Apostolic councils?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You're very deceitful. You're trying to compare people who are acting outside of a Church's mandate, against those who actually defined the mandate.
BOL, you're looney tunes!
That's just it, Einstein - that was NO mandate to "sell" Indulgences.

That's just a popular, albeit historically-bankrupt, anti-Catholic fairy tale . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@BreadOfLife @Marymog @jaybird @Backlit
BOL & Marymog, the both of you have done nothing more than proven that in theory alone, the principle of Apostolic succession is valid. Which, in a sense, I believe that practically speaking, this is an invariable result of the Great Commission. So, although it has never been a mandate from the 1st century Apostles (despite your 'keys of heaven' theories), it is in practice a legitimate concept. But, only as far as continuing the teaching of the Apostles go, not in regard to the successors having the same endowment as they had. And your entire argumentation has been centered around this notion that simply the principle applies, and not in what history has undeniably proven.

That is, even if one were to concede the point that handing down the tradition of the Apostles was always the intent of the early Church, which I categorically do, the question lies as to whom exactly was this lineage preserved? This has always been my contention from the start. The Roman Catholic Church, The Holy Roman Empire, no matter what the appellation or governance (Emperor or Bishop, state or ecclesiastical), the entire hierarchy, precepts and actions of these entities, patently display the corruption that both infiltrated and permeated this particular pedigree of successors. These accusations are not, which all of your rebuttals have fail to recognize, at the individual or laity level, but rather, at the official level. The indictments are leveled at the supreme leaders, at the promulgations, bulls and decrees, at the doctrines and sacraments, and at the longevity and perpetuity of some of these pronouncements. All the crimes and heresies committed by this entity that you both hold in such high regard and blind allegiance, were approved at some point by those that you claim were given the keys of Peter.

Neither one of you can keep your stories straight, and have in the most ignoble manner given praise to a heritage that has done more harm to the Church, than good. So that again, you have done nothing more this entire thread, than to prove that in theory, Christ promised to preserve his Word, and that the Apostles have passed it in faithfully to their next generation. But, you have irrefutably, erroneously and disgracefully failed to prove with wisdom and understanding, as to whom and where this tradition has prevailed.
Funny how you keep blathering on about "deceitfulness" - yet YOUR posts are the MOST deceitful.

Of course - you would need to have an IQ of 12 to believe any of your manure because anybody with even a rudimentary grasp of Scripture and history could blow ALL of your arguments out of the water - as WE have been doing.

I've had to school you a few times on the fact that there is NO SUCH thig as the "Roman" Catholic Church. There is only the Catholic Church of which the Roman/Latin Liturgical Rite is one of about TWENTY other such Rites, including the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, etc. NONE of these Liturgical rites are "Roman" Catholic - yet they are ALL 100% part of the Catholic Church.
STRIKE ONE.

Secondly - I've ALSO had to educate you about the fact that Acts 1 proves Apostolic Succession. I showed you that when the Apostles gathered to chooses a SUCCESSOR for Judas - Peter quoted Psalm 109 when he stated:
Acts 1:20
"Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "Office" translates as "BISHOPRIC" - showing that the office of Bishop is a successive office.
STRIKE TWO.

Finally - I have had to school you about the fact that just because there have been some wicked individuals in the Church - this does NOT negate the Church's God-Given Authority. There have been wicked individuals from the very BEGINNING, starting with Judas. Christ's Church has never and will never be simply the sum of its a wicked individuals. It is the Body of Christ - and HE is the Head (Col. 1:18).
STRIKE THREE.

You LOSE because you're dishonest and woefully-ignorant of BOTH Scripture AND History . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illuminator

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
That's just it, Einstein - that was NO mandate to "sell" Indulgences.

That's just a popular, albeit historically-bankrupt, anti-Catholic fairy tale . . .
At a minimum, it was tacitly approved. You need to stop your incessant non-sequiturs.
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Funny how you keep blathering on about "deceitfulness" - yet YOUR posts are the MOST deceitful.

Of course - you would need to have an IQ of 12 to believe any of your manure because anybody with even a rudimentary grasp of Scripture and history could blow ALL of your arguments out of the water - as WE have been doing.

I've had to school you a few times on the fact that there is NO SUCH thig as the "Roman" Catholic Church. There is only the Catholic Church of which the Roman/Latin Liturgical Rite is one of about TWENTY other such Rites, including the Byzantine, Melkite, Maronite, Coptic, etc. NONE of these Liturgical rites are "Roman" Catholic - yet they are ALL 100% part of the Catholic Church.
STRIKE ONE.

Secondly - I've ALSO had to educate you about the fact that Acts 1 proves Apostolic Succession. I showed you that when the Apostles gathered to chooses a SUCCESSOR for Judas - Peter quoted Psalm 109 when he stated:
Acts 1:20
"Let another take his office."

The Greek word used here for "Office" translates as "BISHOPRIC" - showing that the office of Bishop is a successive office.
STRIKE TWO.

Finally - I have had to school you about the fact that just because there have been some wicked individuals in the Church - this does NOT negate the Church's God-Given Authority. There have been wicked individuals from the very BEGINNING, starting with Judas. Christ's Church has never and will never be simply the sum of its a wicked individuals. It is the Body of Christ - and HE is the Head (Col. 1:18).
STRIKE THREE.

You LOSE because you're dishonest and woefully-ignorant of BOTH Scripture AND History . . .
Yo BOL, wuz up?
Listen, feel free at anytime to actually address the contentions in my post. You made it appear, as usual, that I am speaking in a rather isolated context. But on the contrary, I leveled the charges ultimately, at Catholic clergy and dogma. Yet, you continue to justify your position based on theory, and circumstantial evidence. My position encompassed a much wider, and more inherent and systemic range of grievances and atrocities within the Catholic hierarchy - irrespective of what Rite or faction that they belong to.
...but what difference does it make, you're as stubborn as a mule, and as indoctrinated as a neophyte?
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
At a minimum, it was tacitly approved. You need to stop your incessant non-sequiturs.
Not only is there NO evidence of that - the abuse that was the selling of Indulgences wasn't happening everywhere.

As I stated before - it was a localized abuse. That's why German priest Luther was the one who had a problem with it - and rightly so - because it was happening in HIS backyard (Germany).

So, instead of closing your eyes and hurling false accusations wherever the wind may carry them - do your HOMEWORK . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yo BOL, wuz up?
Listen, feel free at anytime to actually address the contentions in my post. You made it appear, as usual, that I am speaking in a rather isolated context. But on the contrary, I leveled the charges ultimately, at Catholic clergy and dogma. Yet, you continue to justify your position based on theory, and circumstantial evidence. My position encompassed a much wider, and more inherent and systemic range of grievances and atrocities within the Catholic hierarchy - irrespective of what Rite or faction that they belong to.
...but what difference does it make, you're as stubborn as a mule, and as indoctrinated as a neophyte?
My post wasn't based in ANY sort of "Theory" or "circumstantial" evidence.
I laid out the Scriptural and Historical corrections for YOUR blunders.

YOUR problem is that you don't do your homework - then you lash out when you are humiliated by educated Catholics who actually KNOW their Scripture AND History . . .
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Not only is there NO evidence of that - the abuse that was the selling of Indulgences wasn't happening everywhere.

As I stated before - it was a localized abuse. That's why German priest Luther was the one who had a problem with it - and rightly so - because it was happening in HIS backyard (Germany).

So, instead of closing your eyes and hurling false accusations wherever the wind may carry them - do your HOMEWORK . . .
Indulgences are still part of Catholic dogma, what in the world are you talking about. You have not a clue, even as a Catholic, as to waht you are talking about, not a clue!

The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins. Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn't go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead. In the early 1200s, the Church began claiming that it had a "treasury" of indulgences (consisting of the merits of Christ and the saints) that it could dispense in ways that promoted the Church and its mission. In a decretal issued in 1343, Pope Clement VI declared, "The merits of Christ are a treasure of indulgences."

The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide)
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
My post wasn't based in ANY sort of "Theory" or "circumstantial" evidence.
I laid out the Scriptural and Historical corrections for YOUR blunders.

YOUR problem is that you don't do your homework - then you lash out when you are humiliated by educated Catholics who actually KNOW their Scripture AND History . . .
Your theory of apostolic succession. Your whole argument is based around this premise, not on historical facts.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What makes you think that I even have a point, Marymog? All this time that we've been discussing this matter, you keep asking me what's my point, but has it ever dawned on you that maybe there is no point to be made? That is, what is the point in trying to make a point, get it? Everyone has a point and an opinion, for even the Impressionists used pointillism in order to make their point. Why do Bishops and Cardinals wear pointed hats, is that their point? And, let's face it, not all points are equal, therefore may the sharpest point be recognized as such, for what's the point in making a dull point, get it?
Hi,

No, not true, I don't keep asking you what's your point! That's the first time I asked you kiddo. ;)

Thank you for your time!
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
if a bible was stolen who would they sell it to?
Good morning Jaybird,

I have a feeling you are being facetious so I will give you a facetious answer: A poor person!!
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Indulgences are still part of Catholic dogma, what in the world are you talking about. You have not a clue, even as a Catholic, as to waht you are talking about, not a clue!

The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins. Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn't go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead. In the early 1200s, the Church began claiming that it had a "treasury" of indulgences (consisting of the merits of Christ and the saints) that it could dispense in ways that promoted the Church and its mission. In a decretal issued in 1343, Pope Clement VI declared, "The merits of Christ are a treasure of indulgences."

The Council of Trent (Sess, XXV, 3-4, Dec., 1563) declared: "Since the power of granting indulgences has been given to the Church by Christ, and since the Church from the earliest times has made use of this Divinely given power, the holy synod teaches and ordains that the use of indulgences, as most salutary to Christians and as approved by the authority of the councils, shall be retained in the Church; and it further pronounces anathema against those who either declare that indulgences are useless or deny that the Church has the power to grant them (Enchridion, 989). It is therefore of faith (de fide)
HUH??

First
of all - Indulgences are a matter of DICIPLINE - not Dogma, so get your facts straight.
Secondly - WHO said that the Church doesn't teach about Indulgences?? I showed you that the Church never sanctioned the SELLING of Indulgences. BIG difference.

You need to pay attention and stop going off on on your psychotic rants.
Your ignorance is overwhelming . . .
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Your theory of apostolic succession. Your whole argument is based around this premise, not on historical facts.
WRONG.
As I have repeatedly stated - I already laid out the Scriptural and Historical proof for Apostolic Succession.

The fact that you ignore that evidence is YOUR problem - and YOU have to answer to God for it, NOT me . . .

SCRIPTURE
Acts 1:20

"Let another take his OFFICE (Episkopay/Bishopric)."

HISTORY

Ignatius of Antioch
FOLLOW YOUR BISHOP, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. OBEY YOUR CLERGY too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marymog

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
there were plenty of good people that had good works. IMO you can be born in a den of vipers but if you seek the Father He will lead you where you need to be.
IMO the church made a wrong turn after the roman takeover, they forced people to follow Jesus the way they told them to follow Jesus. this was not the way of Jesus and the 12. i like the school of thought in Alexandria, it was an open society where all were welcome to come and share ideas.
Hi Jaybird,

Based on your statement that The Church "made a wrong turn after the roman takeover" you must believe everything was going right in The Church before the roman takeover? For the record if that is what you believe...I agree with you! :)

Scripture makes it clear that the 12 made everyone feel welcome and to share their ideas. Scripture also makes it clear when they shared ideas that were opposite or not in line with their teaching then those people, who were causing division in The Church, were corrected. The purpose of some of the letters in Scripture were written to address those "divisions amongst you" (1 Corinthians). Another example of correcting wrong practices or teachings of some of the people in The Church was The Council of Jerusalem. At that Council The Church decided what every Christian in the world was to believe/practice. So even though there was an open sharing of ideas that did not give individual Christians to implement/practice/believe those ideas that were opposite of what The Church taught.

I liked Clement of Alexandria and his ideas! Who's ideas in the open society of Alexandria did you like?

Curious Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
a group of believers IMO would be a church, but in the days of Jesus they had temples that operated as places of worship, these were the "official" places of worship, Jesus and the 12 used them, but Jesus did most of His teaching outside of that. rome seemed to go back to this way of "official" churches and outlawed teaching outside of these places the way Jesus and the 12 did.
Hi Jaybird,

Scripture calls the church the pillar and foundation of truth and says we are to take our differences to The Church so they can decide who is to be excommunicated (treated as a pagan/tax collector). Putting your theory (or opinion) into practice which "group of believers" is the pillar and foundation of truth and decides who is to be treated as a pagan?

Curious Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
What church? And how do you judge? Would you take the word of the late Anton leVey that his church has the truth?
The Apostolic Churches of course!!!

Anton leVey was antichrist soooooo how could he have the truth....
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
How about we start with the "holy Roman Empire'?
Ok...I will go with your theory. The holy Roman Empire "enforced" Christian worship!! Historically: How many citizens under the "holy Roman Empire" were forced to worship as Christians?

Curious Mary
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@BreadOfLife @Marymog @jaybird @Backlit
BOL & Marymog, the both of you have done nothing more than proven that in theory alone, the principle of Apostolic succession is valid. Which, in a sense, I believe that practically speaking, this is an invariable result of the Great Commission. So, although it has never been a mandate from the 1st century Apostles (despite your 'keys of heaven' theories), it is in practice a legitimate concept. But, only as far as continuing the teaching of the Apostles go, not in regard to the successors having the same endowment as they had. And your entire argumentation has been centered around this notion that simply the principle applies, and not in what history has undeniably proven.

That is, even if one were to concede the point that handing down the tradition of the Apostles was always the intent of the early Church, which I categorically do, the question lies as to whom exactly was this lineage preserved? This has always been my contention from the start. The Roman Catholic Church, The Holy Roman Empire, no matter what the appellation or governance (Emperor or Bishop, state or ecclesiastical), the entire hierarchy, precepts and actions of these entities, patently display the corruption that both infiltrated and permeated this particular pedigree of successors. These accusations are not, which all of your rebuttals have fail to recognize, at the individual or laity level, but rather, at the official level. The indictments are leveled at the supreme leaders, at the promulgations, bulls and decrees, at the doctrines and sacraments, and at the longevity and perpetuity of some of these pronouncements. All the crimes and heresies committed by this entity that you both hold in such high regard and blind allegiance, were approved at some point by those that you claim were given the keys of Peter.

Neither one of you can keep your stories straight, and have in the most ignoble manner given praise to a heritage that has done more harm to the Church, than good. So that again, you have done nothing more this entire thread, than to prove that in theory, Christ promised to preserve his Word, and that the Apostles have passed it in faithfully to their next generation. But, you have irrefutably, erroneously and disgracefully failed to prove with wisdom and understanding, as to whom and where this tradition has prevailed.
Hi DNB,

Thank you for that very well thought out and articulate defense of your belief and repudiation of my belief! I don't mean that in a bad way. I'm just saying you made it very clear what you believe, why you believe it and why I shouldn't believe what I believe. Sooooo I have to ask you:

We know that Christ taught the Apostles the Truth.
The Apostles then taught other good and faithful men of The Church the Truth.


Myself and @BreadOfLife clearly believe that The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, is still teaching the Truth and that Truth will be with us until the end of the ages because Christ is with us until the end of the ages (Matthew 28:20).

According to your studies of Christian history when did that Truth stop being taught? When did Jesus abandon/stop revealing the Truth to His Church that was established on a rock?

Curious Mary
 

Illuminator

Well-Known Member
Jan 11, 2020
3,389
1,194
113
72
Hamilton
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Hi DNB,
According to your studies of Christian history when did that Truth stop being taught? When did Jesus abandon/stop revealing the Truth to His Church that was established on a rock?
Curious Mary
It seems to me DNB denies the authority of the Council of Nicae of 325 A.D. as according to him. all the church fathers were corrupt, including the Council of Carthage which settled the controversies over which books belong in the Bible. Of course, The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325, and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381.The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451. These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. But DNB cannot accept these authoritive councils because according to him, the church fathers were corrupted and went out killing true believers during their lunch breaks. From the sublime to the ridiculous. Anti-trinitarianism is the final conclusion of DNB's false histories.
 
Last edited:

jaybird

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2016
1,595
559
113
Good morning Jaybird,

I have a feeling you are being facetious so I will give you a facetious answer: A poor person!!

hey MM!

i was just proving a point. they were chained up to prevent people from stealing them, but a poor person has no reason to steal one as they could only sell to a rich person who has the money to go get their own.
 
Last edited: