Apostolic Succession - Why should it have ended?

[EA_Man]

NotWorthy:

Good point! The issue with the Jewish leaders is that Jesus chastising them for remaining holy while preventing others from achieving heaven.

Jesus says to them: Matthew 23:14-15
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Jesus is clearly not chastising them for “remaining holy” while preventing others from entering heaven.

No, Jesus is clearly saying that they are not entering heaven and that they are seeking to keep others out as well.

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

space ghost:

…if you are not Catholic, you have to believe that somewhere along the line the gates of Hell had to prevail, or else you would be Catholic…

This is fallacious in that it assumes what it seeks to prove;
That the RCC is the Church that Jesus was speaking about.

How do you know that it is?

Peace

 

[EA_Man]

montanaman:

Are you asking me? I’m asking how to get around the (apparently arbitrary) assertion that because they “had to” get a successor from the pool of those who walked with Christ, that requirement invalidates apostolic succession…

Acts 1:21-22
“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Peter does seem to be indicating that the replacement for Judas will necessarily be from the period of events (a witness to them) that he cites.

My other point is this: we see only one apostle replaced in Scripture. How do you know that the others were replaced? Who replaced them? Name the successor of Phillip, of James, of Thomas, etc…

Peace

 

[montanaman]

EA_Man:

Acts 1:21-22
“Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

Peter does seem to be indicating that the replacement for Judas will necessarily be from the period of events (a witness to them) that he cites.

My other point is this: we see only one apostle replaced in Scripture. How do you know that the others were replaced? Who replaced them? Name the successor of Phillip, of James, of Thomas, etc…

Peace

Aha! Duh. It was right in front of me. That passage says nothing about an enduring, eternal principle. It says it was necessary to find one from among those people who walked with Jesus in this instance. After all, who ELSE would they choose? If you’ve got a pool of people who knew Christ, why would you draw from people who didn’t, even if they were Christians?

 

[Sir_Knight]

NotWorthy:

No, the Pope is not infallible, just his teachings. Let’s not give anybody any wrong ideas.

Just a side grammer correction …

To say that the Pope is not infallible but only his teachings are is a contradiction in terms.

“infallibility” is the ability to teach without error. “impeccability” is the ability to act without error.

So what you basicly said was "The Pope not infallible (he can not teach without error) but his teachings are infallible – A contradition in terms.

The Pope is infallible, period. He is not impeccible.