Christian: Interpretation

From Apostolic Succession. I have removed arguments pertaining to that subject and limited it to ND's discourse with me on hermeneutics.

NetDoc challenged:

NetDoc said:

Here are the criteria for becoming a bishop:

I Timothy 3:1 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

Now correct me here if I have misread it, but aren't your Bishops celibate? How can they be Bishops/Elders/Overseers if they aren't a husband, or don't have a family?

Click to expand...

I responded:

No*s said:

You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura .

Things gradually change, and it's not in conflict with this verse. After all, why do we assume that "a bishop must be the husband of one wife" means that he must be married as opposed to he must not be a polygamist. If we apply your hermaneutic, a man who has no children, and is happily married could not be bishop, and a man with one child couldn't be bishop: "children" is plural.

Further, if we take the approach seriously, then the same bishop, who when his children died in an accident, must immediately give up the office, because he is no longer the father of two or more children. If his wife dies, the same thing is true.

There is no reason to assume it isn't a command against polygamy, remarriage, and how he addresses his household. At one time, there were married bishops, but that changed as the Churh grew and the needs on them changed. As the Church matured, so too her approach to her offices grow organically. Originally, there was one office. Then we got the deaconate. This addition wasn't given by Scripture, but as the need arose. Then there came a division between the priest (elder) and bishop (overseer), again as the need arose. All of this took place over time and can be seen in the NT, so there is solid precedent for this.

Now, when the Church moved from persecuted to triumphant, there were many more people, and the bishops didn't have to undergo the same trials as before. Monasticism, by the will of God, had arisen to give the same trials, and so, bishops increasingly came from monastic ranks, and it eventually became the norm.

The laying on of hands, though, didn't change. It is still practiced, and there can't be the same kinds of needs to change it. If you can supply a reason, then I would like to hear it.

Be careful, though, how much you insist to take legalistically, it might contradict your political views.

Click to expand...

NetDoc responded by snipping everything away down to a convenient section, ignoring all the points:

NetDoc said:

No*s said:

a man who has no children, and is happily married could not be bishop, and a man with one child couldn't be bishop: "children" is plural.

Click to expand...

More importantly, the scriptures agree with this.

Click to expand...

I wrote in response:

No*s said:

It's saying quite a bit to declare what a Scripture says when there is more than one interpretation in the passage without giving more than a "the Scriptures agree with this." I could, in fact, give the exact same answer to you with my interpretation. It fits just as well, unless you can explain why it doesn't.

Further, are you willing to subject yourself to the same standard of interpretation on other, less comfortable, passages in the New Testament? If not, why do you demand of us something you will not practice yourself?

Click to expand...

Netdoc responds (note the omission of the smiley in his quoting me which changes a joke into an argument):

NetDoc said:

No*s said:

You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura

Click to expand...

No, I don't forget that. However, it appears you practice "No Scriptura" whenever it disagrees with your practices.

So HOW DO YOU twist, er hermaneuticize I Timothy 3??? I would love to hear your take on it.

Click to expand...

Now we're up to snuff on the hermeneutics stuff.

Here is my response to I Timothy 3.16 (part of this thread):

It is not twisting it to insist that 3.16 doesn't teach Sola Scriptura, when Paul names other authorities in the passage just before it to build up to Scripture. I'm, thus, not twisting it by trying to keep it in context and not ignore Paul's other statements on authority.

Paul names several authorities in the preceding verses. He names Tradition, telling Timothy to "continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of." He also tells him he knows from whom he learned them, meaning that "the things" he learned were given authority by who he learned them from. Next we get to Scripture, and we find that its authority is connected to the preceding with "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures."

In context, Paul names other authorities, and thus, could not have meant Scripture alone. And if he had, there was no New Testament. If he did mean Scripture alone, it means the NT is just as superfluous as Tradition would be, but I've never seen this verse applied that consistently for Sola Scriptura.

Finally, in 3.8 Paul makes a reference to the magicians Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not in the Bible, but they are in The Assumption of Moses. The use can easily qualify for his definition of Scripture in 3.16, so why do you not accept that book?

I think you can see, there is no "twisting" going on. The Orthodox approach is very consistent, and it takes the verse in its context. There is only a problem when someone wants to pluck it out to proof-text Sola Scriptura that there's a problem. In fact, from our perspective, it is not us who twist this verse...we take it in context, with a view of the history of the day, and with other internal references...all of which must be ignored to support Sola Scriptura with it. That, in effect, is "twisting" it.

My question again:

Now that I have answered that, you avoided the question I asked. Do you hold yourself to the same type of Scripture interpretation you are tried to force us into earlier in the thread: absolutely literal, timeless commands in Paul's epistles? When it makes a positive statement, it mandates that situation, doesn't put up a barrier, or anything of the sort. Do you believe you should submit to your own standard?

Sola Scriptura, wow, what a heresy that I believed for over 30 years and repent of now. In my studies I found that the proud attitude of it is rooted in Luther's errors in his limited understanding of the scriptures as he was distanced from the Church fathers culturally and didn't know the heart of Eastern monasticism that held the faith true through the most trying history.

If he had, he would have come back into The Church that the RC Papacy had turned their back on and what would have history been like then?

In all reallity, there probably would have been another such as Zwingly or Calvin that would have started their own branch of Protestantism without Luther's influence.

Interpretation has to have the proper foundations to come to Truth, who is our Lord Himself.

I agree wholeheartedly on Sola Scriptura. It was constructed as a means to fight against ecclesiastical corruption in their day, and well, they created the principle as a means of trying to bypass corruption. It hasn't worked out well .

I do think, though, that the interpretational problem that I started this thread over may well be solved, though (granted, the other guy will still view II TIm. as proof of Sola Scriptura).

So why aren't women allowed to be priests then?

Of course, I'm rather ignorant of Greek Orthodox, so they may allow women priests.... if so, excuse my ignorance.

chris9178 said:

So why aren't women allowed to be priests then?

Of course, I'm rather ignorant of Greek Orthodox, so they may allow women priests.... if so, excuse my ignorance.

Click to expand...

Frankly, because there has never been a need to change it, and unlike bishop's being married or not, or about slavery, there is reason:

The priest icons Christ, who was a human male. Secondly, women birth people physically, and only they can do that. This balances the scales of honor some for women. Third, tradition, and that means it will not change when coupled with the first one.

Tradition has a lot to do with any interpretation, so that we don't try and interpret the verses on our own authority. In that case, we must pick a standard and apply it universally. However, if our standard is the interpretation of the Church, then we have a different principle.

Frankly, because there has never been a need to change it, and unlike bishop's being married or not, or about slavery, there is reason

Click to expand...

What exactly is the reason to change a bishop's being married, or not?

The priest icons Christ, who was a human male......

Click to expand...

Well I agree that women shouldn't be priests, so I won't argue about that.

Tradition has a lot to do with any interpretation, so that we don't try and interpret the verses on our own authority. In that case, we must pick a standard and apply it universally. However, if our standard is the interpretation of the Church, then we have a different principle.

Click to expand...

So, when tradition is contrary to scripture, which wins?

Well I agree with what NetDoc was saying. I just wish Doc would take more of a stand on other issues as well. I believe (1Tim.3:2) says exactly what it means. To change it would open the door to change any other scripture we wish too. To interpret that verse any other way would be opposing what (1Peter 4:11) teaches and many other scriptures. When the bible is talking about traditions in (2Thess.2:15 ; 3:6) it is refering to the word of God found within the letters the apostles wrote while being led,moved,born along by the Holy Spirit. It was also refering to the preaching done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles (Heb.2:3,4) (1Peter 1:20,21) (1Cor.2:13). Those letters would finally become our New testament. in love Baerly

Dear in Christ Mr Baerly

Hello and God bless you my brother. I have been reading your dialogue and I appreciate your questions on Sacred tradition. I know they come from a great love of our Lord. I would respectfully disagree with what you said though and I believe the early christians would too. Let me explain.

You had said;

"When the bible is talking about traditions in (2Thess.2:15 ; 3:6) it is referring to the word of God found within the letters the apostles wrote while being led,moved,born along by the Holy Spirit. It was also referring to the preaching done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles (Heb.2:3,4) (1Peter 1:20,21) (1Cor.2:13). Those letters would finally become our New testament. in love Baerly"

My response would be;

Where do those passages like 2 thess 2:15 say that all the traditions
of the apostles were eventually written down and included in our new testament? I My understanding of this passage Paul refers to both those traditions which were written down in Letters(epistles) and those traditions orally spoken that were not written down(oral sacred tradition).

Paul seems to tell Christians that we are to hold fast to both of them in 2 Thess 2:15 and not just the ones written in his epistles. Seems that all traditions not just written ones are up for grabs here.

I mean no disrespect to you or your opinion. I would say that not everything the apostles taught are written down(2 John:12; 3 John:13) and according to Paul we are to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions(2 Thess 2:15).

My big problem with your interpretation of Pauls epistle to the Thessolonians is that the Fathers of the Church(antiquity) seems to interpret it differently then you would. We Catholics believe with the Fathers of the church that Christianity has always had two different way in which divine revelation comes down to us. 1) Scripture, the written tradition and 2) Sacred tradition, the oral spoken tradition not written down in scripture.

Consider the following quotes from the early Christians and how they interpetated Pauls writing in thessalonians.

John Chrysostom


"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

*
Augustine


"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

Irenaeus


(Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies 3:4:1[A.D. 189]).


...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).


Also my other major objection would be that the only reason we we know and have our new testament canon that we Christians do today is because the canon relied upon oral apostolic tradition not found in scripture. In other words there is no inspired table of contents in the bible and the canon we have in our new testament had to rely on a outside source such as oral tradition and the Church.

The Church did not come from the bible but rather the bible came from the church. For a detailed treatment on this see my debate with Writer on Sola scriptura Post # 246 Its here at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16456&page=25

Again i really mean no disrespect to you or your faith. I believe we are brothers in Christ and its always good to talk to brothers in Christ. Also This is NOT meant to be read or debated by Mr writer. We have already had our debate on this subject and evidence is there for anyone to read and study.

I also promised I would not ever debate Writer again because he seems to be a bit uncharitable towards me. But Mr Baerly I hope I have at least explained some of the differences we have in our understanding of the modes of revelation. I know you may not agree with me but at least you may see where Im coming from.

God bless you always my brother

Speaking the Truth of Jesus Catholic Church
In Jesus through Mary,
Athansaius
*

Dear in Christ Mr Baerly

Hello and God bless you my brother. I have been reading your dialogue and I appreciate your questions on Sacred tradition. I know they come from a great love of our Lord. I would respectfully disagree with what you said though and I believe the early christians would too. Let me explain.

You had said;

"When the bible is talking about traditions in (2Thess.2:15 ; 3:6) it is referring to the word of God found within the letters the apostles wrote while being led,moved,born along by the Holy Spirit. It was also referring to the preaching done by the Holy Spirit through the apostles (Heb.2:3,4) (1Peter 1:20,21) (1Cor.2:13). Those letters would finally become our New testament. in love Baerly"

My response would be;

Where do those passages like 2 thess 2:15 say that all the traditions
of the apostles were eventually written down and included in our new testament? I My understanding of this passage Paul refers to both those traditions which were written down in Letters(epistles) and those traditions orally spoken that were not written down(oral sacred tradition).

Paul seems to tell Christians that we are to hold fast to both of them in 2 Thess 2:15 and not just the ones written in his epistles. Seems that all traditions not just written ones are up for grabs here.

I mean no disrespect to you or your opinion. I would say that not everything the apostles taught are written down(2 John:12; 3 John:13) and according to Paul we are to hold fast to both the oral and written traditions(2 Thess 2:15).

My big problem with your interpretation of Pauls epistle to the Thessolonians is that the Fathers of the Church(antiquity) seems to interpret it differently then you would. We Catholics believe with the Fathers of the church that Christianity has always had two different way in which divine revelation comes down to us. 1) Scripture, the written tradition and 2) Sacred tradition, the oral spoken tradition not written down in scripture.

Consider the following quotes from the early Christians and how they interpetated Pauls writing in thessalonians.

John Chrysostom


"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).

*
Augustine


"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).

Irenaeus


(Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (Against Heresies 3:4:1[A.D. 189]).


...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).


Also my other major objection would be that the only reason we we know and have our new testament canon that we Christians do today is because the canon relied upon oral apostolic tradition not found in scripture. In other words there is no inspired table of contents in the bible and the canon we have in our new testament had to rely on a outside source such as oral tradition and the Church.

The Church did not come from the bible but rather the bible came from the church. For a detailed treatment on this see my debate with Writer on Sola scriptura Post # 246 Its here at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16456&page=25

Again i really mean no disrespect to you or your faith. I believe we are brothers in Christ and its always good to talk to brothers in Christ. Also This is NOT meant to be read or debated by Mr writer. We have already had our debate on this subject and evidence is there for anyone to read and study.

I also promised I would not ever debate Writer again because he seems to be a bit uncharitable towards me. But Mr Baerly I hope I have at least explained some of the differences we have in our understanding of the modes of revelation. I know you may not agree with me but at least you may see where Im coming from.

God bless you always my brother

Speaking the Truth of Jesus Catholic Church
In Jesus through Mary,
Athansaius
*

1 You forget, we don't practice Sola Scriptura
I appreciate the honesty of such a comment: if it means that "Orthodoxy"'s unscriptural, or contrary to the apostles' teaching, in some regards

athanasius writes -

Where do those passages like 2 thess 2:15 say that all the traditions
of the apostles were eventually written down and included in our new testament? I My understanding of this passage Paul refers to both those traditions which were written down in Letters(epistles) and those traditions orally spoken that were not written down(oral sacred tradition).

Baerly writes, my friend,How are you?

The apostles and those whom they laid their hands upon (Acts 6:6) (Acts 8:18), went about spreading oral traditions. They were being led by the Holy Spirit as to where they went and what they spoke. They were preaching and teaching the WHOLE counsel of God at that point according to (Acts 20:27). Then at some point they (the apostles) began to write down those things they had been preaching and teaching. All the while the Holy Spirit brought back to the apostles memory all things whatsoever Jesus said to them while he was on earth (John 14:26 ; 16:13). If they did not write down all those words, why would the Holy Spirit bring ALL the words of Jesus back to the apostles memory? Especially when the bible says it is by those words we are saved according to (Acts 11:14).

Your understanding is that the oral traditions and those written down differed.

My contention is that they were EXACTLY the same.

They were preaching the whole counsel of God while they were preaching orally to each town (Acts 20:27).

The apostle Paul said he taught the same thing to every church (1Cor.4:17). That same principle would apply to all the other apostles. They would not be holding anything back that would be profitable to the saints (Acts 20:20).

Actually the passages you used do not prove the apostles did not write down every word of Jesus. Again, my contention is that in (2Thess.2:15) the oral and the epistles taught exactly the same thing. This would make sense. It would also harmonizes with what is taught in (1Cor.1:10) (1Peter 4:1) (2Cor.13:11) (1Peter3:8).

Would the apostles tell the saints to do one thing and then do another by not teaching the same thing? No they would not,especially while being led by the Holy Spirit (2Cor.12:12).

athanasius writes:


"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

Baerly writes:

If your church (Catholic) has the apostolic successors,then they of necessity must have the signs and wonders which go along with that office (2Cor.12:12) (Heb.2:3,4) (Mark 16:20). If not why not? If the office has changed,WHO changed it?

The church I belong to started long before the Catholic church ever existed.

I belong to the church of Christ which Jesus built (Mt.16:18). It had its begining in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem. It came in power as we can all read about in (Acts 2).

WE can read about it in prophecy in (Dan.2) (Isa.2) (Joel 2) (Micah 4).

I would be more than glad to speak with you more about this subject. in love Baerly

Baerly, you've heard of the quote button, yes?

The church I belong to started long before the Catholic church ever existed.

I belong to the church of Christ which Jesus built (Mt.16:18). It had its begining in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem. It came in power as we can all read about in (Acts 2).

Click to expand...

It's a matter of viewpoint only. There is only one Church for us to belong to. The Bible says as much. The Roman Catholics also claim to have begun at Pentecost, as well as the Orthodox. Frankly, history and documentation are on their side.

writer said:

history and documentation (such as the NT) indicate that Roman Catholicism isn't that church

Click to expand...

In what way? Haven't you changed at all since your own infancy? Should not the Church (being organic in nature) have changed since its own infancy? Of course the Church is not "the same" as in Biblical example. It no longer breast feeds and is long out of diapers. It walks and talks and reasons and contributes to society and has matured in thought, manner and perspective -- just as you have.

Whatever you may enjoy thinking, there is historical evidence to support the apostolic succession, and that apostolic authority remains with the bodies that have always embraced it.

In what way?
Christ's church oneness is Him. Not a city, place, or someone else like "Pope" or Rome

Haven't you changed at all since your own infancy? Should not the Church (being organic in nature) have changed since its own infancy? Of course the Church is not "the same" as in Biblical example.
To the contrary: the Lord's and apostles' pattern was complete and mature. Kind of like the revelation Moses got in Exodus of the tabernacle. Moses (and Paul etc) don't have the right to change it. "'See,' He said, 'that you make all things according to the pattern that was shown to you in the mountain," Hebrews 8:5.
Any "church" that's a deviation probably isn't the church, in that way. But a deviation

It no longer breast feeds and is long out of diapers. It walks and talks and reasons and contributes to society and has matured in thought, manner and perspective -- just as you have.
To the contrary: the church is organic, and as such is always gospelizing, growing, and including young, young men, and fathers. In addition, it neither can, nor has, improved upon the apostles' revelation and teaching

Whatever you may enjoy thinking, there is historical evidence to support the apostolic succession, and that apostolic authority remains with the bodies that have always embraced it.
Not only what i'm thinkin, but what i'm both experiencing and knowing, and read in the NT and later history: is that Christ didn't found a hierarchy, or religion, nor religious office. Rather He Himself created believing Jews and Gentiles into one new man in Himself. Thus making peace. And that He's both Head of His Body; and Body, in His believers, of His Head. And that all authority remains with Him, and all those who give themselves to live Him, as His ambassadors "in a chain." Mt 28:18; 2 Cor 2:12-17; 4:1-18.
Gracias

Greetings and Peace to you Mr Baerly.

Baerly wrote:

“If your church (Catholic) has the apostolic successors,then they of necessity must have the signs and wonders which go along with that office (2Cor.12:12) (Heb.2:3,4) (Mark 16:20). If not why not? If the office has changed,WHO changed it?”

My answer

Thank you Mr Baerly. Indeed historically my Church, the Catholic church was founded by Jesus himself, and both Catholics and Orthodox have apostolic succession and can trace their line of Bishops back to the apostles, thus giving them the Authority of their office. I am not sure why you think that the Catholic church has had no miracles in it.

Our Church for the past 2000 years have been filled with Miracles, prophesies, and spiritual gifts such as healing and tongues, eucharistic Miracles, Miracles of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her apparitions such as Fatima and Lourdes. Many Many of our saints and saintly priests throughout the 2000 year reign of the Church have had these gifts.

Saint Padre Pio, a Priest and Mystic in the 1960’s had these special gifts of healing and others. You can read more about him at http://www.answers.com/topic/pio-of-pietrelcina

He had ecstasies from our Lord, visions, prophesy, healing abilities, stigmata, bilocation and many other gifts. He loved Jesus tremendously and communicated with him mystically throughout his life especially in the Eucharist at Mass. He also had the ability to read minds in the confessional and tell you if you hadn’t confessed a sin.

He preached Jesus and loved him very much. He also loved Jesus Church, the Catholic church. So I do not know what you are talking about. The Orthodox also have their own set of mystics who have had great miracles.

Baerly wrote:

“The church I belong to started long before the Catholic church ever existed.
.............I belong to the church of Christ which Jesus built (Mt.16:18). It had its beginning in 33 A.D. in Jerusalem. It came in power as we can all read about in (Acts 2).”

My answer
The Catholic church was the first church historically. Every other denomination has historically come from it since the mid 1500’s. It was the Catholic church that decided on the Canon of the New testament that you have in your bible. This was done in the council of Rome 382 A.D. under Pope Damasus and ratified again in the councils of Hippo(393) and Carthage(397)

The Catholic church can trace its origin back to St Peter(Matt 16:13-19) who can trace his origin back to Jesus. Here is a list of Our historic Popes that show succession from Peter to Benedict the 16th:

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
10. St. Pius I (140-155)
11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
12. St. Soter (166-175)
13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
14. St. Victor I (189-199)
15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
17. St. Urban I (222-30)
18. St. Pontain (230-35)
19. St. Anterus (235-36)
20. St. Fabian (236-50)
21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
26. St. Felix I (269-274)
27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
28. St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
34. St. Marcus (336)
35. St. Julius I (337-52)
36. Liberius (352-66)
37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
38. St. Siricius (384-99)
39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
50. Anastasius II (496-98)
51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
53. St. John I (523-26)
54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
55. Boniface II (530-32)
56. John II (533-35)
57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
58. St. Silverius (536-37)
59. Vigilius (537-55)
60. Pelagius I (556-61)
61. John III (561-74)
62. Benedict I (575-79)
63. Pelagius II (579-90)
64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
65. Sabinian (604-606)
66. Boniface III (607)
67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
69. Boniface V (619-25)
70. Honorius I (625-38)
71. Severinus (640)
72. John IV (640-42)
73. Theodore I (642-49)
74. St. Martin I (649-55)
75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
78. Donus (676-78)
79. St. Agatho (678-81)
80. St. Leo II (682-83)
81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
82. John V (685-86)
83. Conon (686-87)
84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
85. John VI (701-05)
86. John VII (705-07)
87. Sisinnius (708)
88. Constantine (708-15)
89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
91. St. Zachary (741-52)
92. Stephen II (752) -- Because he died before being consecrated, some lists (including the Vatican's official list) omit him.
93. Stephen III (752-57)
94. St. Paul I (757-67)
95. Stephen IV (767-72)
96. Adrian I (772-95)
97. St. Leo III (795-816)
98. Stephen V (816-17)
99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45)
147. Sylvester III (1045) -- Considered by some to be an antipope
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
157. Alexander II (1061-73)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30)
165. Innocent II (1130-43)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81)
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
205. Innocent VII (1404-06)
206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22)
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005&#8212

writer said:

In what way?
Christ's church oneness is Him. Not a city, place, or someone else like "Pope" or Rome

Haven't you changed at all since your own infancy? Should not the Church (being organic in nature) have changed since its own infancy? Of course the Church is not "the same" as in Biblical example.
To the contrary: the Lord's and apostles' pattern was complete and mature. Kind of like the revelation Moses got in Exodus of the tabernacle. Moses (and Paul etc) don't have the right to change it. "'See,' He said, 'that you make all things according to the pattern that was shown to you in the mountain," Hebrews 8:5.
Any "church" that's a deviation probably isn't the church, in that way. But a deviation

It no longer breast feeds and is long out of diapers. It walks and talks and reasons and contributes to society and has matured in thought, manner and perspective -- just as you have.
To the contrary: the church is organic, and as such is always gospelizing, growing, and including young, young men, and fathers. In addition, it neither can, nor has, improved upon the apostles' revelation and teaching

Whatever you may enjoy thinking, there is historical evidence to support the apostolic succession, and that apostolic authority remains with the bodies that have always embraced it.
Not only what i'm thinkin, but what i'm both experiencing and knowing, and read in the NT and later history: is that Christ didn't found a hierarchy, or religion, nor religious office. Rather He Himself created believing Jews and Gentiles into one new man in Himself. Thus making peace. And that He's both Head of His Body; and Body, in His believers, of His Head. And that all authority remains with Him, and all those who give themselves to live Him, as His ambassadors "in a chain." Mt 28:18; 2 Cor 2:12-17; 4:1-18.
Gracias

Click to expand...

What do you think the word "catholic" means? It means "universal" or "unified." That oneness is, indeed, in Christ -- not in the Vatican, not in the Pope, not in the Patriarch, not in the Presiding Bishop.

I can guarantee you that the church you attend is not "the same" as, for example, the one which Priscia attended. All manifestations of the modern Church are "deviant" from the early Church, just as the early Church was "deviant" from the worship practices of Jesus.

What about young women and mothers?

You're quite right. Nor has it attempted to do so. The revelation and teaching of the apostles is carried on yet today by their rightful successors.

Christ didn't found a hierarchy -- that's true. But just because the Body manifests itself with a temporal hierarchy doesn't make the Church fundamentally "wrong."

That's what the catholic Church believes, also. Where's the problem?