Perhaps you'd know about St. Mieczyslaw (Miecislaus) -- Mieczyslaw I (King of Poland who accepted Christianity on behalf of all Poland) ? Since you are one of the resident RC's...January 1 is his feast day.:wavey:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When did it all go wrong?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Are you certain of this? Let me bring up a few items. Inocent the third on the behalf of all christiandom Declared war to "retake the Holy Land" this is definately a moral question. Does a Church have the right to declare war? Also considering apostolic succession, is it moral to supercede apostolic succession as in the case of the bishoperic of Rome and relegate the decision making process to an election of the majority? How about excommunicating a whole region of christians as what occured in 1054 because you have a disagreement about unleavened bread or whether the statement "the spirit proceeds from the father and the son"? How moral is that?
Yep but you don't see peter forcing other churches to his perspective. He actually listens neither do you see Peter act like Pope Paul the XII who was killed when caught in bed with another mans wife. Nor sell his Papacy like Benedict IX.
Are you certain of this. I'm certain if you study the Church during Justin Martyrs time it looks entirely different than it does now. As a matter of Fact Many of the Great saints would have been execumunicated with the rest of the eastern church. Very Problematic. Simply put. The modern RCC is not the same as it was when it was wholistically just the Catholic faith.
Some baptist like good debate. Unfortunately you are out numbered.
My position is that the modern catholic church is not the same as ignatius' Catholic Church. Certainly Ignatius didn't have to work with canon law which can be compared to Talmud. Or Mishnaic teachings of judaism.
I know exactly who he is and have read all of his letters.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joshua Patrick
New Member
http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp
Just War Doctrne, it's this on the spot.
They is a difference between, A Pope, and the Church. The Church cannot go wrong when in matters of faith&morale's. Although you can get, bad pope's.
Pope Paul the XII - This Pope never existed.
St. Paul I (757-67) - 94th Pope.
Paul II (1464-71) - 212th Pope.
Paul III (1534-49) - 221st Pope.
Paul IV (1555-59) - 224th Pope.
Paul V (1605-21) - 234th Pope.
Paul VI (1963-78) - 263rd Pope
Benedict IX:
He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth.
He resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045).
Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory.
This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German pope, Damasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata. [See "St. Benedict and Grottaferrata" (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important "De Sepulcro Benedicti IX", by Dom Greg. Piacentini (Rome, 1747).]
He was " placed" on the Seat of Peter, by his father. He was also 12 when placed upon it. Stupidity, but prime example how evil can lure itself into the church, yes even claim the Seat of St.Peter for awhile.
Apostolic Succession, Early Church Fathers, clearly taught what the Catholic Church taught.
The church is not called the RCC, that was name given to us by Protestants. The official name is,The Catholic Church, simply the Universal Church.
The proclamation of a saint, is a infallible doctrine, which they can be no errors. For example, the recent person on his way to sainthood is, Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman, a Catholic convert, from the Anglican faith. He was so anti-Catholic, he even classed the Pope as the Anti-Christ. After patience and 15 years of study, he finally realized the truth, he soon ran into a Catholic church, and kissed the feet of a bishop, begging and pleading for him to let him become a Catholic. Obviously, the bishop cannot refuse, but it tooks years before he could be trusted within the Church.
My position, is not only is it the same church of St.Ignatius, but also the same church, that Christ established upon St.Peter. Apostolic succession is beautiful!
What's canon law, got to do with this?
1. Christ never established His church upon Peter.
2. There is no such thing as Apostolic succession. It cannot be demonstrated--Especially since all the Apostles lived in the first century. None of them succeeded any of the others. And they all died as martyrs except for John who was exiled to the island of Patmos. So much for succession!
Obviously you've not read Matt 16 or any Eusebius, then...Ho hum
Either you don’t understand apostolic succession or you are trying to distort what it means. The Catholic Church does not contend that anyone has qualified for the office of apostle since the death of John. They are quite clear on that point. Not a single bishop has ever claimed the title of apostle. What they mean by apostolic succession is that all their priests and bishops were ordained by men who were ordained by men . . . who were ordained by one of the apostles. Every ordained man can trace his ordination back to an apostle, or so they say.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Just war doctrine is for Nation no the church. Big difference.
However, the Catholic Church view of the "see of Peter" is that he is a unfiying figure for the Church thus he holds a position of unity and leadership. On top of it the position is called the "Vicar of Christ" which means God's embassador to men. Thus, the position itself clearly indicates a moral element to be beholden to and since it also provides for the Unity of the Church it also exemples the churches stance with regard to morality thus if he is immoral the church is claiming to be immoral.
Showing the question of the position to begin with.
I know what Apostolic Succession is which is why I ask if you hold to it why does a conclave of Arch Bishops known as the college of Cardnals vote on "Peter's successor"? When clearly Apostolic succession was a result of the Apostle appointing their successor? You see how this is problematic.
This is not entirely true. Roman Catholics became known as that to differenciate from the Eastern Catholics they excommunicated in 1054. Previous to this date all Christians were known as Catholic.
What you are saying here is that every person declaired to be saint by the Church are "known" to have acheived heaven. Yet, what of those who died in mortal sin? Problematic don't you think?
How? When your church votes in its next leader? Thats not Apostolic Succession.
Everything. It constrains the graces by which the Catholic experiences God and attains heaven.
They have vivid imaginations. They cannot prove what they assert.
Let them start here:
Acts 14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Yes. And? What's your point?
Indeed; surely this passage supports the idea of Apostolic authority for ordination and 'passing on' of the ontological charism connected therewith?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Which I find problematic with a college of cardinals voting on succession.
Apostolic succession refers to the succession of bishops - not the Pope.
Besides the Catholics the Eastern Orthodox churches, Oriental Orthodox churches, parts of the Anglican Communion, and Lutheran churches are also proponents of this doctrine
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
the pope is the bishop of Rome. And apostolic succession comes through appointment not a vote.
Apostolic succession is not about assigning a bishop to a particular city - it is about how the man becomes a bishop.
Whoever is voted bishop of Rome - ie pope - is still ordained by other bishops who were ordained by other bishops.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Ah... But the Apostles appointed their successors. They based it on character. They didn't vote in the next guy. See the difference?
The vote is only for which bishop will be the pope.
It is not a vote for whether or not some othewise not ordained person will be ordained.
You are confusing two different things.
And as I pointed out - other demoninations besides the Catholics believe in Apostolic Succession.
Last edited by a moderator:
Including us Anglicans, in theory at least.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I don't disagree that the catholics believe in apostolic succession. I'm saying the mode of appointment is different than it was in scripture and historically. And that it could be problematic.
Apostolic succession isn't about appointment - it's about ordination.
Also there doesn't seem to be much in Scripture about setting up boards to do a new pastor search and to interview new pastors for a church either - but that's the way that it is generally done.