Circle... A Reminder

[ironmonk]

Circle,

Here are a couple of threads that I had time to find...


[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=5722"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=5722[/url]


[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6120"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6120[/url]


There was another thread about Augustine where you tried to prove he wasn't Catholic... or was that Athanasius or Irenaeus? I'll look for that when I have time.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

The other article perhaps was just stating that as an instution, the Catholic Church has evolved. To say that any man 1500-2000 years ago was part of what you have today is foolhardy. Even businesses that have existed only 100 years are run and do things totally different than 100 years previously. The only standard over time is their name. The Catholic Church may have evolved from the first churches, but it certainly is not today.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='May 3 2004, 12:59 PM'] The other article perhaps was just stating that as an instution, the Catholic Church has evolved.  To say that any man 1500-2000 years ago was part of what you have today is foolhardy.  Even businesses that have existed only 100 years are run and do things totally different than 100 years previously.  The only standard over time is their name.  The Catholic Church may have evolved from the first churches, but it certainly is not today. [/quote]
To say that the Catholic Church is a different Church is foolhardy.

To say that it is a different Church than what Christ has built is anti-Christian.

There were not "churches" there was a Church - One Faith, not two, three, four or more.

Christ says that the Church will evolve.

[b]John 14:16 [/b]
[color=red]And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be [u]with you always[/u], [/color]
[b]17 [/b][color=red]the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.[/color]
[b]18 [/b][color=red]I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.[/color]
...
[b]26 [/b][color=red]The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he [b]will teach you everything[/b] and remind you of all that (I) told you. [/color]


Christ says the Church will never be overcome. According to you it was.

The Apostles warn that all who leave the Church group will be those perverting the truth Acts 20:29-30.

You have admitted that the Church had the authority to give us the NT, yet you say the authority was only a small part of authority to do the bible? That does't make sense with what Christ has stated about the Church.

There is no logical way can your statements can exist truthfully together.

Either the Catholic Church is not the Church that Jesus built - AND - the bible is worthless.

OR

The Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ - AND - the bible is the written Word of God.


Those given facts of Scripture and of those written of by the first Christians; the above are the only two choices that can be drawn from your personal interpretation.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 3, 2004 by ironmonk

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='May 3 2004, 01:08 PM'] To say that it is a different Church than what Christ has built is anti-Christian. [/quote]
amen.

[quote]There were not "churches" there was a Church - One Faith, not two, three, four or more.[/quote]
Obviously I was referring to local churches at that point. Use your head Ironmonk, don't argue for arguments sake.

[quote]Christ says that the Church will evolve.

[b]John 14:16 [/b]
[color=red]And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be [u]with you always[/u], [/color]
[b]17 [/b][color=red]the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.[/color]
[b]18 [/b][color=red]I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.[/color]
...
[b]26 [/b][color=red]The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name--he [b]will teach you everything[/b] and remind you of all that (I) told you. [/color][/quote]
The evolution is in your personal interpretation. The promise in the second part is to the apostles and leading them into the truth. You know already what my response would be to this part, why bother even posting without any evidence?

[quote]Christ says the Church will never be overcome. According to you it was.[/quote]
a) It never says that
b) It never has, don't put words in my mouth. Use my own.

[quote]The Apostles warn that all who leave the Church group will be those perverting the truth Acts 20:29-30.[/quote]
amen. The [b]Church group[/b], i.e. the local church. It seems we finally agree on the particulars of a universal and local church.

[quote]You have admitted that the Church had the authority to give us the NT, yet you say the authority was only a small part of authority to do the bible? That does't make sense with what Christ has stated about the Church.

There is no logical way can your statements can exist truthfully together.

Either the Catholic Church is not the Church that Jesus built - AND - the bible is worthless.
OR
The Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ - AND - the bible is the written Word of God.[/quote]
You already know that as a faithful protestant I believe in a universal aspect of the Church. Your statements are pointless because of this again.

[quote]Those given facts of Scripture and of those written of by the first Christians; the above are the only two choices that can be drawn from your personal interpretation. [/quote]
Ironmonk, if you want to continue discussion please begin to argue with an open perspective and not a closed mind. If we build off of similarities we could get somewhere, if you continue like this it is pointless.

[Dave]

I'm going to jump in here, and I know for a fact that Ironmonk won't mind a bit.

[quote]Obviously I was referring to local churches at that point.  Use your head Ironmonk, don't argue for arguments sake.[/quote]

But these local churches weren't different denominations. They were part of the Catholic Church. These churches all believed the exact same things doctrinally, and so, although in different areas, they were in union with St. Peter, the first popel

[quote]The evolution is in your personal interpretation.  The promise in the second part is to the apostles and leading them into the truth.  You know already what my response would be to this part, why bother even posting without any evidence?[/quote]

Nope, evolution of doctrine is a fact; it's no one's personal interpretation. Over the years the Church comes to understand doctrines more clearly and gains new insights into them But the Church NEVER understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant. And Jesus' promise didn't just extend to the apostles but also their successors.

[quote]a) It never says that
b) It never has, don't put words in my mouth.  Use my own.[/quote]

Yes it DOES say the Church won't be overcome. Didn't Jesus say the gates of hell would never prevail against it?

If you say the Church today doesn't teach the same truths that it did back then, then you are indeed saying the gates of hell prevailed against it. If the Church today doesn't teach the same things it did back then, then that means the Church today teaches lies. Satan is the author of lies. Therefore, that would mean the gates of hell had prevailed. But the Church doesn't teach lies now, nor did it ever.

[quote]amen.  The [b]Church group[/b], i.e. the local church.  It seems we finally agree on the particulars of a universal and local church.[/quote]

You don't realize that the local Church groups are part of the Catholic Church -- all teaching the exact same doctrines.

[quote]You already know that as a faithful protestant I believe in a universal aspect of the Church.  Your statements are pointless because of this again.[/quote]

Yet again, you don't seem to realize that the universal Church is visible, not invisible. Jesus established one Church, not a collection of competing Churches that can't agree on every single doctrine.

[quote]Ironmonk, if you want to continue discussion please begin to argue with an open perspective and not a closed mind.  If we build off of similarities we could get somewhere, if you continue like this it is pointless.[/quote]

Please consider what Ironmonk and others are telling you. If you came here to learn, it won't do for you to fail to consider our arguments.

Edited May 3, 2004 by Dave

[Circle_Master]

[quote name='Dave' date='May 3 2004, 02:38 PM'] But these local churches weren't different denominations. They were part of the Catholic Church. These churches all believed the exact same things doctrinally, and so, although in different areas, they were in union with St. Peter, the first popel [/quote]
a) You know as well as I that I don't believe Peter was the first Pope
b) They did not believe all the same things doctrinally, what the heck is the point of all these letters to correct them then.
c) They, under the general rules of a denomination would have been different ones as they had their own leaders, and until later on did not have a complete infrastructure to connect them all. Even Titus as he was sent to Crete was still just appointing leaders of each individual church.

[quote]Nope, evolution of doctrine is a fact; it's no one's personal interpretation.  Over the years the Church comes to understand doctrines more clearly and gains new insights into them  But the Church NEVER understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.  And Jesus' promise didn't just extend to the apostles but also their successors.[/quote]
You know again that I disagree on apostolic succession. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate apostles have the ability to hand down their God given gifts, and the lack of the miracles proceeding the Apostles is indication enough that they ceased. Of course your church will grow and hardly ever contradict itself when earlier statements are irrevocable! There is only one direction to go! That is a manmade limitation, which will continue to draw the church into other areas.

[quote]Yes it DOES say the Church won't be overcome.  Didn't Jesus say the gates of hell would never prevail against it?[/quote]
Yeah? And what does that have to do with prevailing? That means that when the Church advances to the [b]gates[/b] of hell, they will not stand. It does not mean that the church will never mess up. Another intrepretation takes the word hades (it is not hell in the greek) and shows that death will never prevail because the firstfruits, Christ, has already been raised.

[quote]If you say the Church today doesn't teach the same truths that it did back then, then you are indeed saying the gates of hell prevailed against it.  If the Church today doesn't teach the same things it did back then, then that means the Church today teaches lies.  Satan is the author of lies.  Therefore, that would mean the gates of hell had prevailed.  But the Church doesn't teach lies now, nor did it ever.[/quote]
Already discussed the verse, read above. You are mixing the Church Christ founded with the Catholic Church again. Yes, it would mean that Satan is leading the Catholic Church if it is not following Christ. Hopefully the leaders of the Catholic Church are godly men who have submitted to Christ and have called on Him for their salvation and are now being enlightened and influenced by the Holy Spirit.

[quote]You don't realize that the local Church groups are part of the Catholic Church -- all teaching the exact same doctrines.[/quote]
Refer to first response from first paragraph-

[quote]Yet again, you don't seem to realize that the universal Church is visible, not invisible.  Jesus established one Church, not a collection of competing Churches that can't agree on every single doctrine.[/quote]
It is obvious that there is a universal Church. You agree that saints are in the Church, and you agree that there are some saints that are dead. Therefore, they do not belong to the invisible church, but to the universal church. Or, the alternative is to say that they do not belong to the church anymore. Take your pick, you agree, or the church that Christ will wed will be only those alive when He returns and not all believers beginning from Pentecost until His return.

[quote]Please consider what Ironmonk and others are telling you.  If you came here to learn, it won't do for you to fail to consider our arguments.[/quote]
You have had 0 good arguments thus far. If you find something that causes me to need to chew for a little bit that would be awesome, but you won't even consider what I'm saying so far. You keep arguing against some pseudo-protestantism that you have created in your minds.

[Circle_Master]

There are certain things which are undeniable.

One is that an Apostle has certain requirements and what is in the Catholic Church today cannot be the same as an original apostle. The Catholic Church adjusts this by saying they have the authority, and the direction of God, but not the gifts of the Apostles. Protestantism says they aren't apostles and do not have the authority.

Another is that there is a universal Church. A universal church merely means this -- that there is a single organism of believers that Christ will be wed to today. You have the local church part right, there is one. However, when one dies, he ceases to be part of the local church. If there is no universal church, the one who dies ceases to be part of that which Christ will wed and only those alive at Christ's return will be wed to Him. There must be a universal Church.

If you want to build off of similarities, the first is to acknowledge these two points. 1) That your 'apostolic authority' is not attested in Scripture according to what an Apostle is, and 2) That there is a universal Church consisting of all believers in Jesus Christ.

[the lumberjack]

Amen brother!

*gives CircleMaster, a good, hearty, pat on the back*

[Archangel]

You can learn about Apostolic Succession over here in the Reference section: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=4690"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=4690[/url]

[ironmonk]

[quote]There are certain things which are undeniable.

One is that an Apostle has certain requirements and what is in the Catholic Church today cannot be the same as an original apostle. The Catholic Church adjusts this by saying they have the authority, and the direction of God, but not the gifts of the Apostles. Protestantism says they aren't apostles and do not have the authority.[/quote]

The Catholic Church does not say that there are Apostles. The Catholic Church bishops are the successors of the Apostles. They are the unbroken chain of disciples from the time of Christ.

The Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church have had numerous gifts of the Apostles... Also, there is no logic in that attack. Everyone receives different gifts.

The Catholic Church is the same Church as it was 200 years ago, 500 years ago, 1500 years ago, and 2000 years ago.

According to the writings of the first Christians and the bible, the Catholic Church does have the authority. See the link at the bottom for a few references.


[quote]Another is that there is a universal Church. A universal church merely means this -- that there is a single organism of believers that Christ will be wed to today. You have the local church part right, there is one. However, when one dies, he ceases to be part of the local church. If there is no universal church, the one who dies ceases to be part of that which Christ will wed and only those alive at Christ's return will be wed to Him. There must be a universal Church.[/quote]


The Catholic (Universal) Church means the Catholic Church with the successor of Peter.

Death DOES NOT seperate the heavenly saints from the holy ones on earth.

Eph. 3:14-15- we are all one family ("Catholic") in heaven and on earth, united together, as children of the Father, through Jesus Christ. Our brothers and sisters who have gone to heaven before us are not a different family. We are one and the same family. This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the "communion of saints." There cannot be a "communion" if there is no union.

Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - this family is in Jesus Christ, the head of the body, which is the Church.

1 Cor. 12:12,27; Rom. 12:5; Col. 3:15; Eph. 4:4 - we are the members of the one body of Christ, supernaturally linked together by our partaking of the Eucharist.

Rom. 8:35-39 - therefore, death does not separate the family of God and the love of Christ. We are still united with each other, even beyond death.

Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30 - Jesus converses with "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. The living on earth and in heaven are one family.

John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. The good branches are not cut off at death. They are alive in heaven.

Only the Catholic Church view has been taught since 33 AD.


[quote]If you want to build off of similarities, the first is to acknowledge these two points. 1) That your 'apostolic authority' is not attested in Scripture according to what an Apostle is, and 2) That there is a universal Church consisting of all believers in Jesus Christ. [/quote]


1.) You do not understand what Apostolic Succession is.
Get a learn on at:
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp[/url]

Please don't bother commenting unless you want to refute those articles... and please do so with some real historical evidence from before 1000 AD.

2.) There is a Universal Church, it is the Catholic Church. Those who think that they are serving God correctly are Catholic by desire.

Not all believers will make it to Heaven.

[b]St. Matt 7:21 [/b]"[color=red]Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.[/color]





Ref Link:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=5722&st=40"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...opic=5722&st=40[/url]



Get the facts,
ironmonk

[Dave]

[quote name='Circle_Master' date='May 3 2004, 03:48 PM'] a) You know as well as I that I don't believe Peter was the first Pope
b) They did not believe all the same things doctrinally, what the heck is the point of all these letters to correct them then.
c) They, under the general rules of a denomination would have been different ones as they had their own leaders, and until later on did not have a complete infrastructure to connect them all. Even Titus as he was sent to Crete was still just appointing leaders of each individual church.












[/quote]
Just because you don't believe Peter was the first pope doesn't mean that he wasn't. One of us is wrong, so rather than assume we're wrong, why couldn't you be wrong? Secondly, since the Church was in its early stages, there was always the possibility that certain people within the Church would teach incorrectly. But the Church itself CANNOT teach incorrectly. And as for having letters to correct the individual churches, well, that's not how it is in Protestantism. When there are disputes, people just leave and form new churches.

And the churches' own leaders to whom you refer were just the pastors of each church. Titus was a bishop, and so it was his job to appoint leaders.

[quote]You know again that I disagree on apostolic succession.  There is nothing in Scripture to indicate apostles have the ability to hand down their God given gifts, and the lack of the miracles proceeding the Apostles is indication enough that they ceased. Of course your church will grow and hardly ever contradict itself when earlier statements are irrevocable!  There is only one direction to go!  That is a manmade limitation, which will continue to draw the church into other areas.
[/quote]

Just because you disagree on apostolic succession doesn't mean it isn't true. And prove to me there were no miracles after the time of the apostles.

The reason why earlier statements by the Church are irrevocable is because they're true! Protestant churches, on the other hand, often revoke statements that were made in the past. Often they "change with the times," sad to say. Remember what happened with the teaching against contraception? All Protestant churches used to condemn it, but starting in 1930, that began to change. Now they all accept contraception as if it were something good and moral!

[quote]Yeah? And what does that have to do with prevailing? That means that when the Church advances to the gates of hell, they will not stand. It does not mean that the church will never mess up. Another intrepretation takes the word hades (it is not hell in the greek) and shows that death will never prevail because the firstfruits, Christ, has already been raised.[/quote]

What does that have to do with prevailing, you ask? Plenty! If the Church taught wrong, then it would be Satan prevailing against it. And then it would cause all sorts of problems! But you haven't proven that your interpretations are the correct ones.

[quote]Already discussed the verse, read above.  You are mixing the Church Christ founded with the Catholic Church again.  Yes, it would mean that Satan is leading the Catholic Church if it is not following Christ.  Hopefully the leaders of the Catholic Church are godly men who have submitted to Christ and have called on Him for their salvation and are now being enlightened and influenced by the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

You refuse to see that the Catholic Church and the Church Christ founded are ONE AND THE SAME. Protestant churches were founded by MEN.

[quote]Refer to first response from first paragraph-[/quote]

And refer to my first response from the first paragraph of my response.

[quote]It is obvious that there is a universal Church.  You agree that saints are in the Church, and you agree that there are some saints that are dead.  Therefore, they do not belong to the invisible church, but to the universal church.  Or, the alternative is to say that they do not belong to the church anymore.  Take your pick, you agree, or the church that Christ will wed will be only those alive when He returns and not all believers beginning from Pentecost until His return.[/quote]

There's no such thing as an invisible church, sorry. That's a man-made Protestant invention. And you also fail to realize that death has no power to separate one from Christ. So those in heaven are still part of the Catholic Church; they're known as the Church Triumphant. In the same way, the members of the Catholic Church on earth are Church Militant, and those who have died and are suffering in purgatory before heading to heaven are Church Suffering.

[quote]You have had 0 good arguments thus far.  If you find something that causes me to need to chew for a little bit that would be awesome, but you won't even consider what I'm saying so far.  You keep arguing against some pseudo-protestantism that you have created in your minds.[/quote]

0 good arguments? If you're not here to learn, then it doesn't surprise me that you'd think that. If you've already made up your mind that we're wrong, and you refuse to let anyone or anything convince you otherwise, then it's not surprising that you'd dismiss every argument put forth. But why are you so determined to believe that you're correct?

[phatcatholic]

circle,

correct me if i'm wrong, but it seems like ur fundamental premise (or at least one of them anyway) is that the power and authority that the apostles received from Jesus Christ somehow died w/ them and was not passed on to their successors. so, i will attempt here to prove that apostolic succession is real, and it is thru this that the apostles passed on their powers to the Church leaders we have today.

from scripture:

[color=blue][b]Acts 1:20-26[/b]
[b]20 [/b]For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.'
[b]21 [/b]Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us,
[b]22 [/b]beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection."
[b]23 [/b]So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.
[b]24 [/b]Then they prayed, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
[b]25 [/b]to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place."
[b]26 [/b]Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.[/color]

here it is only natural that upon the death of an apostle, another should take his place. are we to assume that Matthias has no power or authority? is here merely a placemarker? why bother with successors if the successor does not have the same power and authority as the one who came before him?

the apostles were intent on establishing successors, and they transferred their power thru the laying on of hands:

[color=blue][b]Acts 6:3-6[/b]
[b]3 [/b]Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,
[b]4 [/b]whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word."
[b]5 [/b]The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
[b]6 [/b]They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Acts 8:17 [/b]Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.
[b]Acts 19:6 [/b]And when Paul laid (his) hands on them, the holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.[/color]


Paul, though he spoke to the Lord himself, was not an apostle until hands were laid upon him:

[color=blue][b]Acts 9:17 [/b]So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, "Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit."[/color]


watch as apostolic succession continues to grow....

[color=blue][b]Acts 13:3-4[/b]
[b]3 [/b]Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.
[b]4 [/b]So they, sent forth by the holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and from there sailed to Cyprus.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Acts 14:23 [/b]They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. [/color]

[color=blue][b]Acts 15:22-27[/b]
[b]22 [/b]Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
[b]23 [/b]This is the letter delivered by them: "The apostles and the presbyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.
[b]24 [/b]Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind,
[b]25 [/b]we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
[b]26 [/b]who have dedicated their lives to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[b]27 [/b]So we are sending Judas and Silas who will also convey this same message by word of mouth[/color]


notice that here...

[color=blue][b]1 Tim 4:14 [/b]Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word 8 with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.[/color]

and again here....

[color=blue][b]2 Tim 1:6 [/b]For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands.[/color]

Paul is reminding Timothy of the gift of the Holy Spirit that he has received through the laying on of hands. also note that this Spirit is one of Power and Truth, given to the apostles by Jesus Christ to guide them into all truth.


[color=blue][b]1 Tim 5:22 [/b]Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another's sins. Keep yourself pure.[/color]

this underscores the importance of the gift Timothy has received.


[color=blue][b]2 Tim 4:1-6[/b]
[b]1 [/b]I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power:
[b]2 [/b]proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
[b]3 [/b]For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers
[b]4 [/b]and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
[b]5 [/b]But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.
[b]6 [/b]For I am already being poured out like a libation, and the time of my departure is at hand.[/color]

It seems obvious here (or at the very least quite possible) that Paul intends for Timothy to take his place.

here is succession yet again:

[color=blue][b]2 Tim 2:2 [/b]And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.[/color]

[color=blue][b]Titus 1:5 [/b]For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you[/color]


hopefully, what i have established here is that apostolic succession is a reality that the apostles were particularly engaged in. furthermore, they enacted this succession through the laying on of hands and it is through this action that the power and authority of the original apostles is passed on to subsequent generations of church leaders.

every bishop in the church has a role of authority only b/c hands were laid upon him by a bishop who came before him. that bishop has authority to pass on only b/c it was given to him by a bishop who came before him as well. the chain of succession and the passing on of authority thru the laying on of hands goes back to the very apostles themselves. it is a mystical, yet fundamental reality.

i hope i have been of some help and that i have been at least remotely effective.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

Edited May 4, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

circle.........i am interested in your response to my last post.

God Bless You bro,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

circle??

[socalscout]

We delved into this about 3 months ago. He said it was not the same Church. I replied by asking if he thought Christ lied when HE said HE was going to be with HIS Chrurch forever and Circle would only answer with, and I paraphrase:

"My Faith teaches that Christ does not lie. I don't know about yours"

That was all I could get out of him.