Zobel said:

---

The line of succession is about the bishops doing the ordaining, not the one being ordained.

---

I guess I am failing to see what the big deal is, for lack of a better way to describe it. Shrug. I appreciate the insight however.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I guess I thought there would be more to it, with the emphasis being on this idea that the "line is not broken".

What I am hearing is that anyone can be nominated and achieve this position, assuming they meet the qualifications outlined above. Do these nominating bishops have some kind of special revelation that gives them special insight as to who should be in this position?

Or maybe I need a better understanding of what the line of apostolic succession is intended to be.

---

The "line is not broken" is only important because of what exists inside of that line:apostolic authority. The leadership of the church. The church Jesus left to the apostles.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but it's why I keep hitting on the fact that Jesus didn't leave any texts, command any text be written or tell believers they should go read the texts that did exist and decide. He left men in charge (protected by the Holy Spirit) that passed down that charge to the next generation, who passed it down to the next, so on and so forth. So the church that Jesus founded still exists in that line of apostolic succession.

I hear you that Jesus didn't write scripture himself, but you cannot deny the involvement of the Holy Spirit within scripture and the way that God providentially brings about these men who did write these written oracles that we now call the Bible.

I think we can safely assume the fact that Jesus stopping Paul dead in his tracks on the road to Damascus, and Paul then prolifically writing letters to the early churches implies the fact that it was in God's perfect and sovereign will that these writings be left for us to use and guide us. The fact that God providentially kept these written scrolls protected and usable for those many early centuries. I think it is safe to say we would be screwed (for lack of a better word) if we didn't have the Bible.

I just am failing to connect the dots on bishops from generation after generation who nominate whomever to become the head bishop have some kind of special, apostolic gifting. Is it the fact that these bishops are being given supernatural enlightenment from the Holy Spirit? It seems like they would have to.

Because that's the example given in the scriptures. Not anyone can ordain, it is left to the bishops.

So does the scripture not exist without the church? Sounds to me if the ordination process was left in scripture, then the church doesn't exist without the scripture?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So does the Bible not exist without the church? Sounds to me if the ordination process was left in scripture, then the church doesn't exist without the Bible?

---

No, the Bible doesn't exist without the church. That's how it was kept safe and promulgated. We believe the church was divinely protected in this respect.

Can the church exist without the Bible? For a time, yes. We know that because it took a few decades for the writing to begin and the church was already established by Jesus. In 2025? I don't think so. I think the Bible helps protect the church like the church helped protect the Bible. Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition. As it has been throughout all of Christian history since the writing started.

Gotcha, that helps.

PabloSerna said:

---

" I think history, and tradition alike have proven the Orthodox one to be more accurate/true vs. the RCC claims/understandings."

I think this is impossible to prove and only serves to divide. We shouldn't be keeping score.

---

Just giving my take. I'm neither RCC nor Orthodox, tho I've long been "orthodox curious" to be fair.

Not really related but this is the picture I have in my head when anyone mentions "tradition!"

Timely topic in my morning reading: "Special Revelation Inscripturated"

One of the texts used, admits to the idea the letters of Paul are "hard to understand". Kind of a sobering reminder as we all seem to come at scripture in our different "lenses." I will be praying to not have spiritual ignorance.

2 Peter 3:13-16

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Timely topic in my morning reading: "Special Revelation Inscripturated"

One of the texts used, admits to the idea the letters of Paul are "hard to understand". Kind of a sobering reminder as we all seem to come at scripture in our different "lenses." I will be praying to not have spiritual ignorance.

2 Peter 3:13-16

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

---

That was a big part of my ending up where I did. Thanks for sharing

Here is a recent discussion as to part of a series regarding whether Francis is 'really' the Pope for the RCC types:

Quote:

---

A short time ago, I did a video on the life and career of Bishop Ren Henry Gracida the 101-year-old former bishop of Corpus Christi, Texas and his controversial views on whether Francis really is the pope and what happened with Benedict XVI's resignation.
This is a part of a debate which LifeSiteNews has been hosting over the last few months asking the question, "Is Francis really the pope?"
We've had some really outstanding articles published on both sides of the question. The standard of argumentation has been really high. And we're going to let this debate continue.
We're going to let it continue because, as I said in my Rome Life Forum conference a few months ago, the Church is Christ's. I know that the truth of Christ will come out. I believe that reasoned, prayerful debate on the matter is an aid to arriving at that truth.
Back to Lenga. Some of you will have heard about Lenga before, not least on LifeSiteNews but there's a ton of material you may not have heard, which he has put out only in Polish. I'm going to share some of that with you today.
This is The John-Henry Westen Show.

---

(From second link above):

Quote:

---

It is right that views held by sincere Catholics should be openly and responsibly discussed by a media organization like LifeSiteNews, which is dedicated to seeking the truth about the underlying causes of the crisis in the Church and the modern world.
There is an urgent need for faithful Catholics all those who look to the magisterium of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith to work together to come to a deeper understanding of what has happened in the Church in recent decades. While the situation is distressing to many, it would seem that this exercise can only be done by engaging with the Church's teaching and seeking, as best we can, to apply it to the facts of our times.
We will not always agree with each other, but we need to remain charitable. In that spirit, we have welcomed over two dozen articles by prelates, priests and laymen. Some believe that Francis is the pope. Others believe that Pope Francis cannot be the pope, either because Pope Benedict XVI resigned invalidly, they believe, or because, they argue, Pope Francis is guilty of heresy.

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

Do I think pope Francis is legitimately pope? 95% yes. I don't personally push the theory that he is not.

But as Catholics we do have to come to grips with the anti-popes of the past. It's a thing.

Quote:

---

I will place my faith in what Jesus said as these writings have way more validity then what a council has predetermined.

---

how do you know?

Well the manuscripts of the Bible that have been found are 100's to 1000's that we can compare, and they are extremely accurate in accordance with each other. Also Jesus had thousands upon thousands of witnesses to His teachings and miracles. Honestly not sure about the Catholic churche's earlier fathers when they decided on certain teachings.

Much more validated then a person on the Internet who said that God spoke to them and we should all listen....especially when Jesus never mentioned it specifically. Im not saying He didnt speak to them, but flags are raised and I have my suspicions...

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

So what about the Catholic Church when it had multiple popes? Was it the devil then?

Glass houses my friend.

---

I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has always only had one pope at a time.

cochrum said:

---

As a protestant here who has been on multiple mission trips around the world and meeting many other Christians who love Jesus and sacrifice their lives for Him, it just blows my mind how some Catholics can say they are not going to heaven. Honestly it's my opinion that it shows arrogance and ignorance in that they would rather "die on the cross" of what their traditions hold then what Jesus actually said. We can argue if the earlier church fathers were directly communicated by God Himself about some of these beliefs, Maryiology etc but no one knows for sure...it's an act of faith. However, I will place my faith in what Jesus said as these writings have way more validity then what a council has predetermined.

I have a great respect for Catholicism and truly appreciate many of their beliefs and traditions. However I have some concerns that they have become like the pharisees especially when they can not see their own faults.

But dont get me started on the Protestant church either...they have lost their way as well. Its very disturbing.

---

A question about the arrogance, where do you get the idea that everyone should be assured in their salvation?

Most I see claim 1 John 5:13, but that takes a very narrow view of that one verse out of context. John has 6 mission statements in the epistle, "that your joy may be complete", "that you may not sin" are two of the other ones that I can remember.

There are also a bunch of prefaces concerning following Jesus in the light, not sinning etc etc.

The way this passage is to be read is with optimistic hope. The same as "that you may not sin". Everyone is going to sin again, that's obvious, but it's uplifting and motivating.

We know James tells us that academic knowledge of Christ being God and the messiah, means almost nothing as even the demons believe.

In short, optimistic hope seems warranted, the knowledge that provided you continue walking along the path of Christ, you will reach heaven.

ok, but who was copying those manuscripts? what about all the manuscripts that weren't copied?

what did the people who copied all the manuscripts think?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

So what about the Catholic Church when it had multiple popes? Was it the devil then?

Glass houses my friend.

---

I would like to point out that the Catholic Church has always only had one pope at a time.

---

Ignore the pope behind the curtain? Look, that's not even honest introspection. The RCC has had multiple popes and deposed some. If the RCC didn't know who the pope was or who he should be, it seems like an institutional problem that no amount of whitewashing can handle. Did the pope go underground until he was rediscovered? The RCC split itself in the past. Serna said it about those who divide, not me.

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

So what about the Catholic Church when it had multiple popes? Was it the devil then?

Glass houses my friend.

---

The devil was at work then as well. Thank God for people like Saint Catherine of Siena who was instrumental in bringing back the papacy to Rome . I didn't write that as an attack against you, just a point that there is only ONE Pope and his place belongs in Rome. Lots of history to pick and choose.

Also, it should be noted that prior to his death Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, wrote about his reason for resigning much to the dismay of crack historians like Dr. Taylor Marshall. Sometimes you cannot let a lie fester.

PabloSerna said:

---

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

So what about the Catholic Church when it had multiple popes? Was it the devil then?

Glass houses my friend.

---

The devil was at work then as well. Thank God for people like Saint Catherine of Siena who was instrumental in bringing back the papacy to Rome . I didn't write that as an attack against you, just a point that there is only ONE Pope and his place belongs in Rome. Lots of history to pick and choose.

Also, it should be noted that prior to his death Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, wrote about his reason for resigning much to the dismay of crack historians like Dr. Taylor Marshall. Sometimes you cannot let a lie fester.

---

Taylor Marshall has never declared Francis to not be the Pope, despite his disappointment that Benedict XVI resigned. Sometimes you cannot let a lie fester.

I didn't say he did.

What I was referring to was a podcast I listened to prior to Benedict's letter about why he resigned. Taylor was spinning it very much like a conspiracy, never mind that he had a book entitled "Infiltration", that it really was not.

This is what the good Bishop is picking up on and why others, doubt the legitimacy of the papacy since Vatican II that undermines the mission of the church.

PabloSerna said:

---

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

So what about the Catholic Church when it had multiple popes? Was it the devil then?

Glass houses my friend.

---

The devil was at work then as well. Thank God for people like Saint Catherine of Siena who was instrumental in bringing back the papacy to Rome . I didn't write that as an attack against you, just a point that there is only ONE Pope and his place belongs in Rome. Lots of history to pick and choose.

Also, it should be noted that prior to his death Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, wrote about his reason for resigning much to the dismay of crack historians like Dr. Taylor Marshall. Sometimes you cannot let a lie fester.

---

This is where we step outside of Christendom and into the ethereal realm of the RCC. To the victor goes the spoils I suppose. There is a lot of history and you have to slander a lot of fellow Christians to accuse them of dividing the church with what they did.

"There is a lot of history and you have to slander a lot of fellow Christians to accuse them of dividing the church with what they did."

Please explain.

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

Do I think pope Francis is legitimately pope? 95% yes. I don't personally push the theory that he is not.

But as Catholics we do have to come to grips with the anti-popes of the past. It's a thing.

---

If we were to assume Pope Francis were an antipope, then who is the legitimate Pope right now? Or, by your estimation, would you conclude the seat to be vacant?

light_bulb said:

---

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

This how the devil works- divide and conquer.

---

Do I think pope Francis is legitimately pope? 95% yes. I don't personally push the theory that he is not.

But as Catholics we do have to come to grips with the anti-popes of the past. It's a thing.

---

If we were to assume Pope Francis were an antipope, then who is the legitimate Pope right now? Or, by your estimation, would you conclude the seat to be vacant?

---

First question is the primary issue. This is why I do not believe Francis to be an anti-pope. I just think he's a very below average pope. Not because of he's the does formally, but his lack of discipline informally.

To your second question: what I said above. I don't believe the seat to be empty. I just believe the current successor of Peter is problematic.

"Do I think pope Francis is legitimately pope? 95% yes. I don't personally push the theory that he is not."

What's your 5% of unbelief?

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

---

Do those really count as denominations? There were heretics. They were excommunicated or rehabilitated. The end (although it could take many years for that end).

I could be wrong but I think we saw heretics remain inside of the church whiling trying (and failing) to advance their heresy. I don't think we saw any real splinter groups running their own church's like we saw in the reformation. Again, could be wrong there

---

Correct. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics. Is this still the accepted view? The Roman Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. All others are heretics.

---

Yes and no. We're still the one church. The other churches were founded by heretics. Whether individuals inside of those churches here and now are capable of heresy is a different question.

In order to be capable of heresy as we use it here, you have to have been inside of the church, understood its teachings, and despite that full understanding, choose to say you know better.

So let's say we have a former Catholic in their youth that was maybe taken to mass once or twice a year. Catholic in name but it had no significance in their life and they never paid attention to the teachings. Along comes a knowledgeable evangelical that shows them how much God really does love them! They start going to an evangelical church and live their life for God. Heretic? I think we can all say no. Unaware of the full teaching of the church. Almost assuredly. Apart from the church in the manner in which the church defines? Probably not.

Contrast this with Luther. Ordained priest under the guidance of his local bishop, in communion with the Catholic Church. Luther comes to understand the faith is entirely different than what he was taught and assented to is his adult years, fully aware of his consent. He tells the church that his teachings are accurate and theirs are wrong. Heretic? Yes. Apart from the church? Yes.

The church a Protestant attends holds heretical views in differing degrees. If you're a Methodist (I think you said) you probably align closer with the Catholic Church than just about any other denomination outside of EO and maybe Anglican. But there are some differences. So how can you go to a church that holds some level of heretical views and not personally be a heretic? Personal knowledge of the difference, with a full and unbiased explanation of the Catholic views that keep you from joining, and a belligerent refusal to believe anyway. If that doesn't define you (and I would bet it doesn't define 99.5% of present day Protestants) then I don't think we can call you a heretic. All of those qualifiers have to be fully defined as well, but that's the shorthand way of typing it.

---

Well said.
Question, whose church is it anyway? Who established it? I'm sure we agree the answer is Jesus.
What would you say to the notion that all those who have received Jesus, believed in His name (John 1:12), and been baptized by Jesus with the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16) are all those who make up His church, dare I say the holy, universal, and apostolic church He created for Himself?