What are your thoughts about the Catholic Church?

[Vaderecta]

Yes? Yes, execute people for working on the Sabbath? Good grief. What is this world coming to?

Can I Honor God While Working on the Sabbath? | LDS.org Blog

 

[MJFlores]

How can you call it a fraud when it's there in black & white in your own Bible? Read Acts and the appointments the apostles make. Read some of the epistles, especially Paul's, whereas he tells different congregations that they should follow the words and leadership from those whom the Twelve have appointed. This is how apostolic succession was established, and it was from that group that chose the books in your Bible. If they were so "corrupt", then take your Bible and give it to someone else because you shouldn't believe that which was canonized by the "corrupt leaders" of the "corrupt church".

The rest of your post is just recycled word-mash, including some distortions from you that have already been corrected, such as the issue of "father", which I have explained at least twice here as coming from different words in Aramaic and Greek. I also explained the fact that "pope" was a title given later in time, and it was and is used in reference to the bishop or Rome.

Pope Linus - Bishop of Rome
Linus was, according to several early sources, the second Bishop of Rome, and is listed by the Catholic Church as the second pope. His papacy lasted from c. AD 67 to his death. Wikipedia

Born: 10 AD, Volterra, Italy
Died: 76 AD, Rome, Italy
Successor: Pope Anacletus
Papacy began: c. AD 67
Papacy ended: c. AD 76
Parents: Herculanus, Claudia

When this person "allegedly" succeeded Peter in the papacy, the other disciples were alive and kicking, namely:

• Thomas died AD 72
• Philip died A.D 80
• John died AD 100

These apostles are Israelites and received the Holy Spirit's gift. When Peter died, these 3 apostles still lived until their death.

And the apostolic succession, as the story goes went to an Italian named Linus. I think there was no apostolic succession and Peter never did become pope. It was a tale concocted to bring about some claims of authority of succession. But the fact is - it was all a lie.

 

[MJFlores]

While you make some good points, your arrogance overrides what you have to say, IMO.

Not my points it is just the bible is the truth not arrogance. Just bringing them out in the open.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

When this person "allegedly" succeeded Peter in the papacy, the other disciples were alive and kicking, namely:

• Thomas died AD 72
• Philip died A.D 80
• John died AD 100

I'm not a big fan of Ol' Pete, but the fact remains that Jesus supposedly gave Pete the "keys to the kingdom", so to speak, so it's really UP TO HIM to choose a successor, right?

 

[MJFlores]

I'm not a big fan of Ol' Pete, but the fact remains that Jesus supposedly gave Pete the "keys to the kingdom", so to speak, so it's really UP TO HIM to choose a successor, right?

The questions, dear Madam Kelly are:

Did Ol' Pete really assumed office of the Papacy?
Did Peter choose a successor if he assumed the Papacy?

The evidence and the circumstances surrounding Peter as the first pope weighs against it:

NKJV Matthew 16:19
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

The title POPE came from (Latin: papa from Greek: πάππας pappas,[1] a child's word for "father")
Pope - Wikipedia

The title itself is defective and Peter who received the Holy Spirit would remember that being called pappas or pope or father is against the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Then you have the circumstance that 3 other apostles were alive when Linus (the 2nd pope) assumed office. Linus who is Italian could never succeed Peter, assuming there is such thing as Apostolic Succession because 3 other apostles are more worthy candidates having been the original disciples of Jesus Christ and have received the tongues of fire as the Holy Spirit filled them. Acts 2

What are the possible conclusions?

1. Peter never became pope
2. Apostolic Succession is just a fictitious story to build some credibility and a connection to the early Church of Christ.

 

[pearl]

Yes and don't change the Sabbth from Saturday to Sunday. God said He worked six days and rested on the seventh. He made the seventh day holy and wants man to remember it. The church proudly admits that it worships on the first day of the week. And makes more excuses.

Acts 20:7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread".
In the Pauline communities, Sunday was observed as the principal day on which the breaking of bread, that is the Christian worship, took place. In the language of the Jewish milieu, "the first day of the week." Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath attending the synagogue for Bible reading and prayer. But Sunday was the new commemorative day, the "day of the Lord", and this before the close of the 1st cent.

 

[metis]

Apostolic Succession is just a fictitious story to build some credibility and a connection to the early Church of Christ.

You are ignoring what's clearly found in the Bible you claim to believe in because the appointment of leadership clearly shows up in Acts and some of the epistles, but here's some help for you:

Those who hold for the importance of apostolic succession via episcopal laying on of hands appeal to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of Clement. In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way...

Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men. According to Eric G. Jay, the interpretation of his writing is disputed, but it is clear that he supports some sort of approved continuation of the ministry exercised by the apostles which in its turn was derived from Christ. -- Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

Now, here's another question, namely why would Jesus appoint the Twelve to lead the church if there would be no leader of the church after them? Secondly, it was one of the results apostolic succession of the church that chose the canon of the NT, so how in the world could any acceptable canon have been chosen if there was no church leadership passed down to actually do the choosing? You keep on refusing to deal with this question, and I've asked you maybe a half-dozen times or so.

 

[metis]

This next item is from a Catholic source, but I'm using it because in concise words it shows some of the verses that verify apostolic succession:

Full Question
Why do Catholics cling so tightly to the tradition of apostolic succession when there's no biblical support for it? All you can point to are dubious opinions of a few early Christian writers.
Answer
We cling tightly to this tradition because it's true, for starters, and because all Christians are commanded to do so by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. For biblical corroboration look at Acts 1:21-26, where you'll see the apostles, immediately after Jesus' Ascension, acting swiftly to replace the position left vacant by Judas's suicide.

They prayed for guidance, asking God to show them which candidate was "chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away." After choosing Matthias they laid hands on him to confer apostolic authority.

Look at 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14, where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.

Lastly, please do better homework on early Christian writings. The testimony of the early Church is deafening in its unanimous (yes, unanimous) assertion of apostolic succession. Far from being discussed by only a few, scattered writers, the belief that the apostles handed on their authority to others was one of the most frequently and vociferously defended doctrines in the first centuries of Christianity. -- What is the biblical support for apostolic succession? | Catholic Answers

 

[Katzpur]

Not my points it is just the bible is the truth not arrogance. Just bringing them out in the open.

There's more than one way to do that.

 

[Katzpur]

Can I Honor God While Working on the Sabbath? | LDS.org Blog

Not sure what your point is.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

"Breaking bread" usually means eating a meal. So if early Christians met together on Sunday to share a meal, that was not a problem. But the church decided to say that the "sabbath" was changed from the seventh day to the first day. That is directly against what God said. You can share a meal any day that you want and you can even go to church any day that you want. But when you say the sabbath is changed from the seventh day to the first day, that is going against what God wants. And that is the biggest problem with the church. If they do not like something that is in the Bible they look for some excuse why they do not have to follow what God teaches.

 

[metis]

But Sunday was the new commemorative day, the "day of the Lord", and this before the close of the 1st cent.

And it also shows up in the "Didache", as on Sunday was the "agape meal" that celebrated Jesus' resurrection.

 

[MJFlores]

You are ignoring what's clearly found in the Bible you claim to believe in because the appointment of leadership clearly shows up in Acts and some of the epistles, but here's some help for you:

Those who hold for the importance of apostolic succession via episcopal laying on of hands appeal to the New Testament, which, they say, implies a personal apostolic succession (from Paul to Timothy and Titus, for example). They appeal as well to other documents of the early Church, especially the Epistle of Clement. In this context, Clement explicitly states that the apostles appointed bishops as successors and directed that these bishops should in turn appoint their own successors; given this, such leaders of the Church were not to be removed without cause and not in this way...

Writing about AD 94, Clement of Rome states that the apostles appointed successors to continue their work where they had planted churches and for these in their turn to do the same because they foresaw the risk of discord. He uses both 'bishop' and 'presbyter' to refer to these men. According to Eric G. Jay, the interpretation of his writing is disputed, but it is clear that he supports some sort of approved continuation of the ministry exercised by the apostles which in its turn was derived from Christ. -- Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

Now, here's another question, namely why would Jesus appoint the Twelve to lead the church if there would be no leader of the church after them? Secondly, it was one of the results apostolic succession of the church that chose the canon of the NT, so how in the world could any acceptable canon have been chosen if there was no church leadership passed down to actually do the choosing? You keep on refusing to deal with this question, and I've asked you maybe a half-dozen times or so.

Now, here's another question, namely why would Jesus appoint the Twelve to lead the church if there would be no leader of the church after them?

There was a leading minister [and he is an apostle] for the first Church of Christ. He decides on issues based on the scriptures should there doctrinal conflicts. And he was not Peter - surprise surprise! Acts 15:1-20

Secondly, it was one of the results apostolic succession of the church that chose the canon of the NT, so how in the world could any acceptable canon have been chosen if there was no church leadership passed down to actually do the choosing?

Should there be succession of leadership, it will be with the apostles themselves to be "apostolic" - from the original 12. Those who served the Lord Jesus Christ and those who were given the gift of tongues by the Holy Spirit. Not some Gentile who just heard the gospel and lives in pagan Italy. But from among Jesus disciples who joined the ministry and saw in their own eyes the Messiah. Three of them were still alive when "allegedly" Peter could not continue the "alleged papal office"

I say, the Apostolic Succession claim is a fabrication with the intention of artificially providing some credibility to make an institution holy and apostolic, claiming of a never ending break of line of succession. It has glaring holes in the story.

But if there is any consolation, it would make some of the popes' lives blockbuster Hollywood TV series, one of which is the House of Borgia.
House of Borgia - Wikipedia

The Borgias became prominent in ecclesiastical and political affairs in the 15th and 16th centuries, producing two popes: Alfons de Borja, who ruled asPope Callixtus III during 1455–1458, and Rodrigo Lanzol Borgia, as Pope Alexander VI, during 1492–1503.

I have Season 1 on my hard drive. I hope you have watched it too. Its quite entertaining and educational.
The Borgias (2011 TV series) - Wikipedia

 

[metis]

"Breaking bread" usually means eating a meal. So if early Christians met together on Sunday to share a meal, that was not a problem. But the church decided to say that the "sabbath" was changed from the seventh day to the first day. That is directly against what God said. You can share a meal any day that you want and you can even go to church any day that you want. But when you say the sabbath is changed from the seventh day to the first day, that is going against what God wants. And that is the biggest problem with the church. If they do not like something that is in the Bible they look for some excuse why they do not have to follow what God teaches.

To "remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy" was only required if one's Jewish, as non-Jews were simply not required to follow Jewish Laws.

Secondly, if a non-Jew feels some sort of obligation to follow the Decalogue, then logically they should also follow the other 603 Laws as found in Torah, whereas Moses says that they are all from God.

To put it another way, the scriptures say that the 613 Laws were from God and were passed on to Jews, starting with Moses, to tell other Jews to necessity to follow the Jewish Laws.

 

[metis]

There was a leading minister [and he is an apostle] for the first Church of Christ. He decides on issues based on the scriptures should there doctrinal conflicts. And he was not Peter - surprise surprise! Acts 15:1-20

Apostolic succession does not intrinsically mean that only Peter appointed leaders, which should have been obvious to you with what I posted in response to your previous post. Other apostles besides Peter made some decisions, as did Paul, so don't picture this overall process as just being like a straight line from Peter until today. It's more like a huge spiderweb that used all of the apostles and all of their appointees and all of the bishops who passed the gospel on, and it's been going on for almost 2000 years.

Should there be succession of leadership, it will be with the apostles themselves to be "apostolic" - from the original 12.

See above, because that is exactly what happened, with the proof being what the NT says and what historically happened. And further proof is the simply fact that you are using one significant by-product of apostolic succession: the Bible that you use.

 

[pearl]

Now, here's another question, namely why would Jesus appoint the Twelve to lead the church if there would be no leader of the church after them?

You are assuming that Jesus intended to start a new religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Secondly, if a non-Jew feels some sort of obligation to follow the Decalogue, then logically they should also follow the other 603 Laws as found in Torah, whereas Moses says that they are all from God.

I recognize that there are verses in the New Testament that can be construed to imply that the dietary restrictions no longer apply to Christians, but aside from that, I agree completely.

At the very least, I'd take all the rules carved in stone by God's own hand (i.e. also the ritual Decalogue - the "other" Ten Commandments) to have equal status.

 

[MJFlores]

You are assuming that Jesus intended to start a new religion.

He did.
Matthew 16:18
James 1:27

Apostolic succession does not intrinsically mean that only Peter appointed leaders, which should have been obvious to you with what I posted in response to your previous post. Other apostles besides Peter made some decisions, as did Paul, so don't picture this overall process as just being like a straight line from Peter until today. It's more like a huge spiderweb that used all of the apostles and all of their appointees and all of the bishops who passed the gospel on, and it's been going on for almost 2000 years.

See above, because that is exactly what happened, with the proof being what the NT says and what historically happened. And further proof is the simply fact that you are using one significant by-product of apostolic succession: the Bible that you use.

Think about it.

I don't find a shred of sanity why Linus [from Italy] would even surpass apostle Thomas, Philip and John [the favorite disciple of Jesus Christ]. These are super apostles, who saw and touched Jesus, ate and preached with Jesus, guarded Jesus and suffered with Jesus.

They received the Holy Spirit's gift. Healed the sick and drove demons away, preached the gospel and baptize people for Jesus Christ.

And they were by passed by an Italian nobody named Linus?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Do you agree with "Thou shalt not kill". Do you agree with "Thou shalt not steal".God carved ten laws in stone with His own hand. Most people agree with nine of them. But there is something about the seventh day that they can't accept. God says that those who love Him will keep His laws ( all 10 ). When you start making excuses you are really showing your lack of love for God. These laws are not only for the Jews because Jesus said to keep the commandments ( all 10 ).

 

[pearl]

And it also shows up in the "Didache", as on Sunday was the "agape meal" that celebrated Jesus' resurrection.

Yes. Didache (14,1), "meet on the Lord's day, break the bread and celebrate Eucharist." Also the Apocalypse of John," I was in the spirit on the Lord's day (Apoc. 1:10). Interestingly, the Christian antiquity considers Sunday not as the beginning of the week, but as its end. Jewish terminology had become customary, with Monday the second day, Tuesday the third, these numbers were retained, but at the same they counted beyond the Sabbath and Sunday became the eighth day. With the addition of the Slavic and Baltic peoples, and the Hungarians to Christianity a new mode of counting was introduced, with Monday as the first day, even now in Lithuanian Monday is first day, in Hungarian Monday is head of the week.