Apostolic Succesion

[totallylost]

The last paragraph is good. But I think Protestants will simply respond to this church building as evidence only that Catholics existed since the 4th century. And there are plenty of those folks who believe it started with Constantine anyway.

If the church building as evidence is not good enough, I’m sure the Pope Succession will be good enough. If anyone denies the pope succession, then they are claiming that story of the life of St. Peter, St. Linus and the succeeding popes are only fairy tale. I hope the protestant won’t ask “where is it in the bible?” when we give the list of pope succession.

 

[Erich]

The last paragraph is good. But I think Protestants will simply respond to this church building as evidence only that Catholics existed since the 4th century. And there are plenty of those folks who believe it started with Constantine anyway.

As if Catholics preferred to meet in the catacombs – instead of in above-ground buildings – during the first three centuries of the Church’s existence…

 

[CentralFLJames]

The last paragraph is good. But I think Protestants will simply respond to this church building as evidence only that Catholics existed since the 4th century. And there are plenty of those folks who believe it started with Constantine anyway.

Well of course they will claim anything that supports their position. But they shoot themselves in the foot if they try to pretend they did not come out of the Catholic Church since there is NO other branch of Christianity that they can point to outside of the Catholics to account for their own existence. A Protestant who rejects apostolic succession pulls the carpet out from under their own feet. To argue this they have to claim that the Christian Church was hijacked in 400 AD and scripture was wrong about the gates of hell not prevailing and Christ could not do what a personally vile and vulgar man like Martin Luther could do. These have to assume that God permitted a corrupted church to exist for 1,100 years before God let the oracle of Luther with all his personal “color” and vulgarity to be born and for the invention of the printing press to come along to “reform” and save the church. That would leave 1,100 years of Christians all condemned to hell while God took His time for Luther to be born, grow up into a world class sinner and develop a case of scrupulosity and then out of fear of being held accountable for his own personal behavior and condemned to hell revolt against the church and remake it in his own image.

I’d love for some Protestant to explain just where the true church existed for 1500 years if it was not in the Catholic Church before the reformers invented a new Christianity? Better yet - where is it seated now? Where is the seat of Christ’s Church if not in the Catholic Church? Is it in the Tower of London, Canterbury, Wittenberg, Detroit, Waco ?

James

 

[Spirithound]

What?

Of COURSE the line of Popes is part of the Catholic Church’s claim to Apostolic succession.

Similarly, of COURSE Apostolic succession is not limited to the Popes but incorporates all Bishops as successors to the Apostles.

Yes, the Pope possesses Apostolic Succession, but Pope Benedict XVI did not inherit his AS from Pope John Paul II, but he received it from Bishop Stangl, Bishop Graber, and Bishop Tewes. Apostolic Succession is not in the office, but in the person.

 

[SteveGC]

I’d love for some Protestant to explain just where the true church existed for 1500 years if it was not in the Catholic Church before the reformers invented a new Christianity? Better yet - where is it seated now? Where is the seat of Christ’s Church if not in the Catholic Church? Is it in the Tower of London, Canterbury, Wittenberg, Detroit, Waco ?

James

Hi James.

I’ve heard Protestant responses to this. It goes something like this…

*The true church was “underground” all that time…persecuted from time to time by the Catholic autocracy, but survived by the grace of God. The Reform then made it possible for the underground to emerge and subsequently blossom and spread throughout the entire world. Today, the church is made up of anyone who believes in Christ, relies on the written word alone, and does their very best to understand it and live by it, even if they disagree on salvific issues. That’s the “true” church.

Oh, and because it was underground for centuries, there is no historical evidence of it ever existing. All the same, it was real, and it was a body of “true believers” who possessed authentic understanding of Christ’s teachings…of course, fully reliant on scripture alone.*

 

[diggerdomer]

Apostolic Succession is not in the office, but in the person.

Can you please clarify? I have no idea what you mean by that, and the way I would tend to read it would in my mind be completely contradictory to the Catholic faith.

Thanks for nay help.

 

[Spirithound]

Can you please clarify? I have no idea what you mean by that, and the way I would tend to read it would in my mind be completely contradictory to the Catholic faith.

Thanks for nay help.

Pope Benedict possesses Apostolic Succession regardless of whether he is the ArchBishop of Rome or the ArchBishop of Munich.

 

[diggerdomer]

Pope Benedict possesses Apostolic Succession regardless of whether he is the ArchBishop of Rome or the ArchBishop of Munich.

Well that doesn’t help much, it confirms what I thought you meant, so here goes:

Pope Benedict possesses Apostolic Succession because of his OFFICE. Not his PERSON. He is a BISHOP and BISHOPS de facto in the Catholic Church possess Apostolic Succession (as you state it).

If, as you seem to claim (and please, again, correct me if I’m misunderstanding what you posted), Apostolic Succession was ensured by a PERSON–well, then, 80+ years ago when Joseph Ratzinger was born the Catholic Church could have definitively taught that he, that PERSON, possessed Apostolic Succession.

But, the Church doesn’t do that based on the PERSON, it’s based on the person who holds the OFFICE.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hi James.

I’ve heard Protestant responses to this. It goes something like this…

*The true church was “underground” all that time…persecuted from time to time by the Catholic autocracy, but survived by the grace of God. The Reform then made it possible for the underground to emerge and subsequently blossom and spread throughout the entire world. Today, the church is made up of anyone who believes in Christ, relies on the written word alone, and does their very best to understand it and live by it, even if they disagree on salvific issues. That’s the “true” church.

Oh, and because it was underground for centuries, there is no historical evidence of it ever existing. All the same, it was real, and it was a body of “true believers” who possessed authentic understanding of Christ’s teachings…of course, fully reliant on scripture alone.*

Ah yes, the old belief-by-conceivability, not-belief-by-evidence trick. They wrote a book on that…Da Vinci something or other.

 

[Spirithound]

Well that doesn’t help much, it confirms what I thought you meant, so here goes:

Pope Benedict possesses Apostolic Succession because of his OFFICE. Not his PERSON. He is a BISHOP and BISHOPS de facto in the Catholic Church possess Apostolic Succession (as you state it).

If, as you seem to claim (and please, again, correct me if I’m misunderstanding what you posted), Apostolic Succession was ensured by a PERSON–well, then, 80+ years ago when Joseph Ratzinger was born the Catholic Church could have definitively taught that he, that PERSON, possessed Apostolic Succession.

But, the Church doesn’t do that based on the PERSON, it’s based on the person who holds the OFFICE.

Sorry, I was unclear. I agree with you completely. What I was trying to express was that Apostolic Succession is not necessarily passed from Pope to Pope (although it has been).

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry, I was unclear. I agree with you completely. What I was trying to express was that Apostolic Succession is not necessarily passed from Pope to Pope (although it has been).

Oh, ok, thanks. Sorry if I misunderstood. You’re referring then, to the fact that there have been “Anti-Popes” and at times multiple “Popes”? That makes sense. Thanks again.