...virtual cultists. I was raised Catholic, of course, but I always was bored to death at Mass. In talking on-line to some Catholics, they are positively sold on the belief that the Church is the true church of Jesus and that anything the Pope says is as relevant as anything that's in the Bible. Then there are writings that came AFTER the Bible that they are positive are the actual words of God. The concept of "apostolic succession" is bizarre to me, bizarre and untrue. Â
While I know for a fact that there are many, many, Godly Catholics in the Church, I do believe that it is a flawed system and does NOT represent the will of God. Â
With all that said, I presume that every denomination has its share of "hard chore" followers.
Interesting. I just had a student do research on apostolic secession and papal infallibility. He did a great job as he is entering Seminary right out of high school. He has chosen to pursue his vocation with the church.
He linked Bible passages with later writings. He really found a lot of personal enrichment from the research process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(05-12-2022, 08:33 AM)Georgem80 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. I just had a student do research on apostolic secession and papal infallibility. He did a great job as he is entering Seminary right out of high school. He has chosen to pursue his vocation with the church.
He linked Bible passages with later writings. He really found a lot of personal enrichment from the research process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we go by "later writings", then I suppose anything can be "God's word".
(05-12-2022, 09:04 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2022, 08:33 AM)Georgem80 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting. I just had a student do research on apostolic secession and papal infallibility. He did a great job as he is entering Seminary right out of high school. He has chosen to pursue his vocation with the church.
He linked Bible passages with later writings. He really found a lot of personal enrichment from the research process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If we go by "later writings", then I suppose anything can be "God's word".
He didn’t claim them to be God’s word. The later writings are an interpretation of God’s word by leaders of the time. The research method is called historical ethnography. But he did use passages as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If apostolic succession is true, why is it that modern priests lack the ability to cure disease?
Matthew 10:1
English Standard Version
The Twelve Apostles
10 (A)And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
(05-12-2022, 09:22 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ]If apostolic succession is true, why is it that modern priests lack the ability to cure disease?
Matthew 10:1
English Standard Version
The Twelve Apostles
10 (A)And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
And who says the original 12 had the power? Was the meaning more spiritual and not physical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(05-12-2022, 09:30 AM)Georgem80 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2022, 09:22 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ]If apostolic succession is true, why is it that modern priests lack the ability to cure disease?
Matthew 10:1
English Standard Version
The Twelve Apostles
10 (A)And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
And who says the original 12 had the power? Was the meaning more spiritual and not physical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just gave you the verse. Yes, the apostles were given the ability to cure disease. Â
Apostolic succession doesn't exist and never did.
(05-12-2022, 10:31 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2022, 09:30 AM)Georgem80 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2022, 09:22 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ]If apostolic succession is true, why is it that modern priests lack the ability to cure disease?
Matthew 10:1
English Standard Version
The Twelve Apostles
10 (A)And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
And who says the original 12 had the power? Was the meaning more spiritual and not physical?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just gave you the verse. Yes, the apostles were given the ability to cure disease. Â
Apostolic succession doesn't exist and never did.
So, in James when it says for the sick to call for the priest, which is the basis for the sacrament Anointing of the Sick can’t be construed as the power of priests to spiritually heal?
Or in Acts when Judas was replaced and Matthias was granted the same power of the other 11….wouldn’t that be an act of apostolic succession?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
George, why can't priests heal blindness?
(05-12-2022, 11:14 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ]George, why can't priests heal blindness?
Ok so that’s your one argument. And you’re not open to any other possibilities. Good talk. Lesson learned. Maybe it’s God’s will.
I’ll counter that healing is a spiritual healing. I have two different biblical references that could have that interpretation. I’ll counter that Saints have their own miracles.
But, like ALL religion it’s about faith and interpretation.
I am far from a Catholic “cult†member. (Currently on sabbatical from the building, but still faithful) Although, I’d say all religion is a cult.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The apostles were given special powers so that witnesses to their deeds would be convinced and become followers and teachers. Essentially, they did Jesus did times 12. However, those powers died with them. We can surmise that God never intended for their successors to also share such powers. Â
Modern priests can share the word but they cannot replicate what the original apostles did with regard to curing blindness or casting out demons. So why is this a point of contention with you?
(05-12-2022, 11:34 AM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ]The apostles were given special powers so that witnesses to their deeds would be convinced and become followers and teachers. Essentially, they did Jesus did times 12. However, those powers died with them. We can surmise that God never intended for their successors to also share such powers. Â
Modern priests can share the word but they cannot replicate what the original apostles did with regard to curing blindness or casting out demons. So why is this a point of contention with you?
No contention, just trying to idk add to the discussion, that even though you posted weren’t open to hearing. Typical non-Catholic. I gave you church teachings and biblical references. Why create the topic? Was it to bash the diehard Catholics? Or was it to somehow make you feel better about your faith.
I disagree with a lot of the catechism, even a sacrament, But, I don’t rail on others who believe it. Faith is personal and really only between a person and their deity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Show me Biblical verses to support apostolic succession. Either way, it's certainly ok with me if others believe in that concept. It's certainly better than being a Satanist. Â
(05-12-2022, 12:27 PM)K9Buck Wrote: [ -> ]Show me Biblical verses to support apostolic succession. Either way, it's certainly ok with me if others believe in that concept. It's certainly better than being a Satanist. Â
Well the Matthias story is 1st chapter of Acts.
The anointing of the sick reference was in James 2 or 5. I can’t remember.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually George, I often defend Catholics. Some protestants believe that Catholics are going to Hell but I remind them that protestants and Catholics share the same CORE beliefs.