God is green

[Guest]

Hi CatholicSteve,

Thanks for your reply. I must admit, dares and double-dares ceased to have any motivating effect on me after about the 4th grade.

I think we've reached a point where we're not really having a dialog, but simply playing to the crowd. This is a shame, because I really do enjoy civil and intelligent dialog. However, I'm willing to continue in hopes that we can tone down the rhetoric, move forward and have a discussion. I'm also hoping that you'll take some time to respond thoughtfully to the questions I'm asking you, as well as to the answers I've given forthrightly to your questions.

Before we get into Acts 15, allow me to answer your question about why I quoted Cardinal Cajetan. The quote I provided was at a point in my post prior to discussing the early church. It was given (you can look back and see) in the context of answering your question about whether I read what you call a "Protestant texted Bible". In trying to provide you with a thorough answer, I explained my view on the Apocrypha, which appears to be consistent with both Jerome and Cajetan, thus spanning about 1,200 years of Catholic history. I pointed this out in hopes of enabling you to see the folly of your assertion that if I favor what you call a "Protestant texted Bible" I must be a Protestant.

I wonder why, in so many of your posts, you put so much energy into applying the Protestant label to people. I recall a series of posts in which you doggedly tried to convince Emmet, a Jewish non-Christian, that he is a Protestant! I can only assume that this is because the apologetic sources you are relying upon are written with the Protestant in mind and lose some traction without the label.

This reminds me of something. I occasionally listen to EWTN, and the "apologetic" programs in particular. Two things typically come to mind when listening: One is the poor exegesis often displayed by the hosts. The second is that, yeesh, the Reformation was, like, 400 years ago; get over it already!

But I digress.

I love the story of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. At this point the church was relatively small and still based in Jerusalem, but was sending out missionaries (aka apostles) to surrounding areas, such as Antioch. There were clearly different points of view within the church about what it meant to be a Christian and, particularly if Gentiles must convert to Judaism in order to follow Jesus. They met together as a body to decide the issue. The church was there. The apostles were there. The elders were there. Note the simplicity of the structure here, if it can even be called a structure. There is no hierarchy of bishops and cardinals and priests. There is just the ekklesia, including the the mature ones who give guidance (elders) and those who were with Jesus (apostles). There is no indication that the apostles are higher in rank than the elders (or vice versa), or that either lords it over the ekklesia. Rather, there seems to be a spirit of equality. A discussion ensues in which all opinions are heard. This, by the way, is very much what you might see at an AA business meeting or a Quaker meeting for business. Verse 7 tells us that there was "much discussion". The picture here is not of a decree coming from a pope and trickling down through a hierarchy. It is of a body seeking consensus. Verse 12 tells us that the "whole assembly" was there. Peter gives his view, as does Paul, Barnabas and James. These men are obviously highly respected and their opinion carries the day. In verse 22 we see "the apostles and elders with the whole church" agreeing to send a delegation to Antioch with a letter.

Notice who the letter is addressed from (verse 23):

"The apostles and elders, your brothers"

Not "your superiors" or even "your leaders", but "your brothers".

Notice who the letter is addressed to:

"To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia"

Not to the bishops of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia or even the Priests or even the elders. The apostles and elders in Jerusalem speak "brother to brother" to the Gentile believers. There is absolutely no evidence of a hierarchy here!

The letter itself states in verse 25, "...we all agreed...".

The letter ends not by saying "You must do this" or "We decree this", but rather "You will do well to avoid these things", which reads more like a suggestion than a decree. This is indicative of how leadership was done in the early church. Each ekklesia was led by a plurality of elders. The elders were mature, respected believers who were looked up to by the rest of the church, not because of some man-made title or position, but because of their wisdom and service.

Notice in verse 30 who the letter is delivered to:

"...they gathered the church together and delivered the letter."

It wasn't sent from the bishop of Jerusalem to the bishop of Antioch. There was no such thing.

Who read the letter?

"The people read it..."

So then, what we see of the church in Acts 15 looks more like a network than a hierarchy. We see a great deal of mutual respect and a desire to hear divergent opinions and reach a consensus. The council at Jerusalem doesn't seem to claim any authority over the Antioch believers beyond that of elder brothers providing guidance.

What a beautiful picture of the Body of Christ -- believers seeking together to hear the will of the Lord.

Sadly, we know from Paul's epistles that the "Judaizer" faction of the church continued to pursue their agenda.

The attitude I see in the Jerusalem council reminds me of John's 3rd epistle, where he complains about a church leader named Diotrephes who seems to be dissing John and "the brothers", even going so far as to "put them out of the church." What is striking is that John doesn't seem to equate his own Apostleship with having any authority over Diotrephes or Diotrephes' church!

So please go back and find me those writings that are so much against confession, priests, bishops?

Are you at all familiar with the basic rules of logic? Your continued insistence on this point indicates that you aren't. All I can say is, "Purple underwear." Can't you see that any mention of confession to priests, or of a priestly office, or of apostolic succession is blindingly absent from the earliest Christian writings?

"I think if John Wesley was talking to you directly you?d argue about his scholastic theology."

I would certainly have points of disagreement with Wesley, although I respect him tremendously.

"?you?re a Protestant. Everyone reading your statements knows it except you.

I didn't realize you had the capability to read the minds of everyone who accesses these forums. I am impressed! Not only that, but you know my own mind better than I do! I am doubly impressed!

As for 20+ thousand. I have read it is more like 30+ thousand. You stated ?? the "World Christian Encyclopedia" which has been shown to be highly inaccurate.? Why do you think this source is inaccurate? What reading proof do you rely upon? US Census info?

For starters, is this your source you have no faith in? ?? there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries" and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.? (World Christian Encyclopedia (2nd edition). David Barrett, George Kurian and Todd Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)

Yup, I thought so. World Christian Encyclopedia. That gives me some insight into which Catholic apologists you've been going to for source material. Btw, what do you make of the fact that the World Christian Encyclopedia lists 242 distinct denominations within Roman Catholicism?

For those interested in how Catholic apologists erroneously arrive at that number of 20,000 or 30,000 denominations using the World Christian Encyclopedia, here's a good article: http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm

Does it matter if there are 33 thousand or 10 thousand doctrinal faiths within the Protestant world?

The correct figure is probably around 8,500. And no, it really doesn't matter. All are under the headship of Christ. It is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. All of this is possible without the hierarchy of the Catholic church. In fact, the Catholic church has been one of the greatest impediments to true Christian unity.

You are hearing the litany of apostolic succession for the EARLY CHURCH!

Tell you what. Rather than all the jumping around that we've been doing, why don't we focus on this topic of Apostolic Succession for a while?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." As I understand it, the claim to Apostolic Succession is critical to the Catholic Church as a means of validating their place as the One True Church. Because of this, it would seem like a good place to spend some time. Do you agree?

The Catholic claim, as I understand it, is that the Apostles passed on not just their teachings but also their authority to bishops who succeeded them. These bishops, in turn, passed the apostolic authority on to their successors and so on and so on. I want to make sure I'm clear on this point: Apostolic Succession, according to the Catholic Church, is a succession not just of teaching and responsibility but also of authority. Essentially, the modern-day Catholic Bishop carries the authority of the original Apostles. Is this a correct statement? Or perhaps you could provide a better statement?

Could you please provide all of the scriptures you are aware of that support this idea of Apostolic Succession of authority in the Christian church?

Secondly, could you please provide statements of early church fathers that support the idea of Apostolic Succession of authority? It would be easiest for me to understand if you could start at the time period of the New Testament, say with the Didache or Clement, and then move chronologically outward to Irenaeus? I'd like to see the progression. Then we can perhaps discuss Irenaeus in depth.

Does this sound like a way we could move forward?

[Guest]

Dear Mort,

I would love, love, love to talk about succession and Acts 15, but we are not going to dance around here. You and others have always told me (paraphrased) to “stay focused” that too many of my posts start going into a plethora of statements and questions. Therefore, let us go back to my dare and double-dare.

We are all children in the eyes of the Lord so “dares” are better than name calling or fist fights. You still have not shown me the early writings of the earliest Christian Church & Christians related to Christian doctrine. You spoke adamantly about confession, priests and bishops but if it would help please add apostolic succession. Come one, defend yourself with history. History never goes away.

Go to the multiple Protestant (& Catholic) sites and cut/paste/reference the writings that support your contention that Catholic Christian doctrine is not Christian doctrine.

Also, please get over the fact that some how we’re “playing to the crowd”. This is between you and me and the number of Catholic and Protestant Christians “listening” to this dialog. With almost 1,300 readers (unless you go back to read your posts) in about 10 days there are 130 more educated people every day …. whether Catholic or Protestant. As to my playing to the crowd, I know they are reading and I would not like my Catholic readers to be swayed by some very consistent denial of your Protestant nomenclature and doctrine.

You told me there is multiple “Catholics”, but I will not deny there are splits but if they do not follow the Pope or believe in the succession of Apostles then they are not Catholic. I am a western rite/Roman Catholic knowing full well there are other titles for Catholic rites that believe in succession/pope. As for Emmett, I did feel he was Protestant because of his posts. It would be easy to be confused with the multiple ways Protestants discuss the 8+ thousand (I will use your #) doctrinal points, so confusing Emmett would be easy. If you paid attention to my posts you will also know I apologized to Emmett ad then referenced him as a Jewish source about the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Go to the early writings my friend. I am waiting and about 130 viewers are waiting, too. But you know what? You NEVER, NEVER will because you are afraid to read them and when/if you did you will not be able to support your contentions.

Peace out, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

"A response to repentance such that a total restoration of the relationship between the offending party and the offended party takes place. This restoration is so complete, that it is just as if the offence had never taken place."

On the other hand with the "definitions" which you admire, one could "release a demand for payment for past transgression" and still be unwilling to have anything to do with the offender. Similarly, one could "give up the right to hurt someone for the hurt they've done to you" and still be unwilling to have anything to do with the offender. Thus neither of these actions constitute true forgiveness.

Hi Paidion,

Ok, I see what you're saying. Thanks for filling in the blanks for me. I would look at this in two different classifications: Human forgiveness and God's forgiveness.

Human forgiveness is, like all things human, imperfect. It can only strive towards an ideal. With human forgiveness, a restoration of relationship may not be possible. A person who was sexually molested as a child by a relative may grow up to forgive the molester, and honestly wish the best for them, but still choose not to have a close relationship (and certainly not allow their children to have a close relationship) with the relative who victimized them.

God's forgiveness is, like all things of God, perfect. So, yes, I would agree whole-heartedly that God's forgiveness is all about the total restoration of relationship and is so complete that it is as if the offense never occurred.

We still disagree on the conditions of that forgiveness, however. I don't believe God's forgiveness can only be given in response to repentance. It can also precede (and bring about) repentance.

I also believe that our repentance is an ongoing process.

One situation comes to my mind in which, by your definition, I would not truly forgive someone. Let's say I trust my father, brother, grandfather, whoever... to watch my little girl. Then I find out that she was molested by them. The party is completely repentant and begs forgiveness. From what I am getting from your definition (the part where you said "it is just as if the offence had never taken place"), in order for me to forgive this person, I would have to be completely comfortable with my daughter being watched by them again. Completely trusting... just as I was before the incident.

I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but that is how my brain is applying your definition.

I have another situation:
What if a person was molested as a child by a stranger, who later came to faith in the Lord and sought to make things right by expressing his repentance to the victim of his crime? Their previous relationship would be as strangers, no? Is that how forgiveness would play out in this situation?

Also, it seems to me that the whole process of sin, repentance, and forgiveness/restoration would guarantee that the relationship would go through some sort of change and could never be restored exactly as it had been. Perhaps that could be a good thing; the relationship might be deeper and stronger for having gone through that process. But just as likely, especially if there was some great loss involved, as much as a person might want to have things go back to the way they were, there might be uneasy feelings surrounding the relationship. If so, now the person who was sinned against is in jeopardy because if we are unable to forgive, we are unable to receive forgiveness from the Father. (Matt 6: 15)

[Guest]

Hi CatholicSteve,

So, if I understand you correctly, you want me to produce writings by early Christians that explicitly speak against Catholic practices such as a priesthood, confession to priests, monarchical bishoprics and apostolic succession.

Two questions come to mind:

1. If, in the earliest years of the Christianity, these things didn't yet exist, why would someone write against them?

2. Later, once the Roman church gained nearly absolute power for 1,000+ years in Europe, do you think they would have allowed writings critical of such practices to remain in existence?

Judging by the way the Catholic church mercilessly hunted down and exterminated groups that opposed these practices (such as the Bogamils, the Paulicians, the Cathars, the Waldenses, the Huguenots, etc.), it is no surprise that their writings were not allowed to survive.

If Catholic practices such as a priesthood, confession to priests, monarchical bishoprics and apostolic succession (we could also add veneration of Mary, praying to Saints etc.) go all the way back to the earliest church, why do we find little to nothing written about them in the earliest Christian writings? You have a snippet from Irenaeus in 180 AD that is distorted to try to support Apostolic Succession; a bit by Clement of Rome in 90 AD that is interpreted to support the idea of a priesthood; Ignatius' arguments in favor of monarchical bishoprics in 100 AD. These scraps are taken out of their original context, cobbled together and read through the eyes of 1,500 years of Catholic tradition. It's flimsy at best.

Where are the early Christian writings that clearly and systematically spell out the Catholic practices of a priesthood, confession to priests, monarchical bishoprics and apostolic succession?

It should be much easier for you to show me something that is there than for me to show you something that isn't there.

[Guest]

Hi Catholic Steve,

Your conversation with Mort Coyle (and others) is very interesting to me, but it gets difficult to keep reading when you say things like:

Go to the early writings my friend. I am waiting and about 130 viewers are waiting, too. But you know what? You NEVER, NEVER will because you are afraid to read them and when/if you did you will not be able to support your contentions.

What has Mort said, or failed to say, that leads you to this conclusion? I'm at a loss because, to me, he seems to take your assertions very seriously, researches them, and replies courteously and thoughtfully. I could be wrong I suppose, but if he came to the conclusion that you are right about some matter, I think he would admit it freely and openly.

Also:

As to my playing to the crowd, I know they are reading and I would not like my Catholic readers to be swayed by some very consistent denial of your Protestant nomenclature and doctrine.

Is that what you meant to say? Or are you hoping to sway 'em instead with your strange little rants?

[Guest]

Hi Mort,

If Catholic practices such as a priesthood, confession to priests, monarchical bishoprics and apostolic succession (we could also add veneration of Mary, praying to Saints etc.) go all the way back to the earliest church, why do we find little to nothing written about them in the earliest Christian writings? You have a snippet from Irenaeus in 180 AD that is distorted to try to support Apostolic Succession; a bit by Clement of Rome in 90 AD that is interpreted to support the idea of a priesthood; Ignatius' arguments in favor of monarchical bishoprics in 100 AD. These scraps are taken out of their original context, cobbled together and read through the eyes of 1,500 years of Catholic tradition. It's flimsy at best.

I've been re-reading the Apostolic Fathers recently, and it struck me that Clement does indeed teach Apostolic succession, and Ignatious definitly promulgated the monarchical biship doctrine (don't take communion without him present, he's God's representative to you, where he is, the church is, etc.). I am definitly a non-Catholic, so I'm not reading with any bias.

Of course, they could both be wrong (I believe they are), but it does seem that they taught these things. At least that's how it seems to me. I would be interested in any alternative interpretations if anyone has one (I know CatholicSteve's). I must say, one would be hard-pressed to interpret them any other way.

God bless,

[Guest]

Hi Derek,

A couple of things to keep in mind:

When Clement speaks of apostolic succession, is he speaking of the authority or the teaching of the Apostles? I believe its the latter.

Likewise with Irenaeus, the emphasis in his discussion of apostolic succession has to do also with the validity of the teaching passed down from the Apostles.

As Christianity had spread through the Roman Empire, lots of strange teachings became mixed with it. One that particularly concerned the early church leaders was Gnosticism. The Gnostics claimed that their teaching came directly from Jesus. It was important for orthodox Christian leaders to emphasize that it was there teaching that came from Christ. They could do this by showing a succession of recognized leaders going back to the Apostles. The Gnostics could not do this.

It makes sense in a time when documentation (and literacy) were relatively scarce, communications between locations was slow and spurious teachings were rife, that the method used to preserve the teachings of the Apostles was by passing them down through entrusted leaders. This is exactly what Paul told Timothy to do in 2 Tim. 2:2:

"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also"

The Catholic Answers website, quite accurately, explains the succession of Apostolic teaching thusly:

"The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

This aligns with what Clement wrote:

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about."

And:

"Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour."

Clement's concern, and the purpose of his epistle to the Corinthians, is that some type of political powerplay has occured and that good and faithful elders have been removed from leadership. Clement doesn't take issue with the local church's authority to remove or replace its own leadership, he takes issue with the fact that the leaders who have been removed were blameless. Regarding succession, notice that Clement says that the leaders are appointed "with the consent of the whole church" and are men who "have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all". This is not a separate priestly caste, but mature, faithful, honorable believers who are appointed by the local body to lead it.

The type of Apostolic Succession that the Catholic church claims, however, goes way beyond the transmission of the Apostles' teaching. They also claim to have received the Apostles'authority through succession, even to the point of infallibility. This is the real crux of the issue. Lets face it, today anyone can read the scriptures for themselves (something the Catholic church tried, and failed, to prevent). We can read the early church fathers (those whose writings have been preserved anyway). We can read 2,000 years of theology. Unlike in Clement's day, the teachings of the Apostles are easily accessible and verifiable.

But the Catholic church makes an astounding leap.

Consider the words of James Cardinal Gibbons, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore in the late 1800's, in his classic book, "The Faith of our Fathers":

"There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility."

The Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

"...in the ante-Nicene, no less than in the post-Nicene, period all orthodox Christians attributed to the corporate voice of the Church, speaking through the body of bishops in union with their head and centre, all the fullness of doctrinal authority which the Apostles themselves had possessed; and to question the infallibility of that authority would have been considered equivalent to questioning God's veracity and fidelity."

And:

"...it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides..."

Perhaps I should have been more careful to explain in earlier posts precisely what I meant by "Apostolic Succession". I took it for granted that CatholicSteve would know that I was referring to the claim of authority and infallibility on the part of the Catholic church. Clement and Irenaeus made no such claim.

A writer by the name of Timothy Enloe put it this way:

"...it is one thing to say that the Apostles made provision for leadership in the churches once they were gone and quite another to say that those so commissioned were to function as if they themselves were Apostles, e.g., that the successors of the Apostles would possess the same infallible doctrinal authority as did the Apostles themselves."

[Guest]

Dear MichelleM,

Thanks for your comment on "my strange little rants". Your Christian love with using such adjectives is over-whelming. Go sit somewhere and pray. It appears you need it.

Peace, Catholic Steve



Dear Derek,

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I am not looking for converts on this site because there is such an over-whelming bias (prejudice?). I am teaching those Catholic Christians that read these posts that the proof is very much out there for Catholic Christian doctrine opposed to Protestant Christian. The problem with some authors on this site is their utter failure to recognize they are Protestant.

Thanks again, Catholic Steve


Dear Mort,

Let me help you with the earliest Christian writings here in a moment but to do so I need your understanding of what is a "Protestant". Would you please give me the definition that you understand and can accept for Protestant? Thanks. Catholic Steve

[Guest]

CS wrote:

Thanks for your comment on "my strange little rants". Your Christian love with using such adjectives is over-whelming. Go sit somewhere and pray. It appears you need it.

talk about the pot calling the kettle black. why not tone down the rhetoric a tad? michelle was only speaking the truth. sometimes it hurts; there's nothing unloving about it. your comment to her, in my view, is shameful.

your "style" is a little reminiscent of other posters here who shall remain nameless. can't you make your arguments without coming across so abrasively? people are more likely to listen.

TK

[Guest]

Let me help you with the earliest Christian writings here in a moment but to do so I need your understanding of what is a "Protestant". Would you please give me the definition that you understand and can accept for Protestant? Thanks. Catholic Steve

Why is it so important for you to use that label? Why not just argue each of your positions on their own merits?