How This Really Works?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='reyb' post='1296516' date='Jun 16 2007, 06:32 AM']Where can I get it?[/quote]

Go to a Coptic Church.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296479' date='Jun 16 2007, 05:36 AM']Except that at the Council of Constantinople, Pope Damascus I wasn't even present and neither were any of his biships. The Council wrote in it's documents that it was affirmed by the Holy Spirit, not a man.

Reza[/quote]

As they should. So what was your point exactly?

Kiris

[Budge]

I wrote this some time ago, but applies to this thread...

1. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Peter was the head of all of the apostles even though no such title was given to him in scripture and there is nothing BIblical to show this! Paul rebuked Peter even, James was a leader of one meeting...

2. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Popes represent Christ on earth when Jesus had no place to lie his head and many Popes lived in extreme luxury (especially in earlier times) Popes used to be carried on ornate thrones and wore jewelwed crowns? Can we imagine Jesus doing the same? Jesus washed feet of his disciples and others. Popes used to have kings kiss their feet in the Middle Ages.

3. Somehow we are supposed to believe the even the USCCB with paganistic Mahoney and friends, just about all Left of Al Gore hold some type of special charisma to lead Christians. Somehow we are supposed to believe this even with the sex scandals. Sex abusers are everywhere. One thing CAtholics dont realize is people are as upset by the coverup. The sex scandals still continue....
www.ncrnews.org/abuse/

4. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Borgia Popes, murders, adulterers, Pope Innocence III who mandated that torture was ok in the Middle Ages, Popes even like Sergius II who murdered for the Papal throne were carrying this special charisma. One thing about the excuse Catholics use about following evil church leaders. King David repented. These men never did.

5.Somehow we are supposed to believe there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession when Catholics cant even agree among themselves to the numbers of Popes and more-www.sxws.com/charis/pope-20.htm

6. Somehow we are supposed to believe that even though Jesus warned that there would be those naming themselves as Christ as false prophets that the Pope is Christ's representative on earth and priests acting "in the person of Christ"--as detailed on another thread.

7. Somehow we are to believe that this Popes authority is supreme and ultimate even as he has dedicated his papacy to Mary and prays more to her then Jesus. We are supposed to accept this?

[quote]VICAR OF JESUS CHRIST, The. The pope, who as visible head of the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, represents Christ on earth, and is therefore supreme in authority[/quote]Christ never instituted a Pope in the Bible.

Well Its not believable. Its about mental control. Its about taking authority from Gods Word and giving it TO THEMSELVES!

From www.justforcatholics.org

[quote]
:Apostolic succession

Question The Catholic Church teaches the truth because the doctrines of Christ and the apostles have been preserved through an unbroken line of Catholic bishops. All over the world, all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations. What are your comments?

Answer In Catholic theology, apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. Apostolic succession is supposedly the guarantee that the modern Catholic Church teaches the pure doctrines of Christ.

Now, if this rule of succession guarantees doctrinal purity, why can’t others also apply it, say the Eastern Orthodox Church? They too rightly claim apostolic succession, and yet they contradict the Roman Church on the fundamental question of the primacy and universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. Clearly something more than ‘apostolic succession’ is needed to know whether a given doctrine is true or not.

Church leaders should teach faithful men, who in turn would teach others, and hence the Gospel is transmitted from one generation to another. “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:2).

]b\However, the mere lineal succession of bishops/elders/pastors does not in itself guarantee the preservation and purity of the original message.[/b]

[u] First of all, the bishops are not apostles, nor do they have the same authority of the apostles. The apostles were a unique group of men who were commissioned by Christ to lay down the foundation of the church. The elders of the church were less than the apostles.[/u]

[b] Moreover, the apostle Paul warned the bishops of the church of Ephesus “ that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29,30). It is noted that some of the “grievous wolves” originated from among the legitimate bishops of the church of Ephesus. They too would speak “perverse things.” Clearly then, even though those bishops could rightly claim “apostolic succession” (according to the Roman Catholic concept) still their doctrines were perverse.[/b]

Historically, the priests, Levites and the religious leaders of Israel were the ‘successors’ of Moses and the prophets, yet by the time of Christ, they were teaching all sorts of false doctrines and had filled the house of Israel with leaven. It became necessary for the early Christians to depart from them because they were not faithfully teaching the doctrines of the Scriptures.

I hope that many Catholic people will see the emptiness of the Catholic bishops’ claim to infallible authority merely because of historical lineage. They remind me of the Jewish leaders who were often bragging that they had Abraham as their father. Do you remember how the Lord rebuked them, “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). Concerning these successors of the Patriarchs, Jesus warned His disciples to “take heed and beware of the leaven – the doctrine - of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (Matthew 16:6). This principle applies today as much as it ever did before.[/quote]

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Budge' post='1296534' date='Jun 16 2007, 10:40 AM']I wrote this some time ago, but applies to this thread...

1. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Peter was the head of all of the apostles even though no such title was given to him in scripture and there is nothing BIblical to show this! Paul rebuked Peter even, James was a leader of one meeting...

2. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Popes represent Christ on earth when Jesus had no place to lie his head and many Popes lived in extreme luxury (especially in earlier times) Popes used to be carried on ornate thrones and wore jewelwed crowns? Can we imagine Jesus doing the same? Jesus washed feet of his disciples and others. Popes used to have kings kiss their feet in the Middle Ages.

3. Somehow we are supposed to believe the even the USCCB with paganistic Mahoney and friends, just about all Left of Al Gore hold some type of special charisma to lead Christians. Somehow we are supposed to believe this even with the sex scandals. Sex abusers are everywhere. One thing CAtholics dont realize is people are as upset by the coverup. The sex scandals still continue....
www.ncrnews.org/abuse/

4. Somehow we are supposed to believe that Borgia Popes, murders, adulterers, Pope Innocence III who mandated that torture was ok in the Middle Ages, Popes even like Sergius II who murdered for the Papal throne were carrying this special charisma. One thing about the excuse Catholics use about following evil church leaders. King David repented. These men never did.

5.Somehow we are supposed to believe there is an unbroken line of apostolic succession when Catholics cant even agree among themselves to the numbers of Popes and more-www.sxws.com/charis/pope-20.htm

6. Somehow we are supposed to believe that even though Jesus warned that there would be those naming themselves as Christ as false prophets that the Pope is Christ's representative on earth and priests acting "in the person of Christ"--as detailed on another thread.

7. Somehow we are to believe that this Popes authority is supreme and ultimate even as he has dedicated his papacy to Mary and prays more to her then Jesus. We are supposed to accept this?

Christ never instituted a Pope in the Bible.

Well Its not believable. Its about mental control. Its about taking authority from Gods Word and giving it TO THEMSELVES!

From www.justforcatholics.org[/quote]

Typical anti-Catholic

so typical anti-Catholic rhetoric deserves simple Catholic answers. my time is more valuable.

1. Does it need to? Seeing that the Bible was a book of sacred Scriptures composed by the authority of the Catholic Church.
2-4. We live in a fallen world. Men can be corrupted and evil. This includes popes. But the Church can't. That's why we still have the Church, no matter how many of you guys try to bring it down.
5. I don't see how disagreeing brakes the line of succession.
6. Speaking of false prophets, how about the ones speaking against Christ's church?
7. He prays to her more than Jesus? Wow. Please list specifics and please make sure to cite them.

[quote]Christ never instituted a Pope in the Bible.[/quote]What about that whole Peter foundation thing? By the way, FYI, Christ exists outside the Bible. You might want to look for him.

[quote]Well Its not believable. Its about mental control. Its about taking authority from Gods Word and giving it TO THEMSELVES![/quote]

Are you talking about Protestantism? :-)

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Kirisutodo333' post='1296564' date='Jun 16 2007, 10:27 AM']Typical anti-Catholic

so typical anti-Catholic rhetoric deserves simple Catholic answers. my time is more valuable.

1. Does it need to? Seeing that the Bible was a book of sacred Scriptures composed by the authority of the Catholic Church.
2-4. We live in a fallen world. Men can be corrupted and evil. This includes popes. But the Church can't. That's why we still have the Church, no matter how many of you guys try to bring it down.
5. I don't see how disagreeing brakes the line of succession.
6. Speaking of false prophets, how about the ones speaking against Christ's church?
7. He prays to her more than Jesus? Wow. Please list specifics and please make sure to cite them.

What about that whole Peter foundation thing? By the way, FYI, Christ exists outside the Bible. You might want to look for him.
Are you talking about Protestantism? :-)[/quote]


The problem is, they (the anti-catholics) wont admit it was the church, then the bible. They believe it was the bible first, if they believed otherwise it would defeat their "Me, Myself and the Bible" theology". Sure the old testament came before the church but the new testament is a product of the church. But the anti-catholics think christ and the apostles didnt found a solid church or orginzation, they believe they left em a bible to do whatever they want with. Basically they think it all lies in their hands, their personal interpretation. Which is so absurd.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296480' date='Jun 16 2007, 04:39 AM']No it wasn't affirmed at the Council of Nicea, it was the Council of Constantinople that affirmed the specifics of the Holy Spirit. To quote everyone's favorite source Wikipedia [which I have other sources that also affirm this]
Reza[/quote]

The definition of the Trinity begun at Nicea I was completed at Constantinople I -- QUOTE: At Nicea, by describing the Son of God as "of one and the same substance" with the Father -- consubstantial -- the Arians were overcome above all. Those who insisted on this word [homoousis] realized this as much as did the Arians themselves. To say that the [i]Logos[/i] was "of one and the same substance" with the Father meant that he was not simply "from God" or "like God"; it meant that he [i]is[/i] God in the full sense of the term, identical with the Father. It was thus the ideal for separating the orthodox [lower case] believers from the heretics [of the East], for to accept this term meant to abandon the teaching of Arius." END QUOTE
Source: [i]The General Councils of the Church[/i], John L. Murphy, Bruce, 1960, p. 30-31.

Arianism made the definition of the Trinity necessary.

Here's Columbia University's on-line article on Nicea:
[url="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm"]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm[/url]

Because Arianism didn't end in the East after Nicea I (325), the matter was again considered at Constantinople I (381), and the Creed was refined. That's why the statement developed is known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, abbreviated the "Nicene Creed." (The heresy of Arianism never infected the West as it did the East.)

(To those who may be unfamiliar with the terms, East means the eastern part of the Roman Empire, and West means the western part of the Empire.)

[RezaMikhaeil]

but again those issues weren't officially discussed until Constantinople I, that was the council that affirmed the Holy Spirit's divinity, not Nicea. Read what was written at Nicea and it confirms this.

[reyb]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1295188' date='Jun 14 2007, 11:18 AM']The Church is more than just roman, She is universal which is what catholic means. Which makes the saying "Roman Catholic" an oxymoron, somewhat. Roman universal? Rome itself is not universal, it would be like American Catholic Church, America is not universal.

Anyway I hope I make sense perhaps another will explain better. Point is the right terms would be Catholic Church or Holy Catholic Church since she is not limited to Rome alone.

[url="http://%5burl=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm%5dhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm%5b/url%5d"]List of Popes - apostolic succession[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm[/url][/quote]

[indent]Who is the Pope during 258AD -260 AD? (between Pope Sixtus II and Pope Dionysius)[/indent]

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1299368' date='Jun 21 2007, 04:21 AM'][indent]Who is the Pope during 258AD -260 AD? (between Pope Sixtus II and Pope Dionysius)[/indent][/quote]

Sixtus II was beheaded late in 258AD. The Church was under terrible persecution at the time. It took the presbyters in Rome a good year to organize another Pope given all the turmoil. Dionysius was made Pope in late 259AD. That list at New Advent merely rounded the dates poorly.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.

[abercius24]

With regards to other Apostles and Bishops (like Paul and Mark) not being Pope:

You will see a striking parallel between Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18 amidst very strong language from Our Lord. Here he embues upon the Apostles the power to bind and loose on earth as it would be in heaven. This language clearly demonstrates Our Lord empowering his Apostles with His own heavenly authority. But, you will find a difference between the two Chapters. In Matthew 18, the Apostles are given this authority collectively; but earlier in Matthew 16, Peter is given this authority individually. Peter's authority was unique and primary to the other Apostles. Furthermore, Christ changed Simon's name to Peter, which does mean Rock in Greek. You will also find that Paul refers to Peter as Kephas, which again means Rock in Aramaic. Given this, we can easily see that the Rock upon which Christ builds His Church in Matthew 16:18 is specifically a reference to Peter. Call Peter's unique, authoritative position what you want, but over the course of Church's history, we have come to call it the Papacy.


With regards to Other Rites and the Bishop of Rome:

The Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the Latin Church, but even the Eastern tradition has always recognizes the Patriarch of Rome as "The First Among Equals." Peter's seat has always been given Primacy throughout Church history.

Here is an article I wrote a while back on the topic of the Papacy. Maybe it can further help in your understanding of the spiritual significance of apostolic succession and the papacy:

[url="http://www.catholicqanda.com/PrimeMin.html"]http://www.catholicqanda.com/PrimeMin.html[/url]

--Abercius24 - Steve S.

[reyb]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1299374' date='Jun 21 2007, 05:15 AM']Sixtus II was beheaded late in 258AD. The Church was under terrible persecution at the time. It took the presbyters in Rome a good year to organize another Pope given all the turmoil. Dionysius was made Pope in late 259AD. That list at New Advent merely rounded the dates poorly.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.[/quote]
[indent]What happen to 'Apostolic Succession' if this is true?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1296479' date='Jun 16 2007, 04:36 AM']That's right, Peter wasn't a Patriarch of the Roman Church, just as St. Mark wasn't, among others because that wasn't the rites that they belonged to... St. Mark was the Patriarch of the Egyptian Rite [Coptic], so why would he be patriarch of Rome? That wouldn't make sense.
Except that at the Council of Constantinople, Pope Damascus I wasn't even present and neither were any of his biships. The Council wrote in it's documents that it was affirmed by the Holy Spirit, not a man.

Reza[/quote]

[indent]Reza,
Do you mean Peter is not the first Pope or leader of the Church founded by Jesus?[/indent]

[reyb]

[indent]Reza,
I thought Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Church comes from One True Church.[/indent]

Edited June 21, 2007 by reyb

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='reyb' post='1299409' date='Jun 21 2007, 07:25 AM'][indent]Reza,
Do you mean Peter is not the first Pope or leader of the Church founded by Jesus?[/indent][/quote] That's right, he wasn't the first "pope", he was the first Patriarch of Rome, just as St. Mark was the first patriarch of Alexandria Egypt, but that doesn't make Rome significant or "the head of the Church", Jesus is the head of the Church, no questions asked. Check the documents at the Council of Constantinople and you'll see that the Roman Pope wasn't the head of the council [infact didn't even attend], and that it wasn't ratified or "endorsed" or considered "official" by a particular patriarch saying so... but by the Holy Spirit himself.

The Roman Catholic Egyptian Rite [clone], the Coptic Catholic Church's own Patriarch, Cyril Maker even has reaffirmed that the western world is wrong in assuming that a particular patriarch was responsible for validating the Nicene Creed, because it wasn't but rather God himself.


[quote name='reyb' post='1299410' date='Jun 21 2007, 07:26 AM'][indent]Reza,
I thought Orthodox Churches and Roman Catholic Church comes from One True Church.[/indent][/quote]

They are the pre-schism Church, definately. That's what I'd been saying the whole time.

[Socrates]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299441' date='Jun 21 2007, 09:24 AM']That's right, he wasn't the first "pope", he was the first Patriarch of Rome, just as St. Mark was the first patriarch of Alexandria Egypt, but that doesn't make Rome significant or "the head of the Church", Jesus is the head of the Church, no questions asked. Check the documents at the Council of Constantinople and you'll see that the Roman Pope wasn't the head of the council [infact didn't even attend], and that it wasn't ratified or "endorsed" or considered "official" by a particular patriarch saying so... but by the Holy Spirit himself.

The Roman Catholic Egyptian Rite [clone], the Coptic Catholic Church's own Patriarch, Cyril Maker even has reaffirmed that the western world is wrong in assuming that a particular patriarch was responsible for validating the Nicene Creed, because it wasn't but rather God himself.
They are the pre-schism Church, definately. That's what I'd been saying the whole time.[/quote]
Not true.
Peter's primacy is asserted in the Gospels (Peter was the only Patriarch to receive the Keys of the Kingdom directly from Christ, as recounted in Matthew 16:18-19) and is confirmed by the words of the Early Church Fathers (pre-schism).
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp"]Peter's Primacy According to the Church Fathers[/url]

Here's a good article refuting Orthodox objections to the Papacy: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]PETER AND THE ORTHODOX: A REPRISE[/url]

Edited June 22, 2007 by Socrates