M
Mickey
Guest
I cannot concur. We are promised that the Holy Spirit will not abandon the Church.
This is your interpretation.
With all due respect reen, that is a very bold statement and your opinion.
Peace,
Mickey
- Status
Peace,
Mickey
M
Mickey
Guest
**For the method of godliness consists of these two things, pious doctrines, and virtuous practice: and neither are the doctrines acceptable to God apart from good works, nor does God accept the works which are not perfected with pious doctrines. For what profit is it, to know well the doctrines concerning God, and yet be a vile fornicator? And again, what profit is it, to be nobly temperate, and an impious blasphemer? A most precious possession therefore is the knowledge of doctrines. **
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
M
MariaG
Guest
First off, do you really think Catholics do not put God in our hearts? Not understand that our body is a temple, a temple in fact that recieves the actual body and blood of our savoir? And live in obeidience? Catholics so thouroughly believe we must live out our lives in obedience that we are accused of trying to “earn” our way to heaven. It is not true, but we are accused of it anyway.
But you* are* putting God in a box. Scripture promises to lead us to all truth. You have decided that God can’t have meant a whole church and its doctrine, it must be an individual. God is not strong enough to keep a whole Church a “pillar and foundation of truth”(1tim3:15).
{ It’s not whether I recieve the Sacraments, its whether I’m baptized (a sacrament) or whether I eat communion (a sacrament). }
Sounds kind of Catholic to me
Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification.
Yes, you are part of the Church when you come to know Him. But once again, you have placed God in a box, this time through no fault of your own. Since you do not have a visible church to look to, you have this “invisible” kind of thing going on.
Doesn’t change the fact that Scripture talks of a visible Church and makes promises about that visible Church.
Christ IS at the head of the Church. That is why those who claim that the Church, the Catholic Church, the only Church you were in if you were a Christian, fell into error. For the Church, who Christ is the head of, to fall into error or fail is impossible.
Your inability to grasp this is why you put God in a box. (I am not trying to “slam” you here. I am just trying to get you to see how small you have made God. )
:bible1: 1Tim3:15But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which it the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
When did the Catholic Church’s pillars fall? Christ is head of the Church, there used to be One Visible Apostolic Church. When did the pillar of the that Church fall?
God Bless,
Maria
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
This is a long thread and maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anyone write that the people should not interpret or read the Bible for themselves. What I believe was said is people who interpret the Bible apart from the teachings of the Church that Jesus Christ established (the Catholic Church) can not be assured that they are understanding it correctly. That doesn’t mean that they misunderstand everything they read; but it means that the Holy Spirit doesn’t give conflicting interpretations.
Yes, indeed the scriptures were meant for the common laypeople; that’s why the Catholic Church reads the scripture aloud at Mass. Unfortunately, throughout much of human history common laypeople were often illiterate. (That’s another reason for all the beautiful artwork in Catholic Church’s–it tells Bible stories without requiring reading, similar to the illustrations in children’s Bibles.) For us who aren’t illiterate, the Church encourages us to read scripture, but if we come up with an interpretation that differs from Church teachings we shouldn’t falsely conclude that the Holy Spirit has personally given us something that He didn’t reveal to Christ’s Church.
The thread question was “what if I’m wrong”; I think this is something we should ask if our interpretation of scripture differs from the Catholic Church’s.
S
smelton
Guest
I recognize that one individual with the scriptures in his hand can be dangerous. The evidence is everywhere. I do have a question though. I’ve read several people on this board say that they can trace the Pope’s linage to Peter. Can someone tell me who Peter handed the keys to the church to before he died? Basically can someone tell me, if Peter was the 1st Pope, who the 2nd and 3rd? Can this honestley be done without smudging lines?
D
Della
Guest
S
smelton
Guest
“We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.”
S
smelton
Guest
“The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation.”
Seems to me its not as clear as some make it out to be. I’m not being argumentive but people throw that out like its something that can be assumed but its not as clear as people make it to be.
Seems to me its not as clear as some make it out to be. I’m not being argumentive but people throw that out like its something that can be assumed but its not as clear as people make it to be.
S
smelton
Guest
“Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion. As St. Peter was certainly buried at the foot of the Vatican Hill, it is quite possible that the earliest bishops of the Roman Church also were interred there. There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints.”
Sounds to me like its not know for sure, just a theory.
Sounds to me like its not know for sure, just a theory.
S
smelton
Guest
"The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his “Origines”, says “we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness.”
The author then goes on to ask it is important to know the exactness. To me if that is what you base the Pope’s infallibility on it should be.
The author then goes on to ask it is important to know the exactness. To me if that is what you base the Pope’s infallibility on it should be.
M
MariaG
Guest
smelton said:
Which book? Which author? I seemed to have missed this on your posts?
S
smelton
Guest
Pope Clement I (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from the Alexandrian), is the first of the successors of St. Peter of whom anything definite is known, and he is the first of the “Apostolic Fathers”. His feast is celebrated 23 November. He has left one genuine writing, a letter to the Church of Corinth, and many others have been attributed to him.
I. THE FOURTH POPE
Looks like he is the first on we know for sure. The church needed structure in the first few centries because of confussion. Thus the establishment of an organized stucture to keep the early church in line. The NT books proclaim that many churches were way off base, they included judism and gnostisim. That is where the structure arose. The direct linage from Peter is questionable at best. I called a good friend last night to ask him about this and he brought this to my attention. By the way he has a PHD in the NT.
I. THE FOURTH POPE
Looks like he is the first on we know for sure. The church needed structure in the first few centries because of confussion. Thus the establishment of an organized stucture to keep the early church in line. The NT books proclaim that many churches were way off base, they included judism and gnostisim. That is where the structure arose. The direct linage from Peter is questionable at best. I called a good friend last night to ask him about this and he brought this to my attention. By the way he has a PHD in the NT.
S
smelton
Guest
I was using the source Della gave. I believe it is the Catholic Encyclopedia of Popes.
M
MariaG
Guest
Which book? Author? online source?
God bless,
Maria
D
Della
Guest
Not knowing anything of substance isn’t the same thing as knowing nothing at all. The names of the early popes are known by the Church even if not much else is known about them.
Having a Phd doesn’t necessarily mean that what was learned was the absolute truth or unbiased. It very much depends on what was taught and by whom.
The Church knows the names of all its popes. There is no good reason to doubt the list except that we no longer have primary sources as references. After all, Jesus himself has very little mention in ancient texts aside from the NT. If we were to go by that alone we would have to doubt his existence, as well.
S
smelton
Guest
I think it would matter to make the claims that the Catholic Church claims. Thanks for the discussion it has been enlightening.Not knowing anything of substance isn’t the same thing as knowing nothing at all. The names of the early popes are known by the Church even if not much else is known about them.
Having a Phd doesn’t necessarily mean that what was learned was the absolute truth or unbiased. It very much depends on what was taught and by whom.
The Church knows the names of all its popes. There is no good reason to doubt the list except that we no longer have primary sources as references. After all, Jesus himself has very little mention in ancient texts aside from the NT. If we were to go by that alone we would have to doubt his existence, as well.
M
mercygate
Guest
'Nother thread. Briefly: There is a (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm). It should not be surprising that such a list exists. There are many, many early documents from which to draw reliable information.
You do understand, don’t you, that the “Pope” is “The Bishop of Rome?” “Pope” is an affectionate title, meaning “papa.” There is no rank above Bishop. Any title that functions “above” bishop is in some way honorific (although there are spiritual privileges in the papacy).
Bishops do not generally appoint their own successors, although it is said that John directly named Ignatius of Antioch as his successor and that Peter personally named Linus. First the bishop has to die. Then other bishops come together to lay hands on the one chosen. Early on, people would just cry out the name of the candidate: As late as the 4th Century, Ambrose was acclaimed Bishop of Milan by an enthusiastic crowd. Though a godly and learned man, he wasn’t even a Priest! He had to be ordained to the priesthood in order to be made bishop.
The “power of the keys” succeeds to the Bishop of Rome, which – as Ignatius of Antioch states before the year 115 a.d. – “holds the presidency of love over the other churches.” No matter requiring Papal authority may be addressed during the interregnum.
M
MariaG
Guest
Interesting. Because the Catholic Church is honest about the fact that we can’t be sure of the dates particular popes died or assumed the office, throw the whole list out.
Okay. Certainly your choice.
Okay. Certainly your choice.
P
Paris_Blues
Guest
M
mercygate
Guest
smelton said:
Papal infallibility is not based on a list, although a list is good to have. We know that there were bishops at Rome. There are more than 30 very early references to Peter’s tenure there. Even if we did not have our list, the persecution of the Church in Rome is well recorded, and that means there was a bishop.
The fact that the accession of Clement is less than 20 years after the death of Peter means that whoever came in between served in living memory of most of the Church. If there were a gap in our knowledge of who those men were, it would hardly constitute a fatal blow to the credibility of the succession.
- Status