later closed the canon of the NT based upon the same criteria that were used to define Trinity and the Marian doctrines.

…and what criteria was that? References please.

This is why Mary is portrayed so prominently in the writings of John, who was with her the longest, and by Luke, who had more time with her to hear her stories than any of the other gospel synoptic writers.

prominently? After the first two chapters of Luke’s gospel Luke doesn’t exactly focus on Mary (she doesn’t get named). In the gospel of John, the BVM gets scant attention and in Revelation one needs that papal decoder ring to see that she gets any attention.

You seem to read scripture with anti-Catholic filters.

anti-catholic? Why b/c I am not convinced by repetition and circles.

Consider trying to understand Catholicsim from a Catholics point of view, just for the sake of arguement. Don’t be afraid, it will not turn you into a Catholic.

I’ve got it…repetition and circles. I know it works for you and if you simply admitted that it is a matter of faith it would be cool. The thing is, however, when one looks at the CC one sees an institution plugged full of both sinners and saints. History doesn’t show that the CC managed to keep those sinners w/o influence in all other areas, yet you want to insist that the sinners never influenced official teaching so that it become tainted with error. When faced with the introduction of new ideas into the written historical records after decades (in most cases centuries regarding Marian doctrines) of silence, a little more than repetition and circles is required.

If you have made up your mind, why are you here?

There are about 250 million +/- devout Catholics in the world and a lot of them are very bright and righteous individuals. I am here b/c I would like to know more about how they could believe as they do…and to correct (but a few of) the misunderstandings that some other members of the CC hold wrt Protestant views.

I agree. However, the process of discerning which of the 400+ books in candidacy at the time belonged in the canon was a task undertaken by Catholic men. They were under the guidance of the HS, which is why their conclusion was infallible. This is the same way the Marian doctrines came about.

ooops missed (at least) one…10 times and counting.

 

[guanophore]

Hi all! I’m still reading the discussion – I think I’m on about page 6 – but felt something burning on my heart that I wanted to say. Hope I’m not duplicating anyone!

don;t worry about that! Welcome to the thread.

First off, I totally do not buy for one second that Catholics love Mary "too much" or hold her in "too high" esteem. I'm just learning that the closer I grow to Mary, the more I'm experiencing of God's healing in my life because I'm learning to forgive much more deeply than I knew how to forgive before.

I mean, I always gave “lip service” to forgiving everyone – but now I’m growing in my awareness of how she completely laid down her life and didn’t stand on her “rights” at all – and I see that this going down into death is how we become the co-creators of more and more abundant life. Mary is inspiring me to want to be a part of all this, even if it means relinquishing my so-called “right” to hold a grudge!

Who could “duplicate” such a fantastic witness!

It must have been very hard for Mary to forgive them for crucifying her son.

Second, I do not understand how it would degrade Mary to think that she had a normal marriage with her good and kind husband Joseph, following the birth of her and our Lord and Savior.

She took a vow of celibacy. If she abandoned it, she would be taking back her commitment to the Lord.

Besides, once she became the Spouse of the HS, anything less would have been mundane. Consecrated vessels are never returned to “daily” use. They are considered holy and set apart.

I can't help thinking that the need to insist on Mary's "perpetual virginity" is a throwback to the whole idea that sex is evil and dirty and "nice girls" don't do it and don't enjoy it.

I can see where it might seem this way. However, the Jewish culture never had this attitude about sex, and neither did the early Church. The doctrine on Mary’s perpetual virgnity predated the Cenobite movement by a couple of centuries.

The pleasures of sex are God's gift to us. I can't imagine that a giving woman such as Mary would want to deprive her husband of the fulness of a woman's love.

When Joseph accepted Mary’s vow of celibacy, he chose to be her guardian, support, and legal father of her child without any expectation of the marital embrace. They were both content with the responsibility of raising the Son of God. To suggest that any physical pleasure holds a candle to such a gift as holding the God of the Universe in your lap is really a lack of appreciation of the incarnation.

Also I believe Mary would want to enjoy the fulness of her husband's love -- I think this is a normal and healthy way to feel, so I can't imagine Mary wanting to spend her whole life "untouched" by human sexual love.

If you think this, then you have no understanding of the gift of celibacy.

I realize some men and women do feel called to lives of celibacy -- but then they don't get married. They usually live in communities with others who have the same calling, I think.

Yes, most of them do. In the Eastern Church, Married priests abstain from sex often throughout the year, and once they make a choice to be ordained, they do not marry. They are considered a spouse of the Church. There are also an increasing number of celibate oblates that live outside of communities and embrace a celibate lifestyle. The idea that all persons “need” or even want sex, or that a lack of desire for it is “unhealthy” is part of the culture of death. Jesus was celibate, as was Paul. The celibate life is lauded by them both, and neither of them are unhealthy for choosing it.

 

[Good_Fella]

No you did not answer and in fact intentionally avoided, which is par for ones that do not understand the Word. Foundation in contrast to support or ground are two entirely different concepts in the Biblical context or any other context.

What a saltation of Ephesion 2:20 to nonsensical apostolic succession. No one was given the miracle and healing poweres of the apostles; this is why it is refered to as the apostolic age; it is ancient history.

What is the Biblical reference to Paul as “first installment”? 1 Timothy 4:14?
Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

The correct translation is “pillar and foundation” of the truth, meaning the Church is protected by the holy Spirit from fallibly teaching error. In other words, the Church teaches infallibly, and she has for 2000 years, long before the canon of Scripture was established infallibly at the Council of Rome.

1 Timothy 4:14 reveals that apostolic teaching authority is physically transferred by the “laying on of hands” by an authentic minister of Christ. This ritual has never ceased since apostolic time. By the way, the power of healing is a charism of the Holy Spirit. I knew a priest in Canada who possessed this gift which is rare. Charisms aren’t transferrable as is the divine office of preaching and administering the sacraments. St. Paul refers to his ministry as a “divine office” (Col 1:25). An office - like that of the US presidency - has successors and doesn’t expire at someone’s death or departure from office.

 

[RickHolland]

You quoted an anti-Catholic site I am familiar with. It would take volumes of work to explain all the misrepresentations you quoted. It just shows the lengths some people go to to discredit the True faith.

Straw argument; as posted 80% came from quotes from Popes…that rhymes

Any site that is not Catholic is defined as “antiCatholic” and any person that is not Catholic is “antiCatholic” or Protestant? You paint in very broad strokes; proably a sin.

How about addressing the post rather than arguing the source.