Jump to content
Islamic Forum

RC Apologist

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About RC Apologist

  • Rank
    Jr. Member
  1. Islam And Christianity

    Perhaps you can go to church but wait outside during the ceremony. If anybody asks you what's wrong tell them you need some air.
  2. Polygamy

    Thanks mate ;) This whole concept is very alien to me; it seems the Islamic way of thinking is man’s ultimate destiny is to enjoy carnal delights. Is that why God created us, to enjoy physical pleasures? That’s it?
  3. Peace

    It’s not flawed; you just haven’t grasped the meaning of Sacred Tradition which I guess is the defining difference between Islam and Catholicism. We don’t depend on chains of narrations to ensure certainty of our faith. We have Sacred Tradition which is a supernatural gift from God that is not bound by historical records. Pardon my ignorance but I don’t recall Muhammad giving the order to keep chains of narrations. Is this just to ensure the Quran retains its purity as the verbatim word of God?
  4. Polygamy

    I’ve been told a woman can only have one husband because she alone can identify who is the father of her children. I understand the reasoning behind this but what I don’t undertsand is why woman are limited to only one husband in Janah in contrast to men?
  5. Peace

    I’m afraid your gravely mistaken. Apostolic succession is a vital to our belief, we pray the Nicene Creed every Sunday “We believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. We’re just not as compulsively scrupulous about our heritage. We know our origins. There are Churches still present today that date back to the 3rd century, who do you think celebrated mass in them over the centuries? The Bishops. Who do you think determined the bible canon? The Bishops. Who do you think attended all the Church councils over the centuries? The Bishops. As a matter of fact I believe the Quran sets the criterion that the revelations are surely from God because you cannot find any contradictions in it. Using this same criterion, never has the church in 2000 years contradicted itself in the councils. If Martin Luther saw Lutheranism the way it is now, he would barely recognise it.
  6. Peace

    His reply: It is an assumption for anyone who is not insane. I will grant that insane people exist, and some may have pretended to be Christian bishops prior to 313. Thus, I have stipulated that, by 325, one in twenty Bishops might have been invalid. I have even shown that it would not matter (today) if HALF of Christian Bishops in AD 325 were invalid. The break-even point is if TWO THIRDS of Christian Bishops were invalid in 325. Even this ratio would be quickly overcome if Episcopal Ordinations were occasionally celebrated by more than three Consecrators, as has been the custom for many centuries. Does the Muslim really want to claim that more than 2/3 of the Bishops in 325 AD were the result of invalid ordination? C'mon. That's getting pretty darned ridiculous. He cannot contest that the Church today possesses valid Apostolic Orders without contending that the Church in 325 AD had more than two thirds of bishops with invalid Orders (due to deceptions of their predecessors), and that subsequent Episcopal Ordinations were limited to (instead of required for) three Consecrators. The Muslim never answered my proxy question. Does the validity of his faith depend on an accurate understanding of history, and accurate historical lists? If he has such historical lists, how does this present a "strength" for his faith? Would he care to present such lists (whatever they might constitute, which he has never stipulated) here for analysis? I want to know what "history" he claims to have that he claims that the Catholic Church does not have. FWIW, the Catholic Church also has people who can cite many many historic documents by memory. When I asked about the destruction of such records, I meant to include all of these people as well. ALL records (written or memorized) were lost, EXCEPT the Bible. All written AND personal knowledge is lost in this disaster. Would Islam survive? Catholicism would certainly survive. Would Islam survive? I am very interested in the answer to this question.
  7. Peace

    I mentioned one of the strengths of Islam is the chain of narrations and this was he’s response to it... Ask him why he considers this a strength. If there were some disaster, and all of their historic records were lost except the Quran itself, how would this affect Islam? Would Islam cease to be valid, in his opinion? It seems mighty shaky to have a church based on accurate historical records. If Islam is dependent on accurate history books, it seems to be on very poor footing. I would not consider this a strength in any way, but a vulnerability. In ten thousand years, will Muslims be sure their history books are correct? If the Catholic Church ever lost every single document except the Bible, it would not matter one bit. Even if we lost the writings of every Early Church Father. Of every Ecumenical Council. Of every Pope. Of every Doctor of the Church. It would not matter. Because, at one time, the Church did not have any of those things, and yet it was still the Church. The Church has no need of these documents and records. If we lost all of those things, it would be like starting over. A very unfortunate thing, and a great setback, but the Church would still be the Church. The authority and validity of the Church does not come from history books. Are you telling me that the Muslim church cannot say the same thing?
  8. Peace

    Hi Younes, Your arguments have been passed onto a member from the Catholic forum and this was his reply: Quote: I still do not agree that Apostolic Succession and Papal Succession are mutually exclusive. They're not mutually exclusive. All Popes must have valid Apostolic succession (because all Bishops must have valid Apostolic succession, and the Pope is a Bishop). It's just that Papal succession is theologically meaningless. If we discovered that Linus really wasn't the second Pope, nothing would change except the textbooks (and there would be no hurry to change those). Nothing in the Church is based on knowing the lineage of the Papacy. If we completely lost the list of Popes, and knew none but Peter, it would not matter one bit. Quote: It's quite evident that in the beginning they were quite closely connected, or are you suggesting that at the time of Peter and his immediate successor(s) there were many bishops to tend a small, persecuted community of Christians in Rome? There's no reason to believe that the early Roman Church had more than one Bishop (who, as Bishop of Rome, would also have been the Pope, and, of course, Apostolically ordained, just like the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Bishop of Crete, and the Bishop of Antioch, and every other Bishop). Quote: My question is who did Peter appoint as his successor. We don't know how Peter's successors were selected. They were probably named by Peter, but that's speculation. They could have been elected by the Christians in Rome (some Popes were selected by popular election). They could have been appointed by other Bishops (which is how it is done today). The method of selecting a Pope does not matter. The only thing that matters is that he is recognized by the Church as the Bishop of Rome. Quote: I think the matters is as I suspected. Present day bishops do not have full list that links them to the Apostles. It probably goes without saying that I have to conclude that the link to the past has been severed. Nope. The math still wins. Even if each Bishop had such a list, there's no way to validate it. In Apostolic succession, it does not matter WHO your Consecrator is. His name is irrelevant. You might not even know his name (that would be weird, but perfectly OK). The only thing that matters is that he is Apostolically ordained himself. His identity and biography are irrelevant. Quote: Thus far I have not seen any evidence that any bishop in history has had Apostolic Succession, therefore, it's useless to start talking about what happened after Nicaea. This guy's a Muslim? Then I suppose he does not know about Timothy and Titus, who were ordained by Paul, and were both instructed to ordain other Bishops (and given a list of criteria by which potential Bishops could be evaluated). We don't know the names of the Bishops who were ordained by Timothy and Titus (nor do we need to know). Quote: If modern day bishops do not know their exact chain of succession going back to Peter, why would the bishops in 325 CE know it either? Why would they need to know it at all? They would only need to know it if there was any doubt. The only way that the line of succession could be invalid is if someone decided to pretend to be a Bishop, and that guy "ordained" others as bishop. That is the ONLY way. It is 100% foolproof unless somebody does that. Nobody would have done any such thing before 313, because there was no motive for the deception. Being a Bishop before 313 was illegal, and carried the penalty of death. Quote: Look at the names. There is practical no biography on these men. Who were they, really? That is a question mark. It's only a question of historical curiosity. It has no theological significance. Quote: This same pattern happens with the Coptic Church. And the Coptic Church is not any more bothered with it than the Roman Church (which is to say, not bothered at all).
  9. Peace

    Hi Younes, Out of interest I just happen to find this discussion on the Catholic forum which amend and clear up what's been said in this thread. I think there is some confusion here. Apostolic succession has absolutely nothing to do with Papal succession. Popes are not appointed by their predecessors (although this was done for a short time), so there is no "chain of succession" of Popes. There have been long periods (more than a year) when there was no Pope. The Church doesn't actually need a Pope (it's nice to have one, but completely unnecessary, unless you want to promulgate Doctrine). It is true that the Church has not always been able to name all the previous Popes (and there was disagreement about what lists existed). Modern scholarship and research have allowed us to reconstruct the line of Popes with a fairly high degree of certainty. But if we could not do this, it would not matter. Nothing in the Church is based on the succession of Popes. "Apostolic succession" means that a Bishop was ordained by someone who had valid Apostolic succession. Eventually, this succession goes back to an Apostle. In order for any Bishop to be valid, he must have valid Apostolic Orders. Few Bishops know their lineage. I've never known a Bishop who knew the names of all his predecessors. So how do we know he's really a Bishop? How do we know he has valid succession, after 2000 years of Episcopal Ordinations? Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council (Nicea, in 325 AD) imposed a rule which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present). Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD. Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It's 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops. The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000. As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even one invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It's what physicists call a "small but nonzero probability." That is the probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen). It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don't need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this with simple math.
  10. Peace

    I don’t deny there are inconsistencies but I have no trouble accepting them either because I believe they are honest subject to the conditions of the time, just like I don’t have trouble accepting the inconsistencies amongst the NT Greek manuscripts, they had significant factors pointing to the fact they were honest errors in accordance with the situation. If you want to be excessively scrupulous about chains of narrations and not willing to accept inconsistencies then you would have a problem with the Quranic manuscripts that differs significantly. You can watch one of them on YouTube. Hey I can post links after all!! :) It’s obvious we are both biased with our opinions and our beliefs drive us to conclusions. No matter how objective we try to be, we can still examine the same evidence and draw different conclusions (unfortunately! :() because of our beliefs. Anyway I think I’m starting to get exhausted with this thread. I said I would not debate and here I am affirming arguments rather than learning about Islam. Thanks for your responses, it was a stimulating dialogue ;)
  11. Peace

    This is new news to me, thanks for pointing it out. Whether they were the same of different persons does not mean it’s an automatic fraud, neither does it mean there was never a time when there was not a successor to St Peter. As I already pointed out Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, it also makes sense when you consider the context of Romans burning thousands of Christians documents. It does not mean the apostolic succession has been broken especially when we have clear concise lists of successors to the other apostles. Unfortunately I cannot post links because I have not written 50 posts yet but if you go to the Catholic Encyclopedia website and type in search “apostolic succession” you'll find it. You’ll also find a copy of the letter itself in the same website if you do a search for it.
  12. Peace

    I’m afraid you have your facts mixed up. When I said the succession of popes were a little “messy” I meant the Chronology of the bishops. You’re an intelligent fellow surely you can see from the context of which you quoted "The early evidence shows great variety" taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is talking about chronology, not identities mixed or unknown. There was NEVER a time when there was not a bishop of Rome around after St Peter or doubt that ANY of the bishops of Rome were successors to St Peter. I’ll give you an example, in 97 A.D. serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Pope Clement wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John the fourth gospel writer was still living at Ephesus. Despite Ephesus being closer to Corinth than Rome St John the apostle of Jesus did not interfere. It’s obvious St Clement held the primacy office. That’s your assumption, not evidence based.
  13. Peace

    LOL – you remind me of doubting Thomas: you will not accept the validity of the apostolic succession (other than Peter’s) if we don’t present you a website. Just because the chains have not been articulated on the internet does not mean it’s not real. It’s there in the Vatican library open for everyone to see matey. You can’t explain the origin of the succession of bishops yet in your eyes they are guilty until proven innocent. Do I also have to present you Jesus’ hands and feet to show you his scars in order to prove to you he was once crucified? :cry:
  14. Peace

    I knew you would have trouble swallowing what I posted; perhaps I should have offered you that cup of water :lol: Reading your rebuttals it’s obvious your understanding of Christianity is somewhat distorted. Who said God was a man? Christians believe in the hypostatic union. Furthermore it’s obvious you are not familiar with paragraphs 472 & 473 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I know you will continue to disagree with me and my “illogical” answers as you call them due to your “indoctrination” of the Islamic belief system. I have no trouble accepting it because I read the bible in it’s totality and unity. I don’t take out isolated verses and say “see I told you so”. Anyway this is turning into a debate, it’s not something I want to do. It was nice chatting with you. :sl:
  15. To Catholic Answers People

    Lol, I seriously doubt you are open to enlightenment! :D