Papacy - right or wrong?

[islanddogs]

Hi

Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.

To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.

Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.

True.  It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil.  Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught.  Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them.  If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful.  In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role.  God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.

The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.

Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.

If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.

The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.

[chestertonrules]

The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.

Stop making things up.  You obviously have no clue.

[LightHammer]

Hi

Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.

To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.

Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.

True.  It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil.  Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught.  Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them.  If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful.  In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role.  God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.

The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.

Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.

If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.

The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.

That is not Catholic teaching at all. Oh man here we go.

Catholicism teaches that the only authoritive power of the Church is in the office ir the title. It does not teach that clothes endow a man with authority or that man himself is the authority. It is the office that holds the authority and the person chosen to hold that office, inherits the characteristics of the office.

The vestments the Catholic Church wears are no different from the uniforms of a military or company. They are meant to distinguish those aflliated with ced organization from those who are not and specify a certain rank structure.

It is a little ridiculous and kind of unfair to imply that every single clergy that wears vestments does so as a surrender to their own sinful pride and boastfulness.

[mclees8]

Mike, Jesus became incarnate, and therefore was carnal.  Being "carnal" is not evil.

Catholica you sound like Nicodemus. He did not understand either . I find it uncanny that Paul wrote these verses here in his epistle to the Romans
Romans 8:6
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

I said before that carnal religion is mans religion. It is all that is outward. vain shows like  forms and ritual. it is vestments, Grand cathedrals and stained glass windows that look impressive to men. but God looks on the things of the spirit. That which dwells in the heart of a man who woships God in spirit and in Truth.

At its heart, our religion is very spiritual.  It seems that you have chosen to focus only on the physical.

You are trying too hard to fit carnal desires with the existence of vestments together.  God established a religion (Judaism) that explicitly had to use vestments, who built a huge exotic beautiful temple which contained the very presence of God for a very long time.  If you are trying to connect the existence of vestments and beautiful places of worship to carnal desires, then you are going to fail, because God himself endorsed or prescribed these very things in Israel.  

Only God can judge a man if he enjoys wearing vestments to appear important.  You cannot judge the hearts of men, so you are not able to say that vestments, cathedrals and stained glass windows were made to "look impressive to men".  What we have been telling you all along is that we build them to give glory to God.  How is that hard to understand?  And stained glass windows are a long-standing tradition that depicted the truths of scripture in a visual format so that those who could not read could still understand the gospel.  This came from the rampant illiteracy in the world that existed until the 20th century.  So stained glass windows have always been very functional.  Beautiful to glorify God, useful to spread the gospel.

the vatican is just man wanting to establish god upon the earth. But those who are of the Spirit assend all the way to heaven where God truly resides

God has not left us orphans.  That is what Jesus said.  I pray that you come to understand the profound reality of God, that he is very near to us and not distant.

Why are you wanting to rebuild the Old testament. What Jesus established for the New testament church was not to be outward forms of religion but a new and better covenant in the spirit.  I am not saying that Catholics cannot hear the gospel or be of the spirit.  What the papacy was born out of was carnal desires. What they became was something Jesus never established. There were no religious forms and ritual or the wearing of vestments nor a Vatican city in all its religious architecture when Jesus started his church. It was established in humility but they walked in the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know exactly when vestments showed up but when it did something  was lost and carnal Christianity began, but untill then there was none of that.

Jesus was walking in Jerusalem with the disciples when they saw the temple. and they were saying, see the temple how beautiful it was. Jesus said not one stone will be left on another. And i say to you that just as that came to pass the Vatican will also be a ruins.  

When the Christians found favor with Constantine the church authority took a nose dive into apostasy. Lust for power and position quickly set in  and the Holy Spirit quickly moved out. When after a long spell the bishops of Rome finally got what they wanted. and all that was vain religion was established they  became a religious political entity with all its corruptions. It married into Babylon and walked hand and hand and slept in the same bed. This is why Rev 17 is so vividly described and foresaw by John.  This same worldly spirit still exists today and will take the church to antichrist. but the Lord warns his church to come out of her or be judged with her.

God bless

With all due respect brother I think you're missing our brother's point. You say that it is man's carnal nature that brought about the vestments and grand structures of Catholicism. You then go on to make "carnal" and "sinful" synonymous.

Catholica's first point goes back to the one of the very first foundations of Christianity. Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. If, by your reasoning, "carnal"(man) and "sinful" are infact synonymous, then you would be indirectly advocating that Jesus, being both fully God(divine) and fully Man(carnal), would have share a synonymous essence with sin. Catholica is saying that of course is not the case. Just because something is carnal, physical or nonspiritual that does not mean that it is automatically sinful as well. Therefore YOU can not accurately and credibly discern that Catholic Church clergy wear vestments and build grand establishments as means to be prideful and/or flaunt their authoritive positions.

Our brother's second point is more of a supportive piece, in which he refers to God Himself ordaining His servants to build a grand temple and wear fine vestments not as a means to glorify themselves but as a means to bring glory to Him. Catholica is not saying that this is ironclad proof. He is however saying that this is scriptural and historic evidence to support the Catholic practices you oppose while not having any scriptural or historic backing refuting them as wrong.

Brother I don't think I am being understood. I am not saying that carnal things are sinful. I am say love not he world or the things of it. Not all that is in the world is sinful but not all things are expedient for Believers I will try to define this more latter. remember the apostles never wore such things.
God bless

[Ryan2010]

Of Tunics, Togas, and Tradition
- the opinionated Tailor

The liturgical vesture tradition of the Orthodox Christian Church is a tradition of great beauty, theological significance, and profound historical continuity. It is a garment tradition that originates in the very dawn of humanity with the clothing of Adam and Eve after the Fall, continues with the prototypical garments of Mesopotamia and Egypt, proceeds through Greek and Roman attire, and finally culminates and finds a standard expression in the comprehensive Christian vision of the Byzantine Roman Empire. It is a tradition that has outlasted nations, empires and cultures; a truly remarkable pedigree when one considers that an Orthodox priest today wears garments that have, in essential type, been in use by mankind in one form or another for over 6000 years. Perhaps even more astonishing is the fact that the specific garments of Orthodox liturgical dress have enjoyed an unbroken chain of design for the past 1500 years, making the prototypes of vestments worn by deacons, priests, and bishops today easily recognized in icons dating as far back as the fifth century in such historically significant churches as San Vitale in Ravenna and San Apollinare in Classe.

Because the origins of Orthodox Christian liturgical vestments are found in some of the earliest garments of mankind, it is helpful to begin a study of Orthodox ecclesiastical vesture with an overview of the garments of the ancient world. To begin we will focus primarily on the clothing of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, since in these regions we have the greatest amount of information pertaining to early garment history. This is a radical departure from the time period considered by most writers on Church vestments, most of whom have contented themselves with observations on the historical antecedents of liturgical vesture beginning with the garments of ancient Greece and Rome. While the immediate origins of Orthodox Christian vestments are observed most clearly in the garments of ancient Greece and Rome, a study of the garments that in their turn influenced those of the classical age leads us to a greater, more spiritually significant story that must be told. When one examines the earliest garments of civilized man–the archetypical garments that will develop into the daily dress of ancient Greece and Rome and, in turn, our Orthodox Christian liturgical vestments–one observes with startling clarity the common origins of this entire historical trajectory of clothing. The very garments that Adam and Eve used to cover their nakedness become transfigured through God's merciful economy into Orthodox Christian liturgical vesture: "the garments of salvation

[Ryan2010]

Figure 5.  A Roman toga shown draped on the body and laid out as a flattened semi-circle.

At the height of its usage, there were eight separate types of toga, ranging from those worn by ordinary citizens to those worn in mourning to the special toga candida, reserved for use by candidates for public office.  There was a specific toga to be worn by a victorious general (and later by emperors and consuls) and another worn by youths under sixteen.  The toga was the garment par excellence among the Romans and they valued it greatly.  Despite its simple shape, it was a complex garment to wear because, in the time-honored fashion of the ancient Greeks, it required a highly distinctive form of draping to be worn correctly.  To give an idea of its complexity, garment historian Mary G. Houston gives these directions for its proper draping (see Fig 5):

The method of draping is as follows:  Begin by making toga into folds of about eight inches wide and arrange them so the stripe will show.  Wind one end backwards from the wrist to the shoulder of the left arm so that the arm is entirely covered...Now pass over the left shoulder and draw it downwards across the back until it rests at right side of waist, and, having sufficiently loosened the folds to allow the curved edge to reach the ankles, draw the straight edge onwards across the front of the waist, still keeping it in folds to prevent trailing.  Continue round the back of waist until the right side is reached again.  Now take the whole garment and throw upwards across the chest and over the left shoulder, taking care to display the band.  Draw downwards across the back to the right side again.  Now unwind the portion of toga from the left arm and allow it to hang down to the feet from the left shoulder.  Last of all, take the still undraped portion of the toga and throw it across the front of the body and across the crook of the left elbow, the left arm being bent at a right angle to thus receive it. [iii]

In addition to the tunica and the toga, there were other garments in use during Roman times that influenced Orthodox Christian liturgical dress and thus must be mentioned.  The colobium was a version of the tunica that had shortened sleeves.   It was worn by Roman men of free birth and eventually became the liturgical garment referred to in the West as the dalmatic and in the Orthodox Church as the deacon's sticharion. The colobium reached its most elaborate and ornamented version as the court robes of Byzantine emperors and empresses (commonly seen in early Byzantine mosaics) which garments in turn served as the source of the bishop's sakkos and, in a historically significant parallel development, influenced the court dress of almost every royal house in Western Europe[iv].  The paneula, a cloak in a semi-circular shape, was worn by both men and women, primarily for travel or in place of the toga in the case of those residing in the country, and did not have the same high status as the toga.  Another form of the cloak, the pallium, was a long, rectangular garment distantly related to the toga which, while rarely worn by ancient Romans, being considered too distinctly Greek (since it was identical with the Greek himation), came back into vogue sometime prior to the founding of Constantinople.

[Insert figures of paneula and pallium]

Thus at the beginning of the Christian era we see two distinct categories of garments, tunics and cloaks.  All too often in the research of liturgical garments a critical error is made in presenting liturgical garments as far more complicated and convoluted in their evolution than they actually are.  For instance, it is vitally important to understand pre-Christian dress in order to ascertain the simple fact that tunics were often layered, a necessity in colder climates or for general comfort and modesty.  A person wearing a colobium, a specialized type of tunic, must also wear a lighter tunic as an undergarment for modesty, but despite the fact that they are two separate garments, in their essence they are the same design: both are tunics.  When studying the origins of Orthodox Christian dress, it is helpful to view garments according to their basic design, and not necessarily by the various terminology that has been applied to them throughout different ages.  In this way, a universality of design can be seen in Orthodox Christian vesture that illustrates its origins in ancient garment usages.

The Roman dress described thus far remained in use until the 3rd century AD and the subsequent founding of Constantinople as the "New Rome

[mclees8]

Figure 5.  A Roman toga shown draped on the body and laid out as a flattened semi-circle.

At the height of its usage, there were eight separate types of toga, ranging from those worn by ordinary citizens to those worn in mourning to the special toga candida, reserved for use by candidates for public office.  There was a specific toga to be worn by a victorious general (and later by emperors and consuls) and another worn by youths under sixteen.  The toga was the garment par excellence among the Romans and they valued it greatly.  Despite its simple shape, it was a complex garment to wear because, in the time-honored fashion of the ancient Greeks, it required a highly distinctive form of draping to be worn correctly.  To give an idea of its complexity, garment historian Mary G. Houston gives these directions for its proper draping (see Fig 5):

The method of draping is as follows:  Begin by making toga into folds of about eight inches wide and arrange them so the stripe will show.  Wind one end backwards from the wrist to the shoulder of the left arm so that the arm is entirely covered...Now pass over the left shoulder and draw it downwards across the back until it rests at right side of waist, and, having sufficiently loosened the folds to allow the curved edge to reach the ankles, draw the straight edge onwards across the front of the waist, still keeping it in folds to prevent trailing.  Continue round the back of waist until the right side is reached again.  Now take the whole garment and throw upwards across the chest and over the left shoulder, taking care to display the band.  Draw downwards across the back to the right side again.  Now unwind the portion of toga from the left arm and allow it to hang down to the feet from the left shoulder.  Last of all, take the still undraped portion of the toga and throw it across the front of the body and across the crook of the left elbow, the left arm being bent at a right angle to thus receive it. [iii]

In addition to the tunica and the toga, there were other garments in use during Roman times that influenced Orthodox Christian liturgical dress and thus must be mentioned.  The colobium was a version of the tunica that had shortened sleeves.   It was worn by Roman men of free birth and eventually became the liturgical garment referred to in the West as the dalmatic and in the Orthodox Church as the deacon's sticharion. The colobium reached its most elaborate and ornamented version as the court robes of Byzantine emperors and empresses (commonly seen in early Byzantine mosaics) which garments in turn served as the source of the bishop's sakkos and, in a historically significant parallel development, influenced the court dress of almost every royal house in Western Europe[iv].  The paneula, a cloak in a semi-circular shape, was worn by both men and women, primarily for travel or in place of the toga in the case of those residing in the country, and did not have the same high status as the toga.  Another form of the cloak, the pallium, was a long, rectangular garment distantly related to the toga which, while rarely worn by ancient Romans, being considered too distinctly Greek (since it was identical with the Greek himation), came back into vogue sometime prior to the founding of Constantinople.

[Insert figures of paneula and pallium]

Thus at the beginning of the Christian era we see two distinct categories of garments, tunics and cloaks.  All too often in the research of liturgical garments a critical error is made in presenting liturgical garments as far more complicated and convoluted in their evolution than they actually are.  For instance, it is vitally important to understand pre-Christian dress in order to ascertain the simple fact that tunics were often layered, a necessity in colder climates or for general comfort and modesty.  A person wearing a colobium, a specialized type of tunic, must also wear a lighter tunic as an undergarment for modesty, but despite the fact that they are two separate garments, in their essence they are the same design: both are tunics.  When studying the origins of Orthodox Christian dress, it is helpful to view garments according to their basic design, and not necessarily by the various terminology that has been applied to them throughout different ages.  In this way, a universality of design can be seen in Orthodox Christian vesture that illustrates its origins in ancient garment usages.

The Roman dress described thus far remained in use until the 3rd century AD and the subsequent founding of Constantinople as the "New Rome

[islanddogs]

Hi

Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.

To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.

Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.

True.  It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil.  Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught.  Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them.  If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful.  In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role.  God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.

The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.

Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.

If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.

The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.

That is not Catholic teaching at all. Oh man here we go.

Catholicism teaches that the only authoritive power of the Church is in the office ir the title. It does not teach that clothes endow a man with authority or that man himself is the authority. It is the office that holds the authority and the person chosen to hold that office, inherits the characteristics of the office.

The vestments the Catholic Church wears are no different from the uniforms of a military or company. They are meant to distinguish those aflliated with ced organization from those who are not and specify a certain rank structure.

It is a little ridiculous and kind of unfair to imply that every single clergy that wears vestments does so as a surrender to their own sinful pride and boastfulness.

Then please state why you believe they are important and why they are worn. They are vestements, invested with something. By the way the rules on the regalia have changed over time.

Neither have I said the wearing of them equals pride. I'm trying to establish why they are worn. McLees at the moment has set out an argument, you have not.

Yes, the clothes display rank, thank you. Rank equals authority. The regalia is meant to distinguish. By the way I have not been rude and would prefer that others wernt, taking into account American Culture, I still believe Lighthammer and Chestertonrules, were rude.

[Ryan2010]

Dear Ryan I do not think the apostles were class minded.

In the way you mean it I agree.

And i do not think they ever changed from the clothes they always wore.

Not entirely sure what you mean there.  

Now I don't know the time that bishops started wearing vestments that made them look like some king but it is all about a great need to separate the leadership from the common laity in an exalted way.

Well I think I agree with you to some extent but would disagree with some of your finer points.  I disagree that they made the vestments to look like some king but rather the vestments point toward, The King.  That is, Christ.  

This is a finer point here.  They are not robing themselves "in Majesty" but rather they are using office and function as a "type" of The King.  It's not the person of the bishop sotospeak that is robbed in Majesty but in the context of the Church, the Overseer is there looking "over" the house as Christ looks over the house.  

We are not saying that the bishop IS Christ but instead that the bishop is a "type" of Christ in regards to the "structure" of the liturgical Church.  

Big difference there.  

Pastor for instance means, "Shepherd".  Now we all know that there is only 1 Shepherd and that IS Christ.  Right?  But insofar as Christ's "body" functions, some have been appointed to "Shepherd" not as an end within themselves but as a type, a window into the revelation of who God is.  

Having said that also know that that ancient faiths DO believe that "all Christians" are to be and ARE a "priesthood".  In short, the ancient faiths also believe that the people are a priesthood of believers.  

But we are careful not to over-spiritualize this because we are also given function.  I mean, a man and a woman who marry are still a man and a woman despite becoming One.  It is true that there is no man or woman, slave or free, etc. "IN CHRIST" yet it's not as though we are not men or women.  If that hyper-literalization of this spiritual reality were true against our biological bodies, then homosexuals really could marry one another or be ordained etc.  But we know that there is function and purpose and office.  

So the vestments are not there to glorify a person OVER another as we think of it in a carnal sense.  However, that temptation IS there.  One of our bishops said that we take a monk (our bishops are monks) and we dress him up in these fancy clothes and give him double honor (that's biblical) and heap all these "things" on him and then ask him to be humble.  

How hard!  Of course it is hard.  I don't think we should refute that.  After all, what layman ever started a schism or attempted to ruin a Church?  More often than not it is the Overseers and Elders who fall to such temptations.  

We should, if we adhere to an ancient faith, admit this.  McClees has a point.  

However, the vestments are not there to tempt our leaders to fall to pride.  Please know this.  Please don't accuse us of trying to make those who are over us (look up that phrase, "over you" in the Holy Scriptures) fall to pride.  

I want to know when this happened and why.  

Me too.  However, if you have already made up your mind and only wish to find proof to support your view you might, if you are wrong, distort whatever history you might dig up.  So I only advise you to be cautious.  Discover instead what the ancient faith in question sought to teach through the vestments.  

Because the vestments themselves are Evangelistic and proclaim the glory of God.  They also reflect the mirror or image of God in which man is made and which ONLY shines, when the light of Christ shines on that mirror.  

Vestments should not be an end within itself but a window into the Majesty of God.  If you can not see this and only see pride, then do know that if the man who wears such a vestment is not found by God to be prideful, you might have judged him falsely and accused him of something he has not done.  

Those who need to look  religious and be known as authority and want recognition. A fleshly human thing.

I agree that if they only seek to want recognition and wear the vestment as such then perhaps that individual IS prideful but I don't believe that this is the purpose of the vestments themselves.  

If Jesus never did this himself and I doubt the Apostles ever did. then what happened to These carnal bishops who's claim for authority is all they have amongst men But the apostles authority was not of this world.

You have a valid point.  Jesus came into this world born in a cave, swaddled in rags as it were and did not wear his glory on his sleeve sotospeak.  However, the transfiguration speaks volumes of His glory, the glory that He now radiates and shines forth while at the right hand of the Father.  

And so it is that this is where the story of Christianity left off and continued onward and through cultural lenses, was proclaimed in various ways to the glory of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  

God bless

The Transfiguration



Glory to Jesus Christ

[chestertonrules]

The regalia is meant to distinguish. By the way I have not been rude and would prefer that others wernt, taking into account American Culture, I still believe Lighthammer and Chestertonrules, were rude.

I didn't mean to be rude.  I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I believe that Lighthammer and I can strongly disagree with each other and others without being rude.

[Selene]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

[islanddogs]

The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.

[islanddogs]

The only Apostle who passed on anything was Paul to Timothy and Titus. It was not Apostolic authority, but the gospel message which was to be taught, as far as Biblical evidence goes neither of these two held an office in Rome.

They were told to appoint Deacons- Gk Diakonos, an attendant, a waiter, are the best descriptions. Unlike Prelate, which is first, pre. 2 Thess 3:2 is useful.

2 Timothy 4:1 uses the word Depart, it is gk aphistemi, it is to revolt, desist, withdraw,refrain (from the faith in this case) or to desert. Basically there will be an apostatcy, a departing from the Faith.

2 Timothy 2:14-15, 22, 2 Timothy 3:8-9.

On apparel Luke 12:27-31.

The Priesthood within the Catholic church cannot go into purgatory, which is why they have so much difficulty with Priests who are found to be living a lie. In the case of the scandals the Pope would have to ex-communicate all of them, bishops, cardinals, and also reprospectively.

We of course will go to purgatory, which resulted in the reformation baulking at indulgences, buying favour, which of course led to a burgeoning sainthood, relics, for instance the Turin Shroud.

Why is it vital to establish the truth on this question. Because it changes the biblical exhortation of Peter for a Royal Priesthood, a born again, spirit filled church, who serve each other, under the authority of scripture.

[mclees8]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes. It is not just about clothes but why they wear them. It touches on everything the papacy is founded on, which is the need to look like religious authority in a very exalted way. Why the apostles did not do this. Did Jesus institute this exalted clergy
that  rules an empire religiously and politically with all its pomp and finery the fact that this religious authority still exalts itself among men is not to the glory of God but its carnal ambitions.

The reason is not hard to figure out. The bishops ambition was be supreme authority not only religiously but politically . So Just like kings and emperors sat on thrones in grand palaces they needed to be visible, not just for the believers but as the religious authority of the empire. This was not about salvation but adherence to religious political rule.

God bless

[chestertonrules]

The only Apostle who passed on anything was Paul to Timothy and Titus. It was not Apostolic authority, but the gospel message which was to be taught, as far as Biblical evidence goes neither of these two held an office in Rome.

Where did you come up with that?

For one thing, the whole point of apostolic succession is to preserve the gospel message.   Who has authority to teach?

We can read about it here:

Acts 15
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go!  to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

[islanddogs]

John  a lasco in Reformation of the Church, edited by Iain Murray.  stated that the first Bishop of Rome was Celestius who said that the elders were not to wear clothing that distinguished them form the common people. It was Sylvester who began the change, completed by Charlemagne. The priesthood, ir Chrit's priesthood was in the line of Melchizedek. there was no need for shadows when we have the light. 

The change from the Royal Priesthood to a corrupt church was slow. Benedict began a monastic existence in Naples 529, there followed Carthusians, Cisterians. There were still only elders known as Bishops, only later did they become Pope's.

However a group raised up under the name of patriarchs, Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Ephesus, Alexandria, and Corinth, were the main churches which vied for position. Eventually resulting in a struggle between Constantinople and what became the Orthodox Churches, initially the Greek.

Peter may have died in Rome, he probably did not live there, or sit as Pope, no biblical evidence of this. In the 6th Century Innocent 1, began to establish Rome as the authority. Zosimus eventually stating that no right existed to question the Bishop of Rome, Then came Leo1 and Gregory 1,  who established the Pall or Pallium to distinguish the deputies/vicars.

Pope Leo 111 said that the Bishop could oppose /depose Kings. Two faked letters were found the Donation of Constantine, and the Decretals. One saying that the Pope could wear a crown, the other establishing the Apostolic line.
The split with the Orthodox church eventually came over form whom the Holy Spirit proceeded, God and son, or just God.

Churches used to be split into three , 1. where those awaiting baptism sat, 2 . A place for the laity 3. A place where only the Bishops and elders could sit.. This resulted from the dress and specifically form the Papal dress.

Popes were deposed regularly. Pope Boniface V11  murdered his predecessor, John X11 . In 1073 Hildebrand became Pope, named Gregory V11, he said the Pope was head of the church, and eventually the representative of Christ, he abolished simony, the right of clergy to marry. Alexander 111 and Innocent 111, both strengthened the Pope's rule.

In England Henry 11, fought with Beckett, and eventually with the Pope concerning his succesor, the King supporting John De Gray, the Pope Langton. King John was excommunicated as was Henry V11 The saxon king by Gregory V11. John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. There was a General (lateran) Council, shortly after that a statement was made concerning the Pope's being the heirs to Peter as Bishop of Rome, given the intrigue and murder that occurred this was somewhat disengenous. At this time we also had the dcotrine of transubstantiation being first aired.


From the doctrine of Purgatory, came the Medieval corruption of indulgences, and buying less time spent in purgatory, we also saw the developement of pilgramages to relics, saints and an extension of the Worship of Mary as the "queen of heaven". In the 13th C came the Council of Toulouse and the beginnings of the Inquisition, and there hunting of in particular the Waldenses. It was seen by the reformers that the external abuses did not get to the core of the problem, it was the corrupt doctrine of the Church of Rome.

Chesterton that is Historical, you  may not like it, but I have seen no biblical evidence.

An Apostle must have seen Christ face to face and been designated an Apostle by him. Signs and wonders would attest to that. We have only ever had twelve prophets, I did say, I do not hold to the modern teaching of Apostolic authority within the charismatic and North AmericanChurches. It is called the church of glory, rather than church of the cross and suffering.

I again hope you have a good week, 

[islanddogs]

Where did you come up with that?

For one thing, the whole point of apostolic succession is to preserve the gospel message.   Who has authority to teach?

We can read about it here:

Acts 15
22Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.


This did not make them Apostles Chesterton. The church still has the authority to send people, however as the Royal priesthood we are allowed to preach the Gospel. It is a simple message, and we should be taught by Christ.Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go!  to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

This is Paul, Ananias spoke as a prophet as I understand, he was sent with this message. Who was the Apostle.
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
[/quote]

The elders were also given this right, James Chapter 5. This does not point to Papal succession, Peter was the Pope according to the Catholics not Ananias.

[LightHammer]

Hi

Jesus was incarnate, Emmanuel "God with us" he was not carnal. I think you will find a number of scriptures which point to the sinlessness of Jesus.

To paraphrase "He became sin for us, yet was without sin". That is he carried our sin, he was the scapegoat, of Deuteronomy, and the lamb.

Incarnate and carnal may share the same root, but not the same root meaning.

True.  It is just important to remember that just because a physical thing exists, simply because it is not spiritual, that does not make it evil.  Such was the gnostic heresy and what it taught.  Thus vestments in themselves are not evil, and people are not evil for wearing them.  If they became prideful because they were wearing them, then that is sin, but simply by wearing them does not mean that a person is prideful.  In fact, a priest who thought he knew better and eschewed his vestments would be more prideful than one who simply wore the vestments because that is part of his role.  God would be angry with the first, the one who eschewed vestments, and not angry at the second, who submitted to rightful authority.

The point about the vestments is that they have given authority. They are not worn as close. Carnal within the bible is specifically about our carnal nature, which Yes is sinful.

Therefore you have to show that the significance of the apparel is negligible, then the authority vested in them would be nullified, and the word vestments would not apply. The idea is that people are set apart for what reason, you must state, either the Catholic position or your own.

If it is the Catholic position then the clothes they wear, invest in them authority, so Mclees would actually be correct.

The traditional view of the Papal vestments are that they infer upon the wearer authority, which is why when the pope speaks Ex CATHEDRA he does so in full regalia. Thank you for answering by the way, apprecaited.

That is not Catholic teaching at all. Oh man here we go.

Catholicism teaches that the only authoritive power of the Church is in the office ir the title. It does not teach that clothes endow a man with authority or that man himself is the authority. It is the office that holds the authority and the person chosen to hold that office, inherits the characteristics of the office.

The vestments the Catholic Church wears are no different from the uniforms of a military or company. They are meant to distinguish those aflliated with ced organization from those who are not and specify a certain rank structure.

It is a little ridiculous and kind of unfair to imply that every single clergy that wears vestments does so as a surrender to their own sinful pride and boastfulness.

Then please state why you believe they are important and why they are worn. They are vestements, invested with something. By the way the rules on the regalia have changed over time.

Neither have I said the wearing of them equals pride. I'm trying to establish why they are worn. McLees at the moment has set out an argument, you have not.

Yes, the clothes display rank, thank you. Rank equals authority. The regalia is meant to distinguish. By the way I have not been rude and would prefer that others wernt, taking into account American Culture, I still believe Lighthammer and Chestertonrules, were rude.

I've barely posted in this thread so I'm failing to see how I was, in any way shape form or fashion, rude. However I understand that I have a way of putting things that offends people so I apologize for that but I wasn't attempting to be offensive or even sarcastic.

[LightHammer]

The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.

You won't find biblical evidence to apostolic succession. I'm sorry about that. Apostloc Succession is proven only by history, which for one reason or another you dispute the validity of. The disciples were commanded by Christ to remain in Jerusalem until they had recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost. After the Pentecost they went out into the world setting up churches in major cities and charging trusted men to carry on church leadership as they moved on. Before their deaths they did the same. That is apostolic succession. Every church that bares the name of Christ has some form of succession of its leadership so I really never understand when so many of my brothers and sisters always demand biblical proof for a practice they all adhere to?

There is however scriptural support for the Apostles' view of the importance of a "complete" apostolic authority. There is also an example of the remaining 11 exercise their Christ-given gift to choose a successors for Judas Ischariot.

Act1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

[mclees8]

The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.

You won't find biblical evidence to apostolic succession. I'm sorry about that. Apostloc Succession is proven only by history, which for one reason or another you dispute the validity of. The disciples were commanded by Christ to remain in Jerusalem until they had recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost. After the Pentecost they went out into the world setting up churches in major cities and charging trusted men to carry on church leadership as they moved on. Before their deaths they did the same. That is apostolic succession. Every church that bares the name of Christ has some form of succession of its leadership so I really never understand when so many of my brothers and sisters always demand biblical proof for a practice they all adhere to?

There is however scriptural support for the Apostles' view of the importance of a "complete" apostolic authority. There is also an example of the remaining 11 exercise their Christ-given gift to choose a successors for Judas Ischariot.

Act1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Lighthamer I'm not always sure what side you are on. That is if there is a side to be on. There is a succession and i have no  problem with that. The real question is Petrine succession which says that all Bishops of Rome succeeded Peter as popes of all bishops. So far only a couple of misconstrued letter have produced as evidence.

This succession is a lot hooy. The papacy was not established until after 400 AD and it was not ordained of God because it came out of a lust for power and they were willing to lie to get it. Petrine succession was also a clever invention.

God bless

God bless

[John 10:10]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

[LightHammer]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

[LightHammer]

The reason is the significance given to them. Also I'm still waiting for the answer to the question where is the biblical evidence for the Apostolic authority to be passed on, None has been provided.

You won't find biblical evidence to apostolic succession. I'm sorry about that. Apostloc Succession is proven only by history, which for one reason or another you dispute the validity of. The disciples were commanded by Christ to remain in Jerusalem until they had recieved the gift of the Holy Ghost. After the Pentecost they went out into the world setting up churches in major cities and charging trusted men to carry on church leadership as they moved on. Before their deaths they did the same. That is apostolic succession. Every church that bares the name of Christ has some form of succession of its leadership so I really never understand when so many of my brothers and sisters always demand biblical proof for a practice they all adhere to?

There is however scriptural support for the Apostles' view of the importance of a "complete" apostolic authority. There is also an example of the remaining 11 exercise their Christ-given gift to choose a successors for Judas Ischariot.

Act1:20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Lighthamer I'm not always sure what side you are on. That is if there is a side to be on. There is a succession and i have no  problem with that. The real question is Petrine succession which says that all Bishops of Rome succeeded Peter as popes of all bishops. So far only a couple of misconstrued letter have produced as evidence.

This succession is a lot hooy. The papacy was not established until after 400 AD and it was not ordained of God because it came out of a lust for power and they were willing to lie to get it. Petrine succession was also a clever invention.

God bless

God bless

Peace brother. I assure you that I don't take "sides" in matters of Truth because no side is ever as absolute as it wants to claim it is. I just try to be as unbias as possible to reach an unadulterated Truth.

I know YOU do not dispute apostolic succession but rather Petrine succession but islanddogs does however. He, like most of my brothers and sisters, does not understand that there is a history of God's people and the practices of the Disciples out side of the timeline of scripture. So if something that is clearly proven by historic writings but not mentioned in scriptural writings is being taught, Islanddogs and those like him will immediately dismiss it as heresy.

I don't blame him for this fearful lifestyle. God did warn us and tell us to be alert against false prophets so I see why men and women only rely on the concrete Truth of scripture. However they simply MUST come to the realization that the Twelve disciples didn't just stop being the Twelve after John was given Revelations. The Church(ekkelesia) did endure, grow and expand throughout the world after scripture recorded its last event. So if one is inquirying on the Truths that the disciples and early church adhered to you must also search deep in the archives of history and not simply scripture.

[chestertonrules]

[

b]This did not make them Apostles Chesterton. The church still has the authority to send people, however as the Royal priesthood we are allowed to preach the Gospel. It is a simple message, and we should be taught by Christ.[/b]Acts 9
15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go!  to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

It made them successors of the apostles.  They were sent by the apostles as Jesus sent them.  They are the leaders of the Church.  Without this  authority an individual could not be authorized to teach true Christian doctrine.

1 John 4
. 6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.


That's what apostolic succession is.  You and I, unless we are ordained by a successor of the apostles, don't have authority to teach.

Each Catholic priest was ordained by a Bishop.  Each Bishop was ordained by a Bishop.  This trail of hands laid on heads for ordination is traceable all the way back to the apostles.

[John 10:10]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

[LightHammer]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

[John 10:10]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

[chestertonrules]

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

John 6
53 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

[LightHammer]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

What are you talking about?

No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.

Take it down a few notches there.

[John 10:10]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

What are you talking about?

No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.

Take it down a few notches there.   

The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?"  Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions.  When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong.  When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death?  When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.  Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural?  Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized.  Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?

Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?

[Visionary]

Quote: "Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized.  Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?" End Quote.

Rather then post a bunch of scripture declaring who the saints are anyone may read the first few verses of every epistle in the new testament and be equipped to refute the Catholic canonization of Saints which is based on miracles done in the name of men after their death.

Explanation: According to Catholics a person is not recognized as a saint until two miracles are confirmed in that persons name after their death!

Can we conclude Galatians 3 was written specifically for us today so that we might not be carried away by Catholics deceitful scheming? "Does God work miracles because..."

Just think. According to Catholics a person can pray in the name of holy moly and if you receive two answers to prayer in holy moly's name then holy moly must be a saint!

HOW FOOLISH IS THAT TO REJECT THE NAME OF THE LIVING GOD! THE ONLY ONE, THE ONLY SAVIOR WHO HEARS AND ANSWERS PRAYERS!

Remove the veil of the teaching of men!  

[chestertonrules]

Quote: "Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized.  Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?" End Quote.

Rather then post a bunch of scripture declaring who the saints are anyone may read the first few verses of every epistle in the new testament and be equipped to refute the Catholic canonization of Saints which is based on miracles done in the name of men after their death.

Explanation: According to Catholics a person is not recognized as a saint until two miracles are confirmed in that persons name after their death!

Can we conclude Galatians 3 was written specifically for us today so that we might not be carried away by Catholics deceitful scheming? "Does God work miracles because..."

Just think. According to Catholics a person can pray in the name of holy moly and if you receive two answers to prayer in holy moly's name then holy moly must be a saint!

HOW FOOLISH IS THAT TO REJECT THE NAME OF THE LIVING GOD! THE ONLY ONE, THE ONLY SAVIOR WHO HEARS AND ANSWERS PRAYERS!

Remove the veil of the teaching of men!  

You should stop posting about the Catholic Church.   You don't know what you are talking about.

Nothing personal.   

[LightHammer]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

What are you talking about?

No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.

Take it down a few notches there.   

The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?"  Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions.  When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong.  When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death?  When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.  Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural?  Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized.  Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?

Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?

Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.

So again what are you talking about? 

[John 10:10]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

What are you talking about?

No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.

Take it down a few notches there.   

The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?"  Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions.  When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong.  When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death?  When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.  Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural?  Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized.  Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?

Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?

Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.

So again what are you talking about? 

I was talking about the topic thread, but if you want to talk about "vestments," let's talk about these clothes:

Revelation 7:9

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.

Revelation 7:13

Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"

Revelation 7:14

I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

[mclees8]

Are we still talking about clothes?  I haven't been on this forum for a while, and we're still talking about clothes? 

Yes, we talk about clothes when one wants to divert from the truth and authority of Scripture.

Where have you been during the course of this thread? 

Generally giving Scripture to back up what I believe, which is mostly ignored (see post on 10/26).

It was sarcasm brother.lol I was saying that you must be a little confused if you don't realize that the OP of this thread was meant to discuss "clothes" and therefore your condescending opposittion was a little unwarranted.

Ignoring the clear meaning of Scripture is not!

What are you talking about?

No one is ignoring the authority of scripture. This topic is simply not about scripture.

Take it down a few notches there.   

The subject of this topic thread is "Papacy - right or wrong?"  Catholics use Scripture and their interpretation of "select passages" to support the Papacy, its teachings and traditions.  When Scriptures clearly proclaim truth that the Papacy does not practice or support, it is either ignored or explained away that Reformation fathers got it all wrong.  When Huss and other Reformers were burned at the stake, what was their sin worthy of death?  When Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Whittenburg church door, about 85 were against the practice of indulgences which a person could pay money to the Catholic church or do a good deed and obtain remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.  Do Catholics still believe burning Reformers and the practice of indulgences were Scriptural?  Paul declared all "those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus" are saints by calling (1 Cor 1:2), not just those who are recognized by the Catholic Church for exceptional holiness and are then canonized.  Why do Catholics still support the practice of canonization in order to be saints?

Maybe we need to take it up a few Scriptural notches, if you are really interested in the authority of Scripture?

Actually those who were actually partaking in the discussion were discussing the vestments of the clergy and what they represent.

So again what are you talking about? 

I was talking about the topic thread, but if you want to talk about "vestments," let's talk about these clothes:

Revelation 7:9

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands.

Revelation 7:13

Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"

Revelation 7:14

I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:14

Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

May we all pray to be found worthy of these garments. However these are spiritiual and heavenly. The religious vestments of earthly  priests  are for man serve a carnal purpose

God bless