The Not Ready-Catholic Dillemma

[David Sklansky]

The Catholics here all basically say, regarding Protestants:

"The odds are quite good with that Bluff's lumping of Catholicism/Orthox/Coptic Traditions is correct, since each has direct and provable lines of successors dating back to the 12 Apostles (Apostolic succession, we call it). Protestants have no such claim to apostolic succession. Lack of apostolic succession is a compelling argument to throw Protestantism out the running for Faith most likely to be true."

Not Ready strongly disagrees but refuses to argue with them here because he thinks it would just add ammunition to atheists. That is understandable. Still it messes things up for him. Because he, more than any one else on this forum, carries the mantle of theism. But while he is trying to use logic to show the likely existence of God, the largest Christian denomination is denouncing his thought processes about a very similar subject. I'm not talking about just BluffThis or the other Catholics here. The Pope himself just reiterated that position.

It would be as if I was the main guy trying to prove to Congress that poker is a game of skill while most of the pro players claimed my strategies don't win.

For the atheist Congress on this forum to have a chance of being convinced of a thiestic position, theists have to either agree on specifics or at least agree that details are highly debatable.

Personally I liken religious scholar types to bodybuilding nuts who read every issue of Flex to learn the latest workout fad. They could achieve the same results within one percent if they stuck to the basics that everyone already knows. In fact they might even do better as the cutting edge new theories are often LESS effective and are the subject of debate. They may claim that their devotion to attaining that last one percent is admirable. Actually it is probably a sign of some sort of emptiness in their life. An emptiness that they can avoid dealing with by obsessing about something else. If I was a Pys Ed teacher, I would realize that I'm teaching physical fitness to help people achieve their goals in life. I would be concerned if mere physical fitness was itself the main goal for someone.

It seems to me that God would feel the same way. If he wants people to know about him I would think it would be because it would help them achieve happiness and satisfaction in many areas. I doubt he wants people to waste their lives trying to figure out what he eats for breakfast.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
For the atheist Congress on this forum to have a chance of being convinced of a thiestic position, theists have to either agree on specifics or at least agree that details are highly debatable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or unimportant or secondary to their main thesis.

But what a Zinger of a post!

I hypothesize that the Coptic Christians actually never make the grade under Catholicism and get the axe and never make it into heaven. Peter666 will have to back me on this or he will be a hypocrite.

-Zeno

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
The odds are quite good with that Bluff's lumping of Catholicism/Orthox/Coptic Traditions is correct, since each has direct and provable lines of successors dating back to the 12 Apostles (Apostolic succession, we call it). Protestants have no such claim to apostolic succession. Lack of apostolic succession is a compelling argument to throw Protestantism out the running for Faith most likely to be true."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous, apostolic succession, as presented in this post, is no more than self justification by the big boys. But it just doesn't seem that the Pope is condemning the Protestants in our time for their historical apostasy.

If you're brewing for a fight among the various denominations it is worthwhile to remember that Christ is not about contention no matter what the issues.The fight is secular, political, but definitely not Christ.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The odds are quite good with that Bluff's lumping of Catholicism/Orthox/Coptic Traditions is correct, since each has direct and provable lines of successors dating back to the 12 Apostles (Apostolic succession, we call it). Protestants have no such claim to apostolic succession. Lack of apostolic succession is a compelling argument to throw Protestantism out the running for Faith most likely to be true."

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous, apostolic succession, as presented in this post, is no more than self justification by the big boys. But it just doesn't seem that the Pope is condemning the Protestants in our time for their historical apostasy.

If you're brewing for a fight among the various denominations it is worthwhile to remember that Christ is not about contention no matter what the issues.The fight is secular, political, but definitely not Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's perhaps more ridiculous of how dismissive you are of apostolic succession and its importance. We owe the Church's ability to maintain its core teachings (our creed, scripture, and cathecism) thanks to the unbroken line of bishops that began with the 12 apostles. It provides great confidence that the Church has accurately preserved and continues to preach the authentic teachings of Christ through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Our story hasn't changed for 2000 years and don't expect it to during the next 2000.

As a Catholic, I'm not left to "figure it out on my own" as if I were a Protestant with nothing more than a Bible to read. I have the appointed successors of Christ's Apostles to teach and guide me. In fact, I consider it a small miracle that our separated brothers in Protestant denominations can practice coherent religion at all given the numerous interpretations many apply to an enormously complex collection of Scripture readings within the Bible.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Catholic, I'm not left to "figure it out on my own" as if I were a Protestant with nothing more than a Bible to read. I have the appointed successors of Christ's Apostles to teach and guide me.

[/ QUOTE ]
This begs the simple question: If the church is a source of truth, why has it got it so horribly wrong, to the point of torturing and killing people who were correct but disagreed with it. And there are other things too - propping up evil monarchs, supporting slavery, denying the truth of cosmology, geology, and the evolutionary record (all of these things they now accept as true, BTW).

So explain to me: why did the people you rely on to interpret truth get it so horribly, horribly wrong in just about field of human knowledge and morality?

edit: They got scriptural interpretation wrong too!

[Peter666]

"So explain to me: why did the people you rely on to interpret truth get it so horribly, horribly wrong in just about field of human knowledge and morality?"

Because they didn't and you don't know what you're talking about.

If you have specific historical examples to prove your point, lets see them. But one at a time please.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This begs the simple question: If the church is a source of truth, why has it got it so horribly wrong ...

[/ QUOTE ]
and they use the continuity argument so often, I wonder how well it stand to scrutiny.

A very cursory glance (on my part) at the history of the popes suggests it bears no scrutiny.

I'd be very interested to see our resident experts take us through the history explaining how these popes are consistent with credibility when it comes to christian truth bearing continuity.

chez

[siegfriedandroy]

i dont hate you, phil, and dont think you are stupid (are you the nit phil in my games!/ LOL, JK, I PLAY LLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOW ). YOUR questions are fine. but in reality i think ure dumb, lol, forgot what i was to say! what in the evolutionary record is supposed to assure me that somehow all of this beauty (and horror) came from nothing? i will never believe it. it cannot be true.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's perhaps more ridiculous of how dismissive you are of apostolic succession and its importance. We owe the Church's ability to maintain its core teachings (our creed, scripture, and cathecism) thanks to the unbroken line of bishops that began with the 12 apostles. It provides great confidence that the Church has accurately preserved and continues to preach the authentic teachings of Christ through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Our story hasn't changed for 2000 years and don't expect it to during the next 2000.

As a Catholic, I'm not left to "figure it out on my own" as if I were a Protestant with nothing more than a Bible to read. I have the appointed successors of Christ's Apostles to teach and guide me. In fact, I consider it a small miracle that our separated brothers in Protestant denominations can practice coherent religion at all given the numerous interpretations many apply to an enormously complex collection of Scripture readings within the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not being dismissive of apostolic succession and have no problem with it. If a man is proud of being a Frenchman that's fine but if the implication is that the Non-French are condemned then there are issues. Implicit condemnation(contention) is as noted previously a secular or political issue and not about Christ.

Just as your own Church as portrayed on this forum does not deny the salvation of Non-Catholics(not always the case-this is what history is about) the apostolic succession is sullied when the sweep of No Apostolic Succession means We are True means We Are the Salvation means YOU ARE CONDEMNED is epitomized.

It would appear in some Catholic views(not all) the apostolic succession is about the Papacy and of course there is only one Pope. Being proud of the Papacy is no sin but purporting to deny Christ to others because of this is disingenuous.

By the way I was really referring to OP's attempt to wedge conflict between Christians(Christian Baiting?) by the use of apostolic succession. I also would like to hear what the present Pope has supposedly said about this matter. From what I've read and heard he seems more like a "hands out" rather than a "keep away" type of guy.