July 24, 200818 yr I received this from an informed Catholic: The focus of evangelizing has been modified somewhat lately. Just as much emphasis (maybe more?) is now on bringing back fallen away Catholics as bringing in non Catholics. This was an initiative of JP II in his final years and is being continued by Benedict XVI. The following website addresses it very well. http://www.catholicscomehome.org/ The following video is part of this website: http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml
July 24, 200818 yr This information from my informed Catholic Friend addresses the original subject of this thread: The scripture passages mentioned in the thread show support for Papal Authority and apostolic succession, but what is more revealing of Papal Authority and apostolic succession is historical records we have from the time after Christ's Ascencion, during the lives of the Apostles and those who heard the preaching and the ways of the Apostles first hand. The apostles were our first Episkopos (or Episcapols which is Greek for Bishops). Then, just like today, the bishops were assigned to an area. The first bishop of Jerusalem (and the area around it) was the Apostle James. The first bishop of Alexandria (and the area around it) was the Apostle Mark. The first bishop of Constantinople (you get the point by now) was the Apostle Andrew. The first bishop of Antioch (same deal) was the first pope, the Apostle Peter who, as the church spread rapidly in Rome, moved to Rome and was the its first bishop. A need for more bishops arose as the church spread and the apostles began to die off (or be executed by the Romans in most cases) The Apostles began ordaining new bishops to take their place as the teachers and overseers of the church. This ordination was not an election by the first Christians, the ordination occurs from one bishop to the next. Only a bishops ordained a bishop, priest or deacon then as they still do today up holding apostolic succession. Every bishop today can trace back their succession for centruies. (For those reading who don't know - Cardinals and the Pope are also bishops, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome). The procedure of ordination then was very similar to today. It still involves the laying of hands.
July 24, 200818 yr One who is ready to join the Catholic Church is one who has come to that decision themselves. One of my co-workers, who was raised So. Baptist, recently went through the process of converting to Catholicism. I asked what brought her to Catholicism, and she said after much reading on various Christian sects, Catholicism just made the most sense. While I'm not the best Catholic in the world, and attend church sparingly, at best, that same reasoning as my co-worker is why I would never consider any other Christian sect.
July 24, 200818 yr Geez, I'm gone for one day and we re-enact the Reformation . . . again. Interestingly, it was precisely and exactly this time last year that we started the first Holy War thread. Sheeesh.
July 24, 200818 yr Geez, I'm gone for one day and we re-enact the Reformation . . . again. Interestingly, it was precisely and exactly this time last year that we started the first Holy War thread. Sheeesh. Look, I didn't start it! You don't have to read it, you know.
July 24, 200818 yr This information from my informed Catholic Friend addresses the original subject of this thread: The scripture passages mentioned in the thread show support for Papal Authority and apostolic succession, but what is more revealing of Papal Authority and apostolic succession is historical records we have from the time after Christ's Ascencion, during the lives of the Apostles and those who heard the preaching and the ways of the Apostles first hand. The apostles were our first Episkopos (or Episcapols which is Greek for Bishops). Then, just like today, the bishops were assigned to an area. The first bishop of Jerusalem (and the area around it) was the Apostle James. The first bishop of Alexandria (and the area around it) was the Apostle Mark. The first bishop of Constantinople (you get the point by now) was the Apostle Andrew. The first bishop of Antioch (same deal) was the first pope, the Apostle Peter who, as the church spread rapidly in Rome, moved to Rome and was the its first bishop. A need for more bishops arose as the church spread and the apostles began to die off (or be executed by the Romans in most cases) The Apostles began ordaining new bishops to take their place as the teachers and overseers of the church. This ordination was not an election by the first Christians, the ordination occurs from one bishop to the next. Only a bishops ordained a bishop, priest or deacon then as they still do today up holding apostolic succession. Every bishop today can trace back their succession for centruies. (For those reading who don't know - Cardinals and the Pope are also bishops, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome). The procedure of ordination then was very similar to today. It still involves the laying of hands. As the church continued to spread through out Asia Minor, Africa, and into Europe, more and more bishoprics (areas a bishop is assigned to oversee and responsible for teaching the faith, today called dioceses), more and more bishops were being ordained. A constant among these bishops is the fact that they continued to look at the Bishop of Rome (recall the pope is the Bishop of Rome) for direction and authority. Now keep in mind, the early popes lived in an era w/o e-mail, phones, efficient mail service and the Romans were executing Christians quite regularly so the early popes (or Bishops of Rome) were only able to exercise their authority to a limited degree. The early popes were able to communicate in two ways. 1) Letters to various areas of the church. The 4th pope (88-99 AD), St. Clement's (who knew and learned under St. Peter) letters were widely read throughout the Christian world and were almost like the gospels. I say that tongue in cheek because the Gospels were just being finished during his papacy and were just beginning to be spread throughout the church. A few centuries would pass before they were cannonized as Sacred Scripture. None the less, St. Clement's letters where by all means seen as authoritative to the early bishops and their followers. 2) The second way the popes were able to communicate in the early church was the few times (about once a century - again not an easy task back then for all the bishops to leave their areas for over a month) the church's leaders came together for a church council. The first was the Council of Jerusalem which addressed several issues but the most interesting was the question of whether or not the Gentile Converts needed to be circumcised to be saved as to the Jewish custom. Fortunately for them, they didn't have to be - some did though, namely St. Timothy who was circumcised by St. Paul - Ouch!
July 24, 200818 yr Thank you. Very informative. Very detailed. Very long.:sleep: :lol::lol: Well, you guys need to be careful what you ask for. We can trace the Apostolic Succession back to ~33AD. :lol: Edited July 24, 200818 yr by rockmom
July 24, 200818 yr Do Catholics drink alcohol???? Assuming this is not a joking question...the answer is yes.
July 24, 200818 yr Assuming this is not a joking question...the answer is yes. It wasn't a joking question. I have absolutely 0 knowledge of the religion. I'm learning though...
July 24, 200818 yr It wasn't a joking question. I have absolutely 0 knowledge of the religion. I'm learning though... I didn't mean offense...but it's one of the sticking points some denominations have with regard to the Catholic Church. We drink & we gamble. The actions of drinking and gambling aren't part of the religion, though. They're just not condemned by the religion. The sin is in the overindulgence of either, just as in overeating, etc.
July 24, 200818 yr Geez, I'm gone for one day and we re-enact the Reformation . . . again. Interestingly, it was precisely and exactly this time last year that we started the first Holy War thread. Sheeesh. Now THAT is creepy!
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.