Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

[dreadnought]

Women as clergy.

I can answer that one... because, and only because Christ came as a man.

Forgive me...

Why does Christ coming as a man mean we can't have women clergy?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

No serious health problems I am aware of. The Lord upended my life when I was twenty, though probably few noticed. I keep thinking I've got it all figured out, and keep finding out that I don't. But I cling to the idea that heaven is what our lives turn into when we repent of our sin, so you will always hear me harping about how important repentance is.

I guess the things I keep harping about is just a bit wider. Using the "keys" of salvation to achieve theosis. (Which is of course what you described.)

Sounds like your are headed in the right direction.

May death find us in prayer. Cheers!

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Why does Christ coming as a man mean we can't have women clergy?

The only role she can not perform is inside that particular liturgical function. That is the completion of the order of Melchizedek, the words of institution of the sacraments. We don't question at to why, we just don't change it.

It's a bit like asking why a girl can't be boy scout.

The Orthodox Church does not see this as derogatory to women but just maintenance of confirmatory.

Female saints play the highest of role in the Orthodox Church. Some considered equal to the Apostles.

Forgive me...

 

[dreadnought]

I guess the things I keep harping about is just a bit wider. Using the "keys" of salvation to achieve theosis. (Which is of course what you described.)

Sounds like your are headed in the right direction.

May death find us in prayer. Cheers!

Forgive me...

Theosis. Had to look that one up. Yes, that sounds like an apt description. I like Christian Scientist Mary Baker Eddy's statement: "Heaven is clear conscience," or words to that effect. Yes, may death find us in prayer.

 

[dreadnought]

The only role she can not perform is inside that particular liturgical function. That is the completion of the order of Melchizedek, the words of institution of the sacraments. We don't question at to why, we just don't change it.

It's a bit like asking why a girl can't be boy scout.

The Orthodox Church does not see this as derogatory to women but just maintenance of confirmatory.

Female saints play the highest of role in the Orthodox Church. Some considered equal to the Apostles.

Forgive me...

I don't remember any connection between Melchizedek and women clergy.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Theosis. Had to look that one up. Yes, that sounds like an apt description.

Surprise, your eastern Christian...

Forgive me...

 

[dreadnought]

Surprise, your eastern Christian...

Forgive me...

You might be the first Eastern Orthodox Christian I've had a discussion with.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I don't remember any connection between Melchizedek and women clergy.

That there were none?

It really comes down to the fact that Christ chose to come as a man and filled HIS Apostleship with men.

The last supper is the completion of the order of Melchizedek and everyone there was male. If he had a woman that he sent out in that way, (laying hands on her, breathing on her and telling her to baptize all nations teaching them all the things he had taught her) there would be women included now.

Forgive me...

 

[dreadnought]

That there were none?

It really comes down to the fact that Christ chose to come as a man and filled HIS Apostleship with men.

The last supper is the completion of the order of Melchizedek and everyone there was male. If he had a woman that he sent out in that way, (laying hands on her, breathing on her and telling her to baptize all nations teaching them all the things he had taught her) there would be women included now.

Forgive me...

Well, Christ had to come as a male or female - he couldn't come as both. And since these people traveled together, it was probably best they not mix sexes. I believe the Lord chose a woman, Deborah, to lead Israel at one point.

 

[David Kent]

The twelve Apostles were hand-picked by Jesus to carry on His mission. The Apostles (meaning "one who is sent") were the first bishops of the Catholic Church. They were given authority and power by Jesus, including the power to heal and to forgive sins. Peter, the chief apostle, was given special authority, including the keys to the kingdom of Heaven (see Mt. 16:19).

Peter was the apostle to the circumcised Jews. He was far from infallible as he accepted criticism from Paul. If he was head of the Roman Church he would be in error.
Apart from that the teaching of the apostles is far from the teaching of of the RCC. Pope says you have to be subject to him to be saved. Paul said
Jerusalem was the head church not Rome,
Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Pope says you have to be subject to him to be saved. Paul said in reply to the question

• Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
• Paul said in reply to 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

No mention of Peter or any other.

About 8 miles from here is a town called Faversham. On July 4th 1533 a young man from that town, Andrew Hewet, was burnt to death at Smithfield in London, for why? For saying he didn't believe there was a real presence in the mass. Every true Christian believes that.

About 8 or 9 miles from here is the city of Canterbury. The main tourist site is the Cathedral, but I would take you about ½ mile away. From the Wincheap roundabout on Rheims way take the A 28 Wincheap, after a few yards you will pass under a railway bridge. Taken the first left and at the top of the hill turn right into Martyrs Fields Road. Come with me and we will soon come tho the Martyrs Memorial, on the spot where many of them were burnt to death
The Martyrs Memorial, Canterbury

 

[jaison jose]

y

Wasn't it the source of your dated line of Apostolic succession?

Forgive me...

yes as it ws true

 

[jaison jose]

I've seen some doosies in kids books... Are your really in India? That's pretty neat.

My point is that you have a group here who have been educated within their own respective Churches.

So well trained, that they see the errors in textbooks, and wiki's ect.

I did point out to you that the dates were wrong... even from the beginning of the list. Should I brush that aside and accept the rest of the wiki? Around here wiki gets the "History Chanel" award.

Forgive me...

see i didn't mean everything is truth whatever is in books and documents ...but i meant if its written God is Love ..if its in wiki or in any other book its true

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

yes as it ws true

And I showed you the first error I hit (dates) and stopped.

Not knocking you buddy. Just telling you we find it no more authoritative than the TV.

Many people here, especially those of "high church" are taught from within those Churches.

For example, the Orthodox will never give you their personal opinion of something. It's not how we think, neither would a Roman Catholic or an Anglican.

Peter did not reach Rome before 42ad. Why? Because he was in Antioch. How do I know this? Antioch (first called Christians) is the Church I was baptized into and being trained by...

Forgive me...

 

[jaison jose]

And I showed you the first error I hit (dates) and stopped.

Not knocking you buddy. Just telling you we find it no more authoritative than the TV.

Many people here, especially those of "high church" are taught from within those Churches.

For example, the Orthodox will never give you their personal opinion of something. It's not how we think, neither would a Roman Catholic or an Anglican.

Peter did not reach Rome before 42ad. Why? Because he was in Antioch.

Forgive me...

i just give to show the unbroken list as that list may have error in dates so that i don't know but i didn't get the original so in short time i gave that one i=..

 

[jaison jose]

Peter was the apostle to the circumcised Jews. He was far from infallible as he accepted criticism from Paul. If he was head of the Roman Church he would be in error.
Apart from that the teaching of the apostles is far from the teaching of of the RCC. Pope says you have to be subject to him to be saved. Paul said
Jerusalem was the head church not Rome,
Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.
Pope says you have to be subject to him to be saved. Paul said in reply to the question

• Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
• Paul said in reply to 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

No mention of Peter or any other.

About 8 miles from here is a town called Faversham. On July 4th 1533 a young man from that town, Andrew Hewet, was burnt to death at Smithfield in London, for why? For saying he didn't believe there was a real presence in the mass. Every true Christian believes that.

About 8 or 9 miles from here is the city of Canterbury. The main tourist site is the Cathedral, but I would take you about ½ mile away. From the Wincheap roundabout on Rheims way take the A 28 Wincheap, after a few yards you will pass under a railway bridge. Taken the first left and at the top of the hill turn right into Martyrs Fields Road. Come with me and we will soon come tho the Martyrs Memorial, on the spot where many of them were burnt to death
The Martyrs Memorial, Canterbury

we don't believe popes are always correct as they too are human ...but are infaliable in desicion when they speak ex-cathedra

After scientific investigation, a eucharistic miracle in Poland was recently confirmed as authentic by the local bishop of the area. Initially, the Host had fallen on the ground, so it was placed in water, as is customarily done in such cases. Not long afterward, the Eucharist began turning red, as if bloody.

Tests subsequently done on the subject indicated it came from human tissue "most similar to the heart muscle ... as it appears under the strains of agony."

The case is similar to one that occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina years ago. In 1996, when then-Bishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was an auxiliary bishop there under Cdl. Antonio Quarracino. A consecrated Host was found on the ground and soon placed in a glass of water to dissolve. Days later, the Eucharist wasn't dissolved at all — it had turned into bloody Flesh.

Cardinal Quarracino and Bp. Bergoglio took a photograph of the bloody Host for the record, then stored it in a tabernacle to decompose. In 1999, three years later, that same bloody Flesh remained. That's when Dr. Ricardo Castañón, a Bolivian neurophysiologist, was called in to have samples from the Host examined in a laboratory environment.

Doctor Castañón took it to the San Francisco Forensic Institute without telling anyone there what it was or where it came from. After testing, he was told the samples constituted heart muscle, specifically from the myocardium of the left ventricle. Further, the tests showed the blood was human, with human DNA, and of the rare AB-positive type — the same as found on the Shroud of Turin.

Following those results, the Host was taken to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an esteemed cardiologist and forensic pathologist at Columbia University in New York. According to Dr. Castañón, Dr. Zugibe tested the samples he was given and said the person whose heart it came from must have been tortured. Further, Dr. Zugibe was reportedly amazed that when he studied the samples, they were pulsating like a living, beating heart.

When Dr. Castañón first came across the miracle in 1999, he was an atheist. Today, he's a Catholic.

After that, the results of the tests were compared to samples from another eucharistic miracle that took place in Lanciano, Italy roughly 1,300 years ago. The Body and Blood from that miracle are still preserved at a church in the town. In 1970, they were examined scientifically and, like the Buenos Aires sample, found to be from a human heart with AB-positive blood.

The miracle of Lanciano on display
The comparison indicated that the samples from both Buenos Aires and Lanciano must have come from the same man. They both had the exact same DNA.

Church leaders are always careful to test potential miracles and rule out natural causes. Last year, in Utah, a Host that had been dropped and kept in water appeared blood red after days. However, after a thorough investigation, the red substance turned out not to be blood but rather mold. So the Church isn't quick to label every case like this miraculous. But sometimes, after healthy skepticism and cautious investigation, there's no other conclusion that can be drawn.

 

[David Kent]

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
37. St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52) Stephen II followed Zachary, but because he died before being consecrated, modern lists omit him
92. Stephen II (III) (752-57)
93. St. Paul I (757-67)
94. Stephen III (IV) (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
95. Adrian I (772-95)
96. St. Leo III (795-816)
97. Stephen IV (V) (816-17)
98. St. Paschal I (817-24)
99. Eugene II (824-27)
100. Valentine (827)
101. Gregory IV (827-44)
102. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope
103. St. Leo IV (847-55)
104. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
105. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
106. Adrian II (867-72)
107. John VIII (872-82)
108. Marinus I (882-84)
109. St. Adrian III (884-85)
110. Stephen V (VI) (885-91)
111. Formosus (891-96)
112. Boniface VI (896)
113. Stephen VI (VII) (896-97)
114. Romanus (897)
115. Theodore II (897)
116. John IX (898-900)
117. Benedict IV (900-03)
118. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
119. Sergius III (904-11)
120. Anastasius III (911-13)
121. Lando (913-14)
122. John X (914-28)
123. Leo VI (928)
124. Stephen VIII (929-31)
125. John XI (931-35)
126. Leo VII (936-39)
127. Stephen IX (939-42)
128. Marinus II (942-46)
129. Agapetus II (946-55)
130. John XII (955-63)
131. Leo VIII (963-64)
132. Benedict V (964)
133. John XIII (965-72)
134. Benedict VI (973-74)
135. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
136. John XIV (983-84)
137. John XV (985-96)
138. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
139. Sylvester II (999-1003)
140. John XVII (1003)
141. John XVIII (1003-09)
142. Sergius IV (1009-12)
143. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
144. John XIX (1024-32)
145. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
146. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
147. Benedict IX (1045)
148. Gregory VI (1045-46)
149. Clement II (1046-47)
150. Benedict IX (1047-48)
151. Damasus II (1048)
152. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
153. Victor II (1055-57)
154. Stephen X (1057-58)
155. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
156. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
157. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100)
158. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
159. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
160. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
161. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118)
162. Callistus II (1119-24)
163. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
164. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138)
165. Celestine II (1143-44)
166. Lucius II (1144-45)
167. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
168. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
169. Adrian IV (1154-59)
170. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
171. Lucius III (1181-85)
172. Urban III (1185-87)
173. Gregory VIII (1187)
174. Clement III (1187-91)
175. Celestine III (1191-98)
176. Innocent III (1198-1216)
177. Honorius III (1216-27)
178. Gregory IX (1227-41)
179. Celestine IV (1241)
180. Innocent IV (1243-54)
181. Alexander IV (1254-61)
182. Urban IV (1261-64)
183. Clement IV (1265-68)
184. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
185. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
186. Adrian V (1276)
187. John XXI (1276-77)
188. Nicholas III (1277-80)
189. Martin IV (1281-85)
190. Honorius IV (1285-87)
191. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
192. St. Celestine V (1294)
193. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
194. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
195. Clement V (1305-14)
196. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
197. Benedict XII (1334-42)
198. Clement VI (1342-52)
199. Innocent VI (1352-62)
200. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
201. Gregory XI (1370-78)
202. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394)
203. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
204. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes
206. Martin V (1417-31)
207. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449)
208. Nicholas V (1447-55)
209. Callistus III (1455-58)
210. Pius II (1458-64)
211. Paul II (1464-71)
212. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
213. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
214. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
215. Pius III (1503)
216. Julius II (1503-13)
217. Leo X (1513-21)
218. Adrian VI (1522-23)
219. Clement VII (1523-34)
220. Paul III (1534-49)
221. Julius III (1550-55)
222. Marcellus II (1555)
223. Paul IV (1555-59)
224. Pius IV (1559-65)
225. St. Pius V (1566-72)
226. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
227. Sixtus V (1585-90)
228. Urban VII (1590)
229. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
230. Innocent IX (1591)
231. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
232. Leo XI (1605)
233. Paul V (1605-21)
234. Gregory XV (1621-23)
235. Urban VIII (1623-44)
236. Innocent X (1644-55)
237. Alexander VII (1655-67)
238. Clement IX (1667-69)
239. Clement X (1670-76)
240. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
241. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
242. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
243. Clement XI (1700-21)
244. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
245. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
246. Clement XII (1730-40)
247. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
248. Clement XIII (1758-69)
249. Clement XIV (1769-74)
250. Pius VI (1775-99)
251. Pius VII (1800-23)
252. Leo XII (1823-29)
253. Pius VIII (1829-30)
254. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
255. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
256. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
257. St. Pius X (1903-14)
     
258. Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
259. Pius XI (1922-39)
260. Pius XII (1939-58)
261. St. John XXIII (1958-63)
262. Paul VI (1963-78)
263. John Paul I (1978)
264. St. John Paul II (1978-2005)
265. Benedict XVI (2005-2013)
266. Francis (2013—)

this unbroken chain of popes prove that it was not established for supremacy or the church is not dominated according to man's will...pope is vicar of Christ....He can be wrong ...but to be infalliable He speaks ex cathedra'

Hardly an unbroken chain, it has been changed several times. Cletus and Anacletus were once reckoned to be different people at different times, some were removed as they are now considered to be antipopes, but according to Catholic teaching they must have been infallible till then. Others of these infallible popes were removed as they were now considered never to have existed. The others on the list had to be adjusted to cope with that.

History is clear. The first bishop/elder of Rome was Linus, he and Clement were both mentioned by Paul.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

i just give to show the unbroken list as that list may have error in dates so that i don't know but i didn't get the original so in short time i gave that one i=..

Roger that... we've seen it. It's also incomplete in the fact that there were several Bishops in Rome that were not united until after Peter and Paul. They're names are left out.

So, back to Peter being Bishop at Antioch for several years.

Do we not find it strange that Antioch makes no claim towards the leadership of the entire Church?

She is older. Peter did serve as Bishop there.

That's just not how it happened. One needs only to study the councils to understand how the administrative government systems of The Church arrived.

How and when (260's) does the office of Metropolitan arrive. What was it's purpose? Was it administrative or Liturgical?

How and when (325ad) do Patriarchates offices come in to being? What was it's purpose? Was it administrative or Liturgical?

How does any of that translate to using sola scriptura about Matthew 16:16-18 come into who is in charge? Was it a bishop who said so? No. It was an emperor. Did the Bishops argue against it? Yes. Even the Bishop of Rome.

I pose to you that Rome did not wind up being where she is by chance. She was manipulated by Satan through Roman government.

I'm all for forgiving, but not at the expense of the Truth and certainly not to put Rome in the leadership position that has caused her corruption in the first place. Let her be repentant and return or stay where she is.

Let her contemplate the words of Zacchaeus, who became the first Bishop of Caesarea.

Luke 19:8
"And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold."

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

we don't believe popes are always correct as they too are human ...but are infaliable in desicion when they speak ex-cathedra

After scientific investigation, a eucharistic miracle in Poland was recently confirmed as authentic by the local bishop of the area. Initially, the Host had fallen on the ground, so it was placed in water, as is customarily done in such cases. Not long afterward, the Eucharist began turning red, as if bloody.

Tests subsequently done on the subject indicated it came from human tissue "most similar to the heart muscle ... as it appears under the strains of agony."

The case is similar to one that occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina years ago. In 1996, when then-Bishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was an auxiliary bishop there under Cdl. Antonio Quarracino. A consecrated Host was found on the ground and soon placed in a glass of water to dissolve. Days later, the Eucharist wasn't dissolved at all — it had turned into bloody Flesh.

Cardinal Quarracino and Bp. Bergoglio took a photograph of the bloody Host for the record, then stored it in a tabernacle to decompose. In 1999, three years later, that same bloody Flesh remained. That's when Dr. Ricardo Castañón, a Bolivian neurophysiologist, was called in to have samples from the Host examined in a laboratory environment.

Doctor Castañón took it to the San Francisco Forensic Institute without telling anyone there what it was or where it came from. After testing, he was told the samples constituted heart muscle, specifically from the myocardium of the left ventricle. Further, the tests showed the blood was human, with human DNA, and of the rare AB-positive type — the same as found on the Shroud of Turin.

Following those results, the Host was taken to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an esteemed cardiologist and forensic pathologist at Columbia University in New York. According to Dr. Castañón, Dr. Zugibe tested the samples he was given and said the person whose heart it came from must have been tortured. Further, Dr. Zugibe was reportedly amazed that when he studied the samples, they were pulsating like a living, beating heart.

When Dr. Castañón first came across the miracle in 1999, he was an atheist. Today, he's a Catholic.

After that, the results of the tests were compared to samples from another eucharistic miracle that took place in Lanciano, Italy roughly 1,300 years ago. The Body and Blood from that miracle are still preserved at a church in the town. In 1970, they were examined scientifically and, like the Buenos Aires sample, found to be from a human heart with AB-positive blood.

The miracle of Lanciano on display
The comparison indicated that the samples from both Buenos Aires and Lanciano must have come from the same man. They both had the exact same DNA.

Church leaders are always careful to test potential miracles and rule out natural causes. Last year, in Utah, a Host that had been dropped and kept in water appeared blood red after days. However, after a thorough investigation, the red substance turned out not to be blood but rather mold. So the Church isn't quick to label every case like this miraculous. But sometimes, after healthy skepticism and cautious investigation, there's no other conclusion that can be drawn.

Source? Tabloids? The Vatican's website? What.

Forgive me...

 

[kepha31]

Like the OP says in anticipation of your response, red herring. Even if Peter was the first "Pope" do you have any scripture for God instituting the Papacy as a lasting office?

Do you have any scripture for Jesus backing down from His promise to be with us for ever? Do you have any scripture that the historic Church would allegedly fall away sometime in the future, contrary to the Biblical teaching that the Church is infallible and indefectable?? And why did this monumentous event go unnoticed until the middle of a revolt?

Do you think the Holy Spirit works in the whole Church, that would be all Christians, even the Protestants?

Yes, and it is formally taught. CCC817,820, Ut Unam Sint, and many other documents.

Ah, the one contentious text. I went through this already with Monk

So "keys" in the context of Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, and Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 have nothing to do with succession and authority? If they don't, what is your interpretation of "keys"?

Jesus blessed all the apostles.
Rock is not a church and the cornerstone is Jesus.
The other apostles sit on 12 thrones also with same authority.

Pope Francis is the bishop of the diocese of Rome. In that sense, he has the same authority as any other bishop anywhere in the world. But because he sits on the Chair (throne) of Peter, he is the Servant of the Servants. This you do not understand.
A throne is a chair, a chair is an office. An office without successors is not an office. Are the 12 thrones Jesus speaks of in heaven or are they on earth? Or both/and?

There is nothing in this text to even remotely imply that Peter is the head over all the other apostles. If you don't believe me, read what Peter said. The Chief Shepherd is Jesus.
1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Then read that Jesus said he is the one shepherd.
John 10:14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Then read what David wrote.
Psalm 23:1 The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.

Then,
Hebrews 13:20 Now may the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; ‘he will lead them to springs of living water.’ ‘And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.’”

The two texts in the NT that reference shepherd as an elder or overseer teach two things: 1) there are multiple shepherds on earth 2) none are over another, only Jesus.

You are mixing metaphors. This is a typical Protestant false dichotomy: pitting the heavenly authority of Jesus against Peter's assigned role as earthly head of the Church.
2 Sam. 22:2-3, 32, 47; 23:3; Psalm 18:2,31,46; 19:4; 28:1; 42:9; 62:2,6,7; 89:26; 94:22; 144:1-2 – in these verses, God is also called “rock.” Hence, from these verses, non-Catholics often argue that God, and not Peter, is the rock that Jesus is referring to in Matt. 16:18. This argument not only ignores the plain meaning of the applicable texts, but also assumes words used in Scripture can only have one meaning. This, of course, is not true. For example:

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Lastly, I ask why did Jesus ask Peter three times to acknowledge his faith? Maybe because the infallible one committed apostasy and Jesus wanted him to acknowledge his level of commitment now after having denied him.

Peter was afraid for his life and at that point he was weak and not prepared for martyrdom. Then you make a quantum leap after the Resurrection. Worse, you thrown in a dig about infallibility and apostasy that has nothing to do with Peter.

Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 – Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 – when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.
According to you, Jesus prayed the wrong thing.

John 21:15-17 – Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

(70+ verses on the Primacy of Peter)

 

[David Kent]

we don't believe popes are always correct as they too are human ...but are infaliable in desicion when they speak ex-cathedra

After scientific investigation, a eucharistic miracle in Poland was recently confirmed as authentic by the local bishop of the area. Initially, the Host had fallen on the ground, so it was placed in water, as is customarily done in such cases. Not long afterward, the Eucharist began turning red, as if bloody.

Tests subsequently done on the subject indicated it came from human tissue "most similar to the heart muscle ... as it appears under the strains of agony."

The case is similar to one that occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina years ago. In 1996, when then-Bishop Jorge Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was an auxiliary bishop there under Cdl. Antonio Quarracino. A consecrated Host was found on the ground and soon placed in a glass of water to dissolve. Days later, the Eucharist wasn't dissolved at all — it had turned into bloody Flesh.

Cardinal Quarracino and Bp. Bergoglio took a photograph of the bloody Host for the record, then stored it in a tabernacle to decompose. In 1999, three years later, that same bloody Flesh remained. That's when Dr. Ricardo Castañón, a Bolivian neurophysiologist, was called in to have samples from the Host examined in a laboratory environment.

Doctor Castañón took it to the San Francisco Forensic Institute without telling anyone there what it was or where it came from. After testing, he was told the samples constituted heart muscle, specifically from the myocardium of the left ventricle. Further, the tests showed the blood was human, with human DNA, and of the rare AB-positive type — the same as found on the Shroud of Turin.

Following those results, the Host was taken to Dr. Frederick Zugibe, an esteemed cardiologist and forensic pathologist at Columbia University in New York. According to Dr. Castañón, Dr. Zugibe tested the samples he was given and said the person whose heart it came from must have been tortured. Further, Dr. Zugibe was reportedly amazed that when he studied the samples, they were pulsating like a living, beating heart.

When Dr. Castañón first came across the miracle in 1999, he was an atheist. Today, he's a Catholic.

After that, the results of the tests were compared to samples from another eucharistic miracle that took place in Lanciano, Italy roughly 1,300 years ago. The Body and Blood from that miracle are still preserved at a church in the town. In 1970, they were examined scientifically and, like the Buenos Aires sample, found to be from a human heart with AB-positive blood.

The miracle of Lanciano on display
The comparison indicated that the samples from both Buenos Aires and Lanciano must have come from the same man. They both had the exact same DNA.

Church leaders are always careful to test potential miracles and rule out natural causes. Last year, in Utah, a Host that had been dropped and kept in water appeared blood red after days. However, after a thorough investigation, the red substance turned out not to be blood but rather mold. So the Church isn't quick to label every case like this miraculous. But sometimes, after healthy skepticism and cautious investigation, there's no other conclusion that can be drawn.

If you believe all that you will believe anything.

Father Chiniquy described how the consecrated host was dropped into a baby's potty, What sort of god was it that could be drowned in such a way.