Your question diverts from the thread. The thread is about the apostolic succession debate between Steve and Barry. Steve’s rebuttal to Barry’s opening statement is premised on the notion that “[Jesus] [made] His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession?” That has six elements. You divert to an inquiry whether statements by Jesus can be found elsewhere. I reponded that I’d accept any authoritative source. Were I to ask them, I’d ask:
Dear Steve and Barry,
I saw on the Non-Catholic Religions sub-forum at Catholic Answers Forums a link to and discussion about the debate the two of you carried on, posted at Transporter Info Services, titled “Who Holds the Keys? (Pope or Prophet).” It’s unfortunate that the bickering that goes on a CAF does not follow the shining example you two set in your dialogue, even if the CAF readers happen to be directed to your debate and asked to comment on it. What you two do, regrettably, does not rub off on many posters at CAF, who have axes to grind and seemingly cannot stay on topic.
I was wondering if the two of you might address one question that comes to mind from my reading of your interchange. In your (Steve’s) rebuttal to Barry Bickmore’s opening statement, you set forth the following premise:
“[D]id He [Jesus] keep His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession?”
(See
transporter.com/Mormonism/smc_rebut.html, end of first paragraph.)
In my reading of that stated premise, you intimate six elements: (1) Jesus speaks; (2) Jesus’ statement(s) constitute(s) a promise; (3) it is “His Church” about which he makes the promise; (4) the promise is one by which he promises to be “with” his Church; (5) the promise is to be with His Church “until the end of time”; and (6) the promise to be with His Church until the end of time is one that is to be accomplished “through apostolic succession.”
In your rebuttal, you provide an exposition on how the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is apostolic. And in that exposition, you draw upon a New Testament source to advance the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth elements of your premise. You write, “Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations. He promised that He would be with them always, to the close of the age (Matthew 28:18-20).”
The full text of Matthew 28:18-20 reads (Revised Standard Version (RSV), Catholic Edition):
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”
Five of the six elements of your premise are met by that scripture. We can accept that it records a statement by Jesus (element 1). We can accept that it records a “promise” (because what Jesus says he will do, he will do and thus anything he says he will do can be construed as a promise) (element 2). We can accept that it records a promise He made that He will be with “His Church,” for his disciples to whom He made the statement are “His Church” (element 3). We can accept that it records a promise to be “with” His Church, for that is the preposition used in the passage (element 4). We can accept that it is a promise to be with His Church “until the end of time” because that is the meaning of the phrase “to the close of the age” (element 5).
But one of course needs more than that one passage of scripture in order to advance as a six-element premise that Jesus made a “promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession.” Matthew 28:18-20 is silent on the concept of “apostolic succession,” which is part and parcel of your premise and upon which you build your argument.
Can either of you discern either from that one passage or from any other passage (alone or in connection with any other passage, including Matthew 28:18-20) any notion that Jesus, in making his promise to be with His Church to the close of the age, promised to do so through “apostolic succession”? From a plain reading of the words (whether in English or Greek), the passage you cite seems to say nothing at all about “apostolic succession.” For that concept, you need to seek recourse elsewhere. For one apostle to succeed another, the first must in some way stop functioning as such and the second must somehow succeed to the position of the first. That one passage does not even hint at such a notion.
The calling of Matthias, of course, is what you (Barry) rely on to speak to the issue of apostolic succession. But where is there scriptural authority to justify the conclusion that that one action (the act of Matthias succeeding Judas) constitutes an example of Jesus fulfilling some sort of promise to use that vehicle (apostolic succession) as the means by which he would be with His Church to the close of the age. True, He promised to be with His Church to the close of the age and true Mathias succeeded Judas, but what justifies stating a premise that “[Jesus] [made] His promise to be with His Church until the end of time through apostolic succession”?
In short, whether you cite a New Testament passage or some other authoritative source, what scriptural or other source authoritatively meets the following criteria:
- It must be Jesus who speaks;
- Jesus’ statement(s) must constitute a promise;
- It must be “His Church” about which he makes the promise;
- The promise must be one by which he promises to be “with” his Church;
- It must be a promise to be with His Church “until the end of time”; and
- The promise of being with His Church until the end of time must be one that he states will be fulfilled “through apostolic succession.”
It’s either A or B.
The Apostles simply forgot to ordain more Apostles, and there ya go. What’s so hard to understand? 