Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How is a church apostolic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How is a church apostolic?

    This is a term that is thrown around as if it is the be all guide to the one true church. But what does it mean:

    Merriam Webster -

    1a: of or relating to an apostle
    b: of, relating to, or conforming to the teachings of the New Testament apostles
    2a: of or relating to a succession of spiritual authority from the apostles held (as by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox) to be perpetuated by successive ordinations of bishops and to be necessary for valid sacraments and orders
    b papal - f or relating to a pope or to the Roman Catholic Church also : resembling a pope or that of a pope

    New Advent

    the term is meant to signify the ancient particular Churches which were founded, or at least governed, by an Apostle, and which, on that account, enjoyed a special dignity and acquired a great apologetic importance.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm

    Catechism 815

    profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

    -common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

    - apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.


    We can see this term is used in a number of ways. To me the word in relationship to the church should mean it follows the teachings of the apostles and acts like they did. The apostles put a great emphasis on being Christlike.

    The RCC likes to see itself as apostolic and this involves their made up succession. We know they are not apostolic in actions. They ignore the scriptures and the teachings of the apostles. No apostle prayed to Mary for example. No apostle in their writings focused on Mary. They focused on Jesus, the Lord and the Father. No apostle allowed sin to flourish. No apostle promoted the seal of confession. So on what grounds does the RCC think it is apostolic?
    Last edited by Balshan; 01-14-2020, 10:01 PM.

  • #2
    So on what grounds does the RCC think it is apostolic?
    because it says so and its followers believe whatever it says.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mica View Post
      because it says so and its followers believe whatever it says.
      Unfortunately that doesn't make it. It looks like they dont have any answers to my question
      Last edited by Balshan; 01-15-2020, 01:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Balshan View Post
        This is a term that is thrown around as if it is the be all guide to the one true church. But what does it mean:

        Merriam Webster -

        1a: of or relating to an apostle
        b: of, relating to, or conforming to the teachings of the New Testament apostles
        2a: of or relating to a succession of spiritual authority from the apostles held (as by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox) to be perpetuated by successive ordinations of bishops and to be necessary for valid sacraments and orders
        b papal - f or relating to a pope or to the Roman Catholic Church also : resembling a pope or that of a pope

        New Advent

        the term is meant to signify the ancient particular Churches which were founded, or at least governed, by an Apostle, and which, on that account, enjoyed a special dignity and acquired a great apologetic importance.

        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm

        Catechism 815

        profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

        -common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

        - apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.


        We can see this term is used in a number of ways. To me the word in relationship to the church should mean it follows the teachings of the apostles and acts like they did. The apostles put a great emphasis on being Christlike.

        The RCC likes to see itself as apostolic and this involves their made up succession. We know they are not apostolic in actions. They ignore the scriptures and the teachings of the apostles. No apostle prayed to Mary for example. No apostle in their writings focused on Mary. They focused on Jesus, the Lord and the Father. No apostle allowed sin to flourish. No apostle promoted the seal of confession. So on what grounds does the RCC think it is apostolic?
        A Church is apostolic if its doctrines go back to the time of the apostles and there is an uninterrupted transmission of these doctrines. It is not apostolic if it teaches new and novel doctrines that were contrived by some man 1500 years after the fact such as the false protestant sects.

        A Church is apostolic if its ministry goes back to the time of the apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her chief pastors. The various false protestant sects have broken their succession from the apostolic Church and continue to fragment and splinter into thousands upon thousands of contradicting sects. There is no unity of doctrines, worship or disciplines in the contradicting protestant sects.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

          A Church is apostolic if its doctrines go back to the time of the apostles and there is an uninterrupted transmission of these doctrines. It is not apostolic if it teaches new and novel doctrines that were contrived by some man 1500 years after the fact such as the false protestant sects.

          A Church is apostolic if its ministry goes back to the time of the apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her chief pastors. The various false protestant sects have broken their succession from the apostolic Church and continue to fragment and splinter into thousands upon thousands of contradicting sects. There is no unity of doctrines, worship or disciplines in the contradicting protestant sects.
          well you just proved the r cc is not apostolic as there is no uninterrupted transmission of doctrines and it has an interrupted succession of chief pastors.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Balshan View Post

            well you just proved the r cc is not apostolic as there is no uninterrupted transmission of doctrines and it has an interrupted succession of chief pastors.
            Brilliant rebuttal as always Balshan.

            Can you please show where there was a break in apostolic succession in the papacy or where the Catholic Church has taught contradictory doctrines?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

              A Church is apostolic if its doctrines go back to the time of the apostles and there is an uninterrupted transmission of these doctrines. It is not apostolic if it teaches new and novel doctrines that were contrived by some man 1500 years after the fact such as the false protestant sects.

              A Church is apostolic if its ministry goes back to the time of the apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her chief pastors. The various false protestant sects have broken their succession from the apostolic Church and continue to fragment and splinter into thousands upon thousands of contradicting sects. There is no unity of doctrines, worship or disciplines in the contradicting protestant sects.
              There is no apostolic succession after:

              Acts 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
              Acts 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
              1Pet 1:18,19 ... redeemed with ... the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post
                A Church is apostolic if its doctrines go back to the time of the apostles and there is an uninterrupted transmission of these doctrines. It is not apostolic if it teaches new and novel doctrines that were contrived by some man 1500 years after the fact such as the false protestant sects.
                the doctrines (beliefs) of the RCC don't go back to apostolic time.
                this is what the RCC has done and keeps doing.

                A Church is apostolic if its ministry goes back to the time of the apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her chief pastors. The various false protestant sects have broken their succession from the apostolic Church and continue to fragment and splinter into thousands upon thousands of contradicting sects. There is no unity of doctrines, worship or disciplines in the contradicting protestant sects.
                and you've made a spread sheet of what all of them believe and teach?

                those who are His do have unity in those things. catholics don't know what makes one a believer or how to identify believers.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

                  A Church is apostolic if its doctrines go back to the time of the apostles and there is an uninterrupted transmission of these doctrines.
                  Leaves your church out. No;
                  penance
                  purgatory
                  papacy
                  marian dogmas; ic, pv, assumption, theotokos...We could go on but it would just get embarrassing for your church at its lack of doctrine in the bible.
                  A Church is apostolic if its ministry goes back to the time of the apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her chief pastors.
                  Leaves your church out again...or still. There is no sacerdotal priesthood in the n.t. That was done away with. We have a priesthood of believers. No popes, no sacerdotal priests, no cardinals, brothers, monks, sisters, cloistered nuns. No one locked themselves in a monastery. The charge of Jesus is to GO and preach the gospel. The rcc does all it can do to nullify Jesus' commands. And excels at it.
                  Rom 5:1
                  5 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, NASB

                  Rom 5:6
                  6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. NASB

                  Rom 5:8
                  8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. NASB

                  Rom 5:10
                  10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. NASB

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

                    Brilliant rebuttal as always Balshan.

                    Can you please show where there was a break in apostolic succession in the papacy or where the Catholic Church has taught contradictory doctrines?

                    Why hey I have provided the gaps in sooooooo many other posts. Not only the gaps but the conflicts in who was pope etc But you have to admit the cadaver pope is amazing testimony to there being no apostolic succession. I know I jus can not help being brilliant and this coming from one who is not really in agreement with who is on the seat. By the way who do you think should be pope. What a joke.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

                      A Church is apostolic if its doctrines go back to the time of the apostles and there is an uninterrupted transmission of these doctrines. It is not apostolic if it teaches new and novel doctrines that were contrived by some man 1500 years after the fact such as the false protestant sects.

                      A Church is apostolic if its ministry goes back to the time of the apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her chief pastors. The various false protestant sects have broken their succession from the apostolic Church and continue to fragment and splinter into thousands upon thousands of contradicting sects. There is no unity of doctrines, worship or disciplines in the contradicting protestant sects.
                      So by apostolic
                      You don’t mean the primary definition which is following the teachings of the Apostles.

                      By apostolic
                      You mean it has the Catholic Church succession of Bishops and Popes
                      So by THAT definition; only Catholic Churches have the Catholic Church succession of Bishops and Popes
                      (That is the way your mind works: isn’t it)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

                        Brilliant rebuttal as always Balshan.

                        Can you please show where there was a break in apostolic succession in the papacy
                        I don't mean to state the obvious here MF, but who exactly is your pope right now this very second? If you don't have one wouldn't that be considered a break?

                        or where the Catholic Church has taught contradictory doctrines?
                        How about every dogma that is required to be believed for your salvation? They contradict scripture just by that definition. Salvation is through one person and one person only, Jesus; Acts 4:12. Then theres penance and purgatory which are nothing more than you atoning for your own sin. Something the bible knows nothing about. You really want to go down this road?
                        Rom 5:1
                        5 Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, NASB

                        Rom 5:6
                        6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. NASB

                        Rom 5:8
                        8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. NASB

                        Rom 5:10
                        10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. NASB

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Balshan View Post


                          Why hey I have provided the gaps in sooooooo many other posts. Not only the gaps but the conflicts in who was pope etc But you have to admit the cadaver pope is amazing testimony to there being no apostolic succession. I know I jus can not help being brilliant and this coming from one who is not really in agreement with who is on the seat. By the way who do you think should be pope. What a joke.
                          OK so admit you can't provide any specific examples. That's what I thought.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post
                            Brilliant rebuttal as always Balshan.

                            Can you please show where there was a break in apostolic succession in the papacy or where the Catholic Church has taught contradictory doctrines?
                            those have been posted on here over and over again.

                            answer what nondenom asked - who is your pope?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mysterium Fidei View Post

                              OK so admit you can't provide any specific examples. That's what I thought.
                              Well for you there is a massive gap isn't there, as you have no pope. When was the last time you had a pope? In fact, the retired pope and new pope disagree on marriage for clergy and you would think that on this issue the Holy Spirit would be guiding the church.

                              Of course now you just cannot go to the site that listed the gaps because the RCC has deleted the gaps. What about the time there where 3 popes. How do you know who succeeded Peter (who was never a pope) is it Linus or Clements? The ECFs don't agree on who succeeded Peter. There is a gap between St Marcellinus end of reign Oct, 304 and St Marcellinus 1 accession May 308 or some have it as June 308. You see the internet can be changed but books can not. The book's title is The Popes. This is just one of the gaps in this so called continuous succession.

                              But you have got to admit the cadaver pope was the best, what a story. He obviously didn't think his predecessor was really a successor of Peter because he put him on trial.

                              Oh that is right I just proved I could, poor you and there are more but as I said I have posted them several times before and so have others.

                              By the way the book has the nihil obstat and imprimatur, it was printed in 1956, author by Zsolt Aradi.
                              Last edited by Balshan; 01-15-2020, 07:50 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X