Apostolic councils?

[DNB]

HUH??

First of all - Indulgences are a matter of DICIPLINE - not Dogma, so get your facts straight.
Secondly - WHO said that the Church doesn't teach about Indulgences?? I showed you that the Church never sanctioned the SELLING of Indulgences. BIG difference.

You need to pay attention and stop going off on on your psychotic rants.
Your ignorance is overwhelming . . .

You draw people down rabbit-holes BOL, that's why we are here. You skirt the issue on every occasion. Quit playing these games with trivia, and try to see the big picture. Debating with you is like debating with a impudent little child, you have a big abusive mouth, but absolutely no sense in understanding the discussion at hand. You're defending your position based on nuances, for what the heck is an indulgence in the first place, simpleton? That was rhetorical, do you get the point yet?

 

[DNB]

WRONG.
As I have repeatedly stated - I already laid out the Scriptural and Historical proof for Apostolic Succession.

The fact that you ignore that evidence is YOUR problem - and YOU have to answer to God for it, NOT me . . .

SCRIPTURE
Acts 1:20
"Let another take his OFFICE (Episkopay/Bishopric)."

HISTORY
Ignatius of Antioch
FOLLOW YOUR BISHOP, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. OBEY YOUR CLERGY too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

You have done no such thing. THis discussion is above you BOL.

 

[DNB]

Hi DNB,

Thank you for that very well thought out and articulate defense of your belief and repudiation of my belief! I don't mean that in a bad way. I'm just saying you made it very clear what you believe, why you believe it and why I shouldn't believe what I believe. Sooooo I have to ask you:

We know that Christ taught the Apostles the Truth.
The Apostles then taught other good and faithful men of The Church the Truth.

Myself and @BreadOfLife clearly believe that The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, is still teaching the Truth and that Truth will be with us until the end of the ages because Christ is with us until the end of the ages (Matthew 28:20).

According to your studies of Christian history when did that Truth stop being taught? When did Jesus abandon/stop revealing the Truth to His Church that was established on a rock?

Curious Mary

When the doctrines did not align with Scripture. Maybe this part is subjective, but, I am sure that you cannot find Scriptural proof for the principle of 'Intercession of the Saints', Mary's immaculate conception, nor her assumption into heaven. Neither the Crusades nor Inquisitions. Neither transubstantiation, nor the hierarchy of priest, bishop, Cardinal, Vicar of Christ.
That is enough to show, that, again, these doctrines that were promulgated and ratified by 'ordained' apostles, were heretical.
Mary, I'm am not blaming men or Churches for having wrong doctrine, this is absolutely everywhere. But, I will denounce them for establishing bad doctrine, while at the same time claiming apostolic succession . It is the boast of both 'Catholicism' and infallibility as to where the offense largely lies.

 

[jaybird]

Hi Jaybird,

Based on your statement that The Church "made a wrong turn after the roman takeover" you must believe everything was going right in The Church before the roman takeover? For the record if that is what you believe...I agree with you! :)

Scripture makes it clear that the 12 made everyone feel welcome and to share their ideas. Scripture also makes it clear when they shared ideas that were opposite or not in line with their teaching then those people, who were causing division in The Church, were corrected. The purpose of some of the letters in Scripture were written to address those "divisions amongst you" (1 Corinthians). Another example of correcting wrong practices or teachings of some of the people in The Church was The Council of Jerusalem. At that Council The Church decided what every Christian in the world was to believe/practice. So even though there was an open sharing of ideas that did not give individual Christians to implement/practice/believe those ideas that were opposite of what The Church taught.

I liked Clement of Alexandria and his ideas! Who's ideas in the open society of Alexandria did you like?

Curious Mary

I am happy with the church in the years after Jesus, you had different schools of thought on salvation, Christology, etc, but so what, people should be free to chose the teachings they believe are correct, if they are seeking the Father they will be lead correctly, thats what Jesus taught, they should not be persecuted.

I liked the religions freedom and pro learning that went back to Alexander the great. Most of the Diadochi ruled with the same ideas with the exception of Seleucus who seemed to be a real slimeball, not sure what went wrong with him but Jeresalem suffered greatly and it went on all the way to the days of Jesus, not many know about the politics and corruption that Jesus, the 12, John B and all the rest of the good guys had to go through and much is blamed on the pharisees but its not entirely correct, the Maccabees books explain a lot of this but they removed these books from our bibles so we just have to go around confused.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You draw people down rabbit-holes BOL, that's why we are here. You skirt the issue on every occasion. Quit playing these games with trivia, and try to see the big picture. Debating with you is like debating with a impudent little child, you have a big abusive mouth, but absolutely no sense in understanding the discussion at hand. You're defending your position based on nuances, for what the heck is an indulgence in the first place, simpleton? That was rhetorical, do you get the point yet?

"Rabbit holes"??

You think that explaining to you that the selling of Indulgences was an historically-verifiable abuse is leading you down a "rabbit hole"??
What color is the sky in YOUR world?? That's called "doing your homework" - something that is as foreign to YOU as history AND Scripture . . .

 

[jaybird]

Hi Jaybird,

Scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth and says we are to take our differences to The Church so they can decide who is to be excommunicated (treated as a pagan/tax collector). Putting your theory (or opinion) into practice which "group of believers" is the pillar and foundation of truth and decides who is to be treated as a pagan?

Curious Mary

i dont agree kicking anyone from any church. i think this idea would have worked well in the days of Jesus and maybe a few generations later, but many generations later you have the church just as guilty of wrongdoings as the ones they accuse. the Cathar Christians even by the roman accounts lived upright lives, they even lived alongside Catholics with no problem. why persecute them? and they were not just persecuted, they were slaughtered like animals, women and children to. when you catch yourself involved in such terrible deeds i think its time to re think the whole thing you are teaching.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You have done no such thing. THis discussion is above you BOL.

I just gave a Scriptural proof of Apostolic Succession AND an historical one.

What is your refutation of these facts?
Do you even HAVE one??

 

[jaybird]

What does the acronym BOD mean?

thats my best friend BreadOfLife. we have always been so close. he is the one with the pic of two hands holding a babylonian clay tablet thing.

 

[DNB]

"Rabbit holes"??

You think that explaining to you that the selling of Indulgences was an historically-verifiable abuse is leading you down a "rabbit hole"??
What color is the sky in YOUR world?? That's called "doing your homework" - something that is as foreign to YOU as history AND Scripture . . .

My point was, whether sold, handed-out, raffled, lottery, whatever..., indulgences are non-biblical, and a wicked implementation by the non-apostolic Catholic Church.

 

[DNB]

I just gave a Scriptural proof of Apostolic Succession AND an historical one.

What is your refutation of these facts?
Do you even HAVE one??

Where, you have given no such proof. Seemingly refuting a non-sequitur does not establish Apostolic succession.
My poiint is this, I have cjhosen historical facts to prove that the Catholic Church is not apostolic.
What you would need to do in order to convince anyone, otherwise, is to proof that Catholic Dogma is Biblical, prove that these men performed miracles (unless your a cessationist), ... In other words, display characteristics of both power and authority as of the 1st century apostles. I have proved otherwise.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My point was, whether sold, handed-out, raffled, lottery, whatever..., indulgences are non-biblical, and a wicked implementation by the non-apostolic Catholic Church.

And that is yet another ignorant and dishonest statement.
Dishonest, because I have already PROVEN that the Catholic Church is Apostolic.
Ignorant because Indulgences are indeed Biblical. Allow me to educate you - yet again . . .

Sin causes guilt and punishment for which there can be both temporal and eternal consequences. The temporal consequences for sin may remain, even if it is forgiven– much in the same way that a fornicator might be forgiven, but now lives with HIV.

For example - David’s sin was forgiven – but the sword never left his household (2 Sam. 12:7-14).

What do you think Jesus was doing with the Apostles in the following verses? Was He just “jerking their chain”, so to speak – or was He transferring His power onto them??

Matt 16:16-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

WHAT did the Father “send” Jesus to do? He sent Him to bring about the FORGIVENESS OF SINS – and that’s precisely what Jesus sent the Apostles and their successors to do.

Jesus gave His CHURCH the power to BIND and LOOSE temporal punishment. He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18). These aren’t thing that Jesus took lightly – even if YOU do . . .

 

[Brakelite]

The Apostolic Churches of course!!!

Anton leVey was antichrist soooooo how could he have the truth....

The apostolic churches were made up of human beings Mary, and not one of them claimed to have all their ducks in a row when it came to faith and practice.. And the churches themselves were somewhat sorry examples of Christian piety in many cases. We tend to gloss over those shortcomings when reading the NT and hold up the apostolic church as one to be emulated. And as history progressed it got worse, not better.

 

[DNB]

And that is yet another ignorant and dishonest statement.
Dishonest, because I have already PROVEN that the Catholic Church is Apostolic.
Ignorant because Indulgences are indeed Biblical. Allow me to educate you - yet again . . .

Sin causes guilt and punishment for which there can be both temporal and eternal consequences. The temporal consequences for sin may remain, even if it is forgiven– much in the same way that a fornicator might be forgiven, but now lives with HIV.

For example - David’s sin was forgiven – but the sword never left his household (2 Sam. 12:7-14).

What do you think Jesus was doing with the Apostles in the following verses? Was He just “jerking their chain”, so to speak – or was He transferring His power onto them??

Matt 16:16-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, HE BREATHED ON THEM and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

WHAT did the Father “send” Jesus to do? He sent Him to bring about the FORGIVENESS OF SINS – and that’s precisely what Jesus sent the Apostles and their successors to do.

Jesus gave His CHURCH the power to BIND and LOOSE temporal punishment. He gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 16:18). These aren’t thing that Jesus took lightly – even if YOU do . . .

Round, and round, and round, and round we go. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! We all agree that Christ appointed certain men to carry on the tradition that he received from the Father, and that he himself fulfilled on behalf of the Father. The Great Commission is the command that all men who have believed in the Gospel of Christ, faithfully disseminate God's Word throughout the world. Paul was the first to bring it to Rome, Philip in Samaria, Peter to the Gentiles, Aquila & Priscilla to Apollos (more fully), etc... All disciples were handed the keys to bring forgiveness to all people.
WE ALL AGREE ON THIS FOR THE UPTEENTH TIME!!!!

Question lies as to where this unadulterated truth resides now. The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE IN ITS FULLNESS! Especially not the Catholic Church, which becomes rather axiomatic just by reading the decrees from Trent, the Lateran Councils, or Vatican I & II. But, understand something BOL, I would say the exact something about the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort, about the Augsburg or Formula of Concord decrees, about the Book of Common Prayer, and so on. That is, that there is enough error in all these Confessions and Statements of Faith, Ecumenical or local Councils, that we see that there is no one Church that holds the entire and untainted truth handed down by the apostles. It is obtainable, but much study and research is required, you will not find it under one entity or Church. Again, this is a demonstrable fact.

You are a catholic, I am non-denominational, that notion alone already gives me the upper hand!

 

[Illuminator]

The apostolic churches were made up of human beings Mary, and not one of them claimed to have all their ducks in a row when it came to faith and practice.. And the churches themselves were somewhat sorry examples of Christian piety in many cases. We tend to gloss over those shortcomings when reading the NT and hold up the apostolic church as one to be emulated. And as history progressed it got worse, not better.

Whose "history" are you referring to? The lies invented by all the made-in-America cults founded in the mid 18th century? Or the Landmark (Successionist) Baptists that are so absurd they are an embarrassment to Baptists? All the false histories in this thread can't be proven, they are just asserted. Catholics are not afraid to look at the truth of history square in the face. Anti-Catholics are busy inventing lies and falsehoods that it's impossible to refute them all line by line. This is another Catholic bashing thread that should be closed due to the invasion of anti-trinitarian hate cults or the "Bible Christian" Taliban who derail with different topics on every page.

 

[Marymog]

hey MM!

i was just proving a point. they were chained up to prevent people from stealing them, but a poor person has no reason to steal one as they could only sell to a rich person who has the money to go get their own.

Hi jaybird,

Who do you think steals all the high dollar art work in the world? Who do you think is buying that art work?

Mary

 

[Illuminator]

You are a catholic, I am non-denominational, that notion alone already gives me the upper hand!

"...Several evangelical scholars have noted that the problem with Protestant ecclesiology is that there is no Protestant ecclesiology. In many denominations—and especially in non-denominational churches—there is no hierarchy of churches responsible to a central head, no accountability beyond the local congregation, no fellowship beyond the local assembly, no missional emphasis that gains support from hundreds of congregations, and no superiors to whom a local pastor must submit for doctrinal or ethical fidelity..."
by Daniel B. Wallace
Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

This is the "upper hand" by which DNB derives his authority to criticize Catholicism.

Where, you have given no such proof. Seemingly refuting a non-sequitur does not establish Apostolic succession.
My poiint is this, I have cjhosen historical facts to prove that the Catholic Church is not apostolic.
What you would need to do in order to convince anyone, otherwise, is to proof that Catholic Dogma is Biblical, prove that these men performed miracles (unless your a cessationist), ... In other words, display characteristics of both power and authority as of the 1st century apostles. I have proved otherwise.

The only thing you have proven is false histories invented by cults and radical ignorant Protestants. If the councils were wrong, then so is the doctrine of the Trinity. You can't have it both ways.

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED.

 

[Marymog]

When the doctrines did not align with Scripture. Maybe this part is subjective, but, I am sure that you cannot find Scriptural proof for the principle of 'Intercession of the Saints', Mary's immaculate conception, nor her assumption into heaven. Neither the Crusades nor Inquisitions. Neither transubstantiation, nor the hierarchy of priest, bishop, Cardinal, Vicar of Christ.
That is enough to show, that, again, these doctrines that were promulgated and ratified by 'ordained' apostles, were heretical.
Mary, I'm am not blaming men or Churches for having wrong doctrine, this is absolutely everywhere. But, I will denounce them for establishing bad doctrine, while at the same time claiming apostolic succession . It is the boast of both 'Catholicism' and infallibility as to where the offense largely lies.

Thanks DNB!!! You present a very good argument. I think in summary you are saying if it’s not in Scripture then Christians shouldn’t believe it or practice it. I can respect that. As you know I don’t agree with it.....So lets not talk about intercession of the Saints, Mary’s immaculate conception, assumption into heaven, transubstantiation etc.

Since Scripture is all we need and our doctrine should align with Scripture please to tell: Does baptism save you?

Mary

BTW....Thanks to the glorious Crusades you are not a Muslim and the Christian Holy Land has been preserved. Thank God for the Catholic Church.

 

[Illuminator]

Nowhere in Scripture do we explicitly find women partaking of the Eucharist, so according to DNB, women should be left out.
THIS CATHOLIC BASHING THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED

 

[Brakelite]

Whose "history" are you referring to? The lies invented by all the made-in-America cults founded in the mid 18th century? Or the Landmark (Successionist) Baptists that are so absurd they are an embarrassment to Baptists? All the false histories in this thread can't be proven, they are just asserted. Catholics are not afraid to look at the truth of history square in the face. Anti-Catholics are busy inventing lies and falsehoods that it's impossible to refute them all line by line. This is another Catholic bashing thread that should be closed due to the invasion of anti-trinitarian hate cults or the "Bible Christian" Taliban who derail with different topics on every page.

Source, as stated in the post, was the NT. This isn't a Catholic bashing thread. It's a conversation about apostolic councils. An earlier remark I made concerning one council that resulted in the persecution of other Christians having been presided over by a pagan emperor, got lost in the mix. The Catholic Church derived much of it's impetus and authority from pagan emperors, a fact of history which ought to receive more attention especially when one considers the scriptural denunciation of the union of church and state. I think these topics are worthy of discussion. To not do so and denounce such discussions as "Catholic bashing" is reminiscent of the same cancel culture paradigm now being promoted by historical revisionists in the Democrat party.

 

[Brakelite]

I think it sad that a Catholic should even consider asking for a thread to be shut down on the basis that Catholicism shouldn't be held accountable for its own history.