J
- Status
M
MariaG
Guest
Not all Catholics are adept at it as others. But is not because Catholic teachings contradict scripture.
And not everyone who is adept at it, may see your posts.
Which threads in particular are current for you in which you are not recieving the scripture you are seeking? Place a link and I’ll be there:thumbsup: and invite a few others who love to “find it in the bible” as well
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Shawn34:
I’m waiting. What teaching of ours do you have a problem with? I can quote scripture (after all, the Church put the Bible together in its present form-the one you use-because what it shows and teaches supports Catholic beliefs)
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Why, to Peter of course! Scriptures say that the apostles were instructed to “make disciples of all nations”. Just as Mary was chosen by God to be the vessel of His Son, ministers are chosen by God to lead His flocks into Heaven. Those that try to falsely preach are immediately cast out by the congregation. Any Bible-believing Christian can see if someone is teaching in error. Just look it up in the Bible.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Church of Christ
(Bring on the negative (name removed by moderator)ut!)
E.E.N.S.:
Ok, here it goes:
We believe that we share the same history because we were once the same church. So many wonderful things have come from the CC (the Bible, the writings of the ECFs) and I am thankful that they survived the first 800 years of existence so well. But, after the East-West Schism, things started going downhill.
In all honesty, I wish they hadn’t. The CC had it right from the beginning but it took the Reformation to open everyone’s eyes to what was going on and how much the CC had strayed from its core beginnings.
I believe that I am Catholic just as much as the next Christian, but only in the sense of recognizing the roots that Jesus established for us.
T
Texan_in_DC
Guest
Ok so you believe that prior to the schism between the east and the west, we were all Catholic?Church of Christ
(Bring on the negative (name removed by moderator)ut!)
Ok, here it goes:
We believe that we share the same history because we were once the same church. So many wonderful things have come from the CC (the Bible, the writings of the ECFs) and I am thankful that they survived the first 800 years of existence so well. But, after the East-West Schism, things started going downhill.
In all honesty, I wish they hadn’t. The CC had it right from the beginning but it took the Reformation to open everyone’s eyes to what was going on and how much the CC had strayed from its core beginnings.
I believe that I am Catholic just as much as the next Christian, but only in the sense of recognizing the roots that Jesus established for us.
Yet the Catholic Church whom you testify is real, claims with its God given authority that although the eastern orthodox has broken away per say from the western Catholic side their priest in the Eastern Rite are still alligned within the apostilic tradition even though they do not recognize the Pope as head of the Church.
So if there was indeed a true Catholic Church that Jesus founded as you claim, who is your Pope? Who is your shepherd of your flock?
Was Jesus wrong when He mentioned the gates of hell will not prevail againts His Church?
P
Petergee
Guest
OK, now please answer the other two questions. 2. Can you give the list of heads of your denomination that goes back to that Apostle, in an unbroken line?
3. Under what circumstances did that Apostle start your denomination, and where do we see it documented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?
Surely even you can see that:Scriptures say that the apostles were instructed to “make disciples of all nations”. Just as Mary was chosen by God to be the vessel of His Son, ministers are chosen by God to lead His flocks into Heaven. Those that try to falsely preach are immediately cast out by the congregation. Any Bible-believing Christian can see if someone is teaching in error. Just look it up in the Bible.
- various different groups of protestants, all calling themselves “Bible-believing Christians” disagree vehemently about the truths they claim to find in the Bible and contradict each other;
- the one whom your denomination accuses of “False preaching” and throws out will no doubt start up yet another new “Bible-believeing” denomination with those who agree with him;
- your own denomination was started by your preacher or his predecessor, who was kicked out of another “Bible-believing” denomination for what THEY viewed as “false preaching”.
P
Petergee
Guest
Can you honestly tell us that you believe that the Catholic Church of 830 AD or 1054 AD more closely resembled your denomination than it resembles the Catholic Church of today?Church of Christ
(Bring on the negative (name removed by moderator)ut!)
Ok, here it goes:
We believe that we share the same history because we were once the same church. So many wonderful things have come from the CC (the Bible, the writings of the ECFs) and I am thankful that they survived the first 800 years of existence so well. But, after the East-West Schism, things started going downhill.
In all honesty, I wish they hadn’t. The CC had it right from the beginning but it took the Reformation to open everyone’s eyes to what was going on and how much the CC had strayed from its core beginnings.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be Catholic you have to be in union with the Catholic Church which Christ founded. He didn’t just establish naked “roots”. He planted a tree which He proomised would keep growing until the end of time, and He said that anyone who wants to follow Him must be attached to that tree.I believe that I am Catholic just as much as the next Christian, but only in the sense of recognizing the roots that Jesus established for us.
E
Eddy
Guest
If you’re interested, returning to the original question, in understanding different positions (and not just throwing proof texts), there’s an intelligent, balanced, thoughtful and respectful thread, with contributions from Orthodox, Catholic and various hues of Protestantism here:
forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=009435
forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=009435
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
The more I read about it, I’d say it was the CC before 800 A.D…
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
OK, now please answer the other two questions. 2. Can you give the list of heads of your denomination that goes back to that Apostle, in an unbroken line?
3. Under what circumstances did that Apostle start your denomination, and where do we see it documented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers?
I don’t have access to that information right now. I would have to meet with the church elders to obtain that.
The Apostles didn’t start our denomination. It wasn’t documented in the writings of the ECF’s because we were all Catholic. Our denomination didn’t start until the Reformation.
Petergee:
From the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Please do that. I’d be very interested in how they answer that question. (I suspect that their answer will include some reference to an “invisible” or “spiritual” connection - let us know how it goes, and whether or not my suspicion is correct.)
So, Jesus didn’t establish it, and the original founders didn’t get their authority from Him or from any of the Apostles.
The Bible cannot confer authority. It can only describe it.From the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
To take a secular equivelent, where does the vice-president of a company get his authority from - the president, or the company operating manual?
And who confers authority on his secretary - himself, or her business procedures manual? Could anyone who has studied a business procedures manual simply show up one day, displace her, and start doing her job, without being hired to do so by the employer? Leaving aside whether she is capable of doing the job (we’ll assume that she is) what should her proper procedure be for obtaining that job, or one like it?
God confers authority, and human beings confer authority - authority that they already have and are authorized to give. The root word of “authority” is “author.”
Parents get their authority directly from God, because God is the author of their children.
Employees get their authority from the company owner, because the company owner is the “author” of their jobs (or else the owner may be the successor of the original “author” in which case, authority and ownership were transferred in a legal ceremony).
Our Bishops get their authority in a traceable line going back to Jesus Christ, who is the author (founder) of our Church.
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
Ok. I called one of them up and he sent this to me via email and he said it describes what our church believes regarding apostolic succession:
The work of the twelve (and the Apostle Paul), together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide the doctrinal foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures of the Bible. To share with the apostles the same faith, to believe their word as found in the Scriptures, to receive the same Holy Spirit, is the only sense in which apostolic succession is meaningful, because it is in this sense only that men have fellowship with God in the truth (an extension of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura). The most meaningful apostolic succession is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching.
We appeal to the New Testament, which states a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example) and which states that Jesus gave the Apostles a “blank check” to lead the Church as they saw fit under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 18:18 and Acts Chapter 15, for example).
I hope this helps.
R
Researcher
Guest
Jesus clearly passed on the authority he received from God the Father to his apostles. There can be no confusion about that. But what is to made of Peter receiving the keys of the kingdom and being the rock of church? I no that I am of a simple mind but so many references to Peter clearly show that he received a special authority over and above all others. That is why Paul had to go to Peter to resolve the dispute about circumcision of the gentiles. Paul did not start a new church because he disagreed with Peter. He did not go to John or Mathew or any of the others. He went to Peter. He was obedient to Peter and met with him directly to clear up this question.
It is also clear that the Apostles had the authority to pass on this authority to others. Now many agree with this part of the equation but not Peter’s authority. So one authority was to continue but not the other? This is odd thinking.
It is from the scriptures that we find the authority on faith and morals resides in the church. And that one was selected to be the leader of the church, Peter. Both authorities have been handed down through the ages by the Grace of God to us today.
We must rejoice in history of error and bad behavior in the Catholic Church or else none of us would be able to a part of it.
It is also clear that the Apostles had the authority to pass on this authority to others. Now many agree with this part of the equation but not Peter’s authority. So one authority was to continue but not the other? This is odd thinking.
It is from the scriptures that we find the authority on faith and morals resides in the church. And that one was selected to be the leader of the church, Peter. Both authorities have been handed down through the ages by the Grace of God to us today.
We must rejoice in history of error and bad behavior in the Catholic Church or else none of us would be able to a part of it.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I agree that “the most meaningful apostolic succession is the faithful succession of apostolic teaching” but I disagree that this can be found in the doctrines of the Reformation, which were specifically intended to split away from the Apostles and all Apostolic authority, as witnessed by the fact of their vandalizing the Church of St. Andrews (just outside of Dundee, Scotland) by removing the heads of the figures of the Apostles. (Their heads remain off to this very day, to signify that the Church of St. Andrew’s recognizes no Apostolic authority, and rests upon its own authority, which it claims to have received directly from God Himself.)
[St. Andrew’s is where John Knox founded the Church of Scotland, which is also known as the Presbyterian Church. Today, it houses the Presbyterian seminary. They also have a golf course out in their back yard that you may have heard of - proceeds from the golf tournaments there go to the work of the seminary.]
It does. I think the next question I would want to ask them is, “What did the Apostles write on that blank cheque, and who did they make it out to?”
C
chasjohn
Guest
Did Jesus Christ not give His authority to Peter and the Apostles? Did they then not go and lay hands upon others? I can show you the unbroken line from Benedict XVI back to Peter.
I would be interested in seeing a listing of the “unbroken line from Benedict XVI back to Peter”. Can you refer me to a source for such listing?
I would be interested in seeing a listing of the “unbroken line from Benedict XVI back to Peter”. Can you refer me to a source for such listing?
S
sterryfamily
Guest
B
Blue_Serenity
Guest
That’s just it. It’s a mystery that can only be revealed under guidance of the Holy Spirit in concordance with the Scriptures.
That’s what my church elder said.
M
MariaG
Guest
Guess what? Alot here are converts or reverts to the Catholic Church who have done just that.Pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit and turn to the Bible for the Truth.
It is a false dichotomy to believe that Catholic Christians became Catholic by ignoring the leading of the Holy Spirit and/or failing to turn to scripture for the Truth.
It is just the opposite in fact. The deeper one looks into scripture, the deeper the Holy Spirit leads one into the correct interpretation of Scripture and leads one to look at what those who were taught by the apostles say scripture means instead of looking at what mean who lived 1500 years after the fact claim to say scripture means.
Some ingeniously claim that they just read the bible. But unless you unbiblically separate yourself from fellow believers or are a pastor who studies no previous Christian writings, you use the interpretation of someone else, and are not just turning to scripture or solely relying on the Holy Spirit.
So the question is are you going to rely on the Holy Spirit, scripture and Luther (Wesley, Calvin) or are you going to rely on the Holy Spirit, scripture and the Early Church Fathers to help you understand the proper meaning of Scripture.
Remembering that scripture warns of those who will “come along” teaching false teachings and twist scripture to their own peril. Who is more likely to be referred to as come along? Luther or the Christians in the 2nd century?
God bless,
Maria
- Status