Posted on 01/30/2006 7:43:33 AM PST by NYer
Acts 1:20-26 describes the instructions given to the remaining 11 Apostles with regard to replacing Judas. Please notice the requirements for that office stated in vs 21-22. No man alive today meets these requirements. I think someone has been laying some bad teaching on you. What other verses do you have to substantuate apostolic succession?
Some early christians were also baptized for the dead and Paul corrects them in this error. Just because an early Christian did it does not make it scriptural. You need to look to the scriptures for your understanding, not the supposed actions of early Christians.
Only the Catholic Church traces its lineage back to Christ. ALL christian churches are offshoots of the Catholic Church. The Mormon Church is not even christian. Gordon B. Hinckley, the current president and prophet of the Mormon church, says (in a booklet called What of the Mormons?) that he and his co-religionists "are no closer to Protestantism than they are to Catholicism."
What is your documentation that the "prayer to Jesus step-father" dates back to AD 50?
You are dodging the question. Why is the Catholic churches claim to Apostolic succession more valid than the Morman's?
You know this for a fact?
Throughout the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter is clearly the leader of the Christian community (Acts 1:15, 5:1-10). And again, he is listed first among the Apostles in the New Testament (Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-14). Before St. Peter was crucified, he appointed St. Linus as his successor. Why should this practice not be carried on to the present day? There is an unbroken line of Popes from St. Peter down to the present-day Pope. The Papacy is the oldest institution in the Western World. How could it have survived 2000 years without the grace of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
St. Hegessipus in the 2nd century of the Church had already compiled a list of the popes, listing the current one at the time (Pope Anacletus) as the eleventh successor to St. Peter.
The Church is to be organized and structured. Scripture CLEARLY established "offices" and a "hierarchy" among Christians. The offices of "bishop, priest (presbyter) and deacon" are mentioned in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1,8; Titus 1:7).
Christ established ONE Church, not many.
You have a penchant for showing up on threads for the sole purpose of bashing the Catholic Church and trying to correct what you perceive to be errors.
The Holy Bible that you so love, was compiled by the Catholic Church. In your zeal to make it the definitve source of reference, you have neglected to thoroughly read through the passages.
Christ stated that the Church, NOT Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17) Christ did NOT state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, NOT Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as THE pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.
Since you are using this thread strictly to troll catholics, please consider our discussion over.
1. There is no independent or scriptural documentation that Peter ever appointed anyone as his successor.
2. Paul'letters to Timothy and Titus have to do with the qualifications of bishops/elders. Paul gives the qualifications of men who are to serve in these capacities. Please read Tim. 3:2 (must be the husband of one wife) and vs 4 (must have believing children.) Which of your bishops or Popes meets these qualifications?
3. It was in the second century that the Papacy was devised and they worked their way backward to claim that Peter was the first.
4. The church that our Lord founded was comprised of individual Christians meeting together in automous congregations which were overseen by the elders in that particular city. There was no heirachy in the New Testament church and none was ever scriptually authorized. No person or persons were over the Christians in more than one city.
The Bible which I love was not "comprized" by the Catholic Church, it was written by men inspired of God. It predated the Catholic church by hundreds of years. There is no way that you can reconcile the teachings of the Catholic church with the teachings of the Bible. Your inability to defend your position speaks volumes. Why am I not surprised that you do not wish to continue defending your position in the light of scripture?
Someone is lying big time. Is the bible just a lie?
"The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10. "The dead praise not the Lord." Psalms 115:17.
God Bless
Oh, I'm not surprised there are advocates for sainthood for Pope John Paul II. I'd be more surprised if he doesn't reach the status of "saint" within the Catholic church. IMO sainthood for him was a done-deal the moment he died.
BTW.....GO STEELERS!
Good luck to your team this weekend. I'm rooting for them to win.
So you're in the business of arbitrarily assigning expiration dates to Holy Scripture? By what authority, and with what evidence do you make this curious statement?
I second the caution. I do not really understand why the officials let this information out. In the case of causes sponsored by the person's religious order or group of devoted friends, I can understand them releasing the information to encourage others to invoke the putative saint's intercession. But in this case, where the cause is being handled by a high-level official and the putative saint is probably being invoked by millions around the world, the cause needs no publicity of this sort. They should keep these reports under their hats, investigate them and only after the results are clear, publicize them.
I suppose it was made public by some staffer or perhaps even by medical personnel outside the cause's staff. I suppose it's hard to lock down entirely the release of this sort of information. But if the publicity was actually engendered by the people working on the cause, I'd say to them, "put a sock in it" until you have some concrete results of a proper investigation.
"The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun." "There is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10. "The dead praise not the Lord." Psalms 115:17.
So, you don't believe in the Ressurection of the Body? Or do you just not understand the idea of "eternity"?
SD
Look at the context of the scripture. Jesus was talking to the Apostles, no one else. Do you deny that all of them are now dead?
You have no choice but to trust that the Catholic Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in establishing the canon of the Bible, because no one else established it, and no one else could claim authority to. The gnostics also believed that they had a claim on Sacred Scripture, did you know that? How do you know they weren't right and the Catholic Church was wrong? Hmmmm.
The statement, "it predated the Catholic Church by hundreds of years" is not worthy of comment, flying in the face of historical fact and designed solely to deceive. Seeing that the Church was established on Pentecost Sunday, that makes no sense whatsoever.
There is no way that you can reconcile the teachings of the Catholic church with the teachings of the Bible
First of all, EVERYTHING taught by the Church is reconcilable with Scripture.
Now reconcile this: Why is Paul "working out [his] salvation in fear and trembling?"
In the context of Scripture, Jesus was only talking to Jews and Gentiles living in Galilee and no one else when he gave the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, by the standard you have established, the teachings of Christ are anathema to 21st century Americans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.