Apostolic Succession and the Roman Catholic Church

I have a few questions for you about the "OPC." First, do you teach apostolic succession, and, if so, do you believe ministers outside of the OPC are not really ministers? Second, do you believe that the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" are for today, i.e., are healing, tongues, prophetic revelation, and miracles as led by the Holy Spirit actively manifest in our modern churches? Finally, how are you different from the Roman Catholic Church?

Answer:

1. "Do you teach apostolic succession, and, if so, do you believe ministers outside of the OPC are not really ministers?"

It is helpful to distinguish between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity." By the doctrine of apostolic succession the Roman Catholic Church asserts its claim of an uninterrupted and continuous line of succession extending from the twelve apostles through the bishops they ordained right up to the bishops of the present day. According to this doctrine, the apostles appointed the first bishops as their successors, granting to them their own teaching authority, which continues until the end of the age (see paragraph 77 of Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Let me direct you to other relevant passages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The significance of the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is immediately apparent in its definition of a "particular church." A particular church "refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession" (paragraph 833). "[I]t is for bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the 'gift of the Spirit,' the 'apostolic line'" (paragraph 1576). Without apostolic succession there is no church.

In close connection with the idea of apostolic succession is the transmission from generation to generation of the "Tradition." By Tradition, Catholics refer to that part of the church's "doctrine, life, and worship" that is distinct from Scripture (paragraph 78). This Tradition, Catholics argue, does not contradict Scripture, and maintains faithfully the unwritten but authoritative teachings and traditions of the apostles and early church fathers. Tradition is to be believed by the members of the church. It is the apostolic succession of bishops that perpetuates and guarantees both the faithful teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought.

Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary.

Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church recognizes as ministers those men ordained to that office by true churches, which are identified by the attribute of apostolicity.

2. "Do you believe that the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' are for today, i.e., are healing, tongues, prophetic revelation, and miracles as led by the Holy Spirit actively manifest in our modern churches?"

Orthodox Presbyterian are cessationists with regard to the word gifts. For a very careful exposition of scriptural teaching regarding the word gifts and healing, I refer you to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's "Report of the Committee on the Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit," which may be retrieved at http://opc.org/GA/giftsHS.html.

3. "How is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church different from the Roman Catholic Church?"

Thousands of books and articles have been written that carefully distinguish between Roman Catholicism and churches, like the OPC, which belong to the historic Protestant tradition. Please permit me to point you to two articles that will assist you in your studies.

Michael Horton has written an excellent article pointing to the differences between historic Protestants and Catholics on the doctrine of justification. "Justification, Vital Now & Always" may be retrieved at

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID597662|CIID1415598,00.html.

Let me also suggest a brief survey of the history and beliefs of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which may be retrieved at http://opc.org/what_is/the_opc.html.

While the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism are many, let me focus on the one difference that must always be kept in mind, namely, the issue of authority. In every debate between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants, whether it be over the nature of the papacy, the place of tradition, justification, the role of Mary, the sacraments, or any other disputed matter, the question of authority will always surface. By what standard are matters of religious controversy judged? Historic Protestants will appeal to the Bible as the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, appeal to Scripture and Tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the papacy and its courts. The >i>Catechism of the Catholic Church claims this:

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered' (paragraphs 881-882).

People often express surprise at the broad differences between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants. The differences are not only understandable, but also necessary, when examined from the standpoint of authority. As long as Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different authorities, an unbridgeable gulf separates them.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states clearly the historic Protestant position on the question of authority:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).

The additions to which the authors of the Confession refer include not only the traditions of the papacy, but also the papal institution itself. The source of the irreconcilable differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism rests here. Reconciliation between historic Protestants and Roman Catholics would require either that Catholics abandon the papacy and its traditions, or that Protestants surrender their bedrock conviction that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The issue of authority leaves no room for compromise.

Before He established His Church, what did Jesus recommend? Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

True to the basic Roman model in which the magisterium is the supreme authority, you invoke this as supporting submission to Rome, but rather than supporting Rome it refutes her, as submitting to the magisterium after the Roman model of authority would nuke church, as they rejected Christ and the church! What this verse reveals is that the magisterium is not infallible, nor the superior authority, nor is formal descent required for authenticity, as the Lord and His apostles established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Jesus later established His Eternal Davidic Kingdom (Rev. 3:7), with Peter as It’s Prime Minister (Matt. 16:19), similar to the prime minister of the House of David in the Old Testament (Is. 22:22).

Where is this verse infallibly or otherwise officially (whatever that means to you) defined as referring to Peter? Regardless, Some Roman Catholic apologists seek to invoke Isaiah 22:21-25 in support of a perpetuated Petrine papacy. The Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa. 22:25, and which position classic commentators Keil and Delitzsch contend is the case. And whether or not v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not necessarily establish perpetuation.

In addition, nothing is provided by way of literal fulfillment of this prophecy in the Old Testament, nor in the New in support of Peter, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that evident. And what is evident as concerns perpetuation is that to Christ it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)

Thus this what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah.

Revelation 3:7 “To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

And consistent with what Scripture teaches, that is Christ, not Peter speaking and holding the keys and opening and closing. And while you seek to read Peter into Revelation, he is never mentioned, and instead the Lord deals directly with 7 churches, and in His commendations and condemnations any mention of their supposedly supreme head is conspicuously absent.

Moreover, while having primacy among the apostles and excising a general pastoral role, not even one church in any epistle is told to submit to or to look to Peter as the supreme head of Christendom, nor is there any mention of an expected successor for him (or James). Thus forgeries such as the Donation of Constantine and the PSEUDO -ISIDORIAN DECRETALS were used to supply Rome for the support Scripture fails to supply as desired.

The papacy couldn’t be any more biblical.

Rather, in the light of Scripture, the papacy couldn’t be biblical.

You gave me a lot to chew on. Thank you for your time and dedication to the subject.

I apologize in advance for a brief response. We are in the middle of an out-of-state move.

Scripture isn’t lacking. It is God’s inspired word. It is a guidepost for all people.

Regarding authentic authority, it was given to Peter, by Jesus, and that authority has been passed down over 2000 years to priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church remains intact, in spite of our leaders and our nature. All fall short in the glory of God.

Let us remember after the Ascension, their were numerous disputes over things such as circumcision, whether a person had to be a Jew before a Christian, etc. There was no canon of Scripture to look to, rather, these issues were resolved by Peter. Paul went to visit Peter, first.

Like any organization, from the family, to the military, to a church, requires a leader. The Roman Catholic Church has maintained that role since its founding by Christ himself. Jesus understood authority, as the did the centurion (...only say the word Matthew 8:6-13).

Whether Popes have been impeccable, humble, or otherwise up to the task is of no consequence. God will not allow the Church to be destroyed. See Matthew 16:19.

Your final statements about the Pope are a pretty weak straw man. You clearly don’t understand the doctrine of infallibility, nor has anyone, in their right mind, consider the Pope a demigod.

The bishops, in communion with the Supreme Pontiff, work together to lead, nourish, and preach the Gospel to the world. They aren’t perfect, but neither was Peter.

You are to be commended for your zeal. May God continue to nurture the gift of faith in your soul.

Whether Popes have been impeccable, humble, or otherwise up to the task is of no consequence. God will not allow the Church to be destroyed. See Matthew 16:19.

Why is it that Catholics here are so very forgiving of the wicked popes in the history of their church yet rant and rave over Martin Luther - who was not guilty of anywhere near the same kinds of depravity that these so-called anointed of God successors of St. Peter were? Luther is not the Pope of Protestants.

I find it impossible to believe that those very top leaders of the Roman Catholic Church - those who were elected to that position by other so-called men of God - would have made it one day in the era of the Apostles had they done half the things these chaps did. If Catholics wonder why non-Catholic Christians reject the authority of the Pope of Rome over all of Christendom, they need only look to their own history of corruption which was so blatant, no one even tries to rationalize it away anymore. Add to that the corruption of the Gospel and it should be plenty plain to understand.

Yes, God will preserve His church, but that church is the Body of Christ and is made up of genuine Christians who, like living stones, are being built up as His spiritual house (I Peter 2:5). No earthly institution has a corner on that designation and that is why we know that the Body of Christ, of which we are members who belong to Him, will be presented spotless and blameless at His coming. It is Him who is able to keep us from stumbling, and to make us stand in the presence of His glory blameless and with great joy (Jude 1:24).

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. (Ephesians 5:27)

I apologize in advance for a brief response. We are in the middle of an out-of-state move.

We also, after 20 years of accumulations by God's grace, have much packing to do in our move in state (MA).

Regarding authentic authority, it was given to Peter, by Jesus, and that authority has been passed down over 2000 years to priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church remains intact, in spite of our leaders and our nature. All fall short in the glory of God.

That is simply argument by assertion. What is the real basis for your assurance that the RCC is the one true and infallible church?

Whether Popes have been impeccable, humble, or otherwise up to the task is of no consequence. God will not allow the Church to be destroyed. See Matthew 16:19.

I understand this, for Rome teaches,

And as one of your "saints" stated,

"Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125,

But Scripture disallows such from even being a member of the church:

"But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat...Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:11,13)

See Matthew 16:19.

But this is an interpretation, and the keys are shown to be the gospel, by faith in which one is translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son, (Col. 1:13) and the power to bind and loose and remit sins was not given to the apostles only, as context indicates. (Mt. 18:18; Jn. 20:23) Thus i ask again, what is the basis for your assurance that Rome is what she claims to be, and so that this verse is correctly understood by you?

Your final statements about the Pope are a pretty weak straw man. You clearly don’t understand the doctrine of infallibility, nor has anyone, in their right mind, consider the Pope a demigod. Rather, the assertion that my description is a straw is the straw man.

Definition of DEMIGOD

1 : a mythological being with more power than a mortal but less than a god

2 : a person so outstanding as to seem to approach the divine

Demigod: A person with great powers and abilities A person who is part mortal and part god (Wordweb)

Possessing assured infallibility (whenever speaking universally on faith and morals) is not promised anywhere to man, despite attempts to extrapolate it from promises of preservation that would also do the same for the Jewish magisterium.

In addition, " in their right mind" is your judgment, is opposed to what has been declared, which not only is, “..We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...” (Pope Leo XIII, in Praeclara Gratulationis Publica” June 20, 1894) but consistent with this meaning sovereign autocratic power, Dollinger states,

“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations [Fordham University Press], by MacDougall, p 119 - 120 )

CCC : For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.

Description of magnificent papal coronation

As Peter was given a new name so does the new Supreme Pontiff become known by another. After the election he extends his first blessing to the people -- a Benediction which was not given in the open for years until Pope Pius XI established the custom. The Coronation, one of the most magnificent of Vatican Ceremonies, takes place shortly after the election. With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away."

As the first Cardinal Deacon places the three-crowned Tiara on the head of the Pope, he says: "Receive the three-crowned Tiara, and know that thou are the Father of Princes and Kings, the Pastor of the earth, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and glory forever. Amen." The CORONATION of Pope Pius XII took place on the balcony of St. Peter's in March 1939. (From the book "The Vatican and Holy Year" by Stephen S. Fenichell & Phillip Andrews -- 1950 edition. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm)

I would concur with you that they were not in their right mind, but this treatment as a demigod with autocratic sovereign power is consistent with the Caesariopapacy which developed, with its use of the sword of men and papal sanctioned torture to deal with theological dissent.

Boniface VIII actually asserted,

“It is I who am Caesar; the Sovereign Pontiff is the only King of the Romans”, as he rode thru the city, carrying sword, globe and sceptre. (”Rome and its story”, p. 241, by Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon)

Along with this Caesar-like demigod status are popes enthroned in royal garments and estates, with brethren doing obeisance and kissing their feet as if they were exalted kings. Nowhere do we see such exalted treatment among NT brethren, and Peter would not allow it of himself. (Acts 10:25,26) And which stands in stark contrast the description the Holy Spirit provides of Peter, that of a poor man, living in the house of a tanner (a smelly occupation) and married. (Acts 3:6; 10; 1Cor. 9:5)

And even today the pope is singularly exalted far more than we see in Scripture, and thus those who hold that to be the standard should be grieved by such thinking of men "above that which is written " (1Cor. 4:6) and look forward to the day when

"the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men shall be made low: and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. " (Isaiah 2:17)

May i exalted Him more and consistently as i should.

Good luck in your move! We are in temporary quarters until the end of July.

The assertion of authentic authority is that given by Jesus Himself. He gave it to no one else. I could be wrong, but only Muhammad and Joseph Smith have claimed divine instruction to lead a religion.

The Church never teaches to accept bad behavior, but rather to counsel and pray for a change of heart of the one misbehaving. That goes for Popes, pastors, and laymen.

As we are all sinners, we can’t just go into a cave by ourselves, can we? Is that what Paul is telling the Corinthians? No. We shouldn’t fraternize with those who will lead us into sin, but should not ignore them. We should seek them out to minister to them.

The man who holds the office of Supreme Pontiff, acts as the Vicar of Christ on earth. His job is preach the Gospel and all it entails, as well as be the final arbiter of matter regarding faith and morals.

Regarding the coronation, that is neither dogmatic, nor doctrinal. In fact, the last Pope to wear the tiara was Paul VI. Since then, Popes have worn a simple mitre at their installation Mass.

Regarding feet kissing, I think you will find many pictures of recent popes washing the feet of others. Most recently, Pope Francis washed the feet of prisoners. Regarding swords, the only armed men at the command of the Pope are the Swiss Guard, which number around 500.

Finally, there hasn’t been sanctioned corporal punishment since the 1500s.

He (Vicky) is a Protestant. Many protestants are in unity with him. I gave a list. The ECLA, the ECUSA, the PCUSA and the UMC are all in unity with Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson. All of these organizations believe that he is a representative of Christ here on earth.

All of these organizations are protestant.

I never said he wasn't protestant. I said he wasn't Christian. The words have two separate meanings.

Those organizations you listed are also not Christian organizations. They have turned away from Christ and embraced abomination. How can someone claim to be a Christ follower (Christian) and embrace something that Christ calls abomination? They can't!

So tell me. How does one determine who is protestant and who is not?

It's a question I've never considered as it is irrelevant. Who cares what they are protesting or whether they are protesting anything at all. What is important is whether or not they are Christian.

I do not generally refer to myself as a protestant. And I seldom use the term at all. Is someone a Christian or not. That is the only important question.

Is Vicky correct or are you correct? This is the question I asked right out of the gate.

And I answered it. Vicky is not a Christian and I am. So I guess that makes me correct (as Christ is correct and I follow Him)

What is the essential definition of ‘protestant’?

I don't know if there is one. And if there is one, it is still irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the state of a person's soul in relation to Christ. Is someone a Christian (Christ follower) or is he not?

So far, I see only one and it applies equally to you as to Bishop Gene Robinson - you define yourself as ‘not Catholic’. Through boolean logic.

No, you did. You seem to see the world as Catholic vs Protestant. I see it as Christian vs non-Christian.

I was raised Catholic. Baptized, first communion, altar boy, confirmed etc. Up until college I was a faithful mass every Sunday confession every Saturday Catholic. But I wasn't a Christian at that time. I was going through the motions of what people told me I was supposed to do. But God was not real to me.

When I was 26 I attended a baptist church at the invite of a girl I was interested in. It really was the first time I heard the gospel preached that made sense to me. (As a bit of background I grew up in Milwaukee during the Rembert Weakland years. I've come to realize that even though he was the archbishop there, he was neither Catholic nor Christian)

For Christmas she gave me a bible. "Hmmm" I thought, "what do you do with a book? You read it". So I did. And God revealed Himself to me through His word. I got saved (accepted the reality of Christ and His atoning sacrifice for me, and made Him Lord of my life) that April.

Please note that I've talked to many Catholics before and after that and have come to know that many of them are Christians (saved) and that many of them are not. Being Catholic no more makes you a Christian than living in a garage makes you an automobile

There is no unity on doctrine. I can point to any doctrine and find someone who is a protestant who disagrees. This renders the concept of Christian ‘unity’ a lie. There is no unity among Protestant Christians.

Apparently the same happens in Roman Catholicism. Lots of American Catholics on birth control, etc.

He says he’s a Christian. He has made his profession of faith in public, and his personal testimony. Many, many, many other protestants agree with him and not you.

True they agree with him. But they disagree with God. God's word clearly calls what vicky endorses and promotes, abomination. You can't be following Christ if you love what He hates and hate what He loves. It's pretty simple really. If our testimony does not line up with our actions then our testimony is false.

So what you are saying is it doesn’t matter if you are a member of Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson’s church. It’s all ok, because he and his members form the true church.

I am saying that it doesn't matter what church you belong to, or if you belong to any church at all. What matters, indeed, the only thing that matters, is if you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. If you have such a relationship then the Holy Spirit (who is given to all believers) will lead you away from anti-Christian "churches" such as vicky's.

I can no more make him my saviour than I can make my father my father. He IS my saviour and has always been my saviour. I can only acknowledge that which is true. He suffered and died and redeemed all of us from the Cross.

If someone gives you a gift, walks up to you and lays it on the ground in front of you and says "Here, this is for you", is it yours? No it isn't. It's not yours until you accept it and take it.

Jesus died on the cross for all of us. But God is a gentleman. He will not force us into heaven. He gives us the gift of his Son but it's up to us to accept that gift and take it. By his death and resurrection Jesus is THE Savior. But not until I accept that gift is He MY Savior

Now I have one for you - what do you think of the Nicene Creed? This is where your formula originates.

What is it? I don't ever recall seeing it in the bible (unless it's called something else there. Book, chapter and verse?)

OK. I had some time and googled it. It seems that I can support almost every clause with scripture

“The bible never once asks what church”

Nonsense. The Bible explicitly states that Christ built his Church to proclaim the gospel to all nations.

Exactly. Not the Roman Catholic church. Not the Eastern Orthodox church, not the Assemblies of God church, not the Lutheran Church. etc. etc. etc. Just the Church, the body of ALL believers in Jesus. “with trivial and unimportant questions”

It’s not trivial. That’s my point. Visible Christian unity is very, very important, even more so given folks like Vicky Gene Robinson.

Again, difference of perspective. All Christians are in unity. The question is whether one is a Christian or not. We the church have been very lax in following the commands of 1 Cor 5:1-13. We've let sin take root in the church and have not pulled it up and expelled those who endorse it. (For example, how was Ted Kennedy able to claim being a Catholic after muredering Mary Jo and not repenting, being a drunk, being pro-abortion etc etc etc. He should have been cast out years before he died.)

We need all the faithful Christians who remain true to Christs teachings in unity with one another and not with Vicky.

This is self-evident. If they are Christian they are in unity with Christ's teachings. If someone is not following Christ (vicky for example) they are not in unity with those who are following Christ.

It’s not about ‘making the world a better place’. This world is doomed. The boat is sinking and we have to swim.

Yes the boat is sinking. we are in the end times, but we have a life preserver and can share that life preserver with as many as will accept it. So if we share the gospel and someone gets saved because of (or even in spite of) our efforts, then we have made the world a better place.

[It is error to believe that], if the Pope were a reprobate and an evil man and consequently a member of the devil, he has no power over the faithful." Council of Constance, Condemnation of Errors, against Wycliffe, Session VIII, and Hus: Session XV; DNZ:621, 617, 588).......... "Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom." ( St. Catherine of Siena: A Biography By Anne B. Baldwin, p. 125,

WOW! So there was talk back then about satan being lifted up through the RCC back then - and catholics were told to submit to him. And God's Word warned about it.....

....."I will ascend to heaven and set my throne above God's stars. I will preside on the mountain of the gods far away in the north. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."

Satan has his kingdom just like he wanted. God preserved His Word and He used Luther to fulfill....."I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

So what I thought was, unknowingly, by the RCC - they know it and bow to satan any way! And no wonder the children of the dark are taught - God's Word is not their final authority and are taught all the non biblical things like praying to the dead, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It's deliberate - and pride will keep them there.

That's the reason they are 'so offended' by The Truth, gets angry when there is too much truth and looking to have Truth deleted, and gets defiant when it isn't and/or they battle against Truth with their lack of understanding of IT - and refuse to 'hear and obey' God's Word. There is no peace there - that's for sure - but unrest and confusion.

Again, a straw man. Nobody is excusing improper behavior on the part of any Pope. Let us consider the US. There have been several duly elected Presidents who have acted terribly while in office (both official and personal behavior), bringing negative consequences to the nation. Was the Constitution at fault? Did we all just give up on the Constitution? Did the entire union dissolve? Nope. There was a Civil War. What was the result? Now consider the Roman Catholic Church. Have there been some Popes who worked against the Church? Yep. Were the teachings of the Church wrong? Nope. Has there been upheaval? Yep. Have their been changes to improve the situation? Yep. So there you have it. In both cases, the institution wasn’t at fault. Individuals were. The institution took self-correcting action. As humans, we are imperfect and will continue to be so.

That's humorous, a strawman answer to a supposed strawman question. What you seem to be missing is that there is a huge difference between the U.S. Constitution and its relationship to individual leaders and the Roman Catholic Church and her Popes, supposedly "Divinely-ordained", and the consequence upon Catholics. When Americans lawfully elect leaders that blatantly disregard the founding documents of this country, then they HAVE, in essence, given up on the Constitution and the country IS changed - it ceases to BE the same country. The Roman Catholic Church claims to BE the one and only church of Jesus Christ and sets up the Pope as the "Supreme" leader of all Christendom - insisting that the exact same authority of St. Peter resides in each of them.

It is the Roman Catholic Church which claims:

Even the President of the United States doesn't have that kind of power! The teachings of the RCC HAVE changed and do not reflect the doctrines "once delivered unto the saints". That makes them wrong according to the divinely-inspired rule of faith we have been given - the Holy Scriptures. Just as Liberals in power have perverted and twisted the intent of the Constitution, depraved leaders of the Roman Catholic Church have perverted and twisted the Bible and guidelines we have been given for what the "true" Body of Christ consists of. God's word is not at fault - fallible humans are.

You claim the "institution" of the Catholic Church was not at fault when wicked men were named as her leaders. I can't think of who else is to blame BUT the equally wicked men unfit for the task they were supposed to perform. The America of the twenty-first century is DRASTICALLY changed from her founding and these changes HAVE caused an upheaval that would take a mighty act of God to restore her to the once great nation she was. The institution of the Roman Catholic Church has also changed from how she once existed at her start. Though she was never THE church Jesus established - His church is a body comprised of ALL believers in Christ - the Church of Rome today does not resemble the early church led by the Apostles.

So, yes, the Catholic Church WAS at fault because she allowed wealth, power and status to cloud the purpose and plan of God for His children. The CHURCH, the real Body of Christ, will never fail or dissolve but will be presented to God as a spotless virgin covered in the pure white garment of the blood of Christ, holy and blameless in His sight.

Scripture isn’t lacking. It is God’s inspired word. It is a guidepost for all people.

Regarding authentic authority, it was given to Peter, by Jesus, and that authority has been passed down over 2000 years to priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.

So is the inspired word of God number two on the Catholic list of authority or number three???

So is it ignorance of scripture or dishonesty???

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Peter resolved NOTHING...It was Paul who knocked Peter down to size...So if you don't get that or won't accept, how do you qualify yourself for any bible discussion at all???

2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

2Co 12:11 I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

Well, well, well...Paul will get greater rewards than Peter...

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Huh??? Where's the pope??? Where's the Catholic Church??? WHERE'S MARY???

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

You guys claim to be of Peter...Guess it's pretty safe to say that you are carnal then...

1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

In case you don't get that, it says there is not a single Apostle who is above another...

So we can see why the word of God is not your final and only authority...It condemns your religion left and right...

The assertion of authentic authority is that given by Jesus Himself. He gave it to no one else. I could be wrong, but only Muhammad and Joseph Smith have claimed divine instruction to lead a religion.

But your premise is that Rome is right and all other interpretations are wrong, and are ignoring the issue of the basis for your assurance that this is true.

s we are all sinners, we can’t just go into a cave by ourselves, can we? Is that what Paul is telling the Corinthians? No. We shouldn’t fraternize with those who will lead us into sin, but should not ignore them. We should seek them out to minister to them.

Wrong. Paul does not say to leave for Mars to avoid the world, but to seek the lost, yet as concerns the household of faith, he does not teach to seek out impenitent practitioners of flagrant sin or recalcitrant sinners or heretics, but to "avoid them," (Rm. 16:17) "and have no company with him," (2Thes. 3:14) "and let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Mt. 18:17)

"I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. " (1 Corinthians 5:9-13)

That is merely an argument by assertion, that the whole church looked to an Peter as the highly exalted supreme head over Christendom, and as the first of a line of popes, who as individuals are uniquely endowed with infallibility, whom no one can depose without their consent but who can exercise their power unhindered.

Why you are right and others are wrong remains the issue.

Regarding the coronation, that is neither dogmatic, nor doctrinal. In fact, the last Pope to wear the tiara was Paul VI. Since then, Popes have worn a simple mitre at their installation Mass.

Neither is it dogmatic nor doctrinal that pope not wear the tiara, which is due to the loss of Rome unScriptural use of the sword of men. But as James said, "I will shew thee my faith by my works," and what Rome effectually teaches is shown by her actions.

But just what do you consider official, authentic unchanging RC teaching requiring assent? All Bulls,, encyclicals, stamped material, etc. or just infallible statements? And can you provide an infallible list that shows which level of magisterial teaching each one belongs to? Or does that somewhat require interpretation, as with the meaning of such to some degree?

Regarding swords, the only armed men at the command of the Pope are the Swiss Guard, which number around 500.

I wrongly assumed you would understand i was referring to things such as the RC sanctioned torture and murder of her theological enemies (and which early Prots had to unlearn).

Finally, there hasn’t been sanctioned corporal punishment since the 1500s.

Which does not change what Rome taught as right, and if she has changed (as in non-infallibly stating torture is intrinsically wrong) because what she sanctioned was wrong, the it renders Rome guilty of leading her flock astray by sanctioning torture and killing of theological dissidents or suspects. And if she changed simply due to the times, we have no assurance she would not adopt the same if she had the power to do so as in the past.

Catholic Encyclopedia: The Church has the right, as a perfect and independent society provided with all the means for attaining its end, to decide according to its laws disputes arising concerning its internal affairs, especially as to the ecclesiastical rights of its members, also to carry out its decision, if necessary, by suitable means of compulsion, contentious or civil jurisdiction. It has, therefore, the right to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction.

In regard to ecclesiastical jurisdiction in criminal matters the Church exercised jurisdiction at first only in purely ecclesiastical offences, and inflicted only ecclesiastical punishments, e.g. excommunication, and in the case of clerics deposition. The observance of these penalties had to be left to the conscience of the individual. But with the formal recognition of the Church by the State and the increase of ecclesiastical penalties proportioned to the increase of ecclesiastical offences, came an appeal from the Church to the secular arm for aid in enforcing the said penalties, which aid was always willingly granted....

The question has been raised whether it be lawful for the Church, not merely to sentence a delinquent to physical penalties, but itself to inflict these penalties. As to this, it is sufficient to note that the right of the Church to invoke the aid of the civil power to execute her sentences is expressly asserted by Boniface VIII in the Bull "Unam Sanctam". This declaration, even if it be not one of those portions of the Bull in which the pope is defining a point of faith, is so clearly connected with the parts expressly stated to possess such character that it is held by theologians to be theologically certain (Palmieri, "De Romano Pontifice", thes. 21). — Catholic Encyclopedia>The Pope; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Question:

Answer: