The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[BreadOfLife]

What utter nonsense. I have said no such thing! And much as you pretend to be psychic....you do not know my thoughts!

LOL....duh. Did you miss the entire NT?
Men Converted IN Christ ARE SANCTIFIED! [/QUOTE]
Correct - and they CONTINUE to be sanctified throughout their lives until natural death (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, 7:1, Phil. 2:12, Heb 12:14).

YOU'RE the one who disagrees with this - NOT me . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Crack open your Toddler Bible to satisfy your single verse demands....!

Thank you for coontinually provoing my point.

 

[Taken]

In other word - you don't have a CLUE as to why your Protestant Fathers....

In my words, I don’t have any “Protestant Fathers”.
In my words, not a big mystery why some Catholics challenged the Catholic Church’s corruption. Duh!

That's what I thought . . .

Putting your thought in words....is your own burden.

 

[Taken]

Yes, that's true. Were they shown to be "successors"?

Much love!

No.

 

[Taken]

@marks
Did you get a companion Manuel with your Bible to tell you what to believe?
I didn’t.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And by the way...eating your breakfast is satisfying your hunger.
It sanctifies nothing.

However the lesson stands...If you are on your own, you are on your own...
If the Lord is WITH you, you might continue to your death, and then be saved or you might fall away and not be saved.
If the Lord is IN you, you ARE Saved and kept by His Power.

Sanctified is being SET APART, Holy unto the Lord!
It applies to men IN Christ. Period.

WOW.
The fact that you cannot understand that I was using this as a mere hypothetitcal example is disturbing . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

In my words, I don’t have any “Protestant Fathers”.
In my words, not a big mystery why some Catholics challenged the Catholic Church’s corruption. Duh!

Since you've adopted their heretoical teachings - that makes them YOU Protrestant Fathers.

 

[Taken]

WOW.
The fact that you cannot understand that I was using this as a mere hypothetitcal example is disturbing . . .

Nearly everything you say is disturbing.

 

[Taken]

Since you've adopted their heretoical teachings - that makes them YOU Protrestant Fathers.

Get off your high horse. You are not qualified to dictate what applies to me.
AND BTW....Historically it was Catholics who challenged the Catholic Church’s Corruption.....AND again most recently Catholics who again challenged the Catholics Church Corruption of .... those sex scandals.
That’s your “fathers”.... not mine.
I know who my fathers are.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The thing is . . . show that in the Bible. Jesus chose His Apostles. The apostles didn't chose anyone. Matthias was selected by lot. Let another take "HIS" office. Not blanket instruction, first Peter, then he appoints another, who appoints another. This was a one time prophesied and fulfilled event.

Much love!

I've already shown this several times - but her it is again incase you mussed it . . .

The Apostles were the first Bishops. HOW do we know this? Because we see it in Acts 1, when they all gathered to choose a successor for Judas. In verse 29, Peter says:
"Let another take his office."
The Greek word used here for "Office" is "Episkopay", which mneans BISHOPRIC.

Judas and the rest pf them were BISHOPS, who went oon to choose and ordain other Bisjhops.

As I stated earlier - John's student, Ignatius succeeded Peter as Bishop of Antiocn - appointed by Peter himself.
In his treatise, Against Heresies - I renaeus lists ALL of the Biships pof Rom rfrom his day ALL the way back to Peter.

Apostolic Succession, the Authority of which was granted be Jesus, who is GOD (Matt. 16:18-9, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 19:16, John 16:12-25, John 20:21-23).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Nearly everything you say is disturbing.

For YOU - abdolutely.
Not to mention, irrefutable . . .

 

[Taken]

For YOU - abdolutely.
Not to mention, irrefutable . . .

Sorry for your difficulties.

 

[ScottA]

Taken, let me ask you 2 pointed questions:
(1) Can you give the date of the closure of the New Testament canon? Nope!
(2) Can you identify even one list of precisely the 66 books of the Protestant Bible prior to the Reformation? Nope!
So I guess we just have to trust the role of the Spirit guiding Catholic tradition. don't we

Except there is only limited authority given for carrying the water, as we know from Israel's example. Such traditions are only for a time, and do not at all mean they are/were completely correct.

There were also those following the traditions of the Priests and Pharisees for hundreds of years, which were even partially correct, but only partially, whom Christ scorned with woe.

Such traditions are no validation.

 

[Taken]

I've already shown this several times - but her it is again incase you mussed it . . .

The Apostles were the first Bishops. HOW do we know this? Because we see it in Acts 1, when they all gathered to choose a successor for Judas. In verse 29, Peter says:
"Let another take his office."
The Greek word used here for "Office" is "Episkopay", which mneans BISHOPRIC.

Judas and the rest pf them were BISHOPS, who went oon to choose and ordain other Bisjhops.

As I stated earlier - John's student, Ignatius succeeded Peter as Bishop of Antiocn - appointed by Peter himself.
In his treatise, Against Heresies - I renaeus lists ALL of the Biships pof Rom rfrom his day ALL the way back to Peter.

Apostolic Succession, the Authority of which was granted be Jesus, who is GOD (Matt. 16:18-9, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 19:16, John 16:12-25, John 20:21-23).

 

[ScottA]

Apostolic Succession, the Authority of which was granted be Jesus, who is GOD (Matt. 16:18-9, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 19:16, John 16:12-25, John 20:21-23).

Ugh!

I see you are still following the wrong rock.

And you should know better...you know what happened when Israel wanted a man as king. I guess the warning never occurred to you??

 

[Illuminator]

The thing is . . . show that in the Bible.

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION - Scripture Catholic

Jesus chose His Apostles. The apostles didn't chose anyone.

The apostles appointed bishops in every place.

Matthias was selected by lot. Let another take "HIS" office.

"HIS" office refers to the office held by Judas. An "office" without successors is not an office.

Not blanket instruction, first Peter, then he appoints another, who appoints another. This was a one time prophesied and fulfilled event.

Then "then he appoints another, who appoints another" is rendered meaningless.

 

[marks]

"HIS" office refers to the office held by Judas. An "office" without successors is not an office.

Acts 1:15-26 KJV
15) And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19) And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21) Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22) Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23) And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24) And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25) That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26) And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

This was to make the 12 again, and not leave it only 11.

Who are the modern day successors to the Apostles? I believe you consider the Pope to be Peter's successor, who is Matthew's successor? Simon Zelotes?

Much love!

 

[marks]

The apostles appointed bishops in every place.

I think Paul told Titus to appoint elders in Crete, right?

Are you saying Bishops were the apostle's successors?

I'm having a very difficult time understanding how Catholics see Papal Succession in the Bible. It seems that specific instances meant only at that time are blanketed out over time to cover everything since then, only, not everything, and it's only selectively applied.

Much love!

 

[marks]

An "office" without successors is not an office.

How is that so? Changing populations show that the need for a particular office will likewise change. Paul sent Titus to appoint elders in every city, but how many of those cities, and those churches, remain today? And those elders weren't "successors", they were new appointees. When the city stopped being a city, of course those offices were not continued to be successively filled, but that doesn't detract from their validity at the time.

Much love!

 

[Illuminator]

Ugh!

I see you are still following the wrong rock.

And you should know better...you know what happened when Israel wanted a man as king.

That has NOTHING to do with apostolic succession, and NOTHING to do with Matt. 16:18-9, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 19:16, John 16:12-25, John 20:21-23)..

I guess the warning never occurred to you??

Korah rebelled against Moses and look what happened to him. Has that not occurred to you?