SPLIT: Opposition: Apostolic Succession

[ytee64]

Now that I’ve given you the long answer, here’s the short one

If a man claims to have the authority of the Father but does not, he is in error.
If a man has the legitimate authority from the Father, he should be obeyed.
Likewise, if any priest said that the title “Father” meant that he himself was actually the Almighty, that priest would be removed.
As corollary, anyone who thinks that when we call the priest by the honorific “Father” we are actually mistaking them for the Almighty, they too should be corrected.

There have been times when I’ve been challenged by well-meaning and faithful evangelical Christians to leave the Catholic Church. And I’ve not left, partly because they were not able to prove that their church has Apostolic authority or exercises the substance of Apostolic authority.

Lastly, the objection over calling a priest “Father” in any sense holds no weight with me because it can be overcome by changing the honorific - if say we were to call them something purely descriptive such as “Cleric” or “Magister”. Likewise, I could object to the honorific of Pastor because we have One Shepherd in Christ.

What makes you think that Christ gave apostolic authority to the Pope or any other Catholic priest. It seems to me that if that were so, then they would operate in the gifts of an apostle just as the 12 did. Just because you stand in front of 200 men and those men decide you are an apostle, does not make you one. Just as Christ said,“you will know them by their fruits”?

ytee64

 

[LilyM]

What makes you think that Christ gave apostolic authority to the Pope or any other Catholic priest. It seems to me that if that were so, then they would operate in the gifts of an apostle just as the 12 did. Just because you stand in front of 200 men and those men decide you are an apostle, does not make you one. Just as Christ said,“you will know them by their fruits”?

ytee64

Hang on - it’s called Apostolic succession for a reason. The Apostles themselves, in Acts, chose Matthias as a successor to Judas. Clearly they recognised a NEED to have people to carry on the Apostolic office when they were gone. Clearly they also recognised that their Apostolic authority INCLUDED the ability to pass on that same authority in its fullness to others, just as Christ passed on authority to the Apostles themselves. Hence Matthias.

In a similar way, as the early Christians amply record, the other Apostles laid hands on successors and sharers in the Apostolic office, and those successors did (both because they were able and because they needed to) did the same, and on down through the generations.

 

[ytee64]

Hang on - it’s called Apostolic succession for a reason. The Apostles themselves, in Acts, chose Matthias as a successor to Judas. Clearly they recognised a NEED to have people to carry on the Apostolic office when they were gone. Clearly they also recognised that their Apostolic authority INCLUDED the ability to pass on that same authority in its fullness to others, just as Christ passed on authority to the Apostles themselves. Hence Matthias.

In a similar way, as the early Christians amply record, the other Apostles laid hands on successors and sharers in the Apostolic office, and those successors did (both because they were able and because they needed to) did the same, and on down through the generations.

Matthias was chosen by lot out of 2 that had witnessed the resurrection with the other 11. He was physically there to see the resurrected Christ and this was done to fullfill prophecy. I don’t see anything about Apostolic succession. That seems to be yet another made up phrase. I don’t see any laying on of hands here, as you stated.

 

[mark_a]

Matthias was chosen by lot out of 2 that had witnessed the resurrection with the other 11. He was physically there to see the resurrected Christ and this was done to fullfill prophecy. I don’t see anything about Apostolic succession. That seems to be yet another made up phrase. I don’t see any laying on of hands here, as you stated.

So all the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have it wrong too?

 

[LilyM]

Matthias was chosen by lot out of 2 that had witnessed the resurrection with the other 11. He was physically there to see the resurrected Christ and this was done to fullfill prophecy. I don’t see anything about Apostolic succession. That seems to be yet another made up phrase. I don’t see any laying on of hands here, as you stated.

Fact remains that Matthias was NOT personally selected by Jesus to fulfil the office of Apostle. Even though Judas died before His ascension to heaven and so Jesus could very easily have done so.

Jesus left it to the other 11 to choose a successor - since the powers He gave them included the authority to ordain successors!

Not to mention Paul of course - who was NOT physically there to see the resurrected Christ, but both sought out the counsel and blessing of the 12 before preaching to the Gentiles AND was considered by them (and himself) as an equal in Apostolic dignity. This in spite of never having met Jesus in the flesh or physically seen His resurrection.

 

[MarkBrown]

Matthias was chosen by lot out of 2 that had witnessed the resurrection with the other 11. He was physically there to see the resurrected Christ and this was done to fullfill prophecy. I don’t see anything about Apostolic succession. That seems to be yet another made up phrase. I don’t see any laying on of hands here, as you stated.

The passage is Acts 1:15-26. If you read the passage, the Apostles cast lots after praying for God to chose the next Apostle. Lots were cast to know Gods will, it was not a random game of chance. You imply the Apostles chose Matthias where scripture clearly tells us God chose him and let Peter know who was chosen.

The casting of lots and other oracles had been used by the Jews since Aaron put the Urim and Thummin on his breastplate to know the judgement of God. Exodus 28:30.

Apostolic Sucession is about as made up as the word/concept of Trinity. The Trinity is not clearly spelt out for us in scripture. Oh we see the Trinity at the Baptism of Christ, but it is not called the trinity. So using the logic you are using to dismiss Apostolic Succession, we must dismiss the Trinity. I know you will reject this as any Christian should, just as you accept the teaching of the Church on the Trinity, Apostolic Succession is another teaching to accept.

You are right that the Apostles in Scripture did not lay hands on Matthias. For ordination to deacon, priest and bishop the words used are recieve the Holy Spirit…Jesus ordained Matthias in John 20.22 by breathing on them and saying recieve the Holy Spirit. As my Bishop laid hands on me during my ordination, he lean and breathed the words on me as did Christ. The laying of hands began with the next generation or successor to the Apostles. The first Apostles were Jews and would have understood the rite of succession as outlined in Exodus 28-30, where God outlined the consecrations of Priest and succession. What many fail to understand is that the “New Testament” can only be understood in light of the “Old Testament”. Ordaining of ministers and the Eucharist is more than is giving in the New Testament. The NT writers, especially with the Eucharist, only gave the “additions” of Christ, expecting the reader to already have an understanding of the liturgy.

All that to say, Matthias was not chosen by chance. God chose him and revealed the choice in a way He had since the time of Moses and Aaron.

Fr. Mark
ACNA

 

[losh14]

What makes you think that Christ gave apostolic authority to the Pope or any other Catholic priest.

Because I trust in Christ’s granting of authority to the Apostles in Scripture, and I trust Scripture when it shows that the Apostles passed on that authority to elders and overseers. Further, I see the laying on of hands to ordain overseers (episcopos) and elders (presbyteros) consistently referenced and commanded by the leadership of the Catholic Church from the end of the 1st century to present day. In the letters of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, bishops who were martyred in the early 2nd century, the two bishops self-identify as leaders of the Catholic Church, write to other leaders (bishops and priests) of the Catholic Church, and describe the Catholic Church as carrying on the mission of the Apostles, passing apostolic authority by laying on of hands.

Note that I am not taking the letters of Clement or Ignatius to be on par with Scripture - if we accept them only as historical documents, they reflect the state of the church at the time.

But this is not what you’re asking - what I think but rather you are asking me to give you something from Scripture that satisfies you. Scripture ends before the 1st century closes, and so we have no specific mention of anyone younger than John (writer of the Apocalypse) having authority.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume the contrapositive - that Christ’s authority given to the Apostles does not extend to any Catholic clergy. This is possible if:
a) Apostolic authority ended with the Apostles.
b) Apostolic authority was given to someone other than the Catholic clergy
c) Apostolic authority was given to the Catholic clergy for a time, then revoked

We can dismiss (a) outright from Scripture. Otherwise, Paul was a liar when he laid hands on Timothy, and Barnabas’ missions were just as an errand boy.

What if it was given to someone other than Catholics - a “golden thread” of Christianity that God preserved as a remnant of Israel, as I have heard argued by some. Who comprises this golden thread? If the Catholic Church is in such error, why does history attest so substantially to those in error but not to the remnant of Israel? Did Christ revoke Apostolic authority altogether only to later bestow it upon the Reformers? Or on the American Restorationists? Or on the Charismatic Movement? Or has He restored it at all?

I think He never removed the authority because that would be antithetical to His reason for establishing it in the first place. Why give authority only to one or two generations, and leave the rest swimming for cover for 2,000 years? Pentecost marked a transition in authority from the Sandhedrin to the Apostles. Has there been another such even to transition authority elsewhere?

It seems to me that if that were so, then they would operate in the gifts of an apostle just as the 12 did.

What specifically do you mean by “gifts of the Apostles” - just want to make sure I understand what you frame in the mental construct.

Apostolic authority is distinct from charisms. Where Paul had the ability to heal the sick (Acts 28:8) and Philip to exorcise (Acts 8:6-7), there’s no record of Thomas doing so.

On the other hand, Apostolic authority includes right to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sins, ordination, ecclesial leadership (and authority to expel), authority to baptize, evangelize, resolve disputes and clarify matters of faith. While not all of the 12 are specifically mentioned in doing so, authority was given to all 12 and by extension to those who entered among their number (ie, Paul).

If your rubric for proof of Apostolic authority is vested in charisms of prophecy, healing and exorcism, let me ask if you know of any besides the Catholic Church that appoints men specifically to investiage miracles or specially trains exorcists?

Just because you stand in front of 200 men and those men decide you are an apostle, does not make you one. Just as Christ said,“you will know them by their fruits”?

The Catholic Church holds that all ordained clergy are given apostolic authority, not just the Pope. This is evident in that priests have authority to absolve sin.

It is not that the Church derives Apostolic authority from the Pope, but rather that the Pope derives it as a priest from Apostolic succession. In other words, Joseph Ratzinger received Apostolic authority upon his ordination decades ago. The Papal Office is a visible sign of that succession, but not it’s source.

I hope this helps.

 

[losh14]

Matthias was chosen by lot out of 2 that had witnessed the resurrection with the other 11. He was physically there to see the resurrected Christ and this was done to fullfill prophecy. I don’t see anything about Apostolic succession. That seems to be yet another made up phrase. I don’t see any laying on of hands here, as you stated.

Matthias was chosen by the 11, not by Jesus’ direct command.
Actually, it was Peter (Acts 1:21) who decided the method of choosing (draw lots) and the pool of candidates (Matthias and Justus). This both indicated that there was an integrity to having the group of 12, and that Peter was respected enough by the group to be listened to.

One Christian’s mental construct is another’s made-up phrase. Try finding “altar call” or “Trinity” in Scripture. I know you’re approaching Christ with sincerity, and I hope you see sincerity among Catholics in our walk with Christ as well. If we have more mental constructs it’s because Catholicism draws on 2,000 years of documentation following the close of Scripture - ample time to debate, discuss and phrase abstract ideas into more concrete terms.

 

[ytee64]

So all the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have it wrong too?

In a word …Yes. Although there are some doctorines of the Catholic churches that I totally agree with,ie.,abortion,salvation through Christ only and some of the tendancies toward marriage,etc.
In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against. The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers, and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness. These are downright false teachings and yet the people don’t seem to mind, when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.
I see nothing in scripture about going into a little room in a fancy expensive building with $8000 windows,wherein sits a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him. Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally. This does not make everyone an apostle.
Furthermore Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations. There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.
If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”, allow me to say I think you are wrong. I do not question the intent of hearts or anyone’s salvation in the Catholic church, but I do have some very good news for all Catholics that read my words in this letter. Talk to God Himself, we have access through Christ and His work on the cross in our own private closet. The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father. Man’s self imposed religous rituals are meaningless to God.
To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

ytee64

 

[Mannyfit75]

In a word …Yes. Although there are some doctorines of the Catholic churches that I totally agree with,ie.,abortion,salvation through Christ only and some of the tendancies toward marriage,etc.

I fully agree with those teachings. Bear in mind that there is nothing in Scripture that abortion is forbidden. However, the earliest Christian doctine concerning the Apostle is called the Didache (Teachings of the Twelve Apostles). This Didache states, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten," — Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden, Didache. This was written around 80-120 AD and according to most scholars, they do not believe the Apostles wrote it.

In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against. The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers, and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness. These are downright false teachings and yet the people don’t seem to mind, when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.

Do you want Catholics to dance the doctrinal dance by hitting us with your attacks? You claimed that the Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against is erroneous. Have you ever read a Church document concerning sociel justice, ethics? Even the Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical (His new one Charitas In Veritate) gives a Christian exposition on how we should be responsible when it deals with financial problems and apply Christian virtues such as charity and love.

They aren’t golden crosses. They are painted or brass than gold. Vain and repetitious prayer is only vein when it does not come from the heart. Second, the Angels in heaven pray repeatly pray, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord.” Do you consider those prayers vain? How are they any different than reciting the "Our Father, Apostles Creed, and Hail Mary (which is actually taken from the Gospel of Luke).

I see nothing in scripture about going into a little room in a fancy expensive building with $8000 windows,wherein sits a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him. Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally. This does not make everyone an apostle.

The Churches are from donations. Second, I think Mega Churches have a lot of money to spend to build theirs. I heard some of them run in the millions, and these mega Churches aren’t even Catholic. Second, many priest take a vow of poverty including Popes. The Pope himself does not get paid. All his clothing and vestments are all rented or loaned.

Who are you to judge the Catholic hierarchy? Under who’s authority do you have to assault the Bride of CHrist, which is the Church.

Furthermore Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations. There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.
If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”, allow me to say I think you are wrong. I do not question the intent of hearts or anyone’s salvation in the Catholic church, but I do have some very good news for all Catholics that read my words in this letter. Talk to God Himself, we have access through Christ and His work on the cross in our own private closet. The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father. Man’s self imposed religous rituals are meaningless to God.
To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

ytee64

We talk to God before the Blessed Sacrament before our eyes. Jesus Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist is truly God within our midst. Our center of worship is Christ Centered, and this is expressed in our Eucharistic Liturgy and Eucharist Adoration.

 

[losh14]

In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against.

What is the nature of your personal observation?
Were you a Catholic at one point?
Have you attended Mass and participated? Or followed along with a Missal? Or asked questions of the priest afterwards?
Have you ever talked with a priest, or a theologian, or a lay minister?

I ask, not to chastise or discredit, but your experiences of Catholicism so scarcely resemble my three decades in the Church that I wonder how deep you’ve actually looked.

Catholicism differs in ecclesial form from non-liturgical Christian churches. This is true. But while I see Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisaic Judaism for its hypocrisy, its emphasis on outer form over inner conversion, I do not see a condemnation anywhere in Scripture of celebrating a liturgical service.

The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers

This is unconvincing. If the priest wore cargo pants and a NASCAR shirt and we held Mass in an undecorated high school gym, we would fall outside of your condemnation but be no less Catholic. And no prayers are repeated in the Mass. We pray the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Our Father, the Eucharistic Prayer, the Exultat and the Agnus Dei once each. While these are a staple of each Mass, the opening and closing benedictions, the readings (three passages and one psalm), the homily all change each Mass.

and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness.

An example of conflux - the layering of errors in reasoning that reflect a misinterpretation of underlying subject matter. Jack Chick does this too, but he does so intentionally, and it’s why it can take 20 pages of responses to refute the compounded errors in one Chick tract.

Prayers are generally spoken or sung. They can be chanted. No one is forced to do so.The ushers won’t beat you with the collection baskets for not saying the Our Father.

And where does Scripture condemn chanting?
Where does Scripture mandate free-form prayer? Doesn’t Jesus give us prayer in specific form (Luke 11)? Doesn’t Scripture record that common prayers were used as in Phil 2:5-11?

The prayers are not unrelated. Catholic Mass is worship of the Trinity and every prayer and song is addressed to that end.

The prayers are not intended to bring forgiveness but to worship. Catholic Mass is focused solely on the Lord and our relationship to Him. For the unbaptized, forgiveness is found in baptism. For the already-baptized, forgiveness comes through contrition, confession (either privately to God or, if needed, to God with the assistance of a priest) and penance, which is often mistaken as formulaic (“ie, say five Our Fathers”) but should be rather a change in the way one lives so as to be more Christ-like.

These are downright false teachings and yet the people don’t seem to mind, when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.

It is a false teaching to tell someone to chant random nonsense in order to be forgiven. But we don’t do that.

You can, indeed, seek forgiveness from God directly. You can also find His Grace operating through the Catholic Church via Apostolic authority. If it is available, why would you not use it? You’ve dismissed our support of Apostolic succession altogether, then what is your understanding of Jn 20:22-23 and Mt 16:18-19? If you cannot explain these in context of your argument, then can you at least show upon what Scripture you base your rejection of Apostolic succession?

I see nothing in scripture about going into a little room in a fancy expensive building with $8000 windows

Where does Scripture say we should worship - in a castle? In a shack? There’s honestly nothing in Scripture about Americans either, or services being in English, or even about whether Christians should stand or sit or remain silent during worship.

wherein sits a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him. Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally.

Are you saying that all Christians have the authority to wipe out the offense of sins committed against them personally so that the sinner is forgiven in God’s eyes for that sin? In other words, if I sin by harming you and by harming MarkBrown, you have authority in Christ to forgive me for harming you but you don’t have authority to forgive my harming MarkBrown?

Either way, please cite your source. I’ve already shown you Apostolic authority from Scripture and made the argument for Apostolic succession. If you want to dismiss that, you need to show why and explain why Jesus’ empowerment to the Apostles were meant for all Christians, and why their authority to forgive was limited only to those sins against them.

 

[losh14]

Furthermore Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations.

Well-meaning isn’t relevent. First-century Christians arguing for Apostolic succession on the basis of Scripture and Apostolic teaching is relevant.

If he was wrong, and Apostolic authority went to all believers, then where is the evidence of this being practiced? If this was the true practice - and Apostolic succession is false - then who preserved this practice and where is the evidence of their existence?

There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.

And those divisions were often condemned by the Apostles themselves (ie, 2 Pt 2:1, 1 Jn 4:1), as well as by their successors (Irenaus of Antioch railed against the Gnostics, while the Syrian-language Didache warns the faithful to respect bishops but test itinerant ministers thoroughly).

If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”

Conflux again. We don’t worship because it makes us feel good. We worship because God deserves it.

The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father.

Which is more burdensome, the wages of sin or effort of repentance?
Which finds more favor with God, to worship Him in Word and song, or to do our own thing?

Why would we not take advantage of the access provided us? Why would we choose to spend this journey outside of a community of the faithful?

To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

Cheap shot. We don’t get charged for Mass (you can let the collection basket pass), nor for Confession, nor any other service of ministry. The clergy live simply. Most own very little - if they have a roof over their heads, it is often owned by the diocese. The GDP of the Vatican is less than that of Rhode Island, and the majority of the Church’s funds go toward charitable efforts.

 

[MarkBrown]

In a word …Yes. Although there are some doctorines of the Catholic churches that I totally agree with,ie.,abortion,salvation through Christ only and some of the tendancies toward marriage,etc.
In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against. The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers, and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness. These are downright false teachings and yet the people don’t seem to mind, when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.
I see nothing in scripture about going into a little room in a fancy expensive building with $8000 windows,wherein sits a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him. Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally. This does not make everyone an apostle.
Furthermore Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations. There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.
If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”, allow me to say I think you are wrong. I do not question the intent of hearts or anyone’s salvation in the Catholic church, but I do have some very good news for all Catholics that read my words in this letter. Talk to God Himself, we have access through Christ and His work on the cross in our own private closet. The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father. Man’s self imposed religous rituals are meaningless to God.
To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

ytee64

Note, I am not a Roman Catholic. I, like Roman Catholics, do not like distortions of Catholicism.

I use to hear and to my shame preach this when I was a fundie bible only Baptist pastor.
Ytee64, you have and I had extreme ignorance in regards to the Catholic Church, Catholicism and Church History. I like you drank deep from the well of the radicals of the Reformation and rejected scripture I did not like, did not fit my personal theology, was arrogant enough to think I had it right and God allowed the Church to wallow in lies, darkness and untrue for 1500 years. Ignatius, Polycarph, St Peter, St Paul, the list goes on and on of the great Church Fathers and Theologians could not see what I saw. Since my personal interpretation trumps everything…they were wrong and I was right.

You do not know what Christ taught against with the Pharisees if you think it was the trappings of the office. It was the heart and intention. To say Christ is teaching against the Pope or any priest and comparing the Pope or any Priest to the pharisees reveals you do not have a clue what Jesus was and is still teaching through the Church. You present a caricature of the Church as the real Church. I would ask you to actually know what you are condeming. Does the Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, etc Church has expensive buildings and robed priest, etc…yes. Are they white washed sepulcers that Christ denounced. No. You do not look deep enough into the teachings of Christ, but your personal interpretation tells you you have and you can pronounce the Church which you disagree with as wrong.

Your statement that Catholics believe they need someone to talk to God show your lack of understanding of Communion of the Saints and what Catholics truly believe. I agree with you that man’s self imposed religious rules are meaningless to God. Does not please Him at all. Neither does the abandonment of His rules, laws and commandments, an abandonment that is justified by personal interpretations.

I would suggest you sit back, read and try to understand Catholicism, (No do not read the Jack Chick version of “scholarship”) before you being pontificating your version of what you think Jesus said as long as I agree with it theology. Unfortunately the track record of those who come here and in 5 posts do what you have done does not reveal a geniune spirit to understand or discuss. This time I hope I am wrong.

Fr. Mark
ACNA

 

[steve_b]

In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against. The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers, and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness.

You confuse what Jesus said to the Pharisees.
y:

when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.

More specifically, scripture says certain sins can be prayed about and God will forgive them. Those that are venial type sins can be prayed about because they are not deadly (mortal). The mortal variety he says are not to be prayed about. [1 Jn 5:17-20]
Those are to be confessed to a priest who can forgive ALL sins [Jn 20:22]

THAT’S what scripture teaches
y:

I see nothing in scripture about …a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him.

[Jn 20:]
22And with that he breathed on them (HIS apostles) and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

This is the power to forgive or NOT forgive ALL sins of another person. ALL sins not just some. And this power is given to only validly ordained priests. Jesus did NOT give this universal power to forgive ALL sins to joe six pak who “says” he’s a follower of Jesus.
y:

Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally.

Now you’re changing the context.

His apostles received the power to forgive sins of others what they did to others, as well as what others did to them personally.

Jesus did NOT give this universal power to forgive sins to everyone of His followers.
y:

Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations. There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.

division was condemned in scripture. As in one who divides and remains divided, he/they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. [Gal 5:19-20]

Protestantism got it’s start dividing from the Catholic Church , the Church of Rome in the 16th century. And from there went into serial division from each other. Paul condemned this soundly in [Rm 16:17-19]

come back to the Church.
y:

If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”, allow me to say I think you are wrong.

Your opinion, is duely noted.
y:

I do not question the intent of hearts or anyone’s salvation in the Catholic church, but I do have some very good news for all Catholics that read my words in this letter. Talk to God Himself, we have access through Christ and His work on the cross in our own private closet. The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father. Man’s self imposed religous rituals are meaningless to God.
To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

ytee64

St Francis De Sales wrote a book (actually it is a series of pamphlets made into a book) during the Protestant revolt. He addresses all the points that Protestants revolted over concerning the biggest issues. (this online version has a few typos)
goodcatholicbooks.org/francis/catholic-controversy.html

It’s a quick read. Chapters are short because the chapters were short pamphlets. You really need to read this…start with your biggest issue, but read it ALL

 

[wisdomseeker]

In a word …Yes. Although there are some doctorines of the Catholic churches that I totally agree with,ie.,abortion,salvation through Christ only and some of the tendancies toward marriage,etc.
In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against. The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers, and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness. These are downright false teachings and yet the people don’t seem to mind, when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.
I see nothing in scripture about going into a little room in a fancy expensive building with $8000 windows,wherein sits a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him. Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally. This does not make everyone an apostle.
Furthermore Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations. There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.
If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”, allow me to say I think you are wrong. I do not question the intent of hearts or anyone’s salvation in the Catholic church, but I do have some very good news for all Catholics that read my words in this letter. Talk to God Himself, we have access through Christ and His work on the cross in our own private closet. The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father. Man’s self imposed religous rituals are meaningless to God.
To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

ytee64

thank God it is just your personal obsevations. so, when Christ commanded His Apostles: do this in memory of Me. He was putting a burden on the People? have you read the Parable of the evil servant yet? you know about the one who complains that the Lord was being hard on him? i think you should read it.

 

[wisdomseeker]

What makes you think that Christ gave apostolic authority to the Pope or any other Catholic priest. It seems to me that if that were so, then they would operate in the gifts of an apostle just as the 12 did. Just because you stand in front of 200 men and those men decide you are an apostle, does not make you one. Just as Christ said,“you will know them by their fruits”?

ytee64

and what are their fruits?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Matthias was chosen by lot out of 2 that had witnessed the resurrection with the other 11. He was physically there to see the resurrected Christ and this was done to fullfill prophecy. I don’t see anything about Apostolic succession. That seems to be yet another made up phrase. I don’t see any laying on of hands here, as you stated.

by your logic, the teachings of Christ stopped with the Apostles. so, how do we know about Christ 2000 yrs later?

 

[wisdomseeker]

In a word …Yes. Although there are some doctorines of the Catholic churches that I totally agree with,ie.,abortion,salvation through Christ only and some of the tendancies toward marriage,etc.
In my personal observations and studies of scripture I see plainly that the religiousity of Catholic hierarchy is what Christ taught against. The pomp and circumstance of fancy robes and very tall goldens crosses and lofty repetitive prayers, and also the manditory almost chanting of specific unrelated prayer as if that will bring forgiveness. These are downright false teachings and yet the people don’t seem to mind, when all they have to do is at night fall on their knees and pray and ask God to forgive their sin as scripture teaches.
I see nothing in scripture about going into a little room in a fancy expensive building with $8000 windows,wherein sits a man who claims he has the power to reconcile you to right standing with God by forgiving sins that were not commited against him. Christ gave every one of His followers the power to forgive sin committed against them, personally. This does not make everyone an apostle.
Furthermore Ignatiuos was well meaning I am sure, but that does not mean he was right in all of his interpretations. There were off-shoots and divisions that all of the twelve had to contend with amongst the people that they themselves led to Christ, with the very churches they personally established.
If it makes one feel better to be a part of some man-made apostolic succession rule and call that the one “true church”, allow me to say I think you are wrong. I do not question the intent of hearts or anyone’s salvation in the Catholic church, but I do have some very good news for all Catholics that read my words in this letter. Talk to God Himself, we have access through Christ and His work on the cross in our own private closet. The rest of these rituals and burdens put on you by men are NOT NEEDED for right standing with Our Father. Man’s self imposed religous rituals are meaningless to God.
To deny that there are underlying financial reasons to follow such teachings is a whole other matter.

ytee64

so, you think we are more deserving than the jews? if God Himself stablished so many laws and rituals and rules for the jews to comply what make you think we are different? are we better than the jews in the eyes of God? St Paul said: if God did not spare the Jews how much more He will do to us if we are in dissobedience. can you know for sure just by reading the Bible that you know all that Jesus has commanded us to do?

in fact Jesus said. in the past was said, do no commit adultery. in Truth i tell you if, you even look at another… you what it says…
as you see, things can get much worse for us.

 

[ytee64]

so, you think we are more deserving than the jews? if God Himself stablished so many laws and rituals and rules for the jews to comply what make you think we are different? are we better than the jews in the eyes of God? St Paul said: if God did not spare the Jews how much more He will do to us if we are in dissobedience. can you know for sure just by reading the Bible that you know all that Jesus has commanded us to do?

in fact Jesus said. in the past was said, do no commit adultery. in Truth i tell you if, you even look at another… you what it says…
as you see, things can get much worse for us.

Christ said He did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. A perfect sacrifice to do away with all other. In that sense, animal sacrifice is not needed and should not be done. He also said that He did not change one jot or tittle of the law and yet we still have no need for animal sacrifice. After that I don’t really know what you are talking about.

There are many, as you call them, Jews, who do not know they are Jews and have been calling themselves Gentiles their whole lives and then there are peoples who call themselves Jews and do lie. I take issue with the label,“Jew”, in the first place.(it would seem that an all knowing one true church would know this stuff).

There were 12 tribes of Israel, not just Judah, hence the word “Jew”. This is why I call myself a Hebrew, not knowing which tribe I am from, though I am tending towards Benjamin due to the names of some of my descendants.

 

[losh14]

There are many, as you call them, Jews, who do not know they are Jews and have been calling themselves Gentiles their whole lives and then there are peoples who call themselves Jews and do lie.

… That’s a bizarre statement and I’m not sure what to make of it. Would you care to explain?

There were 12 tribes of Israel, not just Judah, hence the word “Jew”. This is why I call myself a Hebrew, not knowing which tribe I am from, though I am tending towards Benjamin due to the names of some of my descendants.

So are you claiming descent of Semitic blood or descent of spiritual Judaism?