Tuesday, May 29, 2007

An Old Post

Here a few things that the Roman Catholic Church has proclaimed:

1. Prayers for the dead . ………………300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross ………………………… …300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints ……………….375 A.D.
4. Use of images in worship………………………………… . 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration……………………………… 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus…431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites)……………………………… ..526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I…………………………… .593 A.D.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints ……………………………… .600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics ……………………… … 786 A.D.
11. Canonization of dead saints ………………………………… ..995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood …………………………………… …1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary ……………………………………………… … 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences ……………………………………………… …..1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III …………………………… 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest …………………… 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host)…………………………… .. 1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion …………………..1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma……………………………..1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed …………….1439 A.D.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent..1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible ……………….1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary……………………………….1854 A.D.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council …1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church……………………… 1965 A.D.

As I said in a much earlier post I am wanting to write like I speak. Typically, people tend to write much more fancy than they speak. Well, not here. So let me be perfectly clear in the next paragraph or so.

Many of the above mentioned items are wicked to the core. I don't care what council said it; if it is not supported in Scripture then it is man-made. I am tired of RCC's trying to tell me what this or that meant. I say let's just take it at face value. ie

INDULGENCES are demonic and from the pit of hell. The RCC has refused to publically repent of this past practice.
PURGATORY-if this place is real then Jesus did not have to die to cleanse us from our sins; hence, a cult.
PRAYERS TO MARY AND DEAD SAINTS- another wicked demonic practice that the RCC refuses to admit is unscriptural
ASSUMPTION OF MARY- scripture???? I could go on and on but in the end the burden of proof lay in the lap of RCC's. We are not brothers and sisters in the Lord. You must repent of your sins and quit trusting in mere man to forgive you.

Here is a little food for thought...

[He told him that He would not leave them orphans. That phrase struck me because I heard it used when Pope John Paul II passed away. One of the television news interviewers was talking with a young woman in St. Peter’s Square who responded: “With our Holy Father now dead we feel like orphans.” Then when Pope Benedict XVI’s election was announced and he appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s, another person being interviewed declared: “We are no longer orphans.”] http://www.catholicweb.com/media_index.cfm?fuseaction=view_article&partnerid=40&article_id=2059


MM said...

Dear Dead,

I am hounding your blog while working on a paper, and enjoying it! :) Sorry to be such a pest this evening.

This is an EXCELLENT summary of the Church's conciliar teachings. Thanks for providing a great reference! I'll be linking to it from my blog...

Abraham said...


You said in the previous post

"Love and generosity yes. Never at the expense of truth."

Is there a scriptural backing for this? The verse that comes to my mind with respects to the importance of love is

"But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love"


JSU said...


I will give you a verse since I had an identical conversation with Jon on "More for the Papists":

1 Corinthians 13:6
"Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."

approvedworkman said...

Thanks to DT for posting this great example of progressive apostasy.

One of my pet peeves has been the lifting of 1 Cor 13 completely out of its' context. Even the unregenerate can quote it.
This chapter is sandwiched between Paul's teaching on the giftings, callings, and order of meeting in the church.Therefore the chapter is speaking to the church in regards to the overall "atmosphere" in which they meet and walk in their God-given gifts. This is why he ends chapter 12 with,
"let me show you a more excellent way"
and begins chapter 14 with,
" pursue love,yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy."

Prophesy is simply proclaiming God's Word to His people for the purposes of exhortation, encouragement,and of course direction and correction.
We have His prophetic Word in our Bibles, so this constant lifting of passages out of their context, and therefore out of the overall context of the entirety of Scripture,demonstrates a lack of what Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to do. The "churches" have long ago began to abandon the Word of God.
Read the letters as if they are actually letters, because they are.
If you "love" your brothers you will not shy away from reprooving them when needed, however jsu is right,in that love rejoices only in the Truth.

Abraham said...

ok, lets assume dt, jsu, approved workman etc are sincerly pointing out problems with other churches. How about your own churches? all good? no need for any rethink where your lives (ie. your way of life) are heading?

In May, all except one post in this blog is about Catholic church / Rick Warren

I also had a look at "Blogs I enjoy" section in this site. The first one is "Apprising Ministries". Guess what is the topic there? Following is the list for May from that web site











Am I wrong in suggesting that you guys need to set your priorities right (If you are sincerely seeking the Kingdom of God in your lives)?

Just compare this with what Paul and other apostles gave importance to when they were writing to churches. Ofcource, they wrote about wrong teachings, but that was a minor part compared to how they exhorted the new born christians to "live" a christian life. We are supposed to be ambassadors for Christ. What impact do you think this would have on an unbeliever, if all he/she sees in such web sites is "corrections for other churches"?

Atleast if there is any new information, that would be good. All that I see is repeat the same things again and again. Just see the latest post. It is even called "An old post"!!


JSU said...

I suppose Abraham if you don't like the repetitive, or aggressive content of this blog, then perhaps you shouldn't be visiting it.

Maybe you should reread the New Testament. Paul doesn't go over false teachers as if they were some minor issue. False teachers and teachings are a very serious matter. Christians and non-Christians alike can become ensnared in their teaching. It was not only Paul who went over this subject, but Jesus, John, and Peter too. This is no small joking matter. Well, at least it wasn't to these guys. The word false appears roughly 30 times in the New Testament. I don't call that minor.

As for new information, false teachings haven't changed. Catholics haven't changed their doctrines lately, so all the info you'll see will be the same because it's the same problem.

Dead Theologians said...


Have you ever heard of "Red Herrings?" It certainly appears that you have. You have REFUSED to answer the issues that have been put forth.
You have repeatedly tried to turn other posts/comments on those who are opposed to the RCC without answering anything.

You mention as to how non-productive these posts might be to non-Christians for me to "correct other churches." Sir, these are not "other churches;" they are cults that are not of God and are leading people to Hell. That is no small matter. That is a matter to tackle head-on. Maybe you would handle it with everyone sitting around singing Kum Ba Yah and having some "Rodney King Theology" talks. Not me!

I am reminded of this verse when you and I discuss these posts...

Can two walk together, unless they are agreed? Amos 3.3

Lastly, if I want to turn this blog into a counter-cult site then I can do it. It is my blog. I can have all the "blogs I enjoy" that I want.

I was hoping for a good exchange of doctrinal discussion with you. I see that is not something you are interested in.

Abraham said...

I was only hoping to point to the real issues that we all must address in our lives. I face such situations myself every day in my life. Trying to talk pleasing to the world, trying to be conforming to the world, worried about the future, sexual temptations etc. etc. that I feel are more important to address than discuss doctrine. Discussing and agreeing upon is not that happen very often especially Christian doctrine. Faith is the last thing you can discuss and agree upon. You can preach the word, but giving faith is something God does. In His second coming, I believe He would look for people who have been doing His will, not those who had the best doctrine.

I am sure that you wouldn't agree with all what Martin Luther and the other reformers preached and did. Especially things that protestants did like burning 'heretics' at the stake. You might also disagree with him on his beliefs about Mary, that she was a virgin through out her life.


Dead Theologians said...

Burning heretics...

Do you mean William Tyndale or John Huss?

Again, you refuse to discuss that issues that have been laid at your door.

1 Timothy 4:13
Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

The issues that you mention are for the church (those that are saved) to discuss and work through. We are discussing, or at least that is what I want to do, the doctrines that set the RCC completely apart from orthodox Christianity. We are not talking about tongues, fasting, end times, or the like. We are speaking about issues that the RCC has clung to that are not in Holy Writ.

2 John 1:9
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

You seem to be more interested in the social implications of the faith. But I say that the doctrine that you treat so flippantly will manifest itself in our live through the socials implications you mention.

1 Timothy 1:3
[ No Other Doctrine ] As I urged you when I went into Macedonia—remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine


Cradle Catholic and thankful said...

Abraham has a point. It's always seemed to me that that the only point of Catholic bashers' faith is bashing the Catholic Church. It makes me wonder what would be left if the bashing was silenced.

Dead Theologians said...

Cradle Catholic and thankful,
You said...
"It makes me wonder what would be left if the bashing was silenced."

It would be great if you could ask some of the Jesuit priest during the Inquisition. They seemed to know how to silence opposition. Torture, fire, the Index, etc.

Once again, a RCC refuses to answer the charges laid at his door.

Have you been "saved" since the cradle?


Cradle Catholic and thankful said...

DT, you're rather adept. In one swoop, you didn't consider what's left if the bashing was silence and at the same time, did a pre-emptive strike, quick on the trigger to say before I've even responded, "Once again, a RCC refuses to answer the charges laid at his door."

Are you always so hasty to jump to conclusions?

Since the comments I've seen from Catholic bashers is either based on inaccurate information or a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching, the quickness to conclusions doesn't surprise me.

btw, I'm not interested in debate for the sake of debate. I'm more interested in accurate information and civil discussion.

Since you brought up the topic of the Inquisition, what exactly do you know of it and what are your sources?

Dead Theologians said...

Cradle Catholic and thankful,

I think it would be better for you to give me some Scriptural background to no.'s 1, 6, 8, 9

My view of the inquistition verses yours will not get us anywhere because you will read the Catholic church's version and I will read Protestant church history's version.

To you I jumped the gate. To me the charges have already been laid out in this original post which NO ONE has answered.

If you cannot support these with Scripture we have no basis to talk. It is then a mindless debate with no source to measure by.


Cradle Catholic and very thankful said...

DT, today is the first time I've visited your blog, having followed a link from another. I started out looking for a civil discussion, but now think it very unlikely. You've done nothing but insult me even though I've shown far greater restraint than you have.

If you think that every casual visitor is, on their FIRST visit here, going to write a detailed rebuttal to a 26 item laundry list when you don't even say what your objection is to what you listed.

Your expectation that a first time visitor will write a detailed rebuttal to your laundry list of bald statement is presumptuous and extremely unrealistic.

Then when their comment doesn't fit into your unrealistic expectation, you jump the gun and make the accusation that they are "refusing" to answer the charges. I was unaware that an innocent visit to your site meant "facing charges." In addition, you dump all the responsibility of any discussion on the visitor, to guess what your objections are.

When I said I was a cradle Catholic and "thankful," it's because every encounter with a Catholic-basher has left me very thankful to be in the Catholic Church.

I had not visited to get embroiled in an argument. One, I have no need to defend my faith. That you have objections is your problem, not mine. I simply wanted to confirm my hunch that this was a site that doesn not recognize Catholics as Christians and you confirmed that, in spades. Two, I figure if someone is seriously interested in learning the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches, they'll engage in serious discussion at a Catholic apologetics site, who will have the Scripture at their fingertips to back up their answers. Three, my plate is already full with other things.

Again, I notice that you demand answers, yet have avoided or "refused" to answer my questions.

However, let me look at your last post and what I can answer in a reasonable time.


First of all, where in the Bible do you find sola scriptura?

I'll answer that for you. You don't.

The second part of that is that it seems clear that you have not read the Church Fathers. Mary was held in high honor prior to 431.

A third part is the importance of knowing Church history. The title "Mother of God" came about not so much about Mary, but to affirm Jesus' divinity in light of the Arian heresy. Okay, so that's starting with #6.

The three others basically have to do with intercession. I've heard lots of Protestants say they'll pray for each other. Scripture basis is 1 Timothy 2:1-4 when St. Paul asks for "supplications, prayers, petitions...for everyone."

To be honest, I don't know Protestant theology enough to understand the objection about praying for the dead.

That's as complete as I can be before getting ready for tonight's commitment.

Dead Theologians said...

Cradle Catholic,

I am sorry that you are not wanting to dialog. This being my blog I can post whatever I want, even if it is "Catholic bashing."

"Again, I notice that you demand answers, yet have avoided or "refused" to answer my questions."

The only question that you have posed is "It makes me wonder what would be left if the bashing was silenced" which in reality, is not a question.
Then you wanted me to tell what I knew about the inquisition.

As far as "Then when their comment doesn't fit into your unrealistic expectation, you jump the gun and make the accusation that they are "refusing" to answer the charges" no one has even attempted to give an answer to these issues.

"In addition, you dump all the responsibility of any discussion on the visitor, to guess what your objections are."

I think my objections have already been made.

I was looking forward to dialoging with a RCC who would shoot straight.


approvedworkman said...

This is a classic example of how the papists have handled the debate for centuries.

"First of all, where in the Bible do you find sola scriptura?
I'll answer that for you. You don't."

Try using this argument against their marian idolatry. When you ask where do you find the teachings on Mary they espouse, they reply with "the trinity is'nt mentioned either, even though it is taught; so it is the same for the teachings re: Mary". We would never be allowed to get away with the "you don't find it in scripture" answer.
As for the trinity argument, Matthew 28:19,Matthew 3:16-17 address that. The trinity is most definitley mentioned. Mary-olotry
is not even inferred.

As for Mary, the teachings of sinlessness, perpetual virginity, bodily assumption, and inferring that she is the access-way to her son are not scripturally supported.
Which leads to the church fathers and traditions issues.
What is the source of all doctrine and practice? The scriptures are the only reliable source of all matters of faith.
If the fathers and/or tradition contradict or ignore the Scriptures then they are to be discarded. The RCC treats traditions and dogma as if they are Scripture still being written.
So,of course the roman church rejects sola scriptura. If they were to adhere to it, then they must toss virtually everything they do and teach.
As for sola scriptura, try Deut 8:3. It was good enough for Christ Himself to cite to in answer to Satan.

Cradle Catholic, thankful but tired at the moment said...


This being my blog I can post whatever I want

Strawman argument as I didn't say otherwise. What I did say was that if you want a dialogue, you might want to refrain from accusing people of "refusing" to answer when all they did was come by for a look-see.

Three questions so far:
1. Okay, this one I'll officially put in the form of a question: If Catholic bashing was removed, what would be left of your faith?

2. I asked what you knew of the Inquistion and you "refused" to answer.

3. Where is sola scriptura in the Bible?

Three questions that you couldn't or wouldn't answer. At least I made an attempt.

You might think your objection have been made, but they're not clear to me. Your laundry list does not explain why you object to the rosary, prayers for the dead, etc.

I was looking forward to dialoging with a RCC who would shoot straight.

You had me fooled.

Seriously, if you want a straight dialogue, try being nice to people when they stumble across your blog instead of shooting them down on sight. Or ask a Catholic apologist. You might not accept their answer, but you'd get a "straight dialogue."

You still haven't answered the question of where in the Bible sola scriptura is stated. I just saw your comment about Deuteronomy 8:3. That verse is about God's providence despite the Israelites' "murmuring" while the Israelites were wandering in the desert. It is not sola scriptura.

Catholics don't engage in Marian "idolatry." I looked at some previous posts, enough to know that you grew up Catholic. I would suggest that for whatever reason, you don't fully know the Catholic faith.

Have you forgotten Mary's Magnificat, specifically Luke 1:48 "henceforth all generations will call me blessed"?

Mary always points to Jesus, as in the wedding at Cana: "Do whatever he tells you." (John 2:5) That's Catholic teaching. If you thought it was otherwise, something got messed up along the way.

Tradition is indeed based on Scripture. If you allow for those verses from Matthew, then you also need to allow for verses cited to support Tradition.

Which leads to the church fathers and traditions issues.

Yes, it always boils down to authority.

The scriptures are the only reliable source of all matters of faith.

Yes, but who determined the canon of Scripture? The Catholic Church.

approvedworkman said...

Deut 8 is the foundation of the Word as authority. Read the verse carefully

Deut 8:
3And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by every WORD that comes from the mouth of the LORD.

Manna was given in order that men would know that we live by the Word alone. I believe that is translated as "sola scriptura".
They did not know manna nor did their fathers. "Manna" meant literally "what is it?" The name which is a question, is what lead them to hear the Word of God as the answer.
IOW, they were provided for, in a miraculous way, for 40 years in order that they would learn that their survival had nothing to do with the food, but rather God's promises as covenant being kept. he gave them, and their, fathers His Word.

As for Mary I tire of the same old, worn out, eisegesis. Mary said "do whatever he tells you" at the wedding feast in Cana.
How does that translate into she is in heaven doing this right now as we pray to her? Why would I pray to anyone but the Father, asking only for what is contained in the name of Jesus?
Pleaswe I am a fomer seminarian and altar boy. I can still say the latin prayers if you like.
More-so I know the Scriptures and am more aware of the error of Rome than you are.
As for the church fathers, they do not have equal authority with Scripture, as they are not inerrant and infallible;neither are the popes nor the magesterium. Rome assumed authority that neither the Lord not scripture gives the true church.
Where in scripture do we find popes and ex cathedra infallibility? The answer is nowhere.
Where do we find pseudo royalty in the church, demasnding to be called "your holiness" or "your excellency" and living in palaces?
Matthew 8:19-20

As for the Canon; The scriptures were being assembled long before the councils. They did not one day decide what books were valid. Anyway the Old Testament books were a long settled issue. That was not Rome's doing. The church up to the 3rd century was a much different entity, than what becam the Roman Catholic Chirch, which did not fully exist until the 5th century. It was roughly a two to three century slide into apostasy.
Read a good history for a change.

Abraham said...

Have you heard about Michael Servetus?

Do you agree that "Martin Luther made statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated, and liberty curtailed were revived and given widespread publicity by the Nazis in Germany in 1933–45"?

Again, I am not pointing these things to justify any faith or church. You said, "you refuse to discuss that issues that have been laid at your door". Please, once again, understand that discussing doctrine, or justifying myself or my faith is not what I intented to do. Self justification is not what God want us to do. From the beginning, all I have been saying was, being a non-catholic, you could concentrate more on issues that you can make a difference, in your church, as I have pointed out many times, but you haven't responded to.



JSU said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JSU said...

I chuckled to hear your opinion of how DT could make a difference in his church by not focusing on the Roman Catholic Cult (RCC). Please, tell us how he could make a difference by avoiding discussions about doctrine and deceptive cults (such as the current topic). How would that make a difference? If anything, these discussions will inform the unknowing visitors and church attenders who know very little about the past and present Roman Catholic Cult.

Abraham said...

How will someone preach "Do not commit adultery"? Does he/she have to say "Look at Mr. Tim, a member of our church. He is a married man. Yet he likes his secretary. We have proof that Tim has had sex with his secretary on 12th December 2005, then 25th January 2006.." and then provide exact details about how he went about committing this sin?

If DT believes that you are not supposed to request people who have "passed away" from this temporal world to pray for you, then is it hard to preach that way?
In Corinthians, we read that Paul asked the church to even expel a brother from the church because he committed sexual immorality. Will DT do that in his church?
Is it hard to preach "The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness"

We find that we are so lenient to ourselves and our fellow believers, but very harsh on others. I mentioned about Martin Luther's statement and also about Michael Servetus. You didn't have anything to say about that. I don't wish that you spend much effort on that either. If we really believe that "Jesus Christ came to save sinners, of whom I am chief", we would spend our whole energy on not to hurt Him again with our body, our words and our lives in general. Even if we do fall, we would try again and again and again..


Dead Theologians said...


Why do you think that TV's and radios will announce that something or someone dangerous is on the loose? They want us to avoid certain people or things and be on the defense.
That is what I am trying to do.

Calvin regretted his involvement with Servetus. Servetus was Nontrinitarian and being of that mindset put anyone in a precarious situation.

Luther's views and harsh words are sad.

The problem I think you have with me is that you wish I would spend more time exhorting the brethren instead of being on a witch hunt.

The problem I have with you is you are part of the cult that I am warning people about and you just don't get it.

The RCC is NOT part of the church. They are a heretical blasphemous organization more interested in power than integrity.

Have you ever heard of The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre? Between August 24 and October 3, 1572 the mother church led authorities in a butchery that sent 70,000-100,000 Hugenots to the grave. Women and children were not spared.
Once the Vatican received the news celebrations were planned. Pope Gregory XIII ordered the cannons of Castel Sant’Angelo to be fired in salute, bells to be rung for a public day of thanksgiving, bonfires to be lit, the Te Deum sung (an early Christian hymn of praise to God), and a special commemorative medal to be struck in honour of the occasion.

What about Tyndale and Hus' executions?


Abraham said...

Why are you showing double standards? Why can't I see the same attitude in you towards the mistakes of the two churches (Sorry, I am still not convinced that RCC is a cult)?

Why can't you say, Luther's views were 'wrong', not just 'sad', when his views were clearly against the scripture?

With respects to Servetus you mentioned 'Calvin regretted'. You don't say anything about the protestant church.


Dead Theologians said...


I will answer you pointedly even though you STUBBORNLY refuse to answer anything I put forth!

In reference to Luther. If it did happen as you and wikipedia put it, then he was blatantly wrong.

Calvin's part in the Servetus trial was wrong. Did you know that Calvin went to him repeated while under arrest and tried to convince him to repent of his heretical views? Servetus would not relent.

What about the Protestant Church? They did not have a witch hunt on Catholics. You may be confusing the Turks with the Protestants.

Now, what about Tyndale and Hus' executions? What about The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre?

What you or I believe does not change truth.


Abraham said...

Tndale, Hus, St Barthelomeo's day massacre.. any violence in the name of Jesus, I would say is not in line with God's mercy for us through Jesus. I thought I had made it clear why I was not commenting on any specific event, or doctrine, that is, I believe discussing doctrine, let alone writing in an offencive manner about what others believe cannot convince people of anything. The reason I asked you about Martin Luther and Servetus was because I didn't see any post about issues with the protestant church. I don't intent to bring up these issues again.



caspar said...

I think if you want an ongoing discussion with Catholics, it will need to find some format that does not always shift, as the comboxes do.

There is a Catholic side to the story on pretty much all the issues you guys bring up. Masses of work, in fact. So much that were I to link to it all and recommend every book, I would fill pages of your space. I'm trying to determine what your aim is. If you are purely aiming to tear down every argument as soon as they arise, then there is no chance of me being able or anyone else being able to show it in full or in part to you.

If, on the other hand, you are willing to look at the Catholic case, taking in as much detail as possible and asking questions to flesh it out, ridding the debate of misunderstanding, then we may get somewhere.

Or perhaps there is some way in which I can defend my faith/explain my faith so as to allow for progress in the discussion.

Dead Theologians said...


Everything that has been discussed or will be discussed centers around one foundational issue, authority. Whatever the RCC has as its authority will determine its views on Mary, Atonement, Baptism, Salvation, and etc.

So, the focus should center around authority. Everything else is a moot point.


caspar said...

Thanks, DT, for narrowing the debate.

I assume it's not just Peter's position that is at issue, but also the whole idea of Apostolic Succession? Tied in with the magisterium, the college of bishops, and guarantees of infallibility.

To start with, I assume that the Protestants here will acknowledge that Peter had authority as an Apostle, this being a special position within the early Christian Church as evidenced through Acts.

It is worth noting in the present debate that the possibility of the Apostles passing on their authority is demonstrated in Acts 1. There is no indication that Matthias was considered in any way less than Judas would have been had it not been for that whole treachery thing. Whether or not this extends past that generation...well, we can trace back Peter's lineage straight to him. I recommend "Vicars of Christ: A History of the Popes" by Charles Coulombe. I know some of the Orthodox patriarchs can trace the line of ordination back to different Apostles.

I would argue we can be fairly certain as to the lineage of ministry, and that certain men were understood to be the successors of the apostles in a special sense. Whether you acknowledge that this conveys any actual authority is very different matter, and a point for later debate.

I'll let that be my initial entry into the debate.

God bless!


Blog Widget by LinkWithin