It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simon Peter and Apostolic Succession

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   


Martin Luther was a good Catholic. Until he started reading for himself.

Martin Luther was a heretic and a schismatic. His actions were most deplorably divisive to the one true Church set up by Christ himself.



There was no succession of Peter. Peter may have been an apostle, but he was never a church leader in the modern sense of the word.

"Upon this Rock (Peter), the Church will be built." Yeah, I guess Christ was just joking around about Peter's leadership abilities.




All those powers given to the apostles? Only those who they lay hands on and gave those powers to were able to use them, and when they died, that generation, all connection to the apostles was cut.

Oh really? Have you ever read Butler's "Lives of the Saints", with the thousands of miracles that have taken place since the time of the apostles?




Succession? No. And it's an abomination to state something so untrue. But, they've never had much trouble distorting the truth in the past.


Christ founded the Church, and Peter was the first leader of the Church. There has been a continuous succession since the time of Christ. That's not an abomination - It's factual and true. Just because you're a schismatic Protestant, doesn't give you a right to defame the Church.




If we are to believe that the Bible is the final word, and if we are to believe that even in the days of the Apostles that the Church was set up as it was intended, then certainly there are a few problems for Catholics.


And what problems are these? Do tell. The Church, through the ages, has been the sole caregiver to the poorest of the poor, sending monks, priests, and nuns to remote parts of the world in some of the poorest regions of this planet - places other missionaries wouldn't even dare to tread. The Church has been instrumental in inculcating a solid moral foundation for our youth, through the countless schools and universities run by dedicated nuns and priests that earn little if anything for their devoted efforts.

For every negative accusation and falsehood that you claim against the Church, I can name a thousand positive, good deeds that the Church has done in return. Have there been bad apples? Of course. That happens in any institution. But the Church is the only institution I know of that publicly defends the rights of the unborn, is anti-war, and does everything it can to promote peace, harmony, and civility in this world - all the while being viciously attacked by critics such as yourself that are completely clueless and turn a blind eye to the good works of the Church through the ages.




Right out of the gate, even with the Apostles, there was zero differentiation between clergy and laity. No difference. There was no such thing in the early Church as clergy. All Christians were the same, each congregation was completely independent of the other, all worship was determined from the letters that we now call the New Testament, and no one man in any congregation had any more influence than the other ELDERS who by the way, were ALL married, and you can read the qualification of office in the New Testament for yourself.


It was a natural evolution for the Church to gain more organizational structure over time. Even in the early days of the Church, there were bishops and a hierarchical structure of authority.

Christ himself admonished his own Apostles to give up everything and follow Him - give up all material wealth, etc. Catholic priests are simply following the dictates of Christ Himself in giving up married life to follow Christ.




The Catholic Church was a political power, and had little to do with scriptural Christian practice. Ever really read what the Catholics believe, print, and teach?

Nonsense. The Church was founded to save souls. Papal authority stands higher than temporal or political authority.

The Catholic Church publicly publishes the "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is the compendium of the Church's belief system and teachings. It is right in line with Biblical teaching, and it is very pro-life, pro-family, and very much in defense of the poor. Only someone as arrogant as yourself would suggest otherwise.




Yes, partly due to the hand copying of the Bible, and partly due to the fact that they COULDN"T teach the Bible to the people for fear of exposing their own counter teachings, the Bible was basically withheld for about 1260 years.

This is pure baloney. In centuries past, most people could barely read or write, and the Church was simply trying to protect its lay followers from being misled by heretics and schismatics that would twist the words of the Bible towards their own evil ends.

You are completely distorting historical facts, and failing to take the Church's teaching in historical context.

It is only in our modern age where reading and writing is common (or not so common as evident by our culture's fascination with TV, Internet, video games, and the like).

Back centuries ago, most people lived on farms or in small villages - They were uneducated and poor. They did not have access to a good education. They couldn't read or write.

It was the responsibility of the Church to defend these uneducated laity from the wicked snares of the Protestant devils that were twisting the words of the Bible for their own wicked, schismatic means. Even today, self-proclaimed Bible "experts" twist the words of the Bible to defame the Church, much as you have done so in your postings here.

Isn't it funny how you absolutely ignore all the positives that the Church has brought to the world? More prayer, strong moral standards, serving the needs of the poor and homeless, saving souls. Funny how you gloss over those good parts of the Church.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by orangeman dave
 

Romans 1:13-15 And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles. (14) I am debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. (15) So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome.
he was writing to the church in rome where he's never been before...I guess that blows your theory out of the water



[edit on 28-8-2009 by reject]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Hi CookieMonster/
I believe you are mistaken....
Apostolic Succession is determined by what Jesus Christ Taught His Apostles,and up until the times of now!
No broken successions or new inventions are allowed to creep in the Church Of Christ, whom is the Invisible Head of the Church.
No modernism is allowed....
The Roman Church have added to what these Early Christians taught!
Papal authority as Vicar of Christ was not in place in Early Christianity.
All of the Apostles have the same authority...even in the Book of the Apocalpse all twelve appear at the Final Judgment and not seperately,all are in equality!



The Orthodox Church of Christ refuses to recognize yet another head of the Church in the in the form of a “Vicar of Christ on earth,” a title given in the Roman Catholic Church to the Bishop of Rome.
Such a title does not correspond either to the word of God or to the universal Church consciousness and tradition; it tears away the Church on earth from immediate unity with the heavenly Church.
A vicar is assigned during the absence of the one replaced; but Christ is invisibly present in His Church always.
The rejection by the ancient Church of the view of the Bishop of Rome as the Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ upon earth is expressed in the writings of those who were active in the Ecumenical Councils.
SOURCE


Also the teaching of the infalibility of the Pope was another teaching made 'dogma' even at the people's protest...

Only in the year 1870, at the First Vatican Council, did Pope Pius IX succeed in turning this teaching into a dogma, in spite of the protest of many Catholics, who even preferred to leave this church and found their own community (of the Old Catholics) than to accept so absurd a dogma. By virtue of the definition of the Vatican Council,
the pope is infallible when he, as the pastor and teacher of all Christians, defines or proclaims the truths of the faith ex cathedra, that is, officially, as the head of the Church.
LINK

the Apostle Paul, speaking about the creation of Christ’s Church, expresses "According to the grace of God which is given unto me,
as a wise master-builder,
I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon.
But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
For other foundation can no may lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ."
In the book of the Apocalypse, where the Church is compared to a city, it says: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Revelation 21:14).




The fact that Peter, according to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, is sent by the apostles (Acts 8:14), gives an account of his actions to the apostles and the faithful (Acts 11:4-18) and listens to their objections and even denunciations (Gal. 2:11-14), which of course, could not be if Peter were the prince of the apostles and head of the Church, also speaks against the Catholic teaching.
link

Married or unmarried Priests?
~Introduced after the Great Schism of the East and West in 1054~
In the Roman Church, celibacy has been instituted for all persons of priestly rank; it was introduced in the eleventh century under Pope Gregory VII. The main reason for the institution of obligatory celibacy by this pope lay in the following thesis - "the Church cannot become free of subordination to laymen if clerics do not become free of their wives."
This teaching is not found amongst other teaching and not what was known amongsts early Christians.


But problems arose when Rome broke its last political links with the Eastern Empire and sought a new protector in the Frankish empire of Pepin and Charlemagne.
This caused changes in the political ideology of the Franks, on the one hand, who came to see themselves as the real Roman Empire, more Roman and more Orthodox than the Empire of the East; and on the other hand, in the ecclesiology of the Popes, who came to see themselves as the only Church of this renewed Roman Empire, having ultimate jurisdiction over all the Churches in the world. Frankish caesaropapism soon collapsed; but Roman papocaesarism continued to grow until it claimed supreme authority in both Church and State…


ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   


Apostolic Succession is determined by what Jesus Christ Taught His Apostles,and up until the times of now! No broken successions or new inventions are allowed to creep in the Church Of Christ, whom is the Invisible Head of the Church. No modernism is allowed....


There is an unbroken succession of leaders of the Church (i.e., papal authority) dating back to the time of Christ. It is an unbroken succession, and Peter was the very first leader of the Church.

These are historical facts. To suggest that this is an "invention" negates both the factual history of the Church, as well as a negation of the Church itself. You cannot have a Church without leadership, and you can't have a Church without a succession plan. Otherwise, the Church itself would not exist.

Yes, undoubtedly, Christ is the Head of the Church. His presence is very real, and exists in the form of the Body and Blood of Christ - the Eucharist and wine in the traditional Mass.

Furthermore, there is, without question, Biblical authority for succession of leadership in the Church. Christ himself appointed Peter as His leader of the Church prior to Christ ascending to Heaven. This was the first succession of leadership on Earth. This first succession does not in any way negate Christ's authority or place as Head of the Church above the Pope.




The Roman Church have added to what these Early Christians taught! Papal authority as Vicar of Christ was not in place in Early Christianity. All of the Apostles have the same authority...even in the Book of the Apocalpse all twelve appear at the Final Judgment and not seperately,all are in equality!


Where did the Roman Catholic Church add to what these early Christians taught? The nuns and priests of today even recite the same Divine Office that the early Church Fathers recited. They follow the dictates of Christ by attending the daily Mass, and they cater to the poor, homeless, and destitute in charitable works.

How are these activities - all of which are factual and true - "adding" to what early Christians taught exactly? Early Christians did the exact same thing - they read the Divine Office in the form of the Book of Psalms (the Psalter) daily, they attended Mass on Sundays, and they catered to helping the poor. This is exactly what the Church does even today - In fact, these are the main actions and activities of the Church today.

Papal authority came with the appointment of Peter as the "Rock on which the Church would be built".

Matthew Chapter 16, Verses 18-19:

18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...."

Peter was clearly singled out by Christ as having a special place as the first leader after Christ to head His Church.



Such a title does not correspond either to the word of God or to the universal Church consciousness and tradition; it tears away the Church on earth from immediate unity with the heavenly Church. A vicar is assigned during the absence of the one replaced; but Christ is invisibly present in His Church always. The rejection by the ancient Church of the view of the Bishop of Rome as the Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ upon earth is expressed in the writings of those who were active in the Ecumenical Councils.


Papal authority was given by Christ to Peter as Head of the Church. Re-read Matthew 16 noted above. It is right in the New Testament for all to see and read.

Papal authority does not "tear away the Church on Earth from immediate unity with the Heavenly Church". In fact, the traditional Latin "Tridentine" Mass is the closest Earthly replication of the Heavenly Church this side of Heaven.

Yes, Christ is present in the Church - No Catholic would ever state that He is absent. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

In the Ecumenical Councils, there was much debate about many a topic. Obviously, the rejection of the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church was outvoted - meaning that there were more in favor of the current hierarchical structure than were opposed. Your suggestion that "some opposed" is accurate - clearly there were many issues that were debated in these Councils.

"The gates of Hell will not prevail against it" - meaning that, while some will attempt to tear down the authority of the Church - much as you are trying to do right now, the Church remains and stands strong despite these attempts to deface and defame.



Also the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope was another teaching made 'dogma' even at the people's protest...


Heretics doth protest too much. Heretics and schismatics constantly attack the Church in this manner.

If you can show me anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the main body of religious teachings of the Catholic Church - that should be changed, then have at it. I can find nothing in the Catechism worth protesting.

Popes, over a period of time, do amend the edicts of his predecessors. In fact, we even see this today, where the current Pope has made liturgical changes in the Mass by allowing more lenient use of the traditional Latin Mass. That does not negate papal authority whatsoever.



"For other foundation can no may lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

The Head of the Church is Christ Himself. In no way does Catholic teaching negate that Christ is the leader of the Church. This is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever heard.



Married or unmarried Priests? ...This teaching is not found amongst other teaching and not what was known amongsts early Christians.


Christ told his own Apostles to drop everything - wives, children, material wealth - and follow Him.

Priests give up everything - the pleasures of the secular world - to follow Christ --- just as Christ requested of His own Apostles.



...and on the other hand, in the ecclesiology of the Popes, who came to see themselves as the only Church of this renewed Roman Empire, having ultimate jurisdiction over all the Churches in the world.


A simple historical explanation of Church authority.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09



Apostolic Succession is determined by what Jesus Christ Taught His Apostles,and up until the times of now! No broken successions or new inventions are allowed to creep in the Church Of Christ, whom is the Invisible Head of the Church. No modernism is allowed....


There is an unbroken succession of leaders of the Church (i.e., papal authority) dating back to the time of Christ. It is an unbroken succession, and Peter was the very first leader of the Church.

These are historical facts. To suggest that this is an "invention" negates both the factual history of the Church, as well as a negation of the Church itself. You cannot have a Church without leadership, and you can't have a Church without a succession plan. Otherwise, the Church itself would not exist.

Yes, undoubtedly, Christ is the Head of the Church. His presence is very real, and exists in the form of the Body and Blood of Christ - the Eucharist and wine in the traditional Mass.

Furthermore, there is, without question, Biblical authority for succession of leadership in the Church. Christ himself appointed Peter as His leader of the Church prior to Christ ascending to Heaven. This was the first succession of leadership on Earth. This first succession does not in any way negate Christ's authority or place as Head of the Church above the Pope.




The Roman Church have added to what these Early Christians taught! Papal authority as Vicar of Christ was not in place in Early Christianity. All of the Apostles have the same authority...even in the Book of the Apocalpse all twelve appear at the Final Judgment and not seperately,all are in equality!


Where did the Roman Catholic Church add to what these early Christians taught? The nuns and priests of today even recite the same Divine Office that the early Church Fathers recited. They follow the dictates of Christ by attending the daily Mass, and they cater to the poor, homeless, and destitute in charitable works.

How are these activities - all of which are factual and true - "adding" to what early Christians taught exactly? Early Christians did the exact same thing - they read the Divine Office in the form of the Book of Psalms (the Psalter) daily, they attended Mass on Sundays, and they catered to helping the poor. This is exactly what the Church does even today - In fact, these are the main actions and activities of the Church today.

Papal authority came with the appointment of Peter as the "Rock on which the Church would be built".

Matthew Chapter 16, Verses 18-19:

18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...."

Peter was clearly singled out by Christ as having a special place as the first leader after Christ to head His Church.



Such a title does not correspond either to the word of God or to the universal Church consciousness and tradition; it tears away the Church on earth from immediate unity with the heavenly Church. A vicar is assigned during the absence of the one replaced; but Christ is invisibly present in His Church always. The rejection by the ancient Church of the view of the Bishop of Rome as the Head of the Church and Vicar of Christ upon earth is expressed in the writings of those who were active in the Ecumenical Councils.


Papal authority was given by Christ to Peter as Head of the Church. Re-read Matthew 16 noted above. It is right in the New Testament for all to see and read.

Papal authority does not "tear away the Church on Earth from immediate unity with the Heavenly Church". In fact, the traditional Latin "Tridentine" Mass is the closest Earthly replication of the Heavenly Church this side of Heaven.

Yes, Christ is present in the Church - No Catholic would ever state that He is absent. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teaching.

In the Ecumenical Councils, there was much debate about many a topic. Obviously, the rejection of the Bishop of Rome as Head of the Church was outvoted - meaning that there were more in favor of the current hierarchical structure than were opposed. Your suggestion that "some opposed" is accurate - clearly there were many issues that were debated in these Councils.

"The gates of Hell will not prevail against it" - meaning that, while some will attempt to tear down the authority of the Church - much as you are trying to do right now, the Church remains and stands strong despite these attempts to deface and defame.



Also the teaching of the infallibility of the Pope was another teaching made 'dogma' even at the people's protest...


Heretics doth protest too much. Heretics and schismatics constantly attack the Church in this manner.

If you can show me anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - the main body of religious teachings of the Catholic Church - that should be changed, then have at it. I can find nothing in the Catechism worth protesting.

Popes, over a period of time, do amend the edicts of his predecessors. In fact, we even see this today, where the current Pope has made liturgical changes in the Mass by allowing more lenient use of the traditional Latin Mass. That does not negate papal authority whatsoever.



"For other foundation can no may lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

The Head of the Church is Christ Himself. In no way does Catholic teaching negate that Christ is the leader of the Church. This is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever heard.



Married or unmarried Priests? ...This teaching is not found amongst other teaching and not what was known amongsts early Christians.


Christ told his own Apostles to drop everything - wives, children, material wealth - and follow Him.

Priests give up everything - the pleasures of the secular world - to follow Christ --- just as Christ requested of His own Apostles.



...and on the other hand, in the ecclesiology of the Popes, who came to see themselves as the only Church of this renewed Roman Empire, having ultimate jurisdiction over all the Churches in the world.


A simple historical explanation of Church authority.


Hi Cookie!
Firstly First among EQUALS does not mean that he is the Head of the church.
If Peter was the HEAD of the church, then why did he take instructions from the other Apostles?
Another is that there never was a HEAD of the Church other then Jesus Christ...remember He said that He would come back and instruct(form of the Holy Spirit)...He is an Invisible Spirit, Father ,Son and Holy Spirit!
All was well up until the Great Schism...
I even read that Roman Catholics do not believe in the words of The Apostle Paul?
(I have it, but give me some time I will put it here)

Roman Catholics do a few things different...Leavened and Unleavened Bread?
Eucharist is another...

Marriage in the Priesthood was around in the Old Testament...a Priest with a family would be able to deal with other families as well...His wife also to help.
It is a man made Law that priests should not marry...look at when it was invented!
Heretics?
Look at what the Roman Catholics have done in History!
The EAST asked for help, and all that we got was looting(Venetian glass is not even venetian!) and murders!
Please re read History and Im sure you will understand!
It's about POWER, money and Greed.
I dont have a problem with the pious people, but the ONE in charge will get a more harsh punishment for his heretical teachings!
The EAST and WEST was fine.....adding to what was made Law within the first 1000 years is Heretical.
Please do some research...as for the Liturgy, before your present Pope was elected Pope, he said ORTHODOXY have the Original Liturgy!
Did he change his mind after becoming Pope...please check this out!



Christ told his own Apostles to drop everything - wives, children, material wealth - and follow Him.

Well, you mention Wealth and you have the VATICAN city owned by who?
Christ DID not tell all His Apostles to do this!

I gave some links but I suppose you did not go to them...Look toward France just before the Schism....Judas was also a chosen Apostle, what did he do?
This is what will continue to happen right until the end of the World....remember it is ''little flock''
The Gates of hell shall not prevail?
Look at what this also signifies...

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   


Firstly First among EQUALS does not mean that he is the Head of the church. If Peter was the HEAD of the church, then why did he take instructions from the other Apostles?


Christ appointed Peter to be the first leader of His Church after Christ ascended into Heaven. This is Biblical fact, and clearly evident in the New Testament. I will post this a second time - In the words of Christ Himself:

Matthew Chapter 16, Verses 18-19:

18 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven...."

Peter was the "Rock" on which the Church was built. Christ didn't appoint any of the other Apostles to be the Rock of the Church - only Peter.

Did Peter take advice from other Apostles? Of course. What leader doesn't listen carefully to the advice of others?




Another is that there never was a HEAD of the Church other then Jesus Christ...remember He said that He would come back and instruct(form of the Holy Spirit)...He is an Invisible Spirit, Father ,Son and Holy Spirit!


You're mincing words on technicalities. Of course, Christ is the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church. No Catholic would disagree.

Peter - and the successive line of leaders (i.e., papal authorities) thereafter - never ousted Christ from His position as the Messiah. They were simply the leaders of the Church after Christ ascended to Heaven. At no point did I ever suggest that the Popes usurped the authority of Christ. That would be a most ridiculous assertion.



I even read that Roman Catholics do not believe in the words of The Apostle Paul?


Well, that's a new one. I sure would enjoy hearing the story behind this wild assertion. Last time I checked, I never read anywhere that the Church did not believe in the Holy Bible.




Roman Catholics do a few things different...Leavened and Unleavened Bread? Eucharist is another...

First, I am not sure what you mean by the quote about "leavened and unleavened bread". Perhaps you are confusing Catholicism with the Old Law.

Regarding the Eucharist, Christ Himself instituted the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist at the Last Supper.




It is a man made Law that priests should not marry...look at when it was invented!

Christ implemented the rule about marriage. The Catholic Church's priesthood is simply adhering to Christ's admonition to drop everything and follow Him.




Look at what the Roman Catholics have done in History!


I can think of many more positives than negatives.



It's about POWER, money and Greed.

Tell that to Christ Himself who founded the Church. I am sure He would be amused.



The Gates of hell shall not prevail? Look at what this also signifies...

Yes, it means that heretics and schismatics will not prevail against the Church.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


i thought peter had been martyred and there fore couldnt have founded the church? in other words he died standing up for his beliefs wither way to be the pope wouldnt have been in their nature, it goes back to idolatry anyone claiming to be so high would start to be worshipped, or idolized it seems to be a lie from the catholic church.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


Could you please explain this again? I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean.

Are you saying that Pope's are of lesser moral character and therefor would not be martyred, and Peter was martyred so therefor could not be a Pope?

Sorry if I'm not getting that correct.

Eric



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by make.changes
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


i thought peter had been martyred and there fore couldnt have founded the church? in other words he died standing up for his beliefs wither way to be the pope wouldnt have been in their nature, it goes back to idolatry anyone claiming to be so high would start to be worshipped, or idolized it seems to be a lie from the catholic church.


no i thought peter had been martyred before the time the church had been founded, so couldnt have had founded the church which could or could not be wrong.and to be the pope wouldnt have been in his nature because it would have lead to idolatry. and the popes cant even do what the saints can. the pope seems to be an epicenter of idolatry.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
and both paul and peter were martyred around the year 64-67 a.d. the first pope was constantine. and there fore the founder of the christian church in rome would have been constantine. and the first founder of what we call the christian church would have been jesus.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by make.changes
 


Hi make/

The CHURCH was founded by Jesus Christ...it is the people that make up the Church.'Church' means the people,so without the people, there is no church!
In a church, you need an order of things, as you do with all things!
It is similar to a court and the Judge!
The Old Testament was the same...Priests and Kings gave orders so that all things were in order!
What has changed is that God took flesh, became Man and a new covenant was in order!
This is all in the Scriptures...those that read the Scriptures and believe in the Scriptures, should not have any arguments as to what is being said.
Those that deny the Scriptures, well,they simply deny them and nothing else can be said!
''True Apostolic Succession Exists Only With True Confession of Faith'' there is no other way!
Jesus Christ was ONE and He was not split into many!
This also should be held true, with the Genuine Apostolic Church of Early Christianity!

ICXC NIKA
helen




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join