Pope in the UK: Atheists Like Nazis

[2dimes]

Um, did you basically just post?

You question the Catholic Church and it's Apostolic Succession? Here's what we wrote about the early church saying we're right!

Carry on.

[jonesthecurl]

There are so many things wrong with this discussion that I really don’t know where to begin and frankly, I don’t know why I should bother (something about pearls thrown in front of pigs). If you want to know what the early church thought of the matter of Apostolic Succession, Here is the web page from Catholic Answers

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

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).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

So if the Holy Spirit gauruantees the apostolic succession, there can never have been any bad popes, right?

[tzor]

Um, did you basically just post?

You question the Catholic Church and it's Apostolic Succession? Here's what we wrote about the early church saying we're right!

Carry on.

NO, I said, "You question the Catholic Church's meaning of 'Apostolic Succession?' Here is what the early church was calling 'Apostolic Succession.'"

[tzor]

So if the Holy Spirit gauruantees the apostolic succession, there can never have been any bad popes, right?

Of course there can be "bad" popes. You are confusing infalibility with succession. (Actually "bad" popes has nothing to do with that either.)

Apostolic succession means that in the grand game of telephone tag, the oral understandings (some of these things are written but still need context with the text) aren't so grossly misunderstood as to cause serious error.

As the old joke about the head monk who once went back into the cellar to check on an original manuscript that the monks had been coppying for centuries. He came up with a shocked look on his face. "We've been writing the wrong word; it's 'celebrate' not 'celibate.'"

[2dimes]

Um, did you basically just post?

You question the Catholic Church and it's Apostolic Succession? Here's what we wrote about the early church saying we're right!

NO, I said, "You question the Catholic Church's meaning of 'Apostolic Succession?' Here is what the early church was calling 'Apostolic Succession.'"

Oh, good. It almost looked like you linked a site called, "www.catholic.com" as the reference.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

, the doctrine asserts that the Gospel is preserved in the Church by means of a lineal succession of bishops who have handed down the truth from the beginning and who possess the teaching authority of the Apostles themselves.

Yes, that's the Roman Catholics we're talking about.
That's what the thread's about.

Even if you focus on the Roman Catholic idea of infallibility in certain issues (I think it's called Ex Catehdra) it still doesn't support your point about one bad pope bringing the entire system down. That's why there is a college of bishops (cardinals?) etc. People are fallible, everybody knows that, it was no surprise to Jesus either. So with apostolic succession being entrusted in the hands of fallible humans, it makes no sense to say that the whole thing comes crashing down with one bad pope. It's not even a single line as there were twelve apostles through which the succession was handed down. Each pope has apostolic succession, but he isn't necessarily consecrated by the pope before him.

[2dimes]

People are fallible, everybody knows that,

These guys don't seem to know that about the pope.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

That actually seems to back up what I was saying. They believe that Christ speaks through the bishops and the pope in certain circumstances (infallibility) but not that the people are infallible in every instance. The part about "Peter not living up to what he knew was the right teaching" shows that. It seems like a statement of confidence in the teachings of the entire body of bishops as a group and about the pope in doctrinal matters. It's not like they're saying the pope never makes a mistake, or even that he never sins.

[2dimes]

So, infallibility isn't like infallible?

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

So, infallibility isn't like infallible?

Infallibility is certainly infallible. According to that article you posted though, the Roman Catholics don't think the pope is without sin or even always right about everything. When he speaks Ex-Cathedra about issues of church doctrine the Catholics take that as if it came from Jesus. They don't think he's Jesus though, and the infallibility of the pope is limited to a very specific situation that apparently doesn't come up that often. Think of it like an executive order from the President that has the very limited scope of saying "The Church teaches this on that subject". That was my understanding of it from the article you posted anyway.

So if the Holy Spirit gauruantees the apostolic succession, there can never have been any bad popes, right?

No.

The Holy Spirit guarantees apostolic succession ≠ The Holy Spirit guarantees individual papal actions

How did you come up with that leap?

[PLAYER57832]

^ Man, people are really obsessed with the past. I mean only when it suits their personal beliefs... but still.

yeah like history is dumb to study because it's dumb

Well, see, the problem with education is that it might actually force one to re-evaluate what one things, and perhaps (gasp) even change one's mind.

Player, I've been more tolerant of you than most people in this forum. I know you like demonizing your opponents though (when did I ever call history dumb?).

Dumb, no. Irrelevant, yes. Saying history is irrelevant to the present is one of the more stupid comments I have seen here and rather surprised me coming from you, because generally you are fairly intelligent.

If you're going to lump me into the "stupid heartless conservative" category, please let me know so that I can discard any respect I may have had for you.

I don't believe I gave any such labels.

There is a HUGE difference between knowledge of historical facts, and the ability to realize what is CURRENTLY happening and find solutions. You are chock full of facts, but you spend too much time trying to weasel your way out of any actual reasoning by blinding us with walls of text, and now you're descending even further into the flat-out "insult your opponent" method which has already been adopted by most other liberals on the forum.

There is a big difference between knowing facts and knowing their import. Knowing the importance of many things requires context.. ergo history.

As for the "insult your opponent" being some kind of liberal tactic.. I guess you consider most posters here liberal, then? Because too many seem to use that tactic. I normally do refrain, true.

Sometimes I regret revealing my age because then my opponents would have no choice but to confront my logic instead of insinuating that I'm uneducated as a cop-out.

You can have many years of schooling and not be educated. You can also not attend school and be quite educated. Education involved time, thinking and, yes often experience.

Claiming that history is irrelevant means you have not actually studied much history. Because the truth is, history is VERY relevant. Only those who refuse to learn from history are bound by it. I choose to be free. I am astounded that you do not.

[notyou2]

If you listen closely, you can hear the cracks spreading.

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Don't just drop a bomb a saunter off; enlighten us cupcake.

[john9blue]

Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that. all i said was that i will not accept people using the crimes of christians from centuries ago as a way to justify or compare to the crimes of muslims today or nazis a few decades ago. i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...

[Frigidus]

Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that. all i said was that i will not accept people using the crimes of christians from centuries ago as a way to justify or compare to the crimes of muslims today or nazis a few decades ago. i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...

So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?

[natty dread]

Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that. all i said was that i will not accept people using the crimes of christians from centuries ago as a way to justify or compare to the crimes of muslims today or nazis a few decades ago. i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but to me it sounds like you think history is dumb?

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but to me it sounds like you think history is dumb?

lol, yeah I can understand how you'd be confused there.

all i said was that i will not accept people using the crimes of christians from centuries ago as a way to justify or compare to the crimes of muslims today or nazis a few decades ago.

So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?

LOL, What?

i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...

Thumbs up Johnny boy keep swingin’, the rocks in those guys ears gonna’ take a few more whacks.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but to me it sounds like you think history is dumb?

lol, yeah I can understand how you'd be confused there.

all i said was that i will not accept people using the crimes of christians from centuries ago as a way to justify or compare to the crimes of muslims today or nazis a few decades ago.

So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?

LOL, What?

i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...

Thumbs up Johnny boy keep swingin’, the rocks in those guys ears gonna’ take a few more whacks.

oh yarg yarg yarg [/troll_baited]

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

Oh, so the British people actually liked the Pope and lined the streets to say hello.
The protest in London only gathered about 6,000 people; PETA does better than that in Nashville, don't they?
Not only is the Pope not reviled; he's treated as a Head of State, which he is.

and we've got a small group apparently, proving him right about morals, by uttering the nastiest things about Catholics and their church.


The threads not going at all the way they'd hoped; so they're trolling it for an emotional response?

interesting...people do that here?

[2dimes]

Certainly not from what I'm aware of. :shiftyeyes:

[tzor]

The threads not going at all the way they'd hoped; so they're trolling it for an a emotional response?

BINGO! Hold your cards we have a BINGO!

[tempest-n-a-tcup]

So what next? Try to make sure the masturbation thread stays toward the top, even though no Christians appear to be taking the bait on that one? Curiously juvenile game.

[2dimes]

Grownin' up leads to growin' old then to dieing. Dieing to me just don't sound like all that much fun.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, so the British people actually liked the Pope and lined the streets to say hello.
The protest in London only gathered about 6,000 people; PETA does better than that in Nashville, don't they?
Not only is the Pope not reviled; he's treated as a Head of State, which he is.

and we've got a small group apparently, proving him right about morals, by uttering the nastiest things about Catholics and their church.


The threads not going at all the way they'd hoped; so they're trolling it for an emotional response?

interesting...people do that here?

double yarg yarg yarg [/troll_baited]

[BigBallinStalin]

So what next? Try to make sure the masturbation thread stays toward the top, even though no Christians appear to be taking the bait on that one? Curiously juvenile game.

Oh almost missed this one! YARG YARG YARG [/troll_baited]