P
PJD1987
Guest
So I’m running this Student Bible Study at my University and we are studying the Gospel of St. Matthew. We were reading Chapter 10 today and this new guy who’s going through RCIA asked a good question that I answered to the best of my ability, but got me wondering. The question was:
If Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles to perform miracles and drive out demons and heal sickness, why is this not passed down through Apostolic Succession?
My answer was first, this is passed down through the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (which is a miracle), and exorcism (driving out demons). I also talked about the difference between public/private revelation, which I said ended with the death of the last Apostle (wasn’t able to really explain why that is…just basically that it was needed to build up the church/communities and then wasn’t needed anymore once they were established and could live by faith). I essentially said as much as I knew about it, but it left me wondering.
I told him I would talk with our Priest as well in my next meeting with him, but I thought I’d pose the question here as well. Although I believe that the Holy Eucharist is a miracle, and exorcism does drive out demons (if done correctly of course), there clearly is a distinction between these things, and the very obvious miracles the Apostles brought about.
In Acts 5:15, 19:11-12, merely walking by or touching an object touched by the Apostles healed the sick and cured the diseased, drove out demons, etc. Today, a Bishop walks by and you say, “Hey, that was the Bishop,” and that’s about all the happens. Why were not the same healing powers passed on through Apostolic Succession? I thought it was an interesting question, and I’d love to hear thoughts and/or Church Teaching on this.
Thank you in advance.
God bless,
Paul
If Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles to perform miracles and drive out demons and heal sickness, why is this not passed down through Apostolic Succession?
My answer was first, this is passed down through the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (which is a miracle), and exorcism (driving out demons). I also talked about the difference between public/private revelation, which I said ended with the death of the last Apostle (wasn’t able to really explain why that is…just basically that it was needed to build up the church/communities and then wasn’t needed anymore once they were established and could live by faith). I essentially said as much as I knew about it, but it left me wondering.
I told him I would talk with our Priest as well in my next meeting with him, but I thought I’d pose the question here as well. Although I believe that the Holy Eucharist is a miracle, and exorcism does drive out demons (if done correctly of course), there clearly is a distinction between these things, and the very obvious miracles the Apostles brought about.
In Acts 5:15, 19:11-12, merely walking by or touching an object touched by the Apostles healed the sick and cured the diseased, drove out demons, etc. Today, a Bishop walks by and you say, “Hey, that was the Bishop,” and that’s about all the happens. Why were not the same healing powers passed on through Apostolic Succession? I thought it was an interesting question, and I’d love to hear thoughts and/or Church Teaching on this.
Thank you in advance.
God bless,
Paul