Where did the Church first go wrong?

[Paul Yohannan]

There is no reason to think anything but that they made a purely human calculation concerning the appropriateness of each of the two candidates.

But they did cast lots to determine which of those two would replace Judas.

Which we can say is a legitimate practice, because the Coptic Church uses it.

 

[Albion]

My concern with this line is that it suggests that prayer is void

No! It doesn't do that in the least.

Consider that we pray for all sorts of things--let's say a job promotion. Then we get it. Was that the answer to prayer...or just the consequence of us being the most qualified applicant? We really do not know in most cases.

But prayer does work, we say and believe. So in the case of the Apostles and Matthias, they made a conscious decision, HAVING ASKED God for guidance. But it's not as though they heard some voice saying "Take Matthias. This is God."

And remember that these Apostles made all sorts of rational and ordinary decisions while Jesus was with them. Consider that Peter went to cut off the ear of the Roman only to have Jesus counter that decision. And Peter was the one who denied Christ three times after promising that he'd never do such a thing. To think that these men didn't function like men and make their choice between Joseph and Matthias just isn't warranted IMO.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No! It doesn't do that in the least.

Consider that we pray for all sorts of things--let's say a job promotion. Then we get it. Was that the answer to prayer...or just the consequence of us being the most qualified applicant? We really do not know in most cases.

But prayer does work, we say and believe. So in the case of the Apostles and Matthias, they made an intellectual, logical decision based upon their best judgment, HAVING ASKED God for guidance. But it's not as though they heard some voice saying "Take Matthias. This is God."

But this part of his point, they not only ask for His help, they then immediately leave it up to His Providence.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Interfered? Even today, the choice of a new bishop is made by real men using the intellectual tools available to men. Of course we pray for divine guidance, but that's a far cry from contending that God made the decision on Matthias while the Apostles acted as some sort of bystanders.

I'd think that if the Holy Spirit works through men allowing men to perform miracles then we know the HS works through men not as bystanders but as active participants.

 

[Thursday]

You might have a point somewhere in there--if we were discussing something else. But we have been discussing Apostolic Succession in the non-Roman episcopal churches, and these did not experience any break in the lineage.

That's like saying George Washington remained a loyal British citizen.

It's ludicrous. The English Church killed priests, drove nuns from their convents, and forced citizens to convert from Catholicism. There was no succession taking place. It was a rebellion and a break from the Church. The Anglicans then went to create new creeds and anti Catholic documents that further cemented their place as outside the communion of the Catholic Church.

It's a start, however, that you concede that the Catholic priesthood did have valid apostolic succession. Perhaps some day you will consider the ramifications of this belief.

 

[Albion]

But they did cast lots to determine which of those two would replace Judas.

Which we can say is a legitimate practice, because the Coptic Church uses it.

Right. But that fact goes along with what I've been trying to say. Sure, it's a mechanical means of choosing rather than a careful decision-making process, but it still shows us that they did their best to do make a choice and it was not that God directly intervened to impose a choice upon them.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Right. But that fact goes along with what I've be been trying to say. Sure, it's a mechanical means of choosing rather than a careful decision-making process, but it still shows us that they did their best to do make a choice and it was not that God directly intervened to impose a choice upon them.

Indeed, and I think they acted quite correctly.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The English Church killed priests, drove nuns from their convents, and forced citizens to convert from Catholicism.

Well, to be fair, the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a state policy more than an ecclesiastical policy. There is mich reason to suspect that the majority of bishops would have preferred it had the Crown not done that.

 

[Albion]

But this part of his point, they not only ask for His help, they then immediately leave it up to His Providence.

Yes, we all talk that way, but we are his hands, are we not? We do not sit back and expect something to happen out of thin air. We do what we are charged with doing, assuming, hoping, believing that God will inspire us to make the right choice.

 

[Philip_B]

That's like saying George Washington remained a loyal British citizen.

It's ludicrous. The English Church killed priests, drove nuns from their convents, and forced citizens to convert from Catholicism. There was no succession taking place. It was a rebellion and a break from the Church. The Anglicans then went to create new creeds and anti Catholic documents that further cemented their place as outside the communion of the Catholic Church.

It's a start, however, that you concede that the Catholic priesthood did have valid apostolic succession. Perhaps some day you will consider the ramifications of this belief.

And the Catholics burned a few our our Bishops!

 

[Albion]

That's like saying George Washington remained a loyal British citizen.

No, it isn't. The differences are significant.

It's ludicrous. The English Church killed priests, drove nuns from their convents, and forced citizens to convert from Catholicism.

This is not a change of doctrine or worship.

There was no succession taking place.

Sure there was.

It was a rebellion and a break from the Church. The Anglicans then went to create new creeds

Nope. Same creeds.

and anti Catholic documents that further cemented their place as outside the communion of the Catholic Church.

Not under Henry and not until the Pope "schismed" from the Church of England in 1571.

It's a start, however, that you concede that the Catholic priesthood did have valid apostolic succession.

Why would this come as any surprise to you?

 

[Albion]

Well, to be fair, the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a state policy more than an ecclesiastical policy.

Exactly. That's important to understand.

 

[Vicomte13]

It didn't, though. That was all Emperor Theodosius. St. Ambrose of Milan, who was at the time the most influential bishop in the Western church, certainly more powerful than the Roman archbishop, objected with great moral outrage to the execution of Priscillian.

Now Theodosius was later made a saint, probably because he did eventually outlaw the Pagan religion, but the first ten years of his reign were not brilliant from a Christian perspective. Recall how St. Ambrose had to barricade himself and his laity in a church in Milan to prevent it from being taken over by the Arians at the command of Theodosius.

If we choose to let the church off the hook for the killings by Theodosius, we can move forward in history to the first point that the church authorities succeeded in killing somebody or having him killed. If nothing else that came before qualified as a fatal error of the church (and certainly Jesus, speaking to John in the throne room of heaven was speaking of things that certain Churches in Asia were doing that was risking him knocking down their lampstand - which sounds like the response to terrible error to me, way back in the first century), then whenever the Church actually killed somebody would be the first fatal error.

I think really it's pretty clear from John's Apocalypse that the Churches were committing dire errors in the First Century, and annoying God thereby.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

If we choose to let the church off the hook for the killings by Theodosius, we can move forward in history to the first point that the church authorities succeeded in killing somebody or having him killed. If nothing else that came before qualified as a fatal error of the church (and certainly Jesus, speaking to John in the throne room of heaven was speaking of things that certain Churches in Asia were doing that was risking him knocking down their lampstand - which sounds like the response to terrible error to me, way back in the first century), then whenever the Church actually killed somebody would be the first fatal error.

I think really it's pretty clear from John's Apocalypse that the Churches were committing dire errors in the First Century, and annoying God thereby.

Local churches, yes.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Yes, we all talk that way, but we are his hands, are we not? We do not sit back and expect something to happen out of thin air. We do what we are charged with doing, assuming, hoping, believing that God will inspire us to make the right choice.

Turning it to what we may or may not do and away from the topic does not alter what it appears you clearly meant about what they did. To repeat they prayed for His help in selecting between these two, then left it to Him to do so. You appeared to deny this was in fact what they were doing when doing either of those things, though as yet have given only a claim to know that this is necessarily evident from the story.

 

[Albion]

And the Catholics burned a few our our Bishops!

To be sure. But you aren't going to read that from our 'anti-anti-Catholic' friends. In fact, I cannot think of any Catholic bishop who was burned, although there was a post that suggested this. Meanwhile the Anglican bishops who were burned under Mary are famous for their martyrdom.

 

[Albion]

Turning it to what me may or may not do and away from the topic does not alter what it appears you clearly meant about what they did.

No it doesn't. That digression was meant only as an example, since neither of us has been successful in persuading the other by use of the usual approaches.

 

[DamianWarS]

Sorry if I touched a nerve, not my intention honest. I'm just pointing out the biggest mistake the Church ever made. They were instructed to wait not to introduce a man made voting systems to determine who leads, that decision is always God's. As proven by the fact that Jesus chose Paul just a few weeks later.

I think you're reading into the text too much. Jesus tells them "not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father" I see the waiting contrasted with the departing Jerusalem but nothing is about choosing a new disciple so why assume that was a part of the waiting?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No it doesn't. That digression was meant only as an example, since neither of us has been successful in persuading the other by use of the usual approaches.

Care to reply to these questions about your view of Acts 1 put to you earlier?

How is it necessarily true or even evident that human involvement interfered in any way?
And from the story how is it necessarily true there could only have been "purely human" involvement in the vetting process?

And if we go down that road and agreed all this in fact is and even necessarily was what is indicated actually happened, when was the prophecy correctly fulfilled?

 

[Guide To The Bible]

Good point, but I think it goes much too far.
How is it necessarily true or even evident that human involvement interfered in any way?
And from the story how is it necessarily true there could only have been "purely human" involvement in the vetting process?

And if we go down that road and agreed all this in fact is and even necessarily was what is indicated actually happened, when was the prophecy correctly fulfilled?

With Paul! For the umpteenth time.