Is Scripture MISSING Dogmas?

[MoreCoffee]

How can the Pope attain apostolic succession if hes not an Apostle?

In the context the question was about the twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only saint Peter was such an apostle. All bishops are "sent ones" (apostles) because the church sends them to pastor their diocese. But apostle is not often used as their designation while bishop is often used. Being a successor to the twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ does not imply miraculous powers, inspiration (associated with writing holy scripture), or any other special power other than the ordinary power to teach the faithful and the world as ministers of the Lord.

 

[fhansen]

Your own Catholic digest says infant baptism "Evolved over the years" - not at all practiced in the first century. So also your own Catholic Historian Thomas Bonkenkotter affirms that same point in his book 'A Concise History of the Catholic Church"

I don't study Catholic theology from Catholic Digest. And, while I've read Bonkenkotter' book, I never considered it to be a particularly trustworthy resource. The church teaches that infant baptism was practiced, both east and west, since time immemorial. IOW, it was a received practice, not an instituted one. And, again virtually no controversy on it from early on.

Your own Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the present Sunday tradition also evolved over time.

Well, I have to admit that I haven't seen that in the original CE, which BTW, is not "my own", but rather an American production which is generally a good and reliable resource. Sunday rest and worship was another received practice, both east and west, with virtually no controversy, and not one that any church would cavalierly authorize on its own as anyone might assume based on Scripture alone. Jesus made some real and profound changes, both within the believer and without. If Sunday, as a day of rest and worship, evolved at all it did so only in the manner that it was observed, and not in regards to the day of the week, whereas Saturday observance was taken less seriously right away.

And since I don't think there even was a Catholic church in the first century as a denomination just as there was not the "Church of God" or the "World Wide Church of God" or the "Church of Christ" or the "Disciples of Christ" or the "Church of the Bretheren"... etc all those groups evolved out of what started out as the Christian Church in the first century.

Well, er, the Protestant denominations you named certainly couldn't lay serious, valid claim to possessing a historical connection to the beginning of Christianity. At any rate there was a church, unified in teachings, established by Christ, often referred to as catholic, i.e. universal.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't study Catholic theology from Catholic Digest. And, while I've read Bokenkotter' book, I never considered it to be a particularly trustworthy resource.

Well he is a historians - reporting the facts of history - not all of which will sit well with some religious authorities. But he is not a Lutheran or Methodist historian - he is Catholic.

The church teaches that infant baptism was practiced, both east and west, since time immemorial.

A belief - but not the same thing as having an actual historic document showing that to be the case.

IOW, it was a received practice, not an instituted one.

That is the proposal - but both Bokenkotter and Catholic Digest reported on the actual history - and agree - that this is not what the NT saints were doing. Some pretty good ECF sources prove that fact.

Sunday rest and worship was another received practice, both east and west, with virtually no controversy, and not one that any church would cavalierly authorize on its own as anyone might assume based on Scripture alone. Jesus made some real and profound changes, both within the believer and without. If Sunday, as a day of rest and worship, evolved at all it did so only in the manner that it was observed,

The Catholic Encyclopedia points to an evolution where eventually Sunday worship stands as the new form of the Sabbath Commandment. That aspect "evolved" over time according to CE.

As for NT sources - i don't know of any that call Sunday Sabbath, or Sunday the Lord's Day. They call refer to "week day 1" with not titles and no examples of a week-after-week observance of week-day-1 as the new "Christian Sabbath".

Well, er, the Protestant denominations you named certainly couldn't lay serious, valid claim to possessing a historical connection to the beginning of Christianity.

That is what everyone says about the RCC as well.

At any rate there was a church, unified in teachings, established by Christ, often referred to as catholic, i.e. universal.

Also referred to as the church of Christ, the church of God, having the disciples of Christ in it, and being the Christian church, the church of the brethren, the catholic and thus world wide church of God. That is the part everyone agrees with.

All you have to do is lower case certain parts and -- it is all the same.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In the context the question was about the twelve apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ. Only saint Peter was such an apostle.

12 not 1.

And only 1 had a successor in the actual Bible - and that is found in Acts 1... Judas.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

The question was about popes. Saint Peter was the only apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ who was also pope.

 

[fhansen]

Well he is a historians - reporting the facts of history - not all of which will sit well with some religious authorities. But he is not a Lutheran or Methodist historian - he is Catholic.

LOL. There are reams of literature produced by Catholics, Protestants, anti-Catholics, liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, self-proclaimed Catholics, etc, etc. I don't think the point need be further made.

A belief - but not the same thing as having an actual historic document showing that to be the case.

No, and lacking a birth certificate doesn't mean someone wasn't born. It's just history. I went to a Giants baseball game at Candlestick Park when I was 10. Couldn't prove it if my life depended on it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia points to an evolution where eventually Sunday worship stands as the new form of the Sabbath Commandment. That aspect "evolved" over time according to CE.

I'd like to see the reference.

That is what everyone says about the RCC as well.

Everyone? First time I've heard that.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Your own Catholic digest says infant baptism "Evolved over the years" - not at all practiced in the first century. So also your own Catholic Historian Thomas Bonkenkotter affirms that same point in his book 'A Concise History of the Catholic Church"

I guess the best question to ask would be "Where in the Bible does it deny baptism to infants? Especially when it says that entire households were baptized. Acts 10:47-48 Household of Cornelius, Acts 16:15 Household of Lydia.

Your own Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the present Sunday tradition also evolved over time.

Is there a problem with something evolving? Yet Mary Magdalen and John and Peter visited the empty tomb on the first day of the week, and we celebrate the resurrection of Christ at Mass on the first day of the week. FWIW, we celebrate the resurrection every day as one body.

And since I don't think there even was a Catholic church in the first century as a denomination just as there was not the "Church of God" or the "World Wide Church of God" or the "Church of Christ" or the "Disciples of Christ" or the "Church of the Bretheren"... etc all those groups evolved out of what started out as the Christian Church in the first century.

in Christ,

Bob

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well he is a historians - reporting the facts of history - not all of which will sit well with some religious authorities. But he is not a Lutheran or Methodist historian - he is Catholic.

A belief - but not the same thing as having an actual historic document showing that to be the case.

That is the proposal - but both Bokenkotter and Catholic Digest reported on the actual history - and agree - that this is not what the NT saints were doing. Some pretty good ECF sources prove that fact.

The Catholic Encyclopedia points to an evolution where eventually Sunday worship stands as the new form of the Sabbath Commandment. That aspect "evolved" over time according to CE.

As for NT sources - i don't know of any that call Sunday Sabbath, or Sunday the Lord's Day. They call refer to "week day 1" with not titles and no examples of a week-after-week observance of week-day-1 as the new "Christian Sabbath".


That is what everyone says about the RCC as well.


Also referred to as the church of Christ, the church of God, having the disciples of Christ in it, and being the Christian church, the church of the brethren, the catholic and thus world wide church of God. That is the part everyone agrees with.

All you have to do is lower case certain parts and -- it is all the same.

in Christ,

Bob

I think it's funny how you quibble about the upper or lower case letter, and ignore entire passages. Sorta like the log in your own eye vs. the splinter in your brother's.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, er, the Protestant denominations you named certainly couldn't lay serious, valid claim to possessing a historical connection to the beginning of Christianity. At any rate there was a church, unified in teachings, established by Christ, often referred to as catholic, i.e. universal.

interesting lower case "catholic" -- in that post.

Well he (Thomas Bokenkotter) is a historian - reporting the facts of history - not all of which will sit well with some religious authorities. But he is not a Lutheran or Methodist historian - he is Catholic.

A belief - but not the same thing as having an actual historic document showing that to be the case.

That is the proposal - but both Bokenkotter and Catholic Digest reported on the actual history - and agree - that this (infant baptism) is not what the NT saints were doing. Some pretty good ECF sources prove that fact.

The Catholic Encyclopedia points to an evolution where eventually Sunday worship stands as the new form of the Sabbath Commandment. That aspect "evolved" over time according to CE.

As for NT sources (on the subject of regular weekly Sunday worship) - I don't know of any that call Sunday Sabbath, or Sunday the Lord's Day. They call refer to "week day 1" with not titles and no examples of a week-after-week observance of week-day-1 as the new "Christian Sabbath".


That is what everyone says about the RCC as well.

(As for calling the first century churches "catholic" lower-case)

The NT churches are also referred to as the church of Christ, the church of God, having the disciples of Christ in it, and being the Christian church, the church of the brethren, the catholic and thus world wide church of God. That is the part everyone agrees with.

All you have to do is lower case certain parts and -- it is all the same.

And for those who prefer upper case ---

the "Church of God", having the "Disciples of Christ" in it, and being the "Christian Church", the "Church of the Brethren", the Catholic and thus World Wide Church of God" --

we leave it to them to justify how all these denominations existed as the first century church.

I think it's funny how you quibble about the upper or lower case letter, and ignore entire passages. .

No passages being ignored in my quote above.

if you are one that wants those names in upper-case - feel free to make that case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

Who needs him when we can call our Lord Abba Father..

Doesn't get any better than that.

And of course the Trinity is in the bible. The Father, His only begotten Son, and the Spirit are all over the holy scriptures.

I didn't say the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit aren't in the Bible. You said there's no word "Pope" in the Bible. I countered that there's no word "Trinity" in the Bible.
Regarding "Who needs him..." I guess you don't need your Dad, either?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Who is correct?

The holy scriptures record TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb.

The RCC says that there are over two hundred Apostles.

Actually, there were at least 13, maybe as many as 17 listed apostles. If you include Mattias to the original 12, that's 13.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Sounds extra biblical to me.. is this the MISSING dogma we've been waiting for?

What's wrong with extra-Biblical? Our Lord used extra-Biblical references himself. Now ANTI-Bibilical things are a different matter.

But we don't limit God to written words. He speaks, for He is a living God.

 

[BobRyan]

Who needs him when we can call our Lord Abba Father..

Doesn't get any better than that.

And of course the Trinity is in the bible. The Father, His only begotten Son, and the Spirit are all over the holy scriptures.

Indeed the Bible does present the case for God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit - the triune Godhead - referring to each one as 'GOD".

But "Pope" is not a bible title neither is "Pontifex" nor "Papacy".

What is even more telling the Bible argues against titles like 'Holy Father" for men.

Those who want to be on the same level playing field with Trinity as with "Holy Father" would then need a bible text condemning the term "Trinity" and NO text at ALL calling each member of the Trinity "God".. at least THEN they could BEGIN to claim some level of parity between the doctrine of Trinity and that of the Pope as "Holy Father".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good question, that's what I would like to know.

How did President Obama succeed President Bush if he wasn't President Bush?

Figure out what succession is, and you might get an answer for yourself.

 

[BobRyan]

Actually, there were at least 13, maybe as many as 17 listed apostles. If you include Mattias to the original 12, that's 13.

I think you can make the case for Mattias as an Apostle and for Paul - so that is 13 since Judas was a disciple but never an Apostle.

Come to think of it - that means you don't have Apostolic succession in the case of Judas -- who never made it to the level of Apostle. which means not one case of it in the NT.

 

[Albion]

I think you can make the case for Mattias as an Apostle and for Paul - so that is 13 since Judas was a disciple but never an Apostle.

Come to think of it - that means you don't have Apostolic succession in the case of Judas -- who never made it to the level of Apostle. which means not one case of it in the NT.

Not one described in the NT, but they are known by historic records.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think that it is when the holy scriptures tell us plainly that there are twelve and even depicts the New Jerusalem as having TWELVE foundations.

You are claiming that every pope is an Apostle, are you not?

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

So these two apostles here... do they contradict Revelation? And which is the twelfth, Matthias or Paul?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think you can make the case for Mattias as an Apostle and for Paul - so that is 13 since Judas was a disciple but never an Apostle.

Come to think of it - that means you don't have Apostolic succession in the case of Judas -- who never made it to the level of Apostle. which means not one case of it in the NT.

Wouldn't Matthias be the immediate successor to Judas? Isn't that apostolic succession?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

So these two apostles here... do they contradict Revelation? And which is the twelfth, Matthias or Paul?

It doesn't say that Andronicus and Junia were Apostles. It says that they were prominent among the apostles.

Matthias would be one of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Rom 11)

 

[ThatTrueLight]

I didn't say the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit aren't in the Bible. You said there's no word "Pope" in the Bible. I countered that there's no word "Trinity" in the Bible.
Regarding "Who needs him..." I guess you don't need your Dad, either?

Absolutely 100% sure that I don't need to call some self proclaimed pope my Father, now if you'd like to call him your father, or holy father, or whatever else you might want to call him, then go right ahead.