Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

[mesl4]

Bubba, you hit it on the head. That is the key doubt/darkage
. We have no apostolic writings saying that Peter chose Linus or Clement. Catholics are putting their faith in the writings of Clement that Peter chose him or that their was to be any successor to be infallible like that. For all we know,Clement could be the anti-christ or martyred Peter or forged letters,etc. If we had some sort of Biblical evidence it would help. Otherwise,it’s just faith Clement. Mercygate,Jesus. Very well could’ve meant that Peter is the rock because of his faith but that the church is those with that same faith, not those simply that say they were a leader after him.

 

[mercygate]

Bubba, you hit it on the head. That is the key doubt/darkage

For me, there is no “dark age”. I believe the quibble was about the “dark period” between the Apostles and Ignatius of Antioch and the teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ignatius was evangelized and taught by John the Apostle. He was in his 80s when he was martyred in 115 A.D. John is considered to have lived to ca. 90. That would make Ignatius around 60 at the time of John’s death. That is a very solid time line. Since John WROTE the Bread of Life Discourse, I find that extremely compelling.

We have no apostolic writings saying that Peter chose Linus or Clement. Catholics are putting their faith in the writings of Clement that Peter chose him or that their was to be any successor to be infallible like that.

Irenaeus refers to Peter having ordained Clement. It would not matter one whit whether Peter selected Linus or Clement. Bishops are not appointed by their predecessors. That has nothing at all to do with Apostolic Succession. Moreover, Petrine primacy is not the source of Apostolic Succession. All validly consecrated bishops trace their lines back to the Apostles. It’s more like a net than a line.

For all we know,Clement could be the anti-christ or martyred Peter or forged letters,etc. If we had some sort of Biblical evidence it would help. Otherwise,it’s just faith Clement.

I think that you are really reaching to negate the existing evidence.

Mercygate,Jesus. Very well could’ve meant that Peter is the rock because of his faith but that the church is those with that same faith, not those simply that say they were a leader after him.

Catholics understand that Peter’s faith is “the rock” – we just don’t separate it from Peter. And Petrine primacy is not “simply [saying] that they were a leader after him.” Peter is not isolated from the rest of the Church. We do aver, however, that Peter is essential to the enterprise. If you have Apostolic Succession (as the Orthodox have) and yet Peter is not in your house of bishops, then you are missing the ONE piece Our Lord Himself promised would be the identifiable ‘rock’ of His Church.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

For me, there is no “dark age”. I believe the quibble was about the “dark period” between the Apostles and Ignatius of Antioch and the teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ignatius was evangelized and taught by John the Apostle.

I started a thread on the “dark age” question here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4834992

 

[mesl4]

For me, there is no “dark age”. I believe the quibble was about the “dark period” between the Apostles and Ignatius of Antioch and the teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ignatius was evangelized and taught by John the Apostle. He was in his 80s when he was martyred in 115 A.D. John is considered to have lived to ca. 90. That would make Ignatius around 60 at the time of John’s death. That is a very solid time line…Irenaeus refers to Peter having ordained Clement. It would not matter one whit whether Peter selected Linus or Clement.

This still is faith in Ignatius or Ireneus or whoever happens to be making that claim…in any case, it’s not an apostle or Jesus.

Bishops are not appointed by their predecessors. That has nothing at all to do with Apostolic Succession. Moreover, Petrine primacy is not the source of Apostolic Succession. All validly consecrated bishops trace their lines back to the Apostles. It’s more like a net than a line.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So you (Catholics) are placing Peter ahead of faith. If the other churches don’t come from Peter, yet have faith than they are invalid?

I’ve described it this way: to be a “true” Catholic means to place your faith in the infallibility of the Catholic Church (which, as noted previously, is defined primariy by Apastolic Succession). This is both necessary and sufficient. It is sufficient because if you so place your faith then everything that the Catholic Church teaches (e.g. that the Bible is the Word of God) becomes reliable truth. It is necessary because there is no higher test of truth in Catholicism (that we humans have available, anyway).

This is contrasted with sola scriptura Protestantism which places its faith in the Bible directly.

 

[mercygate]

I’ve described it this way: to be a “true” Catholic means to place your faith in the infallibility of the Catholic Church (which, as noted previously, is defined primariy by Apastolic Succession). This is both necessary and sufficient. It is sufficient because if you so place your faith then everything that the Catholic Church teaches (e.g. that the Bible is the Word of God) becomes reliable truth. It is necessary because there is no higher test of truth in Catholicism (that we humans have available, anyway).

This is contrasted with sola scriptura Protestantism which places its faith in the Bible directly.

Right. And very well stated.

Indefectibility from Christ (and from ‘true’ faith) is a teaching of all the apostolic churches. If the church can “defect” from truth, then it is, by definition, not THE Body of Christ. Infallibility is a sub-category of indefectibility. Catholics and Orthodox may argue about how indefectibility cashes out in real life, but the idea that Christ’s church can err is untenable.

 

[RebeccaJ]

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Indefectibility from Christ (and from ‘true’ faith) is a teaching of all the apostolic churches. If the church can “defect” from truth, then it is, by definition, not THE Body of Christ. Infallibility is a sub-category of indefectibility. Catholics and Orthodox may argue about how indefectibility cashes out in real life, but the idea that Christ’s church can err is untenable.

Which is to say that the idea of the Church as the Body of Christ or the bride of Christ and indefectibility/infallibility are all aspects of the same core theology.

This is where I side with Protestants, though. It’s one thing to say that Jesus charged the Apostles with teaching what they learned from him, quite another to claim that the Holy Spirit pevents they and their successors from making mistakes, from defecting from truth.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The Catholic church recognizes as valid other churches. The Orthodox churches have apostolic succession, just traced to different apostles than Peter. These churches are valid, but not in communion with Rome.

It might be more accurate to say that the Catholic Church recognizes a continuum. For example, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant Baptism and Marriage as sacramentally valid.

 

[mercygate]

This still is faith in Ignatius or Ireneus or whoever happens to be making that claim…in any case, it’s not an apostle or Jesus.

Irenaeus is a historical resource. He is affirming what has been believed “from the beginning.” He is affirmiing the apostolic teaching as traced in the Diocese of Rome, which he notes, has never succumbed to heresy. We have here documentation that is very strong. And it is not “faith” in Ignatius or Irenaus. It is faith in the apostolic preaching.

But those bishops are only given power if they agree w/the Pope so it’s really all based on the Pope which is based on apostolic succession to Peter …like the other apostles didn’t count or have as much power as Peter.

Tell that to the Orthodox. They are as anti-papal as anybody. Yet their Apostolic succession is unchallenged. BTW: they believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. They believe in seven sacraments. The perpetual virginity of Mary . . . If you’re going to challenge Rome’s hold to Apostolic Succession as a touchstone of faith, you have to pull in the Orthodox as well. We’re all guilty.

So you (Catholics) are placing Peter ahead of faith.

Well, this is a discusson of Apostolic Succession. So naturally, we are discussing Apostolic Succession. We are discussing the relationship between Apostolic Succession and the authenticity of the content of our faith

If the other churches don’t come from Peter, yet have faith

Whose faith?

than they are invalid?

As I said earlier, Apostolic Succession is not invested in Peter alone; he is the centerpiece but not the whole package.

Common! Jesus never said you have to have faith in a group of people or in a certain lineage , etc., only faith in God, the gospel: that Jesus is from God, took the punishment for our sins by being the atoning sacrifice, and resurrecting from the dead and that we too will resurrect and live w/him for eternity in a perfect world by putting our trust /belief in him (and his message). That if we trust him (agree with him) we will unite w/him in purpose and spirit and therefore will change and become like him. That is the gospel to believe, not that we must believe everything he future Pope teaches on faith and morals and come up with a million disciples that if we don’t follow will send us to hell. This is not the gospel of Jesus. I’m getting more convinced that those first leaders really did either unintentionally misunderstand, or intentionally led others astray. It makes sense if the OT forshadows the new. The Isrealites did the same thing after they left Egypt…went back to idolatry and human ways of thinking, rituals that did not please God because they did not have faith, etc.

Mmm-hmm. There you go again with *either *“faith” *or *Apostolic Succession, as if they were incompatible or disconnected. :ballspin: We need a chocolate smiley.

 

[mesl4]

. If the church can “defect” from truth, then it is, by definition, not THE Body of Christ. Infallibility is a sub-category of indefectibility. Catholics and Orthodox may argue about how indefectibility cashes out in real life, but the idea that Christ’s church can err is untenable.

Not true. The apostles erred. Peter started teaching circumcision along with James. Paul came to him at the council in Jerusalem to sort this out. Peter was also teaching to abstain from unclean meat until God clarified this to Peter. So his Church and his followers can definitly err.

 

[mesl4]

It might be more accurate to say that the Catholic Church recognizes a continuum. For example, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant Baptism and Marriage as sacramentally valid.

Not our marriage by the way. Well, not mine at least. I was baptized Mennonite, by husband baptized Catholic, yet not practicing Catholic anymore, and we were married by my Mennonite pastor so the RCC doesn’t recognize this as valid/sacramental. Weird to me. It was still done in the name of God.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Not our marriage by the way. Well, not mine at least. I was baptized Mennonite, by husband baptized Catholic, yet not practicing Catholic anymore, and we were married by my Mennonite pastor so the RCC doesn’t recognize this as valid/sacramental. Weird to me. It was still done in the name of God.

Yes, I was speaking very generally. I think the problem in your case was that your husband had not formally renounced his Catholicism and therefore was supposed to get married in the Church. This is a recent change of Catholic law (yes, there is such a thing) to raise the bar for getting out. (I notice that you are in RCIA. The marriage “problem” is very easy fix.)

 

[mesl4]

Since the OP i s on apostasy and Apostolic Succession, this has to do w/the apostasy part…(which I also posted on your "dark age " thread.)
What I really want to know, is how can we trust Clement/Ignatius/Ireneus, etc…those Early Church Father’s that Catholics rely so heavily upon to show that they are “The Church.” I too am looking to fill in that blank from Acts to Ignatius/Clement and see what happened w/the fall of Jerusalem,etc. What about Paul chosing Timothy and telling him to chose elders. That has a little more meat to follow a church. Any writings from that church? We know in 1 Timothy that Paul has condemned Hermanaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20). How do we know Clement wasn’t a follower of them? Or that the future bishops/Popes were not who Paul was prophesying about in 1 Tim 4:1-8? We know that the “savage wolves who would come and not spare the flock” would be from among the Ephesians as Paul tells them in Acts 20:17-31. Those could’ve spread to Antioch and Rome as well. I guess we’ll never know, so the only thing to go by is how the followers conform to the teachings of the apostles and Christ. If it opposes or adds it doesn’t seem like it should be a doctrine.

 

[mercygate]

Not our marriage by the way. Well, not mine at least. I was baptized Mennonite, by husband baptized Catholic, yet not practicing Catholic anymore, and we were married by my Mennonite pastor so the RCC doesn’t recognize this as valid/sacramental. Weird to me. It was still done in the name of God.

But Bubba was correct in noting that two non-Catholics who marry in their own tradition are considered to be validly married. The canonical defects of your own marriage are disciplnary. Funny, I married a Catholic outside the Church and when I approached the Church to become Catholic I *instinctively *understood that his failure to obtain a waiver from form rendered our marriage invalid. My spouse (the Catholic) was the one who had a hard time dealing with the matter – on the grounds you state: he meant to commit marriage, and he did it in the Name of God.

But that has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession and everything to do with governance and discipline in running the household.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It might be more accurate to say that the Catholic Church recognizes a continuum. For example, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant Baptism and Marriage as sacramentally valid.

That is because the Protestant churches (majority, not all) do what the Church intends in these two sacraments.

The churches in schism are more than a continuum. They are valid churches, in every sense, just in schism. For example, their Sacraments of Holy Orders are recognized as valid, which is not the case with Protestant churches.

To put it bluntly, Protestant churches are considered heretical. Orthodox churches are in schism, but not heretical.