A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[Rick Otto]

Well, thanks for the report & accusation, but common knowlege doesn't require "documentation" or "substantiation" both of which you would refute with "dominance propaganda".
And who authored it isn't half as important as who profited from it when describing ownership.
"True Believers" who can't admit the failings of the institutions they're so proud of & oversensitive about, make for sophmoric ambassadors of that organization's message.
What it has to do w/the thread topic is standards of evidence.
Besides the donation, we now have some controversy over a Sister Lucy letter to entertain us.
More germaine to the discussion tho, is the intellectual dishonesty, rather than the documents.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Mary according to Catholics...

She does not hold any keys. She is the mother of Jesus and thus the Mother of God. We see a very special relationship between Mary and Jesus.

Consider that God shared blood with Mary and was in Mary for some time. God protects himself from all evil.

Even the Ark of the Covenant carrying the word of God had to be made of the purest of materials and protected so only the High Priest could see it. Mary carried the Word of God in flesh. We see Mary as being protected against all evil because of this.

We also recognise that the Queen in Solomon had a particular relationship with her son the King and beleive Mary has a similiar relationship with our Lord and King, Jesus.

Bolded Red =NO
http://www.gynob.com/placenta.htm
The placenta is part of the communication between the fetus and the expectant mother. Most people tend to think of this communication as the route of exchange where the mother's blood and the fetus's blood mix and exchange, but the fetal blood and maternal blood do not mix. In fact, if this were to be the case, there would be such immunological protest from the mother that she would soon make antibodies to the baby's blood enough to destroy the pregnancy.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Bolded Red =NO
http://www.gynob.com/placenta.htm
The placenta is part of the communication between the fetus and the expectant mother. Most people tend to think of this communication as the route of exchange where the mother's blood and the fetus's blood mix and exchange, but the fetal blood and maternal blood do not mix. In fact, if this were to be the case, there would be such immunological protest from the mother that she would soon make antibodies to the baby's blood enough to destroy the pregnancy.

She exchange something...

 

[Rick Otto]

She exchange something...

Over reaching to substantiate the fantasy?
Look, I don't want to belittle your faith, I just want to keep it real, bro.

 

[everready]

She exchange something...

Exchanging his humanity, he was made to be a man so that he should live as a man experiencing all the same things man does. But living as a man he sinned not..


In Christ,
Lee

 

[Albion]

OK, a little mistake in biology has been rectified. Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus.

Now back to the issue.

The Fathers didn't say that Peter was a Pope.

A list of bishops of Rome doesn't make any of them a Pope.

They themselves didn't cite Matthew 16 in promoting their claims until centuries after Christ.

The Scriptures have to be treated extremely figuratively and illogically even to speculate that they support the idea.

There is nothing in Scripture about passing on to others whatever Peter was told to do or be by Christ,

And we have yet to find one single person from the Apostolic Age, the first century, from among all the Christian communities, who said that a lineage of bishops of Rome represented worldwide church leadership or infallibility--two characteristics which the only church that has such a figure (yes, I know about Copts) says is part of being a Pope.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

OK, a little mistake in biology has been rectified. Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus.

Now back to the issue.

The Fathers didn't say that Peter was a Pope.

A list of bishops of Rome doesn't make any of them a Pope.

They themselves didn't cite Matthew 16 in promoting their claims until centuries after Christ.

The Scriptures have to be treated extremely figuratively and illogically even to speculate that they support the idea.

There is nothing in Scripture about passing on to others whatever Peter was told to do or be by Christ,

And we have yet to find one single person from the Apostolic Age, the first century, from among all the Christian communities, who said that a lineage of bishops of Rome represented worldwide church leadership or infallibility--two characteristics which the only church that has such a figure (yes, I know about Copts) says is part of being a Pope.

I know that you know this, Albion, but to clarify for others, the Coptic "Pope" claims to be nothing more than a Bishop leading his own people. The word simply means "papa" and is not being used as the term has come to be used for the RC Pope.

Just wanted to make sure that people don't think the Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) have a "Pope".

Mary

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Over reaching to substantiate the fantasy?
Look, I don't want to belittle your faith, I just want to keep it real, bro.

What else are you doing if not belittling?

You should keep it real bro.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

OK, a little mistake in biology has been rectified. Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus.

Now back to the issue.

The Fathers didn't say that Peter was a Pope.

A list of bishops of Rome doesn't make any of them a Pope.

They themselves didn't cite Matthew 16 in promoting their claims until centuries after Christ.

The Scriptures have to be treated extremely figuratively and illogically even to speculate that they support the idea.

There is nothing in Scripture about passing on to others whatever Peter was told to do or be by Christ,

And we have yet to find one single person from the Apostolic Age, the first century, from among all the Christian communities, who said that a lineage of bishops of Rome represented worldwide church leadership or infallibility--two characteristics which the only church that has such a figure (yes, I know about Copts) says is part of being a Pope.

Peter being the head is connected to the understanding of the Keys and not just their powers of binding and loosing.

I have tried to explain this and you seem not able to grasp it. That is fine by me.

It is simple to understand for myself. I assume others are not able to understand it or maybe it is too hard for them to understand. I also know many understand this with one simple explanation. And this coming from a guy that did not learn anything about Christianity except in the last two years really.

I am content to let the Holy Spirit guide you where it may as i am content to have the Spirit guide me as it may.


Shalom

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I know that you know this, Albion, but to clarify for others, the Coptic "Pope" claims to be nothing more than a Bishop leading his own people. The word simply means "papa" and is not being used as the term has come to be used for the RC Pope.

Just wanted to make sure that people don't think the Orthodox (Oriental or Eastern) have a "Pope".

Mary

Hi Mary,

Glad to see you here.

Shalom

 

[Albion]

Peter being the head is connected to the understanding of the Keys and not just their powers of binding and loosing.

I have tried to explain this and you seem not able to grasp it. That is fine by me.

On the contrary, I said a few posts ago that I understand that this what you believe. If I didn't say it explicitly then, I should also add that I know WHY you believe as you do.

But for Heaven's sake, Jack, you can't expect that just because you offer us this theory that we have to believe it ourselves?? And I have pointed out why the theory is weak. You never commented on that, as I recall, just restated your point as if I'm some stump who wasn't able to understand what you are basing your belief upon.

Remember that David had a key (singular) while Peter was given keys (plural). David's power was political while Peter's was spiritual. And all the talk about prime ministers was purely speculative, especially since there were none of those until the 1740s AD!

In addition, are we to believe that "keys" cannot mean something entirely different, such as the most obvious meaning--that they open something, not that they are a badge of power?

So this and more is why I cannot agree that your theory is persuasive. Do you have a rebuttal to any of these points?

If you can rebut our points, we'd be willing to listen, but in any case please don't speak as though not agreeing with you means us not being able to "grasp" your message. We've given no hint, as I read these posts, of being confused or of misrepresenting what you've written.

It is simple to understand for myself. I assume others are not able to understand it or maybe it is too hard for them to understand.

I'd advise trying to get over that.

You explained yourself quite well enough; it's just that the pieces don't add up as we examine them. But if your purpose is instead only to explain why you have come to believe in what you do, you've done that.

There's no reason to be offended that we don't share your conclusions or mystified that we don't, especially when we have explained why.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The pieces do add up.

I believe the answers are there.

But even if I did not believe the answers are there I could not refute the teachings of the Catholic Church because then I would be in error.

Why??? Because this is not some intellectual game we are playing. We are dealing with God and acts of God. Only by ignoring history, scripture and Tradition do we see otherwise.

Some of the answers provided do not give only one possible solution in intellectual debates. Rather they are teachings of the "Pillar of Truth" which is the Church. There is but One church 'Albion' since Jesus said he was building but One church. This is the Catholic Church. We only have two other churches in communion with the Catholic Church besides RCC and those are the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. They do not accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but they have in the past seen his primacy.

These other churches are "protestant" churches because they protest these teachings of the "Pillar of Truth" through intellect. This can be seen in the "age of reason" too. Calvin and Luther started something that many in their time were pushing towards. King Henry VIII did not like being denied his carnal desires and so he chose to use his power to cast out the church of Rome's decision and self proclaim himself a Pope.

Yes, there is much you and others could debate and that debate has been long. It started when men thought they did not need the guidance of Jesus' church. We call that the "Reformation".

This 'Albion' is the way I see it and it is clear as a sunny summer day to me. It is also the teaching of the Catholic Church and goes back well before King Henry VIII ever decided he was a better pope then Rome. The only arguments I understand to the Papacy is with our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox churches of East and the Orient since they are still in communion (that darn filoque).

Again, see it as you will.

Shalom

 

[JasonV]

In addition, are we to believe that "keys" cannot mean something entirely different, such as the most obvious meaning--that they open something, not that they are a badge of power?

Esoterically speaking, I understand that a key or keys is generally considered symbolic of someone who has authority to open something. He (or she) who has the key, has the power.

 

[JasonV]

The pieces do add up.

I believe the answers are there.

But even if I did not believe the answers are there I could not refute the teachings of the Catholic Church because then I would be in error.

Why??? Because this is not some intellectual game we are playing. We are dealing with God and acts of God. Only by ignoring history, scripture and Tradition do we see otherwise.

I believe that it is Scripture, Tradition, and History which refute your claim. History does show that over time, Rome was given a place of Primacy, but it was not until later centuries that the See of Rome began asserting her supremacy.

Some of the answers provided do not give only one possible solution in intellectual debates. Rather they are teachings of the "Pillar of Truth" which is the Church. There is but One church 'Albion' since Jesus said he was building but One church. This is the Catholic Church. We only have two other churches in communion with the Catholic Church besides RCC and those are the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. They do not accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but they have in the past seen his primacy.

Actually, historically speaking, the Anglicans, some Lutheran bodies, and the Old Catholics are also part of the One Church. Apostolic succession and all that.

Yes, there is much you and others could debate and that debate has been long. It started when men thought they did not need the guidance of Jesus' church. We call that the "Reformation".

I would say it started when pious Christians grew tired of a long string of bad Popes exerting a power that Christ never intended to give.

This 'Albion' is the way I see it and it is clear as a sunny summer day to me. It is also the teaching of the Catholic Church and goes back well before King Henry VIII ever decided he was a better pope then Rome. The only arguments I understand to the Papacy is with our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox churches of East and the Orient since they are still in communion (that darn filoque).

Again, see it as you will.

Shalom

Last time I checked, an "appeal to authority" was still considered a logical fallacy. No?

 

[racer]

I would also like for him to address my point that the power that accompanied possession of the Keys was the authority to loose and bind. In Matthew 18 we see that all twelve (12) apostles had this authority. So, what does this say about who actually possesses the keys?

 

[everready]

OK, a little mistake in biology has been rectified. Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus.

Now back to the issue.

The Fathers didn't say that Peter was a Pope.

A list of bishops of Rome doesn't make any of them a Pope.

They themselves didn't cite Matthew 16 in promoting their claims until centuries after Christ.

The Scriptures have to be treated extremely figuratively and illogically even to speculate that they support the idea.

There is nothing in Scripture about passing on to others whatever Peter was told to do or be by Christ,

And we have yet to find one single person from the Apostolic Age, the first century, from among all the Christian communities, who said that a lineage of bishops of Rome represented worldwide church leadership or infallibility--two characteristics which the only church that has such a figure (yes, I know about Copts) says is part of being a Pope.

Good post, but with one question. the piece that reads.
Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus. Honored like how?

Shalom,
In Christ,
Lee

 

[Albion]

The pieces do add up.

I believe the answers are there.

If you do, then you do. But we explained why they don't and you didn't respond to that, so what more can I say? You were calm and polite as long as you thought you could convert me, but when I didn't see everything you argued for, suddenly you have become petulant. There's no need for that. Friends can disagree and still be friendly, can't they?

But even if I did not believe the answers are there I could not refute the teachings of the Catholic Church because then I would be in error.

Then there really was no reason for you to try to prove the claims of the Papacy from scripture or from the writings of the Church Fathers, was there? Just say that you've given your assent to whatever your church says because you have decided that it cannot be wrong.

Why??? Because this is not some intellectual game we are playing. We are dealing with God and acts of God. Only by ignoring history, scripture and Tradition do we see otherwise.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Either you suspend all consideration of the historical, scriptural, and logical evidences relating to this matter and just give yourself uncritically to the authority of the church you've picked--in which case you need not offer us any other reasons like you did--OR you take account of history, scripture, and Tradition, which you just said is not necessary for you.

Some of the answers provided do not give only one possible solution in intellectual debates. Rather they are teachings of the "Pillar of Truth" which is the Church. There is but One church 'Albion' since Jesus said he was building but One church. This is the Catholic Church. We only have two other churches in communion with the Catholic Church besides RCC and those are the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. They do not accept the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome but they have in the past seen his primacy.

These other churches are "protestant" churches because they protest these teachings of the "Pillar of Truth" through intellect. This can be seen in the "age of reason" too. Calvin and Luther started something that many in their time were pushing towards. King Henry VIII did not like being denied his carnal desires and so he chose to use his power to cast out the church of Rome's decision and self proclaim himself a Pope.

Yes, there is much you and others could debate and that debate has been long. It started when men thought they did not need the guidance of Jesus' church. We call that the "Reformation".

This 'Albion' is the way I see it and it is clear as a sunny summer day to me. It is also the teaching of the Catholic Church and goes back well before King Henry VIII ever decided he was a better pope then Rome.

You've memorized the instruction manual for converts well. A lot of that is incorrect history, but more important there's no reason to misrepresent any one else's church if you feel confident about yours. I certainly took no cheap shots at yours like that.

The only arguments I understand to the Papacy is with our brothers and sisters in the Orthodox churches of East and the Orient since they are still in communion (that darn filoque).

Again, see it as you will.

Well, they are not in communion, but that's just another fact that wouldn't interest you.

 

[Albion]

OK, a little mistake in biology has been rectified. Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus.

Now back to the issue.

The Fathers didn't say that Peter was a Pope.

A list of bishops of Rome doesn't make any of them a Pope.

They themselves didn't cite Matthew 16 in promoting their claims until centuries after Christ.

The Scriptures have to be treated extremely figuratively and illogically even to speculate that they support the idea.

There is nothing in Scripture about passing on to others whatever Peter was told to do or be by Christ,

And we have yet to find one single person from the Apostolic Age, the first century, from among all the Christian communities, who said that a lineage of bishops of Rome represented worldwide church leadership or infallibility--two characteristics which the only church that has such a figure (yes, I know about Copts) says is part of being a Pope.

Good post, but with one question. the piece that reads.
Mary is to be honored because she is the mother of Jesus. Honored like how?

Shalom,
In Christ,
Lee

I used that word advisedly, Lee, and meant by it just what it says. We honor her because, after all, she mothered the Savior. She is deserving of honor. BUT that doesn't mean at all that there are some procedures that we have to follow. It doesn't mean that we ought to pray to her, attribute to her any powers of intercession, consider her to have been assumed bodily into heaven, to have been immaculately conceived, to be the co-redeemer of the world, the dispenser of all graces, or any of the other devotions that have gradually grown up around her in some quarters. Those who do these things often attempt to justify them by use of a mild term such as "honor," so I can appreciate your concern.

 

[everready]

I used that word advisedly, Lee, and meant just what it says. We honor her because, after all, she mothered the Savior. BUT that doesn't mean at all that we ought to pray to her, attribute to her any powers of intercession, consider her to have been assumed bodily into heaven, to have been immaculately conceived, to be the co-redeemer of the world, the dispenser of all graces, or any of the other devotions that have gradually grown up around her in some quarters. Those who do these things often attempt to justify them by use of a mild term such as "honor," so I can appreciate your concern.

Well, that questions been satisfied
Thank you

 

[JasonV]

In my personal devotions (today for example) I am finding myself more drawn to Mary than before. I don't really know why, but an Icon of Guadulape has touched me today, and never before has it done so.

Perhaps there is more to Mary than our Protestant brethren would have us believe, but I'm still feeling this out and am not ready to mentally ascent to much of what our Roman Catholic brethren are teaching now-a-days.

I used that word advisedly, Lee, and meant just what it says. We honor her because, after all, she mothered the Savior. BUT that doesn't mean at all that we ought to pray to her, attribute to her any powers of intercession, consider her to have been assumed bodily into heaven, to have been immaculately conceived, to be the co-redeemer of the world, the dispenser of all graces, or any of the other devotions that have gradually grown up around her in some quarters. Those who do these things often attempt to justify them by use of a mild term such as "honor," so I can appreciate your concern.