Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://beta.conquerclub.com/forum/
Carry on.You question the Catholic Church and it's Apostolic Succession? Here's what we wrote about the early church saying we're right!
So if the Holy Spirit gauruantees the apostolic succession, there can never have been any bad popes, right?tzor wrote: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.).
NO, I said, "You question the Catholic Church's meaning of 'Apostolic Succession?' Here is what the early church was calling 'Apostolic Succession.'"2dimes wrote:Um, did you basically just post?Carry on.You question the Catholic Church and it's Apostolic Succession? Here's what we wrote about the early church saying we're right!
Of course there can be "bad" popes. You are confusing infalibility with succession. (Actually "bad" popes has nothing to do with that either.)jonesthecurl wrote:So if the Holy Spirit gauruantees the apostolic succession, there can never have been any bad popes, right?
Oh, good. It almost looked like you linked a site called, "www.catholic.com" as the reference.tzor wrote:NO, I said, "You question the Catholic Church's meaning of 'Apostolic Succession?' Here is what the early church was calling 'Apostolic Succession.'"2dimes wrote: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!
jonesthecurl wrote:, 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.
These guys don't seem to know that about the pope.tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:People are fallible, everybody knows that,
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.2dimes wrote:So, infallibility isn't like infallible?
No.jonesthecurl wrote:So if the Holy Spirit gauruantees the apostolic succession, there can never have been any bad popes, right?
john9blue wrote: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?).PLAYER57832 wrote: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.BigBallinStalin wrote:yeah like history is dumb to study because it's dumbjohn9blue wrote:^ Man, people are really obsessed with the past. I mean only when it suits their personal beliefs... but still.
john9blue wrote: 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.
There is a big difference between knowing facts and knowing their import. Knowing the importance of many things requires context.. ergo history.john9blue wrote: 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.
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.john9blue wrote: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.
So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?john9blue wrote: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?john9blue wrote: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...
natty_dread wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but to me it sounds like you think history is dumb?john9blue wrote:Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that.
Frigidus wrote:So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?john9blue wrote: 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.
Thumbs up Johnny boy keep swingin’, the rocks in those guys ears gonna’ take a few more whacks.john9blue wrote:i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...
oh yarg yarg yarg [/troll_baited]tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:natty_dread wrote:I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but to me it sounds like you think history is dumb?john9blue wrote:Is "john thinks history is dumb" a meme now or what? i never said anything like that.
lol, yeah I can understand how you'd be confused there.
Frigidus wrote:So you're saying that modern Nazis are OK?john9blue wrote: 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.
LOL, What?
Thumbs up Johnny boy keep swingin’, the rocks in those guys ears gonna’ take a few more whacks.john9blue wrote:i swear people will hear what they want to hear, even if you never said anything like it...
BINGO! Hold your cards we have a BINGO!tempest-n-a-tcup wrote:The threads not going at all the way they'd hoped; so they're trolling it for an a emotional response?
double yarg yarg yarg [/troll_baited]tempest-n-a-tcup wrote: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?
Oh almost missed this one! YARG YARG YARG [/troll_baited]tempest-n-a-tcup wrote: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.