If someone wants an answer to a question I have no problem giving an answer, which is pretty much why I started this thread. But your questions seem to invite argument, not answers
I am sorry if that is your perception, as I am really just pointing out what appear to me to be inconsistencies in your views that do not make sense to me. I really don't have a dog in this hunt. The reason this jumps around a bit is because new responses appear to me to contradict prior responses. (though you are right, the dress and style of Catholic traditions are off-topic and were a cheap shot ) So let me return to the case in point:
I assume when you ask about what we call priests you are referring to the often misinterpreted scripture "call no man father." My response will take up a whole page, so instead I will link you to probably the best response I have ever heard, this OP: http://www.true2ourselves.com/forum/bible-chat/6095-call-no-man-father-scripture-doesn-t-say.html
And that link states "this whole dispute is the result of a misunderstanding of the word most often translated “call” in this passage of Matthew 23.9:", which, if we hark back to
my earlier and first response about translation its exactly the sort of nuance I claimed was being lost. However, if the translation is being guided by the Holy Spirit, Why, then, does the approved Catholic version of the bible use the word "Call" which is clearly inaccurate? Apostolic succession protects the doctrine, which, in your FIRST POST, you claimed was unchanging and static (since the time of the Apostles),
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3)
but seem to dispute that by saying:
Jesus is the Word. Jesus lives. Jesus is not a static concept, and the Word is not a letter on a page.
Jesus Lives, yes. That does not imply that he is often changing his mind, or deciding to teach different things that contradict prior teachings. Those claiming to be teaching the original version of his doctrine are not so liberated to interject new things. Since Jesus has not returned to update the doctrine himself, one must assume that the original is still our guide, and that any church's legitimacy is based on the faithful teaching of the original. Correct?
Thus if the doctrines must be the same as those taught by the apostles, and those doctrines are based upon the Word, and the Holy Spirit has been guiding these councils of appointed teachers, we really shouldn't be going back to the original Greek (which relies upon the oral tradition to be correct -since Jesus most likely originally used Aramaic) for an accurate translation, right? If the doctrine is the same as was taught by the apostles, then indulgences couldn't have been added if they weren't there from the beginning correct? If they were there and were abused by being sold from the beginning, then their sale could not then later be repudiated, correct? If these infallible councils were protecting the word of God, why was the punishment for not believing them persecution, torture and death, when Jesus never commanded such?
For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.). Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
So these councils, charged with protecting the word and clarifying the scripture had to claim for themselves a special ability, given to no other men, via a line of laying on hands, to authoritatively define the doctrines taught by the apostles, bolstered by, but not dependent upon, the scripture. These councils had to be "Summoned" by others to determine the meaning of the doctrine, correct? Using the meaning from the original greek, your source states
Christians are not to summon anyone as the heathens do shamans--as if anyone had power of themselves or power apart from God--for all power of grace comes from God, and it is God who works in those who are chosen, they have not power of themselves, nor are they able to teach or lead unless they are taught and led by the common God and Lord of us all. We may invoke God in prayer and ask others to invoke God in prayer for us, but there are no shamans among us that are “gods in the flesh” who are to be summoned to grant petitions, but all must ask God to grant graces for themselves and for others. Leaders interceded before all and God works in them and through them, but it is God’s grace and power, not theirs, and no one has any power or authority apart from God
Were indulgences nothing other than the granting of petitions, paid for or not? Did not these councils affirm the right of the church to grant such petitions? Are they not obeying the plain word of this scripture in regard to indulgences then? Does their very existence deny it, as they are claiming to be "gods in the flesh" during their meeting , able to clarify the doctrine? Does this scripture then not imply that I do not need to confess to a member of the priesthood, but may petition for forgiveness of my sins directly?
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).......................
A claim for Apostolic Succession is a claim that those men, while in council, were Holy - led to be infallible (on matters of doctrine) by the Lord himself. If I have a point here it is that the Ecumenical Councils, by decision and deed, have shown an inconsistency and unfaithfulness to the word of God ( as much as my paltry understanding of such allows me to determine) that leads me to believe they were not guided by the holy spirit in many cases, and were simply councils of men- as fallible as the next.
