Conservative Anglicans Celebrate Growth; Lament Episcopal Actions

Dreamer »

Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:35 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I don't know man. I can't see how anyone can even be catholic these days after what they have done in the past with all the crusades and stuff. And then the whole praying to saints thing...how can you justify that these days when people can read for themselves that it is wrong? I mean, I get why early catholics did it, they couldn't read or speak latin and were not allowed access to the Bible anyway. But now? Just don't get it, man.

Bible says you know a tree by the fruit that it bears. No organization that involved children in such numbers...none...not disney themeparks, not school teachers, not anything at all from the secular side of America has found itself the largest organized, covering for each other, sick ring of child molesters and the catholic church. I ain't blaming you, chad, but please man take a look at that.

I know that there is comfort in traditions and being able to claim over a thousand years of service to Christ. But there is a tradition even older. It was the tradition that was silenced and taken over by the Romans. They all met in a meeting and took hold us the Christians by making it the 'official' religion and then took all the materials of Christs words away and didn't let the common man see them for a thousand years.

We call it the dark ages for a reason. Have you read the list that Luther guy nailed to the door of a church?

You have the oldest tradition of Christianity, pre-dating the roman catholic church right in your hand, man. Open your eyes and read it.

believer »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, so if having a baby would with all certainty kill the mother you say you would not make an exception. Hopefully you're not considering being a chaplain in a hospital. Oh and by the way if you would read my posts you would read that in 1974 our resolution specifically spoke to with rare exception only and specifically when the mother's life was put in danger. Plus, it's ashame you can't admit you mispoke in the first place when you said the SBC never spoke to abortion until at the earliest the 90s.

believer »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

chas, why do you insist on making a jerk of yourself by ridiculing us when we show you that your posts are not accurate with regards to the roman catholic church being the final authority on matters of faith and morals. I guess I could understand it if I was foolish enough to make that same false claim of Southern Baptists, but I don't. And Southern Baptists are not just concerned about these issues in America only and in fact Dr. Richard Land along with many other SBC leaders has been very vocal on the political front in sharing how we as Southern Baptists feel on these issues at both the national and world level. Plus, the SBC has many International Missionaries throughout the world to include those places where they literally put their lives in danger every day to not only meet spiritual needs but physical needs as well.

Online4Him »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:07 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Chas,

Actually, I have been on the inside circles and have served in various capacities; but this is not the issue at hand my friend. I was not specifically speaking of the last 20-30 years; this sexual dilemma has existed much longer than the last few decades. There are many cases throughout history of sexual immorality amongst your clergy; specifically, from the popes fathering children to the aborted infants within monasteries walls. Instead of rehashing the immoral practices of those who claim to be followers of Christ, let’s get back to our original discussion; the origin of the New Testament Church. Seriously, you cannot build a solid case based upon assumptions and claims Chas; the New Testament says nothing of Catholicism’s dogmas and practices. The truth is your church was a gradual development that rose much later than you care to admit.

Chas »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Believer,

Nice try. Oh so now Baptist only cares what happens in America then and not abortions that were rampant in other nations? Oh, I get it. Since your denomination is based primarily in the South US, It makes sense why you wouldn't care what was happening in Canada, Britain, Germany, Africa with Abortion.

And look at your position, you say that abortion should be illegal with exceptions while the Catholic Church says no exceptions. Abortion IS NEVER ALLOWED! Look at how you made exceptions for something that is always INTRINSICALLY EVIL.

Since the Catholic Church is a true universal church, we care about what happens in more places than just the US. It still took you 400 years to make an official statement, you basically don't care what happens in other countries and you make exceptions in your official statement.

All I can say is, weak...weak...weak.

believer »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:48 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

chas, your getting as bad as dan with your posts, you said in your first post that the Southern Baptists said nothing about the abortion issue until I believe the 90s and I corrected you by showing that in 1971, two years before Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land that they passed a resolution opposing abortion with exceptions and now you try to say that was the first time Southern Baptists cam to realize abortion was wrong. That is a lie straight out of the pit of hell itself, prior to 71 abortion was not an issue of great concern in our nation but when the Roe vs. Wade debate made it so then the SBC wasted no time in letting the world know where they stood on the issue of abortion. Your need to buy into the lie that the roman catholic church is the final authority with regards to matters of faith and morals apparently has so engulfed you, you must now resort to telling blatant lies about other denominations who by no means claim to be the final authority on matters of faith and morals because we know that God alone is that final authority and that His Word declares His teachings and command with regards to matters of faith and morals.

Chas »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

The authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent.

In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources. The conclusion: “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are not clergy or staff, but church volunteers.

Associated Press report that the three major insurance companies for Protestant Churches in America say they typically receive 260 reports each year of minors being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, staff, or other church-related relationships, which is more than double to claims made against Catholic clergy, staff or volunteers by percentage.

In 1990, in a study by the Park Ridge Center for the Study of Health, Faith and Ethics in Chicago, it was learned that 10 percent of ministers said they had had an affair with a parishioner and about 25 percent admitted some sexual contact with a parishioner. Two years later, a survey by Leadership magazine found that 37 percent of ministers confessed to having been involved in “inappropriate sexual behavior” with a parishioner.

In a 1993 survey by the Journal of Pastoral Care, 14 percent of Southern Baptist ministers said they had engaged in “inappropriate sexual behavior,” and 70 percent said they knew a minister who had had such contact with a parishioner

In 1984, a Fuller Seminary survey of 1,200 ministers found that 20 percent of theologically “conservative” pastors admitted to some sexual contact outside of marriage with a church member. The figure jumped to over 40 percent for “moderates”; 50 percent of “liberal” pastors confessed to similar behavior.

The Catholic Church has always had the highest bar in terms of morality, and because of our position we were highlighted more than other Christians or even secular groups. For one thing, we are more unified so easier to attack one group specifically, than it is to attack 20,000 or more small sects.

The facts show sexual abuse of minors much higher in Protestant churches.

We should all be sad to this tragic situation and never let this happen again.

Chas »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Believer,

Your denomination began in the 17th century and it took Baptist till 1971 to know that Abortion was wrong? Abortion happened well before it was made legal.

The Catholic Church from inception in the 1st century were against it. Clement said in circa 80ad"We can never murder a human life, and especially an innocent life in the womb" Letter to Arlone 80ad. Clement was the Third Bishop of Rome. Ignatius of Antioch said "Do not be like the Pagans who kill the child in the womb or leave it on the road to die after birth, and let us always protect these innocent children". 107ad.

Our teaching has been universally consistent and it didn't take us 400 years to come up with our position. Glad you are on board, but it did take you a long time to take a moral stand. My point; when you know the Truth you don't have to take 400 years to take a position.

Online,

Maybe you have never been on the inside circle of Protestant and evangelical churches, but the Catholic Church's position on morality has always been the highest bar. If you are discussing the last 20-30 years where less than 1.5% of our Priests molested children, and you are actually trying to take a higher moral stand then you really don't know about your own situation very well. Believer will probably attest to this, but Pastors from Protestant denominations have abused children and had immoral sexual relations with church and non-church members at a much higher rate despite the fact you are much smaller than us. While we are the largest christian church our percentages of abuse are far lower than Protestants.

The Catholic Priest is always seen with the highest of respect because of how they have unselfishly served God's people for 2000 years.

Here are some facts that show the tragedy of clergy.

Online4Him »

Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chas,

Sorry; your church has not been the only one to take a stand on these moral issues; besides, given your churches’ record on morality; well, let’s just not go there. It is very interesting that you continue to make the same repetitive claims even though others here have disproven your position from Holy Scripture. Building a case without any biblical support is not very convincing . . . . I believe this is called, setting up a straw man to knock down.

believer »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, once again you misspeak since as I showed you in another post that the SBC passed resolutions against abortion beginning in 1971, so please cite when the roman catholic church passed such a motion and then in 2003 the SBC passed a resolution against same-sex marriage, so please cite when the roman catholic church passed such a motion?

Chas »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

That is interesting Online.

Why is it that the Catholic Church is always in the front of the pack of Christians saying things like; embryonic stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, abortion and contraception are always wrong?

Many of these issues like abortion took baptists and evangelicals decades to be against it officially, while we Catholics lead the march first. Why is it that baptists in the 1930's were against contraception saying it was not biblical moral to use and it was evil practice of Pagans and non-believers, but now it is ok? We Catholics have the same position we had in the 1st century on contraception that we have today.

We were also the first church to say "officially" that gay marriage and gay civil unions are immoral and intrinsic evil.

The Catholic Church will always be the first to make a moral proclamation on an issue, because of Christ promises. The Catholic Church is God's church and His own tool to effect the World. The Catholic Church is God's instrument of Salvation to the World. We preach that you can only be saved through Jesus Christ alone. That we are saved by Grace, and that Grace is received through the Sacraments. God's word is inerrant and Holy and only His Catholic Church can interpret it 100% correct everytime.

Online4Him »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

The Catholic Church does not have the final authority in matters of faith and morals nor does it properly interpret the inerrant Word of God. It is a church that has introduced contradictory dogmas that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught; so, it cannot rightfully claim to have any binding authority.

believer »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, the fact is no human being has the final authority on issues of faith and morals, this final authority belongs to God alone who spells out those matters in and through His inerrant Word!!

believer »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, if you would step away from your roman catholic views and truly study God's Word you would see that the passages you refer to are speaking of agreement with God with regards to a church member who has truly repented and one who refuses to repent when confronted with their sin.

Chas »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Believer, the CATHOLIC CHURCH does have that final authority on faith and morals by PROPERLY INTERPRETING that inerrant Word of God.

Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles. Fact. The Apostles gave their authority from God to Bishops by the laying of hands. Fact. Outside of this authority you cannot gauarantee that how you interpret is 100% correct. Fact.

The Catholic Church still retaining this authority through apostolic succession can gaurantee her interpretation of the Holy Word of God, not by her merits but by the gift of the Holy Spirit leading her into all Truth. God sustains the Holy Catholic Church and gives this church alone full binding and loosing authority which Protestants do not have.

believer »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, and no the roman catholic church is not the final authority on matters of faith and morals, that rests with God alone and is totally supported by His truths found in His inerrant Word.

believer »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:39 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, but once again the doctrine of the Trinity can be seen clearly in the Word of God and many of the teachings and traditions of the roman catholic church cannot be found in the Word of God! And no where did I say the roman catholic church not believe or defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Chas »

Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Believer,

Well that is interesting that you think the Trinity is explicit in the scriptures, because for 300 years it was highly debated. Groups like Arians, Montanists, Donatists and others were all BIBLE ALONE types just like you and they rejected the Trinity outright because they did not see that Jesus was God, nor did they see by the scriptures that the Holy Spirit was God. They denied the fact that Jesus was consubtantial with the Father and the fact the word TRINITY IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, so they rejected it.

So, scripture alone types rejected the Trinity while the Catholic Church going by scripture, sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church given by Christ through the Holy Spirit made the correct call on this doctrine that must be believed. The bible alone types rejected the hypostatic union of the Trinity, they rejected that God can be one in three persons and that Christ was consubtantial with the Father.

Without Sacred Tradition, and the teaching authority to properly interpret the scriptures the Trinity would have never been defined as it is.

The Trinity is one of the most mysterious facets of the Christian faith. To believe in one God in three persons and the fact that the second person of the Trinity Jesus Christ has two natures being fully divine and fully human at the same time is mind blowing mystery.

It was the Catholic Church who defended this doctrine and she did it by her authority of her witness to properly interpret what God gave her in trust. ONLY the Catholic Church has the final authority in faith and morals.

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:25 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, your only problem is that the Trinity is clearly taught in both the Old and new Testament, whereas most of the extra-biblical teachings of the roman catholic church are not found in the Bible and many of them do willfully contradict, violate, and/or supersede God's Word.

Online4Him »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Chas,

The claim that the apostles created your church is another assumption my friend. The New Testament Church did not practice or teach Rome’s extra biblical dogmas; hence, they are not one and the same. Some religions seek to exert their authority over others by appealing to extra biblical teachings or individuals whom they claim founded their faith; however, upon closer examination there is always a misrepresentation of the facts or no actual connection with those whom they claim to be affiliated with. Where in the New Testament do we read about the office of a universal bishop? It is absent from the divine written testimony; you will however find that Peter speaks of the priesthood of all believers who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Chas »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online,

Yes, I know that scripture. Don't you find it odd that the first is Apostles and yet you have no connection to them or have Apostles who founded your church? Apostles created my church. With that alone, you should know that you are not a full member of Christ church without that Apostolic connection.

Both Catholics and Orthodox can show a clear historical and biblical connection to the Apostles and therefore we have existed since the beginning and as we see in Acts and Timothy and Titus we see how it was the Apostles who made Bishops, Priests and Deacons under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was these Apostles who conferred leadership authority in these offices by the power of the HS. Do you deny their authority?

On your second note, the Trinity is a prime example that was not formally taught by the Apostles and yet we believe in it today. The Trinity is a concept that was later developed to understand the rudimentary Apostolic teaching of One God in Three persons which you accept. The Trinity is not formally taught by the Apostles, but it is implicit and materially present and it was the Catholic Church that defined that rudimentary Truth into its fullness of understanding in complex terms which you accept today.

The New Testament Church hierarchy guided by the Holy Spirit received the one deposit of faith, but parts of the faith were difficult to understand by the congregants so over time it was defined. Just like an acorn will become a great tree, it matures over time but it is still the same substance.

Our Catholic faith is of the same apostolic faith substance, and with 2000 years of maturing it can easilly share this original faith with today's complex societies.

Online4Him »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chas,

Again, Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:28 says:

"And God hath set some in the church, FIRST apostles, SECONDARILY prophets, THIRDLY teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues"

Notice the word FIRST . . . first apostles; Paul does not mention a universal bishop or vicar of Christ and Peter addresses believers in his epistles as a fellow apostle; not as a universal bishop. These titles directly contradict the Word of God. Q: Why do you engage in a discussion and then simply disappear from time to time (not being sarcastic)? Right when we seem to be zeroing in on a particular subject you take off . . . .

Also, you never addressed my last question:

If most of the core elements/dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church were not mentioned or practiced by the New Testament Church (the first church and one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church?

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, I would also say that what is more important than what we label a leadership position is the authority and responsibility that goes with the role in the local church or denomination and is there biblical support to justify both the authority and responsibility.

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, plus the difference is we're not telling other denominations they're required to have Presidents and Music Ministers and if you would read our posts you would see that is our issue your denomination mandating that we are wrong because we don't follow your format for leadership roles in our denominations.

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, typical roman catholic propaganda, plus it simply shows you can't read others posts, since those terms can mean other titles such as Pastor or Elder. And while the SBC has a President, he has no spiritual authority over Southern Baptist churches and like the pope he is not infallible and unlike the pope he's honest enough to admit it!

Chas »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

SBC has a President, I don't see that in the Bible.

You have Pastors and Associate Pastors. I don't see the word Associate in scripture.

You have Music ministers, didn't see that in the Bible.

You have a lot of titles that describe a Pastor's role as do we, like the titles Cardinal and Archbishop.

The problem with your denominations is that the title Pastor is not an official title from the Bible and it is a description or adjective that describes the actual title of Bishop and Priest.

You don't have Bishops or Priests or Deacons which is the correct titles for the offices of ministry. A Pastor must be Bishop and/or Priest, but a Deacon is not a Pastor.

You use the title Pastor outside of the God ordained ministry of Bishop, Priest and Deacon which is against the Word of God and the Tradition handed down by the Apostles.

Chas »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Believer,

The Apostles had authority and only ordained Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

How can you biblically support your position that leadership is up to each individual denomination? If the Apostles only ordained these three offices in scripture and is historically proven, then how can your denomination go outside of the Word of God and set your leadership up how you want rather than what the Apostles passed down?

Chas »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I'll take this one.

Believer and Online, We see clearly in scripture the particular offices described as overseer, elder and servant or in Greek Episcopos, Presbyteros, Dianconos or in English Bishop, Priest and Deacon.

All the ancient churches founded by Apostles have this structure including us.

None of you have these offices. Only Anglicans have these offices, Some Lutherans have them but as with time your denominations fell farther away from the Word of God.

Cardinal is a title to describe the level of Bishop and Archbishop describes a bishop of a large diocese. Pope is an adjective to describe the Bishop of Rome. When your church is over 1.2 billion people, these adjectives like cardinal and archbishop only describe their bishoprik.

If our churches were still small like yours', I immagine there would be no need for the adjective Cardinal or Archbishop. We have more Catholics in some states than you have in the entire world, so you can understand the need to use adjectives to better describe the Bishops role.

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

online, a fantastically awesomely huge AMEN to your last post!! And that's exactly what frustrates me with many of our roman catholic poster friends!!

Online4Him »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Believer,

Amen, I wholeheartedly agree; there is liberty within the body of Christ. Believers can label their leadership and denomination according to their calling; however, to impose a belief or tradition that outright contradicts or supersedes God’s Word is a red flag that ought to be questioned.

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

online, how a denomination chooses to govern itself and what they choose to label their leadership is totally up to them, but for them to claim biblical support for that form of governing and the labels used should be called to task and especially when there is no biblical support for them.

Online4Him »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

believer,

Yes; it is amazingly sanctimonious for anyone to assail the doctrines of others while theirs sit above reproach. So if the terms pope, archbishop, and cardinal are unbiblical; what does that say about the magisterium?

believer »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:34 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Online, and let's not forget the terms archbishop and cardinals, let alone pope, no biblical support for any of those roles or titles. And isn't it amazing that our roman catholic friends are justified in taking stands against us so-called protestants, but when we point out the unbiblical traditions and teachings of the roman catholic church we're being bitter!

Online4Him »

Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:09 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

ihs,

How do you equate a theological disagreement with “sinning against” you? I too have shared witnesses . . . Paul and Peter. This is a red herring to evade the current subject at hand; this seems to be the pattern for Catholics here . . . instead of proving their position from Scripture, they begin to personally attack those whom they disagree with. Remember, you joined a discussion that was already in progress; it is the church hierarchy . . . . Let’s try to stay on point. When Paul gives a list of offices within the New Testament Church; the office of a universal bishop is wanting. Peter himself says nothing of such an office but humbly identifies himself as one of equal apostles. Again, the Scriptures reveal the original beliefs of the New Testament Church and their beliefs do not resemble Catholicism . . .

Prophet »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

IHS,

Looks like you and us are in the same boat. We also have brought witnesses to try and show you the error of your ways, but you still continue to deny the Body of Christ. By doing so, you have shown yourself to be apostate and fallen. I am praying for your return to fellowship.

IHS »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Online

I say Amen to those passages, but not to your understanding of them. These passages neither support your position, nor deny my position.

In the bible and with the early Christians, if one brother does something that is wrong against you then you bring a witness as I have done having MSN witness to you, and if you are still persisting in your error or ways that lead you from Truth then I will bring another witness which was Chas.

If you still won't listen and continue to sin against me by bearing false witness then, the Bible says take that person to the Church to be admonished and if you still won't listen treat you as a Pagan or Tax collector.

My friend in Christ, you still produce error after error and the Church as the bible says has the final authority.
The Church is the hierarchy set up by Christ which is the Apostles and then the Bishops. The Catholic Bishops say you are wrong, so you must submit or otherwise you are a Pagan or Tax Collector.

You have had your chances Online, and yet you will not stop your sinning against me by bearing false witness about what I believe.

Online4Him »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

ihs,

What are your thoughts on those passages that were posted? They do not support your traditions my friend; this is the inherent problem with extra biblical teachings . . . folks are so zealous to defend their traditions even when they contradict, supersede, and replace the Words of the living God. It simply does not add up . . .

Prophet »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

The pope is no more infallible than I am. The Scriptures say that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. It doesn't say the pope will lead us into all truth.

Wilderness1 »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The word of God does not support a "Our Holy Father, Your Holiness, Most Blessed Father, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" succession.

IHS »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Yes, online the Pope's favorite title is "Servant of the Servants of God".

If Peter has primacy show in scripture and tradition, then because of the Keys the successor of his office has that primacy as well. Do the math.

All of the ancient churches accept this primacy of the Pope's office, by virtue of the Keys being established on Peter.

Again, ask yourself how did all the other churches besides the Catholic Church all get it wrong and your church got it right 1700 years after Jesus began his church?

It does beg the question, even if you can't see it.

Online4Him »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:01 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

(The Bishop of Rome has primacy among all other bishops NOT SUPREMACY. Choose your words more carefully)


The Scriptures neither teach Rome's primacy or supremacy over the Church of God . . . . Read the following passages:

1 Corinthians 12:28 says:

"And God hath set some in the church, FIRST apostles, SECONDARILY prophets, THIRDLY teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues"

Peter describes himself as a SERVANT and an APOSTLE (2 Peter 1:1); he never speaks of himself as the vicar of Chirst or as the head of all bishops . . .

Peter on the priesthood of all believers:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5)

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

IHS »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome because of the Keys of the Kingdom being passed to Peter alone by Christ himself is the biblical evidence. Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and so have been all his successors.

The Bishop of Rome has primacy among all other bishops NOT SUPREMACY. Choose your words more carefully.

Online4Him »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:35 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

(You know, your interpretation isn't just wrong biblically it is wrong traditionally and historically)

Wrong bibically; where in the NT can we see the office of a universal bishop? It isn't there my friend; Catholics simply read their traditions into God's Word.

IHS »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Online,

You could see the Apostolic hierarchy established both in scripture and tradition as; Bishop, Priest, Deacon if only you were not so angry at Catholics and could remove your bitterness. The Jews would need to do the same, to recognize Christ.

You know, your interpretation isn't just wrong biblically it is wrong traditionally and historically.

Ask yourself this question like I did in Evangelical Seminary, why is it that every single ancient Christian Church has the exact same sacraments, the same understanding of Apostolic succession, the same exact hierarchy in Bishop, Priest and Deacon?????

Your beef isn't with Catholics alone it is with every single Church founded by an Apostle or any church before the 1700's. How is it then, they can be all wrong and you 2000 year later correct? How is it that all the ancient apostolic churches founded by different Apostles understood the scriptures exactly the same?

I have realized that me as an evangelical and my parents and grandparents who are pastors in baptist and ND Churches do not have Bishops, Priests and Deacons. This should show us that going be the bible alone creates errors and that newer churches have created a different form of Christianity that is prone to a lot of errors.

I look forward to being welcomed into true Apostolic Christianity next year when I become Catholic.

Online4Him »

Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:14 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Chas said, ". . . who has a biblical and traditional primacy above all other bishops that even the Orthodox bishops recognize" . . . . . & . . . . "Lastly, considering the commonalities the Orthodox and Catholics have you should do well to serve yourself by focusing more of your passion towards the Protestants on this board who have lost much Truth and have much less in common with either of us."


Sorry Chas; you have yet to prove any "biblical" primacy for the office of a universal bishop . . . The New Testament says absolutely nothing of such an office or apostolic succession. In fact, 1 Corinthians 12:28 says:

"And God hath set some in the church, FIRST apostles, SECONDARILY prophets, THIRDLY teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues"

Never is there any mention of a universal bishop or Vicar of Christ . . . In his own two epistles, Peter describes himself as a SERVANT and an APOSTLE (2 Peter 1:1); he never ascribes to himself the titles or prerogatives that Rome has imposed upon his person. He clearly states that Jesus Christ is the "Chief Cornerstone" - 1 Peter 2:6, that Christ is the "Rock" - 1 Peter 2:8, and declares that we have returned to Christ who is the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls" - 1 Peter 2:25.

Peter goes on to describe the priesthood of all believers:

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 2:5)

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light" (1 Peter 2:9).

Peter's own epistles expose Rome's outlandish claims; it is Catholicism that has lost much truth.

absojc »

Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Chas:
"Your Catholicity, or according to the Whole of the Apostles, is wounded because of your lack of union with Peter who is Christ Prime Minister, the Rock on which the Church was built."

No, not really, if you want to be techincal about it, we have union with Peter through the Apostolic succession he gave us through the Church @ Antioch...

And, no I am not a member of the Orthodox Catholic Church in America, I was simply mentioning that the official name of what is referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church, is actually the 'Orthodox Catholic Church'.

Prophet »

Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Yes, Chas, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, not the Pope or the catholic church.

Prophet »

Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

A catholic church that teaches false doctrines and commits idolatry and necromancy is not the true church.

believer »

Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, just because we can preach, teach, and proclaim God's infallible truths as found in God's Word, there is no human being who is infallible regardless of where they are sitting!

believer »

Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

chas, from Webster's New World College Dictionary, infallible: incapable of error in setting forth doctrine of faith and morals: said especially of the pope speaking ex-cathedra. As I said infallibility is not taught in the Word of God. And while God and God's Word are infallible that certainly can't be said of any human being and it certainly doesn't talk to a person having to be sitting on the throne of Peter to speak ex-cathedra!