E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Who could possibly believe this??Hi,
I certainly didnt expect you to believe any of this
Do you mean to tell me that you actually beieve this fabricated rubbish??
- Status
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Ah and their it is. I was wondering when someone would say it is rubbish.Do you mean to tell me that you actually beieve this fabricated rubbish??
Some of the stuff he said about catholocism are gray areas for me but I do believe what he says regarding apostolic succession for us non-catholics.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
I don’t know what else to call maliscious lies and fabrications about Christ’s Church, “rubbish” was the nicest thing I could think of.Ah and their it is. I was wondering when someone would say it is rubbish.
Some of the stuff he said about catholocism are gray areas for me but I do believe what he says regarding apostolic succession for us non-catholics.
The Church has more than plenty evidence and creditbility to support (if not outright prove) her Apostolic Succession.
How do you believe this “view” of Apostolic Succession which has zero evidence or credibility??
M
MrS
Guest
Ah and their it is. I was wondering when someone would say it is rubbish.
Some of the stuff he said about catholocism are gray areas for me but I do believe what he says regarding apostolic succession for us non-catholics.
Actually I understand…
How often we see actual “Catholics” who are weak in their faith, upset with rules, short in their Faith, etc… in other words, they just don’t know their faith… they are truly un-cathecized.
So, they leave the Catholic Church for the fellowship or what ever down the street… and feel good that the pastor finds a way to reinforce their “anger” toward Catholicism.
Then… low and behold… they all of a sudden know everything about what the Catholics believe,… and how full of errors it is.
go figure.
Your source at least has an excuse… he probably never knew, or never took advantage of an opportunity to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches… how it is the fullness of the faith. No “outsider” really wants to admit that to themselves… that would be fatal to their flawed walked with the Lord.
Some of the stuff he said about catholocism are gray areas for me but I do believe what he says regarding apostolic succession for us non-catholics.
Actually I understand…
How often we see actual “Catholics” who are weak in their faith, upset with rules, short in their Faith, etc… in other words, they just don’t know their faith… they are truly un-cathecized.
So, they leave the Catholic Church for the fellowship or what ever down the street… and feel good that the pastor finds a way to reinforce their “anger” toward Catholicism.
Then… low and behold… they all of a sudden know everything about what the Catholics believe,… and how full of errors it is.
go figure.
Your source at least has an excuse… he probably never knew, or never took advantage of an opportunity to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches… how it is the fullness of the faith. No “outsider” really wants to admit that to themselves… that would be fatal to their flawed walked with the Lord.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,I don’t know what else to call maliscious lies and fabrications about Christ’s Church, “rubbish” was the nicest thing I could think of.
The Church has more than plenty evidence and creditbility to support (if not outright prove) her Apostolic Succession.
How do you believe this “view” of Apostolic Succession which has zero evidence or credibility??
To me the evidence is in Scripture itself. Since I have faith and trust that the Scriptures are 100% true and inerrent(which I believe you do too) it just makes sense to me.
The Bible does not command there to be apostolic succession and I just dont see anywhere in Scripture where Jesus said Peter was above all the other Apostles. There is no proof of that in the bible. I know you go to Matthew but what Jesus said was a play on Greek words and what the passage really means is that Jesus is going to build His church based on Peter’s statement of Faith. Peter never referred to himself as anything but a servant of Christ. He never placed himself above the other Apostles. Paul actually severely rebuked Peter in which response Peter repented. If Peter was to be the first Vicar of Christ wouldnt He have said so?
The CC made a huge leap on this point. I know that is not what you believe but it is what I believe based on Scripture.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Ah and their it is. I was wondering when someone would say it is rubbish.
Some of the stuff he said about catholocism are gray areas for me but I do believe what he says regarding apostolic succession for us non-catholics.
Actually I understand…
How often we see actual “Catholics” who are weak in their faith, upset with rules, short in their Faith, etc… in other words, they just don’t know their faith… they are truly un-cathecized.
So, they leave the Catholic Church for the fellowship or what ever down the street… and feel good that the pastor finds a way to reinforce their “anger” toward Catholicism.
Then… low and behold… they all of a sudden know everything about what the Catholics believe,… and how full of errors it is.
go figure.
Your source at least has an excuse… he probably never knew, or never took advantage of an opportunity to learn what the Catholic Church really teaches… how it is the fullness of the faith. No “outsider” really wants to admit that to themselves… that would be fatal to their flawed walked with the Lord.
Hi,
Yes what you say is a problem for the CC. All the former catholics I know really dont say nice things. That is why I came here to learn for myself. Sadly, I do seem to know more about the CC then all of my catholic friends and even in-laws and they are 75
. The CC really needs to work on teaching their flock better if they dont want people to leave and then bash them.
I also agree that it is wrong to bash the CC. I was hesitant to put the part he said about the CC. His tone may have not been nice. However, after being here for almost a year
I have found,on my own, there is truth to what he has said.(Maybe not all truth but some partial truth) I have been reading many threads and I have seen inconsistencies between catholics here and what they believe. Sometimes they will fight a doctrine and then turn around and make a complete opposite statement about that doctrine. Maybe they forgot they said something different on another thread, I dont know.But, you see my dilemma here.
I will keep studying and reading and learning and praying about it. Most importantly I will continue to strengthen my walk with Christ.
M
MrS
Guest
that’s it??/ that is all you have??Hi,
To me the evidence is in Scripture itself. Since I have faith and trust that the Scriptures are 100% true and inerrent(which I believe you do too) it just makes sense to me.
The Bible does not command there to be apostolic succession and I just dont see anywhere in Scripture where Jesus said Peter was above all the other Apostles. There is no proof of that in the bible. I know you go to Matthew but what Jesus said was a play on Greek words and what the passage really means is that Jesus is going to build His church based on Peter’s statement of Faith. Peter never referred to himself as anything but a servant of Christ. He never placed himself above the other Apostles. Paul actually severely rebuked Peter in which response Peter repented. If Peter was to be the first Vicar of Christ wouldnt He have said so?
The CC made a huge leap on this point. I know that is not what you believe but it is what I believe based on Scripture.
What does the passage about:
Jesus choosing Peter"s boat to preach from over that of the others
Jesus enabling Peter to walk on the water, not the others
Jesus praying ONLY for Peter and his new position that Satan would not win him over
Jesus giving ONLY Peter the authority to Feed My sheep, tend My flock, feed my sheep
Jesus giving Peter first and alone… later Peter AND the Apostles as a group… the power to bind and loose.
Can you show me were any of the above small list of actions by the Lord Himself, have been recinded… you know, like the Old Covenants were recinded, and replaced by the New Covenant… the Eucharist… given to only the Apostles.
Can you show me where the discription in Acts of the handing on of authority (to ONLY one who was qualified), was to be either given just to anyone… or was anyone’s for the taking.??
.
.
M
MrS
Guest
hgh
J
jmcrae
Guest
ALLFORHIM;
Adam had successors; they are listed in Genesis. The geneology of Noah’s sons is listed, as well. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are listed, along with their successors.
Moses had successors even until Christ’s own time; He identified them and told the Disciples, “Obey the one who sits in Moses’ seat, but don’t behave as they do, for you are called to be perfect.”
David had successors, and King Herod was sitting on David’s throne during the time of Jesus.
But He set Peter in authority over the whole Church (John 21:15-19) with no plan of succession? Despite making clear reference to the laws of succession when He quoted Isaiah 22:22, when He first named Simon “Peter” [which means, a rock] in Matthew 16:18?
Isn’t that totally anti-Scriptural? Why would God suddenly go off-script, and stop providing human leaders for His People, nor requiring the peoples’ obedience to His leaders? (After all, none of those who left Moses ever made it to the Promised Land, despite the fact that they were right about the direction, and he was wrong - he ended up leading them in circles for 40 years and eventually he and those who stayed with him arrived - they took the straight road and should have taken six months, but never arrived - not because they weren’t smarter than Moses - they were - but because Moses was with God, and they left both Moses and God, preferring their own way).
Adam had successors; they are listed in Genesis. The geneology of Noah’s sons is listed, as well. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are listed, along with their successors.
Moses had successors even until Christ’s own time; He identified them and told the Disciples, “Obey the one who sits in Moses’ seat, but don’t behave as they do, for you are called to be perfect.”
David had successors, and King Herod was sitting on David’s throne during the time of Jesus.
But He set Peter in authority over the whole Church (John 21:15-19) with no plan of succession? Despite making clear reference to the laws of succession when He quoted Isaiah 22:22, when He first named Simon “Peter” [which means, a rock] in Matthew 16:18?
Isn’t that totally anti-Scriptural? Why would God suddenly go off-script, and stop providing human leaders for His People, nor requiring the peoples’ obedience to His leaders? (After all, none of those who left Moses ever made it to the Promised Land, despite the fact that they were right about the direction, and he was wrong - he ended up leading them in circles for 40 years and eventually he and those who stayed with him arrived - they took the straight road and should have taken six months, but never arrived - not because they weren’t smarter than Moses - they were - but because Moses was with God, and they left both Moses and God, preferring their own way).
M
MrS
Guest
;1868838:
you are right… there is often nothing more hateful or wrong than an ex-Catholic who feels scorned.
One of the great things about CA Forums, it that it could respond to your statement about the need for more Catholics to be informed… unfortunately those who would benefit most don’t care.
As for your dilemma… one more reason againt Sola Scriptura… we really can’t depend on self-interpretation… nor can we depend on those, like your source, who only have a part of the Truth.
See… we never run out of things to pray for.
thanks for your honesty…Hi,
Yes what you say is a problem for the CC. All the former catholics I know really dont say nice things. That is why I came here to learn for myself. Sadly, I do seem to know more about the CC then all of my catholic friends and even in-laws and they are 75
I also agree that it is wrong to bash the CC. I was hesitant to put the part he said about the CC. His tone may have not been nice. However, after being here for almost a year
But, you see my dilemma here.
you are right… there is often nothing more hateful or wrong than an ex-Catholic who feels scorned.
One of the great things about CA Forums, it that it could respond to your statement about the need for more Catholics to be informed… unfortunately those who would benefit most don’t care.
As for your dilemma… one more reason againt Sola Scriptura… we really can’t depend on self-interpretation… nor can we depend on those, like your source, who only have a part of the Truth.
See… we never run out of things to pray for.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Aint that the truthSee… we never run out of things to pray for.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
So, that doesnt prove anything–that is a huge stretch
Peter was the one who stepped out in faith but as soon as he took his eyes off Jesus what happened. The point was to teach the disciples and us is to never take our eyes off Jesus:thumbsup: or we will sink!!
Could you give me that Scripture so I can make sure I understand content before I answer.
Jesus gave that authority to all the Apostles, otherwise why did they also go and do the same thing.
This as you know we differ on intrepretation.
I dont see anywhere in Acts that says you have to have laying on of hands in order to be a preacher or that it is mandatory to be part of an apostolic succession. If their is and I missed it please point it out to me.
.
.
H
Hellisreal
Guest
I noted in one of All For Him’s posts the prejorative term “Romanism” Or “romanist”
This is a term used by Protestants that is horribly rude and lacking manners and respect. I am upset that it has been used here.
Resorting to name calling is a shameful thing.
This is a term used by Protestants that is horribly rude and lacking manners and respect. I am upset that it has been used here.
Resorting to name calling is a shameful thing.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,I noted in one of All For Him’s posts the prejorative term “Romanism” Or “romanist”
This is a term used by Protestants that is horribly rude and lacking manners and respect. I am upset that it has been used here.
Resorting to name calling is a shameful thing.
Im sorry I did not know that was bad. Forgive me if I had known I would have deleted it.
I was never catholic so I dont know all of the different words other people use that would offend you.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
ALLFORHIM;
Hi,
I am going to take a stab at this but remember Im no theologian. I prayed for help from God to answer so here it goes.
The succession in the OT was for a purpose. The purpose was that Christ was to be born into this line of succession. It was done this way so the Jews and us could trace Christ lineage back as prophesized in the OT so as to prove the prophesy.
When Christ was born that was the end of the lineage because he was born. Beside the NT was now a new covenant between Christ and His body of believer’s(the church) No need for succession anymore. Remember the veil being ripped in half. That was God opening direct access to God. You no longer had to go through Pharisees to get to God. Christ’s death and resurrection paid our debt in full.
So God wasnt doing an about face he was fullfilling Scripture and continuing on with His plan for this world.
Well that is the best I can do. Im sure you wont believe it but that is my take on it. Maybe someone else can do a better job then I explaining.
J
jmcrae
Guest
So, don’t you think that God would continue to use the same “clue in” technique to help us know which one is the right Church, from amongst all of the many different heresies that have sprung up?Well that is the best I can do. Im sure you wont believe it but that is my take on it. Maybe someone else can do a better job then I explaining.
Since without a continuous history of succession to guide us, it’s really just one’s word against another’s to say which Church has the correct doctrines - which are vital to our salvation, since belief is part of how we are saved. If we believe the wrong things, then we can’t be saved, can we? That’s why correct doctrine is absolutely essential, and heresy is to be avoided like the plague.
M
MrS
Guest
just a note… a convenant is not a two way action… it is a promise from God… period.Hi,
When Christ was born that was the end of the lineage because he was born. Beside the NT was now a new covenant between Christ and His body of believer’s(the church) No need for succession anymore. Remember the veil being ripped in half. That was God opening direct access to God. You no longer had to go through Pharisees to get to God. Christ’s death and resurrection paid our debt in full.
.
Like the covenant he made with Abraham… He would give him descendants… like the stars…period.
Like the covenant hw made with Noah… His promise that He would not again destroy the world … period…
and so on
The New Covenant (only time Jesus ever uses the word) is given without a required return from us at the Last Supper when Jesus institutes both the Ministerial Priesthood, and the Eucharist… not symbolic stuff at all.
As for the succession… certainly no one Succeeds God. Only God is God.
That is why the succession is for the office of the one the King choose to act in His name (hold the authority represented by the Keys… as he references from Isaah 20) until His return.
Christ’s Church is certainly that… it is Christ’s, and it is only one. But to be limited to understanding the Scriptures by what we only think today, and not use the meaning of the words “back then”, and how they were received and understood (all of which is possible thanks to the Early Fathers), is again why we are cautioned to not self-interpret.
.
.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Yes but thankfully we believe in the salvation message of Christ:thumbsup: AMEN
We dont need continuous history to guide us we need the HS. That is what God promised and that is where I put my faith.
M
MrS
Guest
Yes the Holy Spirit is a divine source of grace for us.Yes but thankfully we believe in the salvation message of Christ:thumbsup: AMEN
We dont need continuous history to guide us we need the HS. That is what God promised and that is where I put my faith.
The Promise Jesus made to the Apostles what that the Holy Spirit would lead them (the leaders of this new Church founded by Jesus) into all truth.
…He would lead them…
To think that the same promise applies to all of us… well, all the different faith communities which express different truths, and all claim it is the Holy Spirit… well, you can certainly see what is wrong with this picture…
It is not the Holy Spirit who leads all the other Churches in their division.
- Status