This is just a fire starter to all who consider themselves “Christians.” Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. Then go trace the succession of your own church. Realize that there is only one truth and any deviations from it make something a lie. I just wanted to make that comment while the election of the new Franco-Latin “pope” was still fresh in people’s heads. And no matter how long the lie exists for, it is still a lie. laters pk
[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
This is just a fire starter to all who consider themselves “Christians.” Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. Then go trace the succession of your own church. Realize that there is only one truth and any deviations from it make something a lie. I just wanted to make that comment while the election of the new Franco-Latin “pope” was still fresh in people’s heads. And no matter how long the lie exists for, it is still a lie. laters pk[/quote]
OK, so in your mind, which faith IS the only one that truly follows the proper Apostolic succession since you do not seem to think the Roman Catholic Church to fit this?
I thought he meant the Catholic Church was the one true faith.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I thought he meant the Catholic Church was the one true faith.[/quote]
I’m not so sure. I took it to mean a different faith in that he talks about the the [quote]Franco-Latin “pope”[/quote] (the pope part in quotes seems to be sarcasm to me). Also, something he wrote in another thread about priests marrying made me think he might be Eastern/Greek Orthodox. This is all speculation on my part for now so I am hoping for clarification.
Kuz
[quote]pkradgreek wrote:
Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. [/quote]
Please post the particular Scripture reference you are referring to in this statement.
Thanks,
Matt
I must have missed his Eastern/Greek Orthodox posting.
You are right the “pope” does make it look sarcastic.
If he does mean Greek Orthodox is the one true faith I would like to see his take on the history and the schism.
I have not thought about this subject for years. I have always felt it was more due to geography and politics and any theological aspects were just a cover.
Enlighten me!
True, the Roman list of the order of “Popes” is erroneous. The first bishop of Rome’s name was Linus who we know was there before Peter even went to Rome. The second bishop listed in the records was Cletus, and the third “anticletus” who the Romans list is actually a prepositional phrase meaning after cletus, yet the Roman church includes anticletus as if it were the name of an actual person. Then they went back and put Peter on the list.
Also note that the creed on the vatican itself written on silver and gold shields the original wording from the Nicean council which “Pope” Leo the great ordered should never be altered in any way, however in 1054, the Roman church officially adopted an altered form of the creed-violating the command of Pope Leo (who by their own theology should have been infallable) and excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople for holding true to the original creed as it is printed on the vatican and which Pope Leo declared should never be changed.
The problem of course was that Western Europe went through the dark ages. Popes were Kings. And its estimated that the “popes” through history have had a net total of over 1000 illigitimate children. At one time there were three popes, and a council elected one of them as the true pope, and then that pope whom they chose proclaimed that councils had no authority.
The Roman church is about money-that’s all (and I’m talking about historically) Some people in charge of the Roman church realized that western Europe was a pot of gold and so they invented a theology that put one of their guys on top. Then they killed millions of native people in America, Africa and Asia-more than any other organization in history. Easily the greatist genocide of all times.
I do think Pkradgreek that their was still some legitimacy in the Roman monestaries for a few centuries past this.
[quote]Matthew9v9 wrote:
pkradgreek wrote:
Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible.
Please post the particular Scripture reference you are referring to in this statement.
Thanks,
Matt[/quote]
I think he’s talking about the command of Jesus at pentechost and the verse that which is “possessed equally can be given equally” with regard to this, meaning that it takes an apostle to make an apostle-later applied to the bishops as well.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
The Roman church is about money-that’s all (and I’m talking about historically) Some people in charge of the Roman church realized that western Europe was a pot of gold and so they invented a theology that put one of their guys on top. Then they killed millions of native people in America, Africa and Asia-more than any other organization in history. Easily the greatist genocide of all times.
[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Mert. The Spanish Inquisition was one thing, but that last sentence is just completely off-base. The actual missionaries should not in any way shape or form be lumped in with those who conquered South America/Africa, etc. for the gold, slaves, etc. and tossed in the convenient excuse of “spreading Christianity” in an attempt to justify it all. Those are 2 entirely different things.
Kuz
[quote]Kuz wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
The Roman church is about money-that’s all (and I’m talking about historically) Some people in charge of the Roman church realized that western Europe was a pot of gold and so they invented a theology that put one of their guys on top. Then they killed millions of native people in America, Africa and Asia-more than any other organization in history. Easily the greatist genocide of all times.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Mert. The Spanish Inquisition was one thing, but that last sentence is just completely off-base. The actual missionaries should not in any way shape or form be lumped in with those who conquered South America/Africa, etc. for the gold, slaves, etc. and tossed in the convenient excuse of “spreading Christianity” in an attempt to justify it all. Those are 2 entirely different things.
Kuz[/quote]
True, but the Pope “Gave” the entire world to Spain and Portugal and I never heard of any pope excommunicating any of the conquistodores. Also there is evidence that the Franciscan missionaries in California would first cut off the hands and then execute any of the native people who didn’t convert within a week.
At one point, its estimated that 75% of the indigenous people living in China had become Christian under the missionary work of Constantiople, and when the Roman Catholic missionaries went in and tried to take over the churches there, they went back to Buddhism.
Also, again around 1200, the Roman church changed their theology that Jesus was physically present in his body the church and replaced the term “his body-the church” with the term “his vicor on earth-the pope”
At vatican 1, the council decreed that bishops were not a holy order-that they were just elevated priests-and stated that when worldwide communication reached the level where the Pope could communicate directly with each local church there would be no need for bishops. Then at vatican II they went back and said that bishops really were a holy order.
Its called manipulation.
So what is the one truth?
I also see someone noted papal infallibility here. The popepis not infallible in everything he does. He is only infallible when the Holy Spirit does not let him make an error.
The popes in the Church history have only twice spoken ex cathedra, i.e. making an infallible pronouncement. The first time was by Pope Pius IX when he declared the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, and the second time was by Pope Pius XII to declare the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.
The Church has had plenty of issues through the years, but I see a lot of people posting disinformation.
I can’t believe I am actually defending the Church.
Zap, I don’t think he’s saying “One Truth” with capital letters, but rather suggesting that there is only one objective reality, and hence only one narrative of factual events that may be considered “true” ; any deviations from this narrative must necessarily be false, as the ideal narrative must contains all true elements.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
At vatican 1, the council decreed that bishops were not a holy order-that they were just elevated priests-and stated that when worldwide communication reached the level where the Pope could communicate directly with each local church there would be no need for bishops. Then at vatican II they went back and said that bishops really were a holy order.
Its called manipulation.
[/quote]
This hardly constitutes some kind of critical doctrinal change to think it is some devious manipulation. So they changed - so what? What is being manipulated here? My every day life as a Catholic is practically unaffected by some kind of change in the hierarchy as to whether the bishops are a holy order or not. I also find it interesting how the Church is hit from all angles… criticized for being too conservative or unwilling to change and then when it does, it is being manipulative.
And I agree with Zap - popes are VERY careful about the kind of pronouncements that go to the level of infallibility (for instance, Pope John Paul II never supported female priests, but never took it to the point of making it an “official” pronouncement).
I am also finding it funny how this thread is taking on a life of its own while waiting for pk to actually fill us in on what the heck he meant in his original post. lol
Kuz
[quote]Kuz wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
At vatican 1, the council decreed that bishops were not a holy order-that they were just elevated priests-and stated that when worldwide communication reached the level where the Pope could communicate directly with each local church there would be no need for bishops. Then at vatican II they went back and said that bishops really were a holy order.
Its called manipulation.
This hardly constitutes some kind of critical doctrinal change to think it is some devious manipulation. So they changed - so what? What is being manipulated here? My every day life as a Catholic is practically unaffected by some kind of change in the hierarchy as to whether the bishops are a holy order or not. I also find it interesting how the Church is hit from all angles… criticized for being too conservative or unwilling to change and then when it does, it is being manipulative.
And I agree with Zap - popes are VERY careful about the kind of pronouncements that go to the level of infallibility (for instance, Pope John Paul II never supported female priests, but never took it to the point of making it an “official” pronouncement).
I am also finding it funny how this thread is taking on a life of its own while waiting for pk to actually fill us in on what the heck he meant in his original post. lol
Kuz[/quote]
Kuz that is a good point. I am Catholic and to be honest very little of what goes on in Rome affects me.
I liked JPII. Thought he was a great man. Benedict has big shoes to fill but I am hopeful.
In the end it’s about how you live your life and what you’ve done with it that matters. I think at some level religion is the fallacy of man trying to explian the concept of God in a way we can understand. God, having the supreme being’s sense of humor, created free will so he can watch the fun as we sort this religion thing out.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Zap, I don’t think he’s saying “One Truth” with capital letters, but rather suggesting that there is only one objective reality, and hence only one narrative of factual events that may be considered “true” ; any deviations from this narrative must necessarily be false, as the ideal narrative must contains all true elements.[/quote]
“One Truth” comes from the title, but I think he means only one true church.
I need to know which one it is. I would hate to worship at the wrong one. That just makes God mad.
[quote]Karnage wrote:
pkradgreek wrote: Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. Then go trace the succession of your own church.
This is one reason why I am a member of the LDS church. This is the only church that can claim, and does have true priesthood line of authority.[/quote]
Hoo boy, here we go. Karnage, while I am Catholic, my girlfriend is LDS (shocking to you I am sure) but that is part of why I sign out most posts “Return with honor” because its an idea I have a lot of respect for. I have a lot respect for your faith as well.
Now, I’ve seen all about the priesthood line of authority, but in reading a book by one of your own former presidents/prophets (I will find his name soon enough, my apologies for not thinking of it right now), even he remarked that either Catholics or Mormons can make the claim of true authority. Now, those are his thoughts and comments, not mine.
But at the very least, if you are going to come into this discussion and throw out a blanket statement like that, you should at least be somewhat prepared to back it up…
Kuz
- Return with honor.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
So what is the one truth?
I also see someone noted papal infallibility here. The popepis not infallible in everything he does. He is only infallible when the Holy Spirit does not let him make an error.
The popes in the Church history have only twice spoken ex cathedra, i.e. making an infallible pronouncement. The first time was by Pope Pius IX when he declared the doctrine of Immaculate Conception, and the second time was by Pope Pius XII to declare the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin.
The Church has had plenty of issues through the years, but I see a lot of people posting disinformation.
I can’t believe I am actually defending the Church.[/quote]
Your right. The pope is only infallable when he speaks from the throne. If so, why doesn’t he just do it all the time? Then he would never make a mistake. Papal infallability hadn’t been invented when Leo made his proclamation supporting the pre Pilioque creed. And by the way, Leo also declared that councils of all bishops were superior to the judgement of the Pope. This changed again around 1200, but for over 1000 years councils made theological decisions.
Also interesting about the Imaculate conception (of Mary). Most Roman Catholics I’ve talked to think that it means that Mary conceived Jesus free of original sin. When I explain to them that it actually states that Mary was conceived by her mother free of original sin they act as if they have never heard of that. The immaculate conception (of Mary) was invented because of a medieval understanding of original sin-that is was passed from generation to generation by the act of sex in procreation! This is a belief that most Roman theologians don’t even hold today which means that the immaculate conception (of Mary) is inconsistent with the current Roman theology of original sin.
I am curious what the other infallable statement (about the asumption of Mary) was-just a bodily assumption after death (which the councils had clearly stated 1000 years before) or that she didn’t ever die? which is against the teachings of the councils.
[quote]Karnage wrote:
pkradgreek wrote: Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. Then go trace the succession of your own church.
This is one reason why I am a member of the LDS church. This is the only church that can claim, and does have true priesthood line of authority.[/quote]
My Great great grandfather was one of the original apostles of the mormon church (Amasa Limon). My family still has his diaries discussing the great hoax that Joseph Smith was playing on everyone, and how much money they had made.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
Karnage wrote:
pkradgreek wrote: Realize the importance of Apostolic succession as stated in the Holy Bible. Then go trace the succession of your own church.
This is one reason why I am a member of the LDS church. This is the only church that can claim, and does have true priesthood line of authority.
Hoo boy, here we go. Karnage, while I am Catholic, my girlfriend is LDS (shocking to you I am sure) but that is part of why I sign out most posts “Return with honor” because its an idea I have a lot of respect for. I have a lot respect for your faith as well.
Now, I’ve seen all about the priesthood line of authority, but in reading a book by one of your own former presidents/prophets (I will find his name soon enough, my apologies for not thinking of it right now), even he remarked that either Catholics or Mormons can make the claim of true authority. Now, those are his thoughts and comments, not mine.
But at the very least, if you are going to come into this discussion and throw out a blanket statement like that, you should at least be somewhat prepared to back it up…
Kuz
- Return with honor.[/quote]
Every bishop of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalian church can trace their ordination back through bishops to one of the 12 apostles-with only a few minor question marks.
Oh yea, and Joseph Smith said that there were people living on the moon dressed up like Quakers and that black people were half demons.
Then, of course, the Mormon church had to explain that blacks were not REALLY half demons, they were just kind of analogous to being half something like demons in a good way ya know.
[quote]Karnage wrote:
This is one reason why I am a member of the LDS church. This is the only church that can claim, and does have true priesthood line of authority.[/quote]
WRONG. The LDS/Mormon “church” is not even a Christian faith by the loosest of definitions. The LDS “church” is rather better defined as a cult. The Mormons neither possess Apostolic lineage NOR do they preserve Apostolic teaching. Thus they have absolutely NO Apostolic succession. This cult/religion was begun in 1838 by a North American psychopath named Joseph Smith who lived his entire youth enveloped in occult rituals. Overcome by feelings of grandeur and demonic inspiration, he began to preach that he was God’s prophet, sent into the world to revive the Christian Church which he believed had completely dissolved.
Taken from: MORMONISM
One wonders how a religion claiming authority from Jesus Christ Himself could be so far outside the mainstream of Christianity. Based on Joseph Smith’s first revelation, that “all religions are in error,” Mormons believe that the great “falling away” foretold in Scripture (2 Thess. 2:3) occurred very soon after the deaths of the Twelve apostles, and apart from a branch in the New World, which remained faithful for another 200 years, the Church quite literally disappeared until its revival by Joseph Smith. This view of Church history flatly contradicts Christ’s promise: I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), and allows Mormons to deny the validity of the Ecumenical Councils where such fundamental Christian doctrines as the nature of the Trinity were elucidated. As for the Bible, Mormons believe it only “as far as it is translated correctly.”
Mormon Prophets can contradict the Bible if they feel they have received revelation to do so:
One of Mormonism’s greatest weaknesses lies in the fallibility and contradictions of its prophets. The Book of Mormon, for example, contains a passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews – God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in Him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing (Mormon 9:9)-- and other passages from Holy Scripture are contradicted by the revelations of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and later prophets. Mormon prophets have the authority to supercede the prophecies of earlier Mormon prophets as they see fit. One of their prophets went so far as to claim (contrary to even their Book of Mormon) that God DOES in fact change through time. New revelations can replace older revelations, and the faithful MUST agree with any new doctrinal adjustments. Young is said to have claimed that he could “write revelations as fast as a dog trots.”
Adjustments to the Mormon faith:
No less than four new doctrines and practices were introduced by the “Prophet” Joseph Smith in the winter of 1841-42. The most radical was polygamy or the “great and glorious principle of plural marriage.” Smith’s revelation on this subject was initially met with such resistance that the practice was kept secret for several years before it was committed to writing in 1843. Smith went so far as to tell his friend Heber Kimball that if he did not take a “plural wife”, he would lose his apostleship and be damned. (During the last five years of his life, Smith lived in polygamy with some twenty wives.) In 1890 a Federal law forced the Mormons to abandon polygamy, and they substituted the practice of “celestial marriages.”
Racist propaganda:
Mormon doctrine regarding blacks has also undergone revision. They had always taught that blacks were the descendants of the murderer Cain, and therefore they were inferior to whites and were not admitted into the Mormon priesthood. As the civil rights issue gained prominence, this teaching became a liability. In 1978, however, Mormon Church president Spencer Kimball announced that he had received a new revelation, and that the Mormon Church was now free to ordain blacks.
The Mormon cult can NOT explain how or why the Church which Christ directly ordained vanished after the last Apostle died. Instead, they find it easier to delude themselves into believing that after Jesus Christ ascended into heaven (as reported in the Holy Scriptures) He came back to earth, visited the Americas, and preached a dramatically new religion than what He’d preached in Jerusalem (according to the Book of Mormon).
*Interesting to note, the Book of Mormon is not supported by ANY archaeological evidence and has no correspondence to what is known of pre-Columbian civilizations. Mormon adherents seem untroubled by this fact, believing that it’s “just a matter of time” before such evidence is uncovered. Their claim that the American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites is likewise unfounded; they are of Mongolian stock, not Semitic, yet Mormons believe that Moses & the Jews traveled all the way to the Americas from the Middle East during the Old Testament era and preached the Mormon faith.
The Bible and the early Church in the post-Apostolic era easily stands up against the scrutinies of contemporary scholars on a historical, archaeological, & sociological basis. But the Book of Mormon can neither be justified nor supported by any of these systems. And as the true Christian Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, affirms that Mormonism is a demonically-inspired faith, other religions are quick to ridicule Mormonism as well, including the Jews who refute the testimony and teachings that their prophets and nation traveled to the New World during the pre and post-Christian foundation.
Flee from this demonic faith as you would from a ravenous lion!
This is what the early Church believed HUNDREDS of years before Joseph Smith came into existence:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/doctrine_ext.htm
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/christian_doctrine_ext_e.htm
Peace be with you!