B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Because the gift of miracles and the conferring of ordination are completely unrelated things.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Dorothy
Guest
If our priests went around focusing only on the healing of the body, then more and more people might be only looking at the healings and seeking them alone.
The Lord knows when a healing of the body should occur. And those who receive it need to give thanks!
The Lord knows when a healing of the body should occur. And those who receive it need to give thanks!
M
Markie_Boy
Guest
So I’m thinking more - a huge part of healing or miracle could depend on the faith of the person seeking it.
Look at the woman with the hemorrhage, Mark ch. 5 - lot’s of people were touching Him, but only the one that came in true faith was healed.
Look at the woman with the hemorrhage, Mark ch. 5 - lot’s of people were touching Him, but only the one that came in true faith was healed.
D
Dorothy
Guest
Yes!So I’m thinking more - a huge part of healing or miracle could depend on the faith of the person seeking it.
Look at the woman with the hemorrhage, Mark ch. 5 - lot’s of people were touching Him, but only the one that came in true faith was healed.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
So they are wonders, not miracles (beyond the possibilities of the laws of nature)?Yes!
That’s fine by me, they still manifest the intervention of God…but in a different way.
W
Wesrock
Guest
I’ve been listening to Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism on audiobook, and I just got to an interesting point which may have relevance to this topic.
There are those who claim that the authority of the apoatles died with the apostles. Specifically, when Catholics point out the passages where Jesus gives the authority to forgive sins and to bind and loose, they claim that the apostles could forgive sins, but priests today can’t.
Keating earlier in the book made the argument that Jesus must have left a living Church. I won’t recap that all here. To the present point, “But the powers absolutely necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down generstion to generation. If they ceased the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to make disciples of all nations. It would take time, much time . . . If the apostles and disciples believed that Christ had instituted a priesthood that included the power to forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the successors of these apostles, that is, the Bishops, and Christians of later years to believe such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. On the other hand, if the priestly forgiveness of sins . . . was something hoisted on the Church by ecclesiatical leaders . . . we’d expect to find signs of protest . . . Quite the contrary, we find that confession to a priest was accepted as consistent with the original deposit of faith.”
There’s more, but I am quoting from my phone. I think that’s sufficient for the gist of it, though.
I quote this, because the original question is along the lines of “If the bishops are the successors to the apostles, why should they be able to forgive sins but not do the same physical healings?” Because the forgivness of sins (and the other sacraments) is essential (not just useful, but absolutely essential) to the continuing of a living, spiritual, and effective Church, and it’s these that are passed down.
There are those who claim that the authority of the apoatles died with the apostles. Specifically, when Catholics point out the passages where Jesus gives the authority to forgive sins and to bind and loose, they claim that the apostles could forgive sins, but priests today can’t.
Keating earlier in the book made the argument that Jesus must have left a living Church. I won’t recap that all here. To the present point, “But the powers absolutely necessary to maintain the Church as a living, spiritual society had to be passed down generstion to generation. If they ceased the Church would cease, except as a quaint abstraction. Christ ordered the apostles to make disciples of all nations. It would take time, much time . . . If the apostles and disciples believed that Christ had instituted a priesthood that included the power to forgive sins in his stead, we would expect the successors of these apostles, that is, the Bishops, and Christians of later years to believe such power was legitimately and habitually exercised. On the other hand, if the priestly forgiveness of sins . . . was something hoisted on the Church by ecclesiatical leaders . . . we’d expect to find signs of protest . . . Quite the contrary, we find that confession to a priest was accepted as consistent with the original deposit of faith.”
There’s more, but I am quoting from my phone. I think that’s sufficient for the gist of it, though.
I quote this, because the original question is along the lines of “If the bishops are the successors to the apostles, why should they be able to forgive sins but not do the same physical healings?” Because the forgivness of sins (and the other sacraments) is essential (not just useful, but absolutely essential) to the continuing of a living, spiritual, and effective Church, and it’s these that are passed down.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.