Is The Pope the figure of an Apostle??

[Father Rick]

Not that this was my question but I think what Dave01 is getting at is that both Peter and Paul had the annointing to pray for the sick and for them to be healed. Jesus told all the apostles that "these signs" would follow them. Have "these signs" followed the Popes?

In a word... yes!



First, anointing of the sick is one of the official sacraments of the Catholic churches-- right along with baptism and communion. It is considered one of the signs of the "proof" of the gospel.

Second, Catholics usually are more cautious in "declaring" a miracle-- so that there is no question it was God and God alone who did the work... therefore there are not as many "hyped up" claims as in some P/C circles. They don't say "this person is healed", until a doctor actually verifies the healing and that there is no scientific explanation for it. But, there are verified healings.

Third, Pope John Paul II was one of THE leading proponents of the Charismatic movement (including the various gifts of the Spirit). It was his support that enabled the Charismatic movement worldwide to grow as it did-- with currently more than 190,000,000 Spirit-filled/Charismatic Catholics.

 

[Dave01]

In a word... yes!



First, anointing of the sick is one of the official sacraments of the Catholic churches-- right along with baptism and communion. It is considered one of the signs of the "proof" of the gospel.

Second, Catholics usually are more cautious in "declaring" a miracle-- so that there is no question it was God and God alone who did the work... therefore there are not as many "hyped up" claims as in some P/C circles. They don't say "this person is healed", until a doctor actually verifies the healing and that there is no scientific explanation for it. But, there are verified healings.

Third, Pope John Paul II was one of THE leading proponents of the Charismatic movement (including the various gifts of the Spirit). It was his support that enabled the Charismatic movement worldwide to grow as it did-- with currently more than 190,000,000 Spirit-filled/Charismatic Catholics.

Now see, if GOD has given the credentials, then the person was appointed to the position by GOD. That is what I'm looking for.

 

[Assisi]

1 Cor 12:27-31
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

Doesn't this imply that the signs of which you speak are not necessarily going to be present in each office? Workers of miracles are only fourth on the list, but apostle is first. So surely an apostle would not also need to be a worker of miracles (though, of course, he may be)

About the works of the Pope. Peter did some pretty stupid stuff, and yet he was still an apostle. I think that great sinners (like Peter) can be called to the office. We must pray that they are given grace from God to repent (like Peter). There have been some pretty corrupt Popes, thank God they have been prevented (by the Holy Spirit) from leading the Church into error.

 

[Dave01]

1 Cor 12:27-31
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

Doesn't this imply that the signs of which you speak are not necessarily going to be present in each office? Workers of miracles are only fourth on the list, but apostle is first. So surely an apostle would not also need to be a worker of miracles (though, of course, he may be)

About the works of the Pope. Peter did some pretty stupid stuff, and yet he was still an apostle. I think that great sinners (like Peter) can be called to the office. We must pray that they are given grace from God to repent (like Peter). There have been some pretty corrupt Popes, thank God they have been prevented (by the Holy Spirit) from leading the Church into error.

Well, Jesus manifested all offices in His walk on earth. He was our perfect example for every office listed in our bible.

I wouldn't began to think that an apostle would not carry a heavy anointing by GOD being that it is the church building type position. Something has to be there for people to accept their authority. It can't just be words.

 

[nephilimiyr]

In a word... yes!



First, anointing of the sick is one of the official sacraments of the Catholic churches-- right along with baptism and communion. It is considered one of the signs of the "proof" of the gospel.

Second, Catholics usually are more cautious in "declaring" a miracle-- so that there is no question it was God and God alone who did the work... therefore there are not as many "hyped up" claims as in some P/C circles. They don't say "this person is healed", until a doctor actually verifies the healing and that there is no scientific explanation for it. But, there are verified healings.

Third, Pope John Paul II was one of THE leading proponents of the Charismatic movement (including the various gifts of the Spirit). It was his support that enabled the Charismatic movement worldwide to grow as it did-- with currently more than 190,000,000 Spirit-filled/Charismatic Catholics.

I basically agree with you, I just saw Dave01 having trouble expressing himself and wanted to clarify the question.

 

[Dave01]

I basically agree with you, I just saw Dave01 having trouble expressing himself and wanted to clarify the question.

Yep, Neph was interpreting for me.

 

[Assisi]

Now see, if GOD has given the credentials, then the person was appointed to the position by GOD. That is what I'm looking for.

I'm not really sure what you mean...I think it may be just that we use different words to talk about the same thing.

In 2005 I traveled to Germany for World Youth Day. 1 million young Catholics were there for the week and we worshiped the Lord with the Pope. I was with a group of young people and I would definitely say that we were touched by the Lord through the actions of the Pope during that time. Many were healed of minor illnesses which would have prevented them from attending the final Mass (for which we had to sleep outside on the ground:o). Most of us were ill: weeks of travel, lack of sleep and rest, and insufficient food had taken their toll on us. Yet when it came to the final day we were all able to make it to the Mass and find each other among more than a million people. the overwhelming feeling of us all is summed up in Acts 5:15 we gathered in the streets and took our sick out with us "that as Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on some of them"

 

[Assisi]

Well, Jesus manifested all offices in His walk on earth. He was our perfect example for every office listed in our bible.

So true!

Something has to be there for people to accept their authority. It can't just be words.

Ah I see what you're saying. I agree that it can't just be someone standing up and saying 'ok, I have authority listen to me'. We must be able to know that the authority is from God.
I'm not sure that I have ever thought of spiritual gifts as being that confirmation though...

 

[Dave01]

So true!


Ah I see what you're saying. I agree that it can't just be someone standing up and saying 'ok, I have authority listen to me'. We must be able to know that the authority is from God.
I'm not sure that I have ever thought of spiritual gifts as being that confirmation though...

Well, the gifts only validate a person for service, the anointing validates a person for office,..at least that is my understanding of it.

People are free to interject their opinions on that, this is what I have found so far with it.

 

[Adammi]

I love this thread. It seems that this has been discussed with respect for opposing views, something that isn't seen very often.

 

[Dave01]

I love this thread. It seems that this has been discussed with respect for opposing views, something that isn't seen very often.

Did I hear you say "Why aren't we arguing?"

 

[stray bullet]

When one goes back further than that - much further in time, in fact - one will see that the church would not have agreed with the Council of Chalcedon or Saint Cyprian.

Proof?

Apostolic Succession from the Pope now backwards, historically,cannot be traced all the way back to the Apostolic Age.

We have numerous records, as has been shown.

 

[stray bullet]

I know that this is another debate for another thread, but I would add the Anglican Church to this list of churches possessing Apostolic Succession.

The Anglican church had apostolic succession before it invalided it. It has as much as the corner non-denominational church.

 

[Adammi]

Did I hear you say "Why aren't we arguing?"

Yes, I think that is what I said. LOL

The Anglican church had apostolic succession before it invalided it. It has as much as the corner non-denominational church.

I know that this is another debate for another thread

 

[Father Rick]

The Anglican church had apostolic succession before it invalided it. It has as much as the corner non-denominational church.

Actually...

OC succession is recognized by Rome in the same manner that EO succession is recognized. (Since you are RC, I will deal strictly from a Roman perspective). Since OC's have co-consecrated Anglican bishops since the Bonn Agreement of 1934. As such, Roman scholars now recognize that while Anglican succession as a whole is not regarded as valid by Rome, the succession of each individual bishop/priest would have to be reviewed to determine if that particular bishop/priests orders are valid.

 

[Assisi]

Actually...

OC succession is recognized by Rome in the same manner that EO succession is recognized. (Since you are RC, I will deal strictly from a Roman perspective). Since OC's have co-consecrated Anglican bishops since the Bonn Agreement of 1934. As such, Roman scholars now recognize that while Anglican succession as a whole is not regarded as valid by Rome, the succession of each individual bishop/priest would have to be reviewed to determine if that particular bishop/priests orders are valid.

This was also my understanding of our position. Great explanation

 

[stray bullet]

Actually...

OC succession is recognized by Rome in the same manner that EO succession is recognized. (Since you are RC, I will deal strictly from a Roman perspective). Since OC's have co-consecrated Anglican bishops since the Bonn Agreement of 1934. As such, Roman scholars now recognize that while Anglican succession as a whole is not regarded as valid by Rome, the succession of each individual bishop/priest would have to be reviewed to determine if that particular bishop/priests orders are valid.

Their bishops are not all ordained, therefore they do not 'have' apostolic succession. They have individuals bishops which have had apostolic succession, but that's not the same as what the Orthodox, Coptics and Catholics have. It's a bit like saying Muslims would have apostolic succession if a bishop left the Church to become a cleric.

Can you show a document from the Catholic Church stating that their (Anglican) ordination of new bishops is valid? I was not aware they changed anything following 1936, which would allow them to continue apostolic succession. Their ordination of women also suggests a serious flaw in their understanding of apostolic succession, preventing them from having it and rendering it null and void.

 

[c1ners]

"Bump"
I'm learning a lot through this thread. Please continue.

 

[Adammi]

Their bishops are not all ordained, therefore they do not 'have' apostolic succession. They have individuals bishops which have had apostolic succession, but that's not the same as what the Orthodox, Coptics and Catholics have. It's a bit like saying Muslims would have apostolic succession if a bishop left the Church to become a cleric.

Can you show a document from the Catholic Church stating that their (Anglican) ordination of new bishops is valid? I was not aware they changed anything following 1936, which would allow them to continue apostolic succession. Their ordination of women also suggests a serious flaw in their understanding of apostolic succession, preventing them from having it and rendering it null and void.

Are the orders of the Polish National Catholic Church valid in the eyes of the RCC?

 

[Rhamiel]

wow, this is a crazy thread.
the pentecostal sub-forum always has such nice topics