“Done Roman” and Coming Home to the Catholic Church

Aletelia ^ | October 26, 2015 | FR DWIGHT LONGENECKER

[af_vet_1981]

Regformation

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Your inane and immature projections are impossible to take seriously.

Have a nice day.

[Dutchboy88]

The day will come when they will be taken seriously...Rome will be sorry.

[ealgeone]

Catholicism presumes that the priest in the rcc can trace thier "authority" back to Peter. How does Paul play into this when he was called straight by Christ? He denies any authority received from Peter.

Is it not possible that Christ still calls men today to be ministers irrespective having to trace a link back to Peter?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Is it not possible that Christ still calls men today to be ministers irrespective having to trace a link back to Peter? “

“Consequently faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the preached word of Christ”

Becoming a child of God and with it eternal life come not by supposed descent from an Apostle, but by the communication of God’s inspired Words.

Every new believer who is saved traces their lineage directly through God’s a Word to Christ.

[af_vet_1981]

Catholicism presumes that the priest in the rcc can trace thier "authority" back to Peter. How does Paul play into this when he was called straight by Christ? He denies any authority received from Peter. Is it not possible that Christ still calls men today to be ministers irrespective having to trace a link back to Peter?

1. All the Apostles were called by the Messiah.
2. All the Apostles called by the Messiah were in unity with each other.
3. The Apostle Paul was called "out of season," was "the least of all the apostles," and was given "the right hand of fellowship" by the other Apostles in Jerusalem.
4. When there was a problem the Apostles met, prayed, and made a binding decision for the churchs throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth, one holy catholic apostolic church.
5. The Apostles appointed bishops by the laying on of hands.
6. The bishops appointed by the Apostles appointed bishops by the laying on of hands, and it continues so that there is an unbroken chain, in actual history, from the time of the Apostles until now.
7. It is not possible that the Messiah, who called the one holy catholic apostolic church to unity is calling it to disunity. That is the error of men.
8. There are Catholic/Orthodox churches that have an unbroken chain all the way back to the Apostles (Apostolic Succession).

[ealgeone]

You have not answered the question. Is it possible for God to call a man today as He did Paul? Paul did not need any approval or blessing from the disciples.

[ealgeone]

For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 1 Cor 15:9. NASB

You kinda took Paul out of context to suggest he was not as "worthy" as to somehow diminish him.

Context is your friend.

[af_vet_1981]

You have not answered the question. Is it possible for God to call a man today as He did Paul?

Yes, it is theoretically and mysteriously possible that God could call other Jews in the same way he called Saul.

Paul did not need any approval or blessing from the disciples.

Yes, he did. He had to be in fellowship with the one holy catholic apostolic church to be authentic. Otherwise it would have been like the Reformation or Mormonism. Since St. Paul is an authentic apostle, he was in fellowship with the authentic disciples that the Messiah actually trained, as opposed to those who departed from the faith or imagined they were his sheep.

[af_vet_1981]

You kinda took Paul out of context to suggest he was not as "worthy" as to somehow diminish him.

False; I summarized scriptural facts. It must be in your own mind, or heart.

[ealgeone]

1Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. 3But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. 5But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. 6But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me. 7But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8(for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles), 9and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do. Galatians 2:1-10

[ealgeone]

>>You have not answered the question. Is it possible for God to call a man today as He did Paul?<<

Yes, it is theoretically and mysteriously possible that God could call other Jews in the same way he called Saul.

God can only call Jews??

Catholic reasoning on display again.

[af_vet_1981]

God can only call Jews??

You had asked
"Is it possible for God to call a man today as He did Paul?"

The Apostles were Jews. Perhaps you meant you belong to a sect who imagines their men and women are being called as apostles, prophets, and prophetesses ? Is that the case ?

[ealgeone]

I hope whatever you did in the Air Force you did better than you reason on this board.

[Springfield Reformer]

An entertaining rejoinder. But you assume what I do not, that a pedigree of men trumps a pedigree of truth.  Even Paul was disinterested in the Corinthian assembly's factional claims to pedigrees based on "I am of this person, I am of that person, etc." His interest was not in carnal measures of continuity, but a divine measure.  His version of pedigree was simply this: What has God planted? If one is trapped in a carnal mindset, it would be perfectly natural to use carnal means to try and discern spiritual truth.

Beside that, God has already demonstrated He uses a pedigree of truth, not men, to sustain His people.  Recall what happened in the second book of Kings, how Hilkiah the high priest rediscovered the book of the law after a prolonged period of forgetfulness in Israel.  Again and again in Israel there were periods of relapse into paganism followed by periods of reformation.  The appearance of Christ was the greatest reformation of all, and so it is as unsurprising as the rising and setting of the sun that the followers of Messiah should periodically go through times of reformation.  It is the norm, not the exception.

As for your proposed historical criteria, I expect the opposite.  I expect the historical tracing of the true body of Christ to be extremely difficult in carnal terms.  I expect Satan to oppose the true body of Christ and attempt at every turn to wipe it out and eradicate the memory of it from the earth.  I expect the words of Jesus to be absolutely, numerically true, when He says, many are called, but few are chosen, or that the road to life is narrow, with few upon it, and the road to destruction broad, with many traveling down it.  I look at the billions lost in Islam, the billions lost in worldliness or atheism or paganism, and I see His words are factually, numerically true. Numbers mean nothing.  Why anyone would use such a lame basis for divine pedigree I have no idea.  Jesus has taken that off the table.

Why do you suppose He would have done that?  Is it possible He does not want us to judge as men judge, according to the flesh?  Remember David, when he set in his heart to measure his military forces in carnal terms?  He wronged God. He put on public display his lack of faith.  The punishment was swift and terrible.

So you see, while I might be tempted like any fallen sinner to resort to human methods for measuring the success of God's Gospel in the world, I have sound Biblical reasons to run away from such temptation. I am on much safer ground resorting to the pedigree of truth, God's own word, Scripture. By Scripture I know by faith that there have been and always will be those who are faithful to His word.  Many of these I can find, and at all points of human history they shine like Gospel lanterns. But they are also the subject of Satan's hatred, so at times their light in history is obscured. Even now, Christians of all denominations are being systematically eradicated from the Middle East, while our Muslim Sympathizer President yawns and plays his fiddle.  Do I lose faith in God, because I cannot follow all He is doing in the world? Of course not.  Not even the angels are equipped to separate the wheats from the tares. Why would you ask me to do what cannot be done, even by the angels, until the end of the age?

Peace,

SR

[ealgeone]

Well reasoned and written. The opposition should retreat and admit defeat after this post.

[af_vet_1981]

Beside that, God has already demonstrated He uses a pedigree of truth, not men, to sustain His people.

In truth, he uses both, an unbroken chain, as he used blessed Joseph and blessed Miriam/Mary, the mother of "God with us."

Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Isaiah, Catholic chapter seven, Protestant verses ten to sixteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter one, in its entirety,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,

[Springfield Reformer]

Point well taken.  There were specific instances where bloodline mattered in the Old Covenant. But this is moving the goalposts.  The original question had to do with identification of the ecclesia, not the Messianic bloodline, or the Temple priesthood, which was rendered obsolete by the Eternal High Priest, Jesus.

BTW, as long as you raised the issue, let's ask the question.  Do you suppose any of the people of Joshua's time would have been able to walk up to Rahab the ex-prostitute and identify her as an essential link in the physical pedigree of Jesus? Of course not. 

So even if I let you move the goalposts, you still have the problem that having a pedigree does not equate to having an easily recognized place in that lineage. 

But I would rather you not move the goalposts. We are talking about the ecclesia, and whether the uninspired, error-filled lists of biased witnesses (Eusebius, anyone?) are anywhere near as useful in tracing the history of the Gospel as the testimony of belief that squares with the word of God. As I explained before, Paul has specifically disclaimed any pedigree of men as the basis for authenticating a Gospel believing assembly.  This is not about bloodlines.

Even Jesus denies the principle.  You recall the "not one of us" disciple who went about driving out demons in Jesus' name, and how the disciples complained to Jesus that chap was not an authorized disciple, not the right organizational, human, carnal pedigree? And I am sure you remember Jesus' response.

But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.
(Mark 9:39-40)

Do you see the criteria here? It's very clear. The organizational pedigree was dismissed as nothing.  Just as Paul dismissed it in Corinth.  Yes, bloodlines mattered in the levitical priesthood, and in the coming of Messiah as the seed of David.  But the bond of our unity now is our common faith in Jesus, and the Spirit of God living in us, working out His truth in us, feeding us from the richness of His word, every day.  And though that unity is beyond the reach of human sight, it is more real, and stronger, than any gathering of mortals, and will outlast them all, just as Jesus said.

Peace,

SR

[boatbums]

Well stated! Thank you.

Many people falsely assume that “apostolic succession” somehow automatically presumes infallibility on those who self identify as part of this group lineage. But what the Apostles passed down was the truth of the Christian faith - and the Holy Spirit ensured these truths would be forever preserved in the written word of God. They did NOT pass down their Apostolic office and its authority - only Jesus Christ ordained them for the establishment of the church - instead they taught their disciples who, in turn, passed down the truth to faithful men who would do the same also. That is how we know the truth two thousand years later. It is GOD’S doing.

[af_vet_1981]

Point well taken. There were specific instances where bloodline mattered in the Old Covenant. But this is moving the goalposts. The original question had to do with identification of the ecclesia, not the Messianic bloodline, or the Temple priesthood, which was rendered obsolete by the Eternal High Priest, Jesus.

The chain of custody always matters. There is an unbroken chain of custody from Sinai until now. It is visible here in that the Apostle Paul ordained Timothy as a bishop and authorized Bishop Timothy to appoint other bishops to perpetuate the unbroken chain. There are three generations evident in the verse, and rinse, lather, and repeat, as they say, continues the unbroken chain until this day. The one holy catholic apostolic church has had apostolic succession unto this day.

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Second Timothy, Catholic chapter two, in its entirety,
as authorized, but not authored by, King James
bold emphasis mine

Even Jesus denies the principle. You recall the "not one of us" disciple who went about driving out demons in Jesus' name, and how the disciples complained to Jesus that chap was not an authorized disciple, not the right organizational, human, carnal pedigree? And I am sure you remember Jesus' response.
But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:39-40) Do you see the criteria here? It's very clear.

Yes, do you ?

They cannot be against us. Those who hate the Catholic Church are "against us." Do you ever rebuke them soundly so that they can conform to the principle you brought up (which is a very valid principle, BTW) ?