A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[racer]

Scripture is and came from Apostolic Tradition... Apostolic Tradition is all divinely inspired and inerrant.

Now, make up your mind . . . you can't have it all ways. I asked you what was missing from Scripture. You are dodging the question. You listed Mary as the new Eve, the PV of Mary, etc . . . and I asked you if you were admitting that these teachings are not biblically based. You can not dodge that question by asserting that Scripture is only part of Apostolic Tradition.

In fact, in spite of your attempt to artfully dodge the question, you have in fact admitted that the teachings you listed are not biblically founded. It would have been faster and simpler to have just answer "yes" to the question.

To say that Scripture is "part of Apostolic Tradition," is not to say that all Apostolic Teachings are biblically based.

 

[racer]

I was not patronizing or being condescending...

It may not be your intent, but it's clearly how it comes across.

I was so filled with joy at being part of the Catholic Church and being able to take part in the Eucharist.

And I'm filled with joy at being pary of the Universal all encompassing Spiritual Body of Christ.

If anything I am sorry for you for not having the Eucharist.

And I'm sorry for you being convinced to believe something that is not true and beyond Jesus' intent.

I will pray for your enlightenment . . . . .

 

[racer]

I have a buddy who is at an Apostolic Church which is part of the Pentecostal church. He is a 'fallen' Catholic and has tried quite a bit to convert me.

I have also read up some on the Pentecostal church. I tried to explain to him that the Pentecostal church teaches that you can validly baptize in the trinity as Jesus said in Matthew. He will argue that the ONLY valid baptism is "in the name of Jesus" and that if you baptise in "the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" that it is INVALID.

That is because your friend is now a member of the Oneness Pentecostal sect. I will pray for him.

He also believes that speaking in tongues is proof that he is saved.

Some Pentecostals (I'm not sure which ones) believe that to be "born of the spirit" the evidence must be outwardly manifested by one speaking in tongues. Others only teach that speaking in tongues is the outward manifestation of being saved, but it is not necessary. There is "praying in tongues" which is done for communication with the Holy Spirity and done during private prayer. Then there is praying in tongues done for edification of the Spirit. This is done in front of the Church and there will be an interpreter to deliver the message.

Naw... I see error there and grave error.

I see error in the teachings of Oneness Pentecostals, also.

I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to protect those the Father has delivered to him. I am nothing in comparison and can do nothing without God. I am in the Church that Jesus started and it is here that the teachings must come from.

DITTO!

I do not see a written word as being authoratative since it is inanimate. The Scriptures are divinely inspired word of God and inerrant but they cannot be authorative.

Hmmmm . . . really? Then, tell me, do you obey speed limit signs or stop signs? They are inanimate objects. What would you tell the police officer who stopped you for a traffic violation. "Gee, sorry officer, I don't submit to the authority of inanimate objects?"

The Church is authorative and the Pope and Bishops are authorative and they are servants to the people, the church and God.

Their authority is in the Teaching capacity only.

God is the Authority of all matters of the Catholic Church and through his appointed representatives in the Pope and bishops and others God leads us and guides us.

I think there's another quote that I've given you that applies here. From post #418:

5/23/02

Like the apostle Paul, the church father Ignatius wrote a lot about church government without ever mentioning a papacy. He frequently writes about the authority of the local bishop, which he apparently considered the highest church office. Thus, in the introduction of his letter to Polycarp, he writes, "to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ". When he was on his way to Rome to be martyred, Ignatius wrote to several churches. He wanted those churches to care for his church in Antioch, which would be left without a bishop as a result of his execution. When the local bishop dies, the only bishop the church has is God:

"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (Epistle to the Romans, shorter version, 9)

My buddy believes that interpretation of the Bible is never wrong if you have the Holy Spirit.

He could be right. I guess the question would be how does one know it is the spirit leading Him. Just like you, how do you know the Holy Spirit is leading the RCC?

He actually believes the Holy Spirit talks to him and tells him his interpretations and that these interpretations NEVER contradict another person with the Holy Spirit interpretting the Bible.

Once again, are they both being lead by the same spirit.

BUT if you say his interpretation is wrong then you either do not have the Holy Spirit or demons are misleading you.

I'd say your friend has issues.

That is what happens when the Bible is seen as authoratative...

No, that is what happens when people are mislead and Scripture is abused.

Man must have teachers for scripture and these teachers must have learned from Jesus' teachings. To have this then you must have a church that is like the church that Jesus started. So what church most resembles the Church of the first century?

So, does believing that the Church to which you belong is unerring and teaches the Truth 100% correctly guarantee you that you, also, understand the truth 100% correctly? If not, how are you any better off than the rest of us?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Hmmmm . . . really? Then, tell me, do you obey speed limit signs or stop signs? They are inanimate objects. What would you tell the police officer who stopped you for a traffic violation. "Gee, sorry officer, I don't submit to the authority of inanimate objects?"

LMAO


That was funny!

The sign is not the authority for the policeman is the authority here. The policeman can tell me that the square metal painted white with the number 55 is a speed limit sign and I was going faster then the limit. The judge is an authority because he can enforce the law. The people that make laws are an authority.

But the sign is a sign. It is to tell me something that the authorities put in place. If I was not familiar with cars and roads and street signs then what good would a 55 mph speed limit do me? I would need someone to teach me first before I started driving. Wouldn't I?

The the driving instructor would have an authority in teaching me about driving and road signs and what I can do and cannot do.

Without such authority that sign could be read falsely or not understood at all.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It may not be your intent, but it's clearly how it comes across.

My apologies... I meant no harm.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Now, make up your mind . . . you can't have it all ways. I asked you what was missing from Scripture. You are dodging the question. You listed Mary as the new Eve, the PV of Mary, etc . . . and I asked you if you were admitting that these teachings are not biblically based. You can not dodge that question by asserting that Scripture is only part of Apostolic Tradition.

In fact, in spite of your attempt to artfully dodge the question, you have in fact admitted that the teachings you listed are not biblically founded. It would have been faster and simpler to have just answer "yes" to the question.

To say that Scripture is "part of Apostolic Tradition," is not to say that all Apostolic Teachings are biblically based.

The Bible does not tell us that Mary was assumed in to Heaven.

Is that good?


Apostolic Tradition is inerrant and the teachings of God as given us with the Holy Spirit. The New Testament is part of that category. That was the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to dodge your question at all. But I felt it was too black or white and think it needed explanation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Their authority is in the Teaching capacity only.

I think there's another quote that I've given you that applies here. From post #418:

5/23/02

Like the apostle Paul, the church father Ignatius wrote a lot about church government without ever mentioning a papacy. He frequently writes about the authority of the local bishop, which he apparently considered the highest church office. Thus, in the introduction of his letter to Polycarp, he writes, "to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ". When he was on his way to Rome to be martyred, Ignatius wrote to several churches. He wanted those churches to care for his church in Antioch, which would be left without a bishop as a result of his execution. When the local bishop dies, the only bishop the church has is God:

"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (Epistle to the Romans, shorter version, 9)

Igantius never mentioned "papacy"... This of course is a word that probably was not used then. As time goes by people will give a name to something as they study it further and especially in cases where it needs to be defined. In defining or understanding something further we do not change the truth but rather make the picture clearer like removing the dirt from muddy water.

These defining moments can happen for reasons of disension with in the church or because of false teachings.

But there has always been a hierarchy of the Church and this is seen in scripture. It is confirmed in letters by Ignatius and Gregory I and other ECFs.

You can argue that the word "papacy" was not used and so it did not exist. So too can the 'oneness' pentecostals argue that the Trinity did not exist by arguing "trinity" is not in the Bible.

Trinity is another example of defining and better understanding what the God gave us. The Holy Spirit worked through the authors of scripture to give us divinely inspired writings that we have as the New Testament. So too does the Spirit continue to work through the Church and the Pope (infallibility).

Remember Jesus left us but sent a counselor to help us remember. This is the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit chooses the Catholic Church will remember more deeply and it's parts will be glad and share in this.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So, does believing that the Church to which you belong is unerring and teaches the Truth 100% correctly guarantee you that you, also, understand the truth 100% correctly? If not, how are you any better off than the rest of us?

Saddly "no"...

But I have the Catechism to help me know.

I have found that even a priest or bishop can be saddly in error of church teachings.

What I do have is an authorative source that can provide me with many answers and to know these answers are 100% Truth.

I still have a lot to learn... But I enjoy it for the most part. I enjoy our discussions here. I have learned things I did not know previously and it has helped me to understand the Catholic Church and Jesus.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think that when we understand the Pope we see him as the steward of God's kingdom on earth. That the Church is the household of God and so the Pope is the steward of that house.

What I think those Christians outside of the Catholic church do is to see us Catholics placing the Pope in a place of kingship.

 

[racer]

LMAO

That was funny!

Thank you!

The sign is not the authority

No, duh . . . Now, take that same logic and apply it to Scripture. Do you think that the law--legally--would get away with holding us accountable to unwritten laws of which the only evidence we have that they exist are the authorities' words?

for the policeman is the authority here.

No, the poleesman is the enforcer who ensures the laws printed on the sign are followed.

The policeman can tell me that the square metal painted white with the number 55 is a speed limit sign and I was going faster then the limit.

No, it doesn't work like that. You better know what the square metal sign says and means, or Mr. Policeman is going to write you a ticket.

The judge is an authority because he can enforce the law. The people that make laws are an authority.

No, the judge makes sure the policeman has interpreted the law correctly and enforced it according to how it was meant to be enforced. If the speed limit sign says the speed limit is fifty-five (55), and you're driving 55, he can't write you a ticket for going 50. The judge will either uphold the police officer's citation or throw it out.

But the sign is a sign. It is to tell me something that the authorities put in place.

Uh huh . . . sounds kind of familiar.

I Tim 3:14; These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
I Tim 3:15; But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Gee, the practice of written direction does go all the way back to at least the New Testament era (I won't mention the fact that the Ten Commandments were written down). Notice, that the apostles preferred to instruct verbally, but barring their personal presences, they gave direction in writing.
Acts 15:22; Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Acts 15:23; And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Acts 15:27; We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.

If I was not familiar with cars and roads and street signs then what good would a 55 mph speed limit do me?

I believe what the police officer would tell you "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

I would need someone to teach me first before I started driving. Wouldn't I?

So, are you still operating under the assumption that all non-RCs/EOs do not receive--nor believe they need--instruction on Scriptures and the Gospel?

The the driving instructor would have an authority in teaching me about driving and road signs and what I can do and cannot do.

Nope, he has no authority to teach you anything other than what is in the drivers manual. If he happened to throw something else in there, it wouldn't be on the test.

Without such authority that sign could be read falsely or not understood at all.

Wouldn't matter to the cop, you'd still be in trouble. And, if you don't know what the signs mean, you most likely don't even have a valid driver's license, heck you might be forty-five, fifty years old before you ever get your license.

 

[racer]

The Bible does not tell us that Mary was assumed in to Heaven.

. . .

Is that good?

I don't know, are you up to date on CPR?

Apostolic Tradition is inerrant and the teachings of God as given us with the Holy Spirit.

And, you can prove that as far as the NT goes, anything that was passed down orally--unsubstantiated, unproven, without foundation.

The New Testament is part of that category.

The New Testament--along with all of Scripture--is given by inspiration of God. Can you show me where any such thing is said like that about tradition?

That was the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to dodge your question at all. But I felt it was too black or white and think it needed explanation.

I disagree, it is pretty much black and white. There is no reason for it to be so difficult.

 

[racer]

Saddly "no"...

But I have the Catechism to help me know.

But, how do you determine to what extent you can trust your own discernment? How do you know you can trust it enough to determine that the RCC is everything you believe it to be?

I have found that even a priest or bishop can be saddly in error of church teachings.

What I do have is an authorative source that can provide me with many answers and to know these answers are 100% Truth.

So, considering that all RCs have the Catechism, how come not all know the 100% the Truth? How do you know the CC is 100% correct. Upon what do you base all of these beliefs of yours?

I still have a lot to learn... But I enjoy it for the most part. I enjoy our discussions here. I have learned things I did not know previously and it has helped me to understand the Catholic Church and Jesus.

I, too have learned so much through these discussions. I don't guess I'll ever get completely tired of having them.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What is the New Testament except Apostolic Tradition?

Who decided on which books to go into the New Testament?

Who authored the books of the New Testament with divine inspiration?

Who has preserved the New Testament for many centuries?

It has been the Catholic Church that has preserved the writings and decided on which writings to go into the Bible. Of course it was with the Holy Spirit. So why is it so hard to accept that the Holy Spirit could protect the oral Apostolic Traditions as well???

 

[racer]

Igantius never mentioned "papacy"... This of course is a word that probably was not used then. As time goes by people will give a name to something as they study it further and especially in cases where it needs to be defined. In defining or understanding something further we do not change the truth but rather make the picture clearer like removing the dirt from muddy water.

These defining moments can happen for reasons of disension with in the church or because of false teachings.

But there has always been a hierarchy of the Church and this is seen in scripture. It is confirmed in letters by Ignatius and Gregory I and other ECFs.

You can argue that the word "papacy" was not used and so it did not exist. So too can the 'oneness' pentecostals argue that the Trinity did not exist by arguing "trinity" is not in the Bible.

Trinity is another example of defining and better understanding what the God gave us. The Holy Spirit worked through the authors of scripture to give us divinely inspired writings that we have as the New Testament. So too does the Spirit continue to work through the Church and the Pope (infallibility).

Remember Jesus left us but sent a counselor to help us remember. This is the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit chooses the Catholic Church will remember more deeply and it's parts will be glad and share in this.

You're missing the point of the quote. Ignatius said:
"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (Epistle to the Romans, shorter version, 9)

The church in Syria was temporarily without a bishop. Ignatius did not say that it now had to look to the bishop of Rome for guidance, he said that "Christ alone" would oversee it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But, how do you determine to what extent you can trust your own discernment? How do you know you can trust it enough to determine that the RCC is everything you believe it to be?

So, considering that all RCs have the Catechism, how come not all know the 100% the Truth? How do you know the CC is 100% correct. Upon what do you base all of these beliefs of yours?

I, too have learned so much through these discussions. I don't guess I'll ever get completely tired of having them.

I base all of these beliefs on Jesus and his Church.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You're missing the point of the quote. Ignatius said:
"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (Epistle to the Romans, shorter version, 9)

The church in Syria was temporarily without a bishop. Ignatius did not say that it now had to look to the bishop of Rome for guidance, he said that "Christ alone" would oversee it.

Why would he say to look to the Bishop of Rome now? As it was they had trouble communicating at with long distances between churches.

Each region has a Bishop that shephards it. Rome has a shephard too. So until they had a new bishop appointed they were being told to trust in God.

I see no problem with that...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I Tim 3:14; These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
I Tim 3:15; But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I like that too.

That is why I look to the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of Truth.

 

[racer]

I think that when we understand the Pope we see him as the steward of God's kingdom on earth. That the Church is the household of God and so the Pope is the steward of that house.

Well, New Advent explains it in slightly loftier terms.

 

[racer]

I like that too.

That is why I look to the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of Truth.

Yet, you won't acknowledge that he did not trust his message to be delivered accurately by word of mouth will you? Why didn't he just tell the messenger (with whom he sent the written instructions) to go and tell . . . . so-and-so . . . so-and-so? I mean if they trusted that things would be preserved in "Oral form only" for a couple of thousand years, why wouldn't he trust the messenger to preserve it "orally" in the short time it would take him to deliver the message?

 

[racer]

Why would he say to look to the Bishop of Rome now? As it was they had trouble communicating at with long distances between churches.

Each region has a Bishop that shephards it. Rome has a shephard too. So until they had a new bishop appointed they were being told to trust in God.

I see no problem with that...

You're still missing it. In absence of it's previous bishop, the church at Syria was lead by "Christ alone," no district/area/or regional bishop lead during this time--not even the bishop of Rome. This definitely creates a problem for your theory.