Known for all ages?? NOT

[razeontherock]

... Peter ... presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his [Peter's] blood

Wow. They really said that? I'd be scared to go there ...

 

[laconicstudent]

Wow. They really said that? I'd be scared to go there ...

The martyrs of the Christian faith scare you?

 

[razeontherock]

Paul put sects in the same class with fornication, murder, and idolatry. Paul said the laying on of hands was a necessary doctrine.

Jesus breathed the Spirit onto the apostles as a separate event prior to the day of Pentecost, giving them the authority to retain and remit sin.

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles to later lay hands on Paul, as a separate event from his initial conversion where Ananias put hands on him, setting him aside for the work of the ministry.

Paul acknowledged that he and the apostles had authority. Paul appointed both Titus and Timothy. He told Titus to rebuke with all authority. He also instructs Timothy to rebuke those that sin before everyone in the church, and makes mention that the presbytery had laid hands on Timothy.

This 'laying on of hands' is one thing that really hit me. If repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of baptisms, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment are solid and sure, why would there be an exception to the laying on of hands?

Ok, so since when does I'vebeenshown have a RC icon? And what makes you think the laying on of hands is an exclusive RC thing? That's really building on sand ...

 

[razeontherock]

The martyrs of the Christian faith scare you?

Playing dumb still doesn't become you

 

[ivebeenshown]

Ok, so since when does I'vebeenshown have a RC icon?

Couple days ago...

And what makes you think the laying on of hands is an exclusive RC thing? That's really building on sand ...

You assuming that I think that is building on sand.

 

[razeontherock]

No, I'm not assuming that at all. What you said about RC's validity is exclusive to the validity of laying on of hands. (That I've seen) Is G-d not capable of revealing by His Spirit?

 

[laconicstudent]

Playing dumb still doesn't become you

Then I guess I'm just stupid, since I have no idea why visiting a place built on the blood of martyrs would be disturbing. Usually, we call those places "sites of pilgrimage".

 

[Rick Otto]

It is not claimed that this happened. It is not like a monarchy in which a king must choose his successor. Bishops don't choose their successors. Rather, the pope is the successor of St. Peter because he is the Bishop of Rome and it was at Rome that Peter was martyred.

The Apostle Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.
Preminence?

 

[laconicstudent]

nevermind

 

[ivebeenshown]

Jesus Christ was not an Apostle. Lets not degrade God in this thread.

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

 

[laconicstudent]

Hebrews 3:1
Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

oopsies

 

[Rick Otto]

laconic.
lol
oopsies on the rest of it, too?

 

[laconicstudent]

laconic.
lol
oopsies on the rest of it, too?

Oh definitely not. I'm wrong on occasion, I don't have a problem with that. But I'm right most of the time, lot more then most people anyways. I imagine most people here share that opinion (about themselves anyways, poor souls!)

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

And what makes you think the laying on of hands is an exclusive RC thing? That's really building on sand ...

No, it's not exclusively Catholic. It is also common in the other churches which have split off of the Catholic Church and maintain Holy Orders.

 

[Standing Up]

It is not claimed that this happened. It is not like a monarchy in which a king must choose his successor. Bishops don't choose their successors. Rather, the pope is the successor of St. Peter because he is the Bishop of Rome and it was at Rome that Peter was martyred.

That sounds like a new argument. Have all RC given up the notion of apostolic succession as promolgated by Irenaeus and others? I mean we have no proof anyways, so the new argument is that Peter was martyred at Rome, so Rome is it. Closed case

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

Here's in the third century:

Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church.

You look for doctrines being explicitly defined in Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers. They didn't define every point of doctrine explicitly. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, it just wasn't understood as fully as later.

Yet there is plenty of evidence that they acted as though they believed it was true, even if they didn't sit down and write out an argument for the Primacy of Peter. This is true as far back as the first and second centuries when Rome clearly exercised authority over the other Sees. Pope St. Leo the Great made the argument when the primacy was challenged by Constantinople but prior to this time there had been no real need to discuss it in depth, in the sort of structured logical that you might desire, at least not in what has come down to us today.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That sounds like a new argument. Have all RC given up the notion of apostolic succession as promolgated by Irenaeus and others? I mean we have no proof anyways, so the new argument is that Peter was martyred at Rome, so Rome is it. Closed case

Well, it solves the problem of any other see claiming that Peter had been bishop there since we can all agree where he was martyred (AFAIK). Peter also has connections to Alexandria and Antioch.

After all these [writings of] the prophets and the evangelical and apostolic scriptures which we discussed above, on which the catholic church is founded by the grace of God, we also have thought necessary to say what, although the universal catholic church diffused throughout the world is the single bride of Christ, however the holy Roman church is given first place by the rest of the churches without [the need for] a synodical decision, but from the voice of the Lord our saviour in the gospel obtained primacy: 'You are Peter,' he said, 'and upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and to you I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind upon Earth shall be bound also in heaven and whatever you release upon Earth shall also be released in heaven'.

In addition there is also the presence of the blessed apostle Paul, 'the chosen vessel', who not in opposition, as the heresies jabber, but on the same date and the same day was crowned in glorious death with Peter in the city of Rome suffering under Nero Caesar; and equally they made the above-mentioned holy Roman church special in Christ the Lord and gave preference in their presence and veneration-worthy triumph before all other cities in the whole world.

Therefore first is the seat at the Roman church of the apostle Peter 'having no spot or wrinkle or any other [defect]'.

However the second place was given in the name of blessed Peter to Mark his disciple and gospel-writer at Alexandria, and who himself wrote down the word of truth directed by Peter the apostle in Egypt and gloriously consummated [his life] in martyrdom.

Indeed the third place is held at Antioch of the most blessed and honourable apostle Peter, who lived there before he came to Roma and where first the name of the new race of the Christians was heard.

 

[razeontherock]

You look for doctrines being explicitly defined in Scripture or in the Early Church Fathers. They didn't define every point of doctrine explicitly. That doesn't mean it wasn't there, it just wasn't understood as fully as later..

In all seriousness, this is the problem I have w/ Catholicism. If heresy is anything that didn't originate with the Apostles, what good are "understandings that came later?"

 

[sunlover1]

Paul put sects in the same class with fornication, murder, and idolatry. Paul said the laying on of hands was a necessary doctrine.

Jesus breathed the Spirit onto the apostles as a separate event prior to the day of Pentecost, giving them the authority to retain and remit sin.

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles to later lay hands on Paul, as a separate event from his initial conversion where Ananias put hands on him, setting him aside for the work of the ministry.

Paul acknowledged that he and the apostles had authority. Paul appointed both Titus and Timothy. He told Titus to rebuke with all authority. He also instructs Timothy to rebuke those that sin before everyone in the church, and makes mention that the presbytery had laid hands on Timothy.

This 'laying on of hands' is one thing that really hit me. If repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of baptisms, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment are solid and sure, why would there be an exception to the laying on of hands?

And we do the laying on of hands in my church as well .

 

[razeontherock]

Note for laconic student, who seems to be having an off night:

[Quoting some RC thingy] "... Peter ... presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his [Peter's] blood"

Wow. They really said that? I'd be scared to go there ...

To go there: an idiom of speech, referring to their intent. In this case, conflating the blood of a very fallible mortal with that of the Lamb of G-d. As in - -

do NOT go there!