Just wanted to get some thoughts....
thanks in advanced
Jay,
Roman Catholic 's Apostolic lineage VS Christ's Invisible return in 1914--Which one is more factual?
by jay88 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
PSacramento
Well, the RCC can trace its "lineage" back to the very first chruch in Rome and via that, to the very first "church" in Jerusalem.
-
Cold Steel
Neither.
First, even if Peter ordained a bishop to suceed him, he most likely would have ordained him a bishop and not an apostle. And since the successors did not ordain other apostles and keep alive the Quorum of the Twelve, it stands to reason that the keys of authority, or the keys of the kingdom, were not conveyed.
How do we know this? First, there were many criss-crosses through the ages where competing popes vied for the supreme authority. Also, the church's unrelenting predisposition, or predilection towards innovations (doctrines and practices that were not scriptural, but adopted just for the hell of it) caused the church to drift away from the original church. In other words, the church adopted doctrines that were completely counter to that of the original church. Doctrines and practices such as transubstantiation, the wearing of gaudy outer vestments, the cessation of revelation and the spiritual gifts, the adoration and worship of Mary and "saints" -- all these were counter to the original church.
In the apocraphal Gospel of Thomas, which many scholars believe contain many of the original sayings of Jesus, the following is found: “The kingdom of God is like a certain woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking on the road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it, she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house she set the jar down and found it empty.”
Like it or not, this is what happened to the church. It was damaged to such an extent that all the contents (spiritual gifts) leaked out, leaving only an empty shell. Thus the church had the form, but not the substance. If Peter had coneyed the apostolic keys, that means that each and every pope since Peter was an apostle. And the apostles received revelation, and there were twelve. The church was never intended to be led by a single man. And what good is he if he cannot receive revelation from God? Thus, when girls think they see Mary, and hear her voice, the Pope is left to wonder if these girls have actually received a vision from God. If he's the head of the church, shouldn't God speak to him and not the girls? Why should he have to call for the vision and ponder over it for hours? If Peter were alive, wouldn't the vision come to him and not some obscure girls, especially if it was a message to the entire church, and to the world?
Catholicism doesn't wash because it's based on scripture and tradition. Any historian knows that tradition is not something one should base anything on. Tradition is full of falsities, which the scripture warns against. The "fruits" of Catholicism are not good, and millions of innocents were murdered by it. Some of the victims were later made "saints," though the ritual murder of Jews during the Inquisition beginning in 1492 were unconsionable. What's worse it the reaction of many Catholics when they wave their hands and say, "Oh, you're not going to bring that up again!" Well, of course we are. The church in the 1940s also turned a blind eye to the ritual murder of Jews by the Germans and the atrocities of the Italians. Could this really be the true church of Jesus Christ?
Just my opinion, though. Others may vary. The Jehovah's Witnesses may be responsible for some deaths through their blood doctrine (a totally contrived teaching), but those deaths are nothing compared to the blood on the hands of the Catholic church. Conversely, the Orthodox faith managed to avoid those corruptions. How come? They also may be tainted by the foibles of tradition, but they've managed to keep their hands clean. I think if I were inclined to the Catholic apostolic lineage that I'd become Orthodox instead. Again, though, just my opinion.
-
miseryloveselders
Maybe the RCC was being refined.
-
PSacramento
Cold steel,
I think you may be confusing "lineage" with "legitimacy of doctrines".
For their to be a lineage, all that there has to be as a traceability to ANY apostle and the RCC has that, I recall seeing the "tree" and it was pretty much historically correct.
As for the Gospel of Thomas, which scholars are those that believe they contain the origanl sayings of Jesus?
-
Terry
What is commonly thought of as early christianity is really from the letters of the only "apostle" who never actually met Jesus in the flesh and who apparently knew very little about him, his life or ministry: Saul of Taursus (aka Paul.)
The so-called "Twelve" which included Peter (the first Pope) were clueless about Jesus' purpose and his ministry and prophesy.
Stop and consider what that means for Apostolic succession!
For all practical considerations of Christian theology as such the source is Paul.
The Jerusalem congregation seems to NOT have been innovators beyond Judaism in the face of Paul's novel teachings.
What does this say as to the efficacy of such "authority" in vesting any subsequent church with successive transmissions of knowledge, teaching or orthodoxy?
As far as 1914 and the "return" of Jesus to sit on the "throne" and rule in the midst of his enemies.......what exactly has he been doing for the last
96 years than can be viewed rationally as being an accomplishment?
JW doctrine continues to change and prophetic utterances are watered down to the point of absurdity. Go back and read the gloom and doom pronouncements of the Watchtower Society in 1968 leading up to the ill-fated 1975 and you can plainly view the empty nonsense they claim is under the direction and guidance of Jesus Christ!
Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.
-
Cold Steel
I think you may be confusing "lineage" with "legitimacy of doctrines." For [there] to be a lineage, all that there has to be as a traceability to ANY apostle and the RCC has that, I recall seeing the "tree" and it was pretty much historically correct.
Nope. If you go back and look at my post, I raised the issue of two offices: that of apostle and that of bishop. Clement, who knew Peter, never once claimed to be an apostle, as Paul did in 1 Corintians: "Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ."
There was never, in the entire lineage, ever a statement that a bishop of Rome had been ordained to any office other than a bishop. There also was never any claims by any others, in their writings, that they were either apostles or had been entrusted with the keys of authority, or the keys of the Kingdom. Had Clement, or any other church father been entrusted with those keys, you can rest assured they would have so stated.
In the Apocalypse of Peter, also from the Nag Hammadi library, we have this interesting prophecy that seems to point to the Catholic Church. Jesus says to Peter: "For many will accept our teaching in the beginning. And they will turn from them again by the will of the Father of their error, because they have done what he wanted. And he will reveal them in his judgment...the servants of the Word. But those who became mingled with these shall become their prisoners, since they are without perception. And the guileless, good, pure one they push to the worker of death, and to the kingdom of those who praise Christ in a restoration. And they praise the men of the propagation of falsehood, those who will come after you. And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure. But they will become greatly defiled and they will fall into a name of error, and into the hand of an evil, cunning man and a manifold dogma, and they will be ruled without law."
The Catholic Church, in the minds of many, fulfilled this to the letter:
- For many will accept the true teachings at first, but will turn away.
- Those who come after Peter will sucumb to the "Father of Error."
- They will become without perception, killing those who are "good, pure."
- Those they reject and kill are those who "praise Christ in a restoration."
- They instead "praise the men of the propogation of falsehood.
- They will come after you [Peter].
- They will "cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking by so doing that they will be pure.
- They will "become greatly defiled, and "fall into a name of error" and "into the hand of an evil man...ruled without law.
The "dead man" has been associated with both Peter and Jesus. The church finally fell into the hands of a political ruler, Constantine, who usurped the claims to the Kingdom of God and substituted his own law and a "manifold" (or varied) dogma, and that the people would be ruled without law. Coincidence? Who knows?
Jesus also said, "For evil cannot produce good fruit. For the place from which each of them is produces that which is like itself."
The Catholic faith has not produced good fruit, for like produces like, and we've seen just what sort of "fruit" the church produces.
As for the Gospel of Thomas, which scholars are those that believe they contain the origanl sayings of Jesus?
- Father George McRae, head of the Harvard Divinity School in the 1970s, a Jesuit.
- Dr. Hugh Nibley, Professor of Ancient Scripture, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
- Dr. Thomas O. Lambdin, a leading scholar of the Semitic and Egyptian languages; Professor Emeritus of Semitic Languages at Harvard University.
.
-
PSacramento
CS,
I think your issues with the RCC is clouding your judgment, sorry.
But you are of course, entitiled to your opinion :)
-
Cold Steel
Well, okay, Sacramento. As they say, we'll see in the end. It's just that my "issues" are with the untold millions of dead people, killed by a church that claims to be the true church of Jesus Christ. If that clouds my judgment, and I'm wrong, I wonder what the Lord's words to me will be?
-
BurnTheShips
Cold Steel, I recommend this book to you:
http://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234
There is abundant evidence about the importance of the Petrine seat.
I'll put some here (please note the early dates for some of these and that some of the authors knew and were taught by the Apostles themselves):
Since you mention Clement, here he speaks with authority:
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
From the Shepherd of Hermas
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).
Regarding the Keys:
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
Ignatius of Antioch:
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).Ireneus:
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Council of Sardica:
"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
Oh, and by the way, Roman Catholics aren't the only church with Apostolic lineage.
BTS