There’s no doubt that separation from the See of Rome is unfortunate. But as I’ve said elsewhere, for Anglicans and other moderate Protestants this is hardly something that we are fully responsible for. The statement “communion with the See of Rome is important” does not necessarily translate into “the See of Rome can set whatever conditions it wants to for communion.”
This is one I’ve not heard. Which Church besides the Roman Catholic Church can show unbroken apostolic succession? Please identify the church specifically and list the successors, as has been done here. Thank you.
When people set aside the terms of Communion, they separate themselves. Rome doesn’t need to make up new “conditions.” If I decide to object to a key doctrine of the faith, I automatically put myself out of communion. Of course the Church sets the “conditions.” That’s her job. Who else?
Hi, Edwin. All typology does is focus on the types which God Himself saw fit to build into Scripture, and which Christ Himself made use of in preaching the Kingdom of Heaven. Viewed as a totality, the effect of those types is overwhelming. In light of this, I doubt that I would be persuaded by a “doctrine” from “tradition” instructing us to be unpersuaded by God’s Own ideation.
Yo, BibleReader! I’ll never forget the day (before I came into the Church) when I was reading Luke 5 and came to verse 5: Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
Thank you, YADA, for your post!
Whether or not any local church can demonstrate unbroken succession is not the question. Apostolic Succession is unbroken and does not depend upon locale. Any validly consecrated bishop stands in the apostolic line. The Avignon captivity, for example, did not deprive “Rome” of her bishop.
Thank you for saying that. It had the same effect on me.
Sorry for the late reply, RyanL did a fine job, better than I would have attempted. I would simply have re-asked you to do a word search and do the reading yourself, but Ryan went the extra mile, again, thank you Ryan.I am willing to wait a few days, or longer, up to a week, for you to list those “more like” 150 separate N.T. verses.
Sandusky, I’ve read many of your posts and know you are a very knowledgeable and sincere Christian. I simply ask you to step back from the argument of traditions for a moment, pray for the Holy Spirits guidance. Forget the title “Pope”, it’s simply a title, which implies the head or leader of the Apostles, and no, you won’t find the word “Pope” in Scripture. Feel free to call him any title you like, we choose Pope, if you’d prefer CEO fine. The title is semantics. Carefully re-read all of these posts, especially those against Peter as being the first “Pope”. The preponderance of evidence is that he is indeed the CEO, there is no evidence he is not or that anyone else possibly could have been. At the very least you can understand our contention that the pope is indeed the appointed leader of the Church. I know it’s hard to accept after all of your training, but don’t fear, admitting he is the first CEO doesn’t make you a dreaded Catholic. I hope you know that last comment was in brotherly love.
Thank you, my brother, but I can only take so much credit - it was entirely comprised of material from www.scripturecatholic.com . You are too kind, and humble me with your humility.
If you want to disregard a clear teaching of the Fathers, that’s your concern. But then don’t come trying to tell us Protestants that we should be Catholics because you guys follow the Fathers. The Fathers were quite right and quite sensible on this point. Allegory (I don’t buy the alleged distinction between “allegory” and “typology”–I follow de Lubac rather than Danielou on this one) is simply too subjective to be used to prove doctrine. If something cannot be demonstrated from the literal sense of Scripture somewhere (bearing in mind that “literal sense” in traditional Christian theology is not the same thing as the sense determined by modern historical criticism), it cannot said to be authoritatively taught in Scripture. Don’t argue with me. Argue with Augustine and Aquinas.
That’s unlikely, since I’ve been studying allegorical interpretations of Scripture for years and am quite aware how powerful they can be.
It’s interesting (and rather disturbing) that you resort to the tired fundamentalist canard that disagreeing with your rather wacky interpretation of Scripture is “contradicting the Bible.” Don’t you accept the authority of the Fathers? How can you call yourself a Catholic if you despise your own tradition?
**I tend to think of Matt 16:18 like Augustine. Obviously the “unanimous consent” of the fathers was absent in the understanding and translation of this verse in the early church. **
Both Antioch and Alexandria have lines of succession from St. Peter and St. Mark respectively.
kaycee said:
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon “Kepha” in Aramaic which literally means “rock.” This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because “rock” was not even a name in Jesus’ time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person’s name, He changes their status.
Jesus may be CALLED the Rock but Jesus RENAMED Peter The ROCK - which, since Jesus is the salvation of the world and refered to by others as the Rock - would establish that Jesus has given EARTHLY AUTHORITY TO PETER and Apostolic succession to all the Apostles - therefore, whoever Peter designated as HIS successor would inherit, implicitly, Peter’s authority given to him DIRECTLY by Jesus.Jesus is also called Rock, is He not?
And the N.T. definitely says that Christ is the foundation laid, and the head of the church, explicitly! Simpler.
