Apostolic Succession alive and well today!

[ufamtobie]

(ACTS 1: 8) But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.

Protestants, the Uttermost part of the Earth? This Must mean Apostolic Succession, Because non of the Apostles ever came to the USA However their Successors have.

(ACTS 1: 15-17) In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty 16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Protestants, Ministry? Did this Ministry die when the Last Apostle died? If this is True then the Gates of hell PREVAILED over the Church?

Protestants, truth is The Gates of hell did Not Prevail over the Church for this Ministry still lives on through the Succession of the Apostles. Amen

(ACTS 1: 20) For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

Protestants, "and his bishopric let ANOTHER TAKE.? This means Apostolic Succession!

(ACTS 1: 23-26) And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Protestants, “To take the place of this MINISTRY and APOSTLESHIP”? The Lot fell upon Matthias, this proves Apostolic Succession. In other words why would the Apostles elect a new Apostles if they thought it ended with their deaths. Truth is they know that this Ministry must continue until the end of time.

This same Apostolic Succession continues today. This is how the the Church Elects a New Pope the same way that Peter and the rest of the Apostles prayed to Jesus to shew them who to Elect to become the next Successor/Pope.

Protestants, when Saul/Paul when Jesus Christ appeared to him on the road from that moment he became blind. then Jesus Appeared to Ananias and told him to go to see Saul/Paul. Ananias went and LAID HIS HANDS on Paul to recover his sight and most importantly recieve the Holy Spirit from the laying of hands by Ananias. The Point is that Jesus Christ appeared to Saul but that was not enough PAUL needed Ananias a Disciple to LAY his Hands on saul who became Paul. AMEN

Protestants, was not Jesus ENOUGH why did Ananias have to lay his Hands on Paul? Why didn’t Jesus right there and then give the Holy Spirit to Paul?

Truth is that Jesus Christ has the power to do all things BUT he left full Authority to his Apostles and their Successors the Guardians of the Catholic Church and this Apostolic Succession continues to this day. Amen.

I am so Blessed to be a Catholic, I praise you Jesus, THANK YOU! Amen

Ufamtobie

 

[NDfan]

Protestants, the Uttermost part of the Earth? This Must mean Apostolic Succession, Because non of the Apostles ever came to the USA However their Successors have.

This must mean Apostolic Succession?? Why because you say so?? Continue reading and see that everyone in the upper room was given the power of the Holy Spirit. All disciples of Christ were to preach the Gospel.

Protestants, Ministry? Did this Ministry die when the Last Apostle died? If this is True then the Gates of hell PREVAILED over the Church?

No but again keep reading and you will see that to be an Apostle one must have been a witness to Christ. The ministry never dies as long as someone is willing to spread the Gospel. Let me ask you this. If there were no successors to the Apostles as you say would the ministry be dead? Of course not. Stop cherry picking your verses to try and make a meaningless point.

Protestants, truth is The Gates of hell did Not Prevail over the Church for this Ministry still lives on through the Succession of the Apostles. Amen

But again you are defining succession very differently than it need be. In the US the first settlers were not Roman Catholic yet the Gospel of Christ was preached in the US before Rome could send anyone. The Christian church existed in the US before the Roman Catholic church did. John Carroll who was the first Catholic Bishop did not come to the US until late 1700s to serve as ordinary of the Roman Catholic Church. The Christian church I belong to was formed already and was preaching. So this argument of yours is collapsing.

Protestants, "and his bishopric let ANOTHER TAKE.? This means Apostolic Succession!

Your theology is quite lacking. This is referring to the appointment of another Apostle. Since Jesus initially appointed 12 then they wanted to maintain 12. Otherwise they would have chosen both Barsabas and Matthias. You seem to quite easily forget the next few verses in which Peter lays out the criteria for this bishoprick and I quote:

Acts 1:21:Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, **must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
**
Act 1:23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

You had to be an eyewitness to be a successor of the Apostles.

(ACTS 1: 23-26) And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Protestants, “To take the place of this MINISTRY and APOSTLESHIP”? The Lot fell upon Matthias, this proves Apostolic Succession. In other words why would the Apostles elect a new Apostles if they thought it ended with their deaths. Truth is they know that this Ministry must continue until the end of time.

Again this proves nothing. Paul was not an eyewitness to the resurrection of Christ and was not an Apostolic successor. Yet Christ HIMSELF chose Paul the Apostles didn’t. This alone proves you don’t have to be an Apostolic successor to preach HIS Gospel. HE can call you directly.

This same Apostolic Succession continues today. This is how the the Church Elects a New Pope the same way that Peter and the rest of the Apostles prayed to Jesus to shew them who to Elect to become the next Successor/Pope.

Protestants, when Saul/Paul when Jesus Christ appeared to him on the road from that moment he became blind. then Jesus Appeared to Ananias and told him to go to see Saul/Paul. Ananias went and LAID HIS HANDS on Paul to recover his sight and most importantly recieve the Holy Spirit from the laying of hands by Ananias. The Point is that Jesus Christ appeared to Saul but that was not enough PAUL needed Ananias a Disciple to LAY his Hands on saul who became Paul. AMEN

Protestants, was not Jesus ENOUGH why did Ananias have to lay his Hands on Paul? Why didn’t Jesus right there and then give the Holy Spirit to Paul?

Ananias laid his hand on to restore Paul’s sight. Not to give him the power of the Holy Spirit. After Paul received his sight back he was baptized as we read in Acts 9:18. That’s how we receive the power of the Holy Spirit.

But if we read in Acts 9:15 we see that Paul was chosen as a vessel by Christ:

But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he (Paul) is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Point of fact. You can’t prove Ananias was a successor of an Apostle. All we know is he was considered a disciple from Damascus. All followers of Christ are HIS disciples.

Truth is that Jesus Christ has the power to do all things BUT he left full Authority to his Apostles and their Successors the Guardians of the Catholic Church and this Apostolic Succession continues to this day. Amen

.

I am so Blessed to be a Catholic, I praise you Jesus, THANK YOU! Amen

Ufamtobie

Truth is you don’t know what you are talking about. Jesus Christ has all power and authority over Heaven and Earth which includes HIS church and doesn’t need an authority figure to preach HIS Gospel.

 

[ralphinal]

But again you are defining succession very differently than it need be. In the US the first settlers were not Roman Catholic yet the Gospel of Christ was preached in the US before Rome could send anyone. The Christian church existed in the US before the Roman Catholic church did. John Carroll who was the first Catholic Bishop did not come to the US until late 1700s to serve as ordinary of the Roman Catholic Church. The Christian church I belong to was formed already and was preaching. So this argument of yours is collapsing.

.

I am going to flag you on this. There were Catholics in the Americas long before Plymoth Rock. From Southern Georgia through Florida, along the Gulf Coast, in the Great Lakes area, Eastern Canada, Mexico, south America, Central America, and all in the SouthWest and California were full of French and Spanish Catholics. You cannot even argue that the Protestants were first in what became the Colonies.

If you want to claim that all of the first colonies were settled by non-Catholics, that may be correct in a limited sense. The area in and around Baltimore had a stong Catholic componant.

Just google “Oldest City in the UNited States”

 

[JonNC]

I am going to flag you on this. There were Catholics in the Americas long before Plymoth Rock. From Southern Georgia through Florida, along the Gulf Coast, in the Great Lakes area, Eastern Canada, Mexico, south America, Central America, and all in the SouthWest and California were full of French and Spanish Catholics. You cannot even argue that the Protestants were first in what became the Colonies.

If you want to claim that all of the first colonies were settled by non-Catholics, that may be correct in a limited sense. The area in and around Baltimore had a stong Catholic componant.

Just google “Oldest City in the UNited States”

Maybe my history is faded, but wasn’t Maryland (or at least the area around Baltimore) a land grant to Lord Baltimore specifically to create a Catholic colony?

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Maybe my history is faded, but wasn’t Maryland (or at least the area around Baltimore) a land grant to Lord Baltimore specifically to create a Catholic colony?

Jon

Yes, though it was not named Maryland because of it, as the nun taught me in 5th grade

I should explain. She said it was after the BVM. It was not. It was named for Queen Mary

 

[JonNC]

Yes, though it was not named Maryland because of it, as the nun taught me in 5th grade

I should explain. She said it was after the BVM. It was not. It was named for Queen Mary

That’s fortunate, or we’d be protesting Maryland’s name, too.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

That’s fortunate, or we’d be protesting Maryland’s name, too.

Jon

Well, at least Lutherans will hoist a pint or two after a protest.

 

[JonNC]

Well, at least Lutherans will hoist a pint or two after a protest.

I’ll drink to that.

 

[3Sanctus]

Truth is you don’t know what you are talking about. Jesus Christ has all power and authority over Heaven and Earth which includes HIS church and doesn’t need an authority figure to preach HIS Gospel.

You’re right, Christ needs nothing from us mortals, for God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is complete and lacks nothing. However, He chose to create us and chose to set about the work of our salvation. Everything is according to His Will, nothing is according to some need of His - since He has no need of anything. Who are we to question His Will?

At the same time, if He needs no “authority to preach HIS Gospel,” then why did He instruct the Apostles to Baptize all nations? Why didn’t He just do it Himself if He has no need of anyone to preach for Him? The fact is, we don’t know why He has done anything, we simply have to accept it. It’s not our place to question His Will, but to accept it lovingly and with an open heart that is ready and willing to accept His abundant graces.

Also, since Christ has all authority, as you have rightly pointed out, He can setup any earthly authority He desires. This is where the title Vicar of Christ (vicar means one who stands in place of another: dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=vicar&search=search), one of the titles of the Pope of Rome, comes into play. None of us have anything in the way of power or authority, but God can choose to grant us whatever He so desires, according to His infinite mercies and grace.

In Christ’s abundant love for all mankind,
Stephen

Not my will, but Yours be done!

 

[brkn1]

Also, since Christ has all authority, as you have rightly pointed out, He can setup any earthly authority He desires. This is where the title Vicar of Christ (vicar means one who stands in place of another: dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=vicar&search=search), one of the titles of the Pope of Rome, comes into play.

The One who now stands in the place of Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit.
How does the title “Pope”, which means “Father”, end up being biblical, when Jesus told us directly, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, which is in heaven.”?
The use of that “official” title or address, in the spiritual sense for any man, is forbidden by Jesus’ command in (Matt. 23:9). There just is no way around that command, except to disobey it and then say it is OK.

 

[ufamtobie]

This must mean Apostolic Succession?? Why because you say so?? Continue reading and see that everyone in the upper room was given the power of the Holy Spirit. All disciples of Christ were to preach the Gospel.

Yes, it means Apostolic Succession. Because I say so? No! The Bible says so, it is only evident one does not need to be a brain surgeon to know that it means Apostolic Succession. Yes true! these Many Disciples were gathered with the 11 Apostles and these other Disciples were part of The Succession.

No but again keep reading and you will see that to be an Apostle one must have been a witness to Christ. The ministry never dies as long as someone is willing to spread the Gospel. Let me ask you this. If there were no successors to the Apostles as you say would the ministry be dead? Of course not. Stop cherry picking your verses to try and make a meaningless point.

 

[3Sanctus]

How does the title “Pope”, which means “Father”, end up being biblical, when Jesus told us directly, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, which is in heaven.”?
The use of that “official” title or address, in the spiritual sense for any man, is forbidden by Jesus’ command in (Matt. 23:9). There just is no way around that command, except to disobey it and then say it is OK.

Actually, he doesn’t say not to call anyone father in a spiritual sense, he simply says call no one father. Does that mean we’re not to call our biological fathers “father”? Of course not. If you take that portion of scripture within the context it’s presented it’s about arrogance, about hypocrites (that word comes from the Greek word for actors, showing Christ meant to point out those who dawn a false mask). By banning the use of the word “father,” Christ was banning a certain obsession with individual teachers.

I’ve never heard anyone assert we should truly go through with the literal meaning of what he says, which would mean never calling anyone father under any circumstance. Therefore, if we’re not taking this completely literally and out of context in reference to biological fathers, why should we then change the interpretation of this portion of scripture when relating it to any other use of the word father?

In His Holy Wisdom,
Stephen

 

[brkn1]

Actually, he doesn’t say not to call anyone father in a spiritual sense, he simply says call no one father. Does that mean we’re not to call our biological fathers “father”? Of course not. If you take that portion of scripture within the context it’s presented it’s about arrogance, about hypocrites (that word comes from the Greek word for actors, showing Christ meant to point out those who dawn a false mask). By banning the use of the word “father,” Christ was banning a certain obsession with individual teachers.

I’ve never heard anyone assert we should truly go through with the literal meaning of what he says, which would mean never calling anyone father under any circumstance. Therefore, if we’re not taking this completely literally and out of context in reference to biological fathers, why should we then change the interpretation of this portion of scripture when relating it to any other use of the word father?

In His Holy Wisdom,
Stephen

Jesus most definitely must have meant “Father” in a spiritual sense, since He pointed to God the Father (Who is a Spirit) as the only One we can call “Father”. It was a command of Jesus, not a suggestion.
We are allowed to call our own fathers as “father”, because they ARE our father in a physical sense. The bible is full of that use of that form of father, so Jesus could not be speaking about that sense of the term.

It is the title “Father” in the sense of that “Father” being our “spiritual Father” that is being spoken against by Jesus in (Matt,23:9). There is only One Father (God the Father) that rightfully has that title. If I were to address the “Pope” or a priest as “Father”, then I would be disobeying that command by Jesus.

Exactly how do you or the RCC explain what Jesus is referring to in (Matt. 23:9)? Do you just dismiss that command?