The succession of popes and their questionable behaviour

1Thess521

Well-known member
I believe it because I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ, I find apostolic succession through the Church credible both theologically and historically, and it makes sense of how someone with a bit of nous would establish a Church.
" believe it because I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ,"

show me where the brand name was established by Christ,
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
I believe it because I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ, I find apostolic succession through the Church credible both theologically and historically, and it makes sense of how someone with a bit of nous would establish a Church.
Catholics keep claiming that it is common sense the Jesus must have established an organization like the Catholic Church for Christians: i dont see where that reason comes from:

Was an organization that claimed infallibility and requires submission for salvation established for the Jews?

That view has more in common with Constantine, (who believed he ruled by the grace of God and as God's representative on Earth any disobedience to him was sacrilege) than anything found in the Bible
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
" believe it because I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ,"

show me where the brand name was established by Christ,
It's not a brand. "Catholic" means "according to the whole" or "fullness". It's the only Church Christ established. What's kind of ironic is it's the Protestant Churches that have brands: Lutheran Church (established by a man), Calvinist Church (by a man), Baptist Church, etc.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Catholics keep claiming that it is common sense the Jesus must have established an organization like the Catholic Church for Christians: i dont see where that reason comes from:

Was an organization that claimed infallibility and requires submission for salvation established for the Jews?

That view has more in common with Constantine, (who believed he ruled by the grace of God and as God's representative on Earth any disobedience to him was sacrilege) than anything found in the Bible
It comes from the common experience that people do things in community and communities need structure, especially where beliefs and practices can differ or be divisive. Jews did have an organisation: they had the Temple cult and a priesthood that controlled sacrifices; scriptural interpretation - which doubtlessly became more important in Second Temple period - was invested in the religious elite. Even Jesus conceded that they had teaching authority that others didn't have.

It comes well before Constantine. Just read what the early Church Fathers wrote, e.g. Ignatius.
 

mica

Well-known member
It's not a brand. "Catholic" means "according to the whole" or "fullness". It's the only Church Christ established. What's kind of ironic is it's the Protestant Churches that have brands: Lutheran Church (established by a man), Calvinist Church (by a man), Baptist Church, etc.
He didn't establish the RCC. It didn't exist in His time.

there were many different groups of believers called by different names in NT time too. Paul wrote to several of them... none of them were the RCC, nor did they believe what the RCC of later years taught or what it teaches today.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
He didn't establish the RCC. It didn't exist in His time.

there were many different groups of believers called by different names in NT time too. Paul wrote to several of them... none of them were the RCC, nor did they believe what the RCC of later years taught or what it teaches today.
So, there was no unified Church in NT times?
 

ramcam2

Member
yes:
1 Jon 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Acts10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”
so, who are the believers and who are the unbelievers? we may not be referring to the same thing.
 

ramcam2

Member
were the actions of Pharaoh, Cyrus, and Pilate God's will?
god's will is for the greatest good and that is the holiness/sanctification of all (1 Tim. 2:4-5, 2 Pet. 3:9). but, this does not mean he did not give us freedom to choose what we like. if men chooses a lesser good, god allows it but it does not mean he wills it.
 

balshan

Well-known member
It's not a brand. "Catholic" means "according to the whole" or "fullness". It's the only Church Christ established. What's kind of ironic is it's the Protestant Churches that have brands: Lutheran Church (established by a man), Calvinist Church (by a man), Baptist Church, etc.
Your institution has made it a brand and a contaminated one at that.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
It comes from the common experience that people do things in community and communities need structure, especially where beliefs and practices can differ or be divisive. Jews did have an organisation: they had the Temple cult and a priesthood that controlled sacrifices; scriptural interpretation - which doubtlessly became more important in Second Temple period - was invested in the religious elite. Even Jesus conceded that they had teaching authority that others didn't have.

It comes well before Constantine. Just read what the early Church Fathers wrote, e.g. Ignatius.
I asked
"Was an organization that claimed infallibility and requires submission for salvation established for the Jews?"
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
So, there was no unified Church in NT times?

Every local assembly in the early days of Christianity was autonomous – that is, self-governing. There was no federation of churches with a centralized authority over them. There was no denominations and therefore no denominational headquarters. Each local church was directly responsible to the Lord. This is pictured in Revelation 1:13 where the Lord I seen standing in the middle of the seven golden lampstands. These represent the seven churches of Asia. The point is that there is no governing agency between the individual churches and the great Head of the church Himself. Each one was governed directly by Him.

Why is this so important?
First, it hinders the spread of error. When churches are linked together under a common control, the forces of liberalism, rationalism, and apostasy can capture the entire ground simply by seizing the central headquarters and denominational schools. Where churches are independent, the struggle must be waged by the enemy against a host of separate units.

Second, the autonomy of the local church is an important protection when a hostile government is in power. When churches are federated, a totalitarian government can control them all by controlling a few leaders at headquarters. When churches refuse to recognize any centralized authority, they can more readily go underground at times of oppression.

Many governments today, whether democratic or dictatorial, try to bring about the union of small, independent churches. They say they do not want to deal with a large number of local units but with a central committee representing them all. Free governments try to bring about this union by the offer of certain favors and benefits. Other governments try to force the union by edict, as Hitler did during the Third Reich. In either case, the churches which yield to the pressure lose their scriptural character as well as their ability to resist modernism and to carry on secretly in time of persecution.

The history of the church speaks for itself. Wherever there has been federation of churches under a central organization, there has been an acceleration of decline. The purest testimony for God has been maintained by churches which are free from outside human domination.”

-William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, P. 1631-1632
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
god's will is for the greatest good and that is the holiness/sanctification of all (1 Tim. 2:4-5, 2 Pet. 3:9). but, this does not mean he did not give us freedom to choose what we like. if men chooses a lesser good, god allows it but it does not mean he wills it.


please make some effort to follow the context of your own posts
(it was not about free will)
you said
"what happens in the conclave is god's will."

so what?? What does that prove about your precious conclaves?
I posted in response
"were the actions of Pharaoh, Cyrus, and Pilate God's will?"

Yes, the actions of Pharaoh, Cyrus, and Pilate were part of God's will..
Do they deserve any honor for that?
Should we submit to them?

Now apply that point to your whatever point you are trying to make about a conclve
(hint: it is not about free will)
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
It's not a brand. "Catholic" means "according to the whole" or "fullness". It's the only Church Christ established. What's kind of ironic is it's the Protestant Churches that have brands: Lutheran Church (established by a man), Calvinist Church (by a man), Baptist Church, etc.
yes, the adjective catholic means universal:
However Catholic is a proper noun usually referencing (in this forum) the Catholic Church in Rome under the authority of a Pope.
At its best. the Catholic Church was once part of the catholic church.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Every local assembly in the early days of Christianity was autonomous – that is, self-governing. There was no federation of churches with a centralized authority over them. There was no denominations and therefore no denominational headquarters. Each local church was directly responsible to the Lord. This is pictured in Revelation 1:13 where the Lord I seen standing in the middle of the seven golden lampstands. These represent the seven churches of Asia. The point is that there is no governing agency between the individual churches and the great Head of the church Himself. Each one was governed directly by Him.

Why is this so important?
First, it hinders the spread of error. When churches are linked together under a common control, the forces of liberalism, rationalism, and apostasy can capture the entire ground simply by seizing the central headquarters and denominational schools. Where churches are independent, the struggle must be waged by the enemy against a host of separate units.

Second, the autonomy of the local church is an important protection when a hostile government is in power. When churches are federated, a totalitarian government can control them all by controlling a few leaders at headquarters. When churches refuse to recognize any centralized authority, they can more readily go underground at times of oppression.

Many governments today, whether democratic or dictatorial, try to bring about the union of small, independent churches. They say they do not want to deal with a large number of local units but with a central committee representing them all. Free governments try to bring about this union by the offer of certain favors and benefits. Other governments try to force the union by edict, as Hitler did during the Third Reich. In either case, the churches which yield to the pressure lose their scriptural character as well as their ability to resist modernism and to carry on secretly in time of persecution.

The history of the church speaks for itself. Wherever there has been federation of churches under a central organization, there has been an acceleration of decline. The purest testimony for God has been maintained by churches which are free from outside human domination.”

-William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, P. 1631-1632
If every local assembly was autonomous, how did the Council of Jerusalem have any effect? Furthermore, why would Paul have any more authority than Judaisers in the Church? Now, there was clearly a greater degree of autonomy for the simple reason that it's very difficult to administer a collective with such distance, less than ideal communications, persecution at times, etc. but I do think there was a deference to apostolic leadership, even if it was more diffuse.

I think William MacDonald is wrong. If anything, history has shown us that only a united Church has the ability to stand up to governments and protect the faith (though at times this is incredibly difficult too). If the state and Church become too intertwined that's certainly a problem, though.
 
Top