The Narrow Path Ministries

Jon wrote:You are right that I made a choice of Catholicism. It seems a reasonable choice because it is the only religion that has been continuously around since Jesus founded the Church and is the largest on the planet.

There you go again! You have no better basis for making this affirmation than the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Indeed, even the Episcopal Church makes the claim of Apostolic succession.

Very good - ''I always direct my listeners to take personal responsibility for their beliefs, and to only accept what God has said as necessarily true.''

The Church universal has the truth - among all the divisions and traditions, there are bits of the truth residing in God's people. Some people embrace more of the truth than others. I don't know any denominational people who even understand everything their denomination holds to, let alone believes it all.

We have been bought by and belong to Jesus, not a denomination.

Well said Jepne. It`s always good to read your balanced, bigotry-free thoughts.

Here in north-east Switzerland (and I`ll wager this applies elsewhere too) if you question a devoutish Catholic`s over-emphasis on Mary you`ll be met wth a firm and loyal defence of her central importance. But the same person is quite happy to pepper his/her vocabulary with the exclamation "Jesus Gott!", without the slightest twinge of conscience. What`s wrong with "my goodness" or "oh dear"? I`ve witnessed this glaring inconsistency in Lourdes-goers time and again. A belief system that produces this verbal fruit has got something wrong with it somewhere.

Perhaps one should ask "unsaved" Steve Gregg when he last used the name of Jesus so lightly as these "saved" people do.

Footnote: I am not anti-Catholic, Jon. I am fond of many of them, including of my wife who is classically one of them!
However I am against the Catholic exclusivism that you espouse.

If God wanted one church to singularly represent Jesus is it to much to ask that this church,



not have various Popes commit evil acts like,

adultery,
encouraging Crusaders to kill people, which really is murder by the head of the RCC
sell salvation by offering indulgences for a price sometimes money or land or power.
have non catholic christians murdered by the tens of millions for the sake of power
accumulate untold riches while telling the world about their compassion for the poor
Also i have to add the widespread molestation charges against Priests.
etc,etc


You can't get the RCC off the hook by saying that though these Popes were evil, the RCC as a whole is good. Not plausable as these Popes were the head of the RCC. The face of the RCC that people see are the Popes plus today anytime there is immoral activity within the RCC like molestation it's out there instantaneously.

Non-Catholic here.

I listen to a lot of Catholic radio. Mostly because Steve Gregg is only on for an hour a day. I'm in my car about 3 hours a day. Unfortunately a lot of am Christian radio is local and taken up by what I call screechers. The words righteous and justified make up most of their airtime. Catholic radio seems to have much better programming in general.

When they are talking about most biblical things I agree with them. When they go into "Catholic speak" about the rules of liturgical things and all of the rules within the church, I get lost. To me, you would need a Catholic lawyer just to navigate from week to week.

I was in Rome in 1982 and stood in the Vatican while the Pope gave his speech from the balcony.(which is up vey high)
I saw the Sistine Chapel. If you are in Rome as a tourist, these are hard to pass up.

I do miss seeing nuns in habits out about town. There was certain reverence about them.

They are doing a lot to explain away some of the new Pope's statements. If he didn't mean what he seemed to say, why are the anti-capitalist and the gays dancin in the streets. Maybe he is just a poor public speaker if he is not able to convey his true meaning.

This Apostolic succession claim would never in a million years be seen by a bible reader had he not been told in advance about it. That's one of the reasons the RCC claims that a layman can't read the bible. Paul should have told the Bereans to wait until the RCC was established so they could be told what's really in the bible.
Anytime an organization claims divine authority you can bet what comes next. Hand over your brains and money to them as you walk through the entrance. You may get your brains back on the way out. Maybe.

I'm curious about whether or not anyone has spent any time analyzing Sungenis and his material. He has written a thick book on justification and faith from the RCC point of view, but I don't find much from Protestant theologians pointing out specific errors.

Doug

steve7150 wrote:

This Apostolic succession claim would never in a million years be seen by a bible reader had he not been told in advance about it.

I'm not so sure about the truth of this statement. After all, we find in the Bible itself Apostolic Succession-- Matthias succeeds Judas as an Apostle. Furthermore, we have Apostles laying on hands on other men, delegating their authority and ministry to others-- clearly, there is at least a start to some kind of succession going on here. Furthermore, we are exhorted by the Scriptures to obey the authorities in the Church-- if there was not something like Apostolic Succession in the Church, then such exhortations in Scripture would have meaning, it would seem, only for the Apostolic Christians, and not for, say, us (as Christians after that age would have no real authority to look to, other than, perhaps, persons with charismatic or moral authority, but not any objective ecclesiastical or hierarchical authority). But this seems to run contrary to the fact that Christ Himself in the Gospels, and in other parts of Scripture, make it clear that the Church He founded will last for all time (eg., Mt. 16:18-19), and this Church will be able to teach (as the pillar of truth, 1 Tim. 3:15) and administer punishments to those who do not listen to her, i.e., the Church (eg., Mt. 18), implying necessarily that there must be SOME in the Church who have the same kind of authority that the Apostles had. And other examples could be brought forward manifesting similar points or arguments.

So, I disagree with this statement. I think anyone reading the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, attentively and inquisitively cannot help but see that there is certainly an implicit understanding that, in the Church of Christ, there WILL be leaders with TRUE authority which can be legitimately exercised by some in the Church-- even, we must recognize, authority coming from Christ Himself and the Apostles (especially Peter), for Christ promised that the Church that HE, CHRIST, founded on PETER would last FOREVER (and, thus, that same PETRINE authority, given FROM Christ TO Peter must, somehow, persist even after Peter's death, right?? Thus, such attentive reading of the Scriptures simply begs one to ask the question, "So, WHERE IS this authority today, authority which was, EVEN IN the NEW TESTAMENT, being passed down in the Church?" Well, the only Christian Body that can legitimately claim to possess that same Petrine authority today is the Catholic Church; no other Christian community can....and the history of the Catholic Church-- eg., it is an historical fact that the current Pope, Francis, is the successor of St. Peter-- further lends credibility to Her (the Catholic Church's) claims of being the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord and Savior, the Son of God and Son of Mary, Jesus Christ....to Whom Belongs All Power and Glory, now and forever. Amen.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

Well, the only Christian Body that can legitimately claim to possess that same Petrine authority today is the Catholic Church; no other Christian community can....and the history of the Catholic Church-- eg., it is an historical fact that the current Pope, Francis, is the successor of St. Peter-- further lends credibility to Her (the Catholic Church's) claims of being the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord and Savior, the Son of God and Son of Mary, Jesus Christ....to Whom Belongs All Power and Glory, now and forever. Amen.

But where is this "One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord and Savior" to be found? The Roman Catholic Church lays claim to it, and so does the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Catholic Church split into these two branches in 1050 A.D. Neither branch's claim to be the "True Church" has any more validity than the other.