Hello, A protestant guy who was once a catholic brougth up Acts 8:14 about Peter and John being "sent" by the Apostles. How he asks Can a Pope be sent as if not in charge of the situation. Would the Pope today be sent as if he has no say in the matter?

Does the word "sent" mean the same today as it did in the language of the time?

Any thoughts about this?

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), May 31, 2004

Answers

bump

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), May 31, 2004.

The following address has some great info. http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp. I don't know about the word "sent", though. Your guy sounds like he is nit picking Catholics instead of sharing what makes his religion "the one". That's got to be the absolute worst approach he could take. The above address also has great info about how to handle people like this, even if you are not an "expert" on Catholicism.

-- mark a (stillasking@middle.age), May 31, 2004.

It could simply be a matter of "sent" as in they all agreed that it would be a good thing. It doesn't seem to use the phrase "sent out" that is elsewhere used to imply authority conferred on someone. Below is an interesting response/challenge that you could give to this guy.

Acts 8 (KJV)
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Philip was not an apostle, but a deacon. Apostles had the authority of priests, while Philip was one of the seven in the group that was assigned to help the needy. He could teach and baptize (shown earlier in the chapter with the Ethiopian eunuch), but he did not have the apostolic authority.

For this reason, the people had not yet received the Holy Spirit (v. 15-16). The Holy Spirit was only received after they laying on of the apostles hands (v. 17-18) -- so that's why the apostles were sent! This passage clearly shows that not "just anybody," even church leaders (eg. Philip), can "lay hands" on someone or cause someone to receive the Holy Spirit. These things must be done through the proper authority of the Catholic Church, the same today as it was then. God can of course guide people by the Holy Spirit, but no human can confer that power without the proper apostolic authority.

Ask your friend to prove the apostolic authority of his church and the legitimacy of their "laying on of hands" or sending people out. How do they comply with this passage by having this authority from the apostles? We see with Philip that not even all church leaders were able to do this, much less all Christians (as some Protestants claim).

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 31, 2004.

AS noted, this si a bad argument. Technically the Pope IS sent on various missions even to-day.

This does not negate the Aurhotiyy vested int he Pope by the Catholic Chruch, however, it is mearly a mean in language to express that he was asked to be sent in tis case.

Such as when the Vatican sent the Pope to Cuba.This was to facilitate greater freedomss for the people in that nation, and the news did say he was sent, it did not, however, reduce his standing any.

I beelive this is mere wordplay and not accurate argument.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 31, 2004.

All of the Apostles were sent. Do you think they went where they went and did what they did on a whim? Nothing they did would have any real meaning except in the context of being sent - by the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

So, being SENT OUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus.(Acts 13:4)

Therefore, being SENT on their way BY THE CHURCH, they were passing through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and were bringing great joy to all the brethren. (Acts 15:3)

Do you suppose that the many travels of Pope John Paul II were decided on nothing more than a personal whim? He was SENT by the Church to the various places he has visited, just as Peter was. Otherwise his trips would have been nothing more than personal vacations.

"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? And how will they preach unless they are SENT? (Rom 10:14-15)

Incidentally, Jesus repeatedly spoke of Himself as being SENT. Does that mean He wasn't in charge??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 31, 2004.

Thanks for the responses.

-- D Joseph (newfiedufie@msn.com), June 01, 2004.

Acts of the apostles chapter 2 quotes Joel. Peter says this is to fulfil the prophesy of Joel - that The Holy Spirit will be poured out on everyone.

Which part of 'everyone' only means Catholics?

-- A Believer (LovedbyJesus@Anglican.co.uk), June 02, 2004.

So you think Buddhists are filled with the Holy Spirit??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 02, 2004.

'So you think Buddhists are filled with the Holy Spirit??

-- Paul M.'

So you presume to limit the promises of God to those that meet your criteria? The Holy Spirit is a gift poured out on everyone - we only have to accept it.

-- A Believer (LovedByJesus@Anglican.com), June 04, 2004.

We must accept each other. It does not matter what churches we go to if we believe in the same Trinity, we are the "Church" mentioned in the bible; we are Christ bridemate. Catholic, Anglican, Protestants, Evengilists are the body of Christ. God's children do not fight. We are all equal, not better than anyone. We are like the Pharisees if we say we are better than the others.

This is all I have to say.

-- Henri (kxhenri@yahoo.com), June 04, 2004.

Yes, we must accept each other. But we must NOT accept teaching which we know to be false. Christ guaranteed the teaching of the Church He personally founded. Therefore any teaching contrary to the teaching of that Church is false. It isn't a matter of us being better than other people. It is simply a matter of truth being better than untruth, for Jesus said the truth - not whatever your particular denomination happens to think is the truth - will set you free.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 04, 2004.

I agree with both Paul and Henri. Not only are apostles 'sent' but any man who is doing God's work in any age. ( Are there any 'Apostles' today ?) Jesus Christ organised his Church with 12. Is there a Church today with 12 Apostles ? Try a search .... Rich

-- Richard Drayson (r.drayson@ntlworld.com), February 26, 2005.

Dear Rich: Just ''search'' under Catholic. that's the same Church Jesus founded on the apostles. It grew. That's what God wanted the Church to do, convert all peoples and nations. And he sent only twelve. But they sent more and more; who also sent a great many others. This is why Jesus compared His kingdom to a tiny mustard seed. It had so small a beginning in men's eyes; yet was sure to become the greatest of trees; His Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 26, 2005.

Are there any 'Apostles' today ?

well, yes and no. if you take the technical definition whereby a person must SEE the Christ to be an apostle, then no, probably not

HOWEVER, by power of apostolic succession whereby the entire clergy recieves power of ordination, the entire bishopry are apostles under the head apostle, the pope.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 26, 2005.