Bruce S Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 At the Mass, all Catholics are witness to the death and Ressurection of Christ They are not "witnesses to the death and ressurection" they partake in the real body and blood, that is the biggest stretch of the imagination going. Come on now, saying all that partake of communion are the same as those that spoke with, interacted with, or visualised the corpus of the living and ressurected Christ is just nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 Pope is still in the higher office of Apostle that existed in the 1st century, but not necessarily (depending on his holiness (no pun intended, his as a possessive adjective and holiness as something he posseses so i meant how holy he is)) as great of a wonder-worker performing as great of signs What "wonders and signs" did JP I do, other than being alive for a few weeks after his election? I grant you, this Pope JP II, assisted greatly in the fall of communism, and to me, at least, that is one of the greatest events of our lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Aloysius - however, the Pope is still in the higher office of Apostle that existed in the 1st century, but not necessarily (depending on his holiness (no pun intended, his as a possessive adjective and holiness as something he posseses so i meant how holy he is)) as great of a wonder-worker performing as great of signs. and i hold to number two, all Catholics have witnessed His Ressurection, the way He intended it So you are saying you have a kindof... weak apostle today. Not quite a real one because he doesn't do anything like these miracles recorded as apostolic ones: Acts 3:1-8 - Peter tells a lame man to walk and he gets up and walks completely healed. Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow heals an entire group of sick people daily. Acts 5:16 - Peter's shadow drives out unclean spirits instantly. Acts 8:6, 7, 13 - Philip heals lame/paralyzed and drives out unclean spirits. Acts 9:33 - Peter restore Aeneas from paralyzation for 8 years to full health by a command. Acts 9:36-42 - Peter raises a girl named Tabitha(Dorcas) from the dead. Acts 13:11 - Paul makes a man go blind by command. Acts 19:12 - Handkerchiefs that had touched Paul's skin healed the sick and cast our evil spirits. Acts 20:9-12 - Paul raises a young man from the dead. Acts 28:3 - Paul cannot be harmed by poison. Acts 28:8 - Paul heals a man completely by prayer. And you are saying he saw the resurrected Lord in the eucharist? This is quite absurd - I hope you aren't serious about that. The passage is obviously referring to the entire Christ, risen and glorified. Just as Paul saw Him in a vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 i'm not saying that the passage refers to seeing Him in the Eucharist, i'm just showing you that all Catholics have seen Him die and rise. He wanted it that way. the 12 and their direct successors are "Apostles" in a special way, they spoke to the living Christ, they ALL performed great miracles, (except Judas i guess, he just killed himself for bein a traitor) anyway, the successors today are Apostles in the sense that they hold the office of the original 12. They lead the way in the Church the same way the 12 did b4. Not ALL of them perform great miracles anymore. <if they did the end-times obsessed protestants would proclaim the anti-Christs as the anti-Christ will be able to perform signs Jesus said> and about JPI, okay i said the Pope depending on his level of holiness and how much of God's favor rests upon him depends on whether he'd perform great wonders. God's favor didn't rest upon JPI that much, in fact it appears God didn't want him leading his Church. of course, it could have been just a coincidence, but nothing is coincidence when God's providence is in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 ohhhh... so apostles don't have to have signs and wonders anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 other than feeding the Church with the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, no it's not a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 other than feeding the Church with the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, no it's not a requirement. so in 2nd Corinthians 12:11-12 when it talks about the signs of a true apostle.. 11 I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. 12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works. it doesn't matter after Peter if they are false or not - you have faith they are true and have the ability - they just don't choose to use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 nope, an "Apostle" was a different thing back then. APostle means one who is sent. Those who were sent by Christ had an excess of holiness for they had been taught directly by Christ. now, the apostles nowadays were taught by Christ through His Church, which can produce holiness too, just depends on how much the people hear the teachings. it's harder to deny God incarnate than to deny God's messenger. in fact, some early Church fathers remarked that this is why an Angel was sent to Mary instead of God Himself, cause it had to be a choice and if God Himself came there was like NO chance she could have defied. so it's like the Apostles were taught directly by Christ and saw Christ's miracles and their faith was strong. This office of Apostle was different than the Apostle nowadays who has a higher chance of weakness of faith. The Bible verse here is talking about discerning Apostles sent directly from Christ, and you know it :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 so where is this 'other' classification apostles taught? There is only one type in Scripture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I don't believe that the Church teaches that there is any difference between the Apostles of Christ and the priesthood of today. They are one and the same. They are called to spread the Good News to all the ends of the earth. This, they do, as missionaries, as teachers, as university instructors, as hospital chaplains. They serve the poorest of the poor. They continue to offer the Paschal Sacrifice, as Christ instructed them. The first Apostles were truly priests, ordained at the Last Supper by Christ Himself. This ordination has successively been passed on over the ages. And the first priests were among the weakest. The first pope, the weakest of all: he denied Christ, not once, but three times. One of Christ's first priests betrayed the Lord for thirty pieces of silver!!! Talk about your priestly scandals. It doesn't get any worse than that, lemme tell ya. And yes, our priests do perform magnificent works: they forgive men's sins, they call upon the Holy Spirit and change ordinary bread and wine into the Sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (not too many prots claim to be able to do that!) and they expel demons as well (didn't you see "the Exorcist?") In addition to that, we have bodies of saints who've died hundreds of years ago, whose bodies are still incorrupt, we have Eucharistic Miracles, where Hosts have scientifically been analyzed and found to be human heart tissue, and the Precious Blood was determined to be human blood, having all the properties of FRESH blood, even though the miracle is 800 years old. Do a google search on the Miracle of Lanciano. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 :boink: :wall: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hey, don't take this personally....grin. Just accept that this IS the Catholic "wall" that you eventually come up against. When you have nailed something down, "Tradition" will ALWAYS win out over scripture. It bascially shows you where real AUTHORITY lies, it lie in the current teachings of the Catholic Church. It has to be that way to defend the illogic that permeats some of their distinctives. Hey, they are GOOD PEOPLE shackled to a system of control, always, there is a non-elected man sitting there with a rule or two that ensures control over the laity. They almost alway submit with grace and dignity. In reality, you have to love these Catholics on this board, wonderful people, who truly want to know God, they just have this rule book that is larger than ours. To us, things that are crystal clear are just not going to compute when run through the Catholic fiddlers and church teachings. And the predgudice that introduces towards anyone that might have a biblical only mindset is plain, but they ARE doing what they believe, and they ARE going to defend the Catholic Church ... all of it ... the solid teachings, and less solid ones. Programming reguires that. It is a totality, take it all, or you are wrong. We don't view the world as a unified system, from birth to death, defined by our denominations. Just different ways of filtering the crazy world we are born in sin into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 bruce, where has logic fallen apart in this thread? <sigh>.........no need to comment on the rest of ur post i'll leave that to others. ur my dawg bruce, i gotta love ya...... phatcatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce S Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 ur my dawg bruce, i gotta love ya...... Woof woof! Hey, I'm not a Catholic remember, so I'm just going to see things through a different fiddler and perspective. I can discern things in MY denomination that are odd, and shy away from our excesses, to me, a denomination doesn't totally define a belief, it is a guide to a deeper understanding and quest to know God, it isn't "God in the flesh" defining and determining the totality of God. Massive disconnect from others here, I know, but if you want Protestants here in your site, for debating partners, you have to take the scripture warriors along with the interdenominational sceptics, count me in the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy the Ninja Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hey, I'm not a Catholic remember, so I'm just going to see things through a different fiddler and perspective. Technically Bruce, you are a Catholic. Just a very bad one! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now