Catholic teaching/Apostolic succession

[AveChriste11]

Hi all,

This is a question that’s been bothering me and I wanted to get the Catholic perspective. There’s the game of “telephone” that many of us played as kids, where we would be at a table and start a rumor and everyone passes it around to the person next to them. The thing is, by the time it gets back to you it’s nothing at all like what you originally said.

All of the earliest churches hold to the concept of apostolic succession. I realize that many of our earliest Bishops were direct disciples of the Apostles, and they passed on everything they knew to their successors. What’s to keep anything from getting lost in translation, that over time was due to human error?

I know that Jesus promised “the gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, but I just keep wondering about this.

 

[Della]

The Church is not a merely human institution, it’s the Body of Christ and his Bride. The Holy Spirit is not influenced by the passage of time nor does he care about human societies and cultural norms. The Holy Spirit can only tell the truth, therefore, Christ’s Body can only do the same. We have more than oral witnesses to the early teachings of the Church, we have the Church Fathers and historical documents and encyclicals as well as the NT writings.

It was the Church that preserved all this through the Dark Ages, along with the wrtings of the ancient philosophers and historians. Without monks tirelessly coping these works we wouldn’t have them now.

In any case, it comes back to the Holy Spirit who is the enlivening force of the Church just as our souls enliven us. As long as the Holy Spirit exists, the Church will teach and practice what God desires–what Christ taught his Apostles, passed on to their successors and on to us.

 

[AveChriste11]

The Church is not a merely human institution, it’s the Body of Christ and his Bride. The Holy Spirit is not influenced by the passage of time nor does he care about human societies and cultural norms. The Holy Spirit can only tell the truth, therefore, Christ’s Body can only do the same. We have more than oral witnesses to the early teachings of the Church, we have the Church Fathers and historical documents and encyclicals as well as the NT writings.

It was the Church that preserved all this through the Dark Ages, along with the wrtings of the ancient philosophers and historians. Without monks tirelessly coping these works we wouldn’t have them now.

In any case, it comes back to the Holy Spirit who is the enlivening force of the Church just as our souls enliven us. As long as the Holy Spirit exists, the Church will teach and practice what God desires–what Christ taught his Apostles, passed on to their successors and on to us.

True there are witnesses dating back to the 2nd century. Paul is the earliest writer when it came to the New Testament, but do we have any contemporaries of St. Paul as well that testified? Which encyclicals, and historical documents are you referring to?

I agree with you about the Dark Ages, and the monks preserving the knowledge. As to the Holy Spirit, that’s another mystery to me. How God revealed himself as “Trinity” over time, when this concept was not there previously and still isn’t in today’s Rabbinical Judaism. Mystery can be a good thing, but I know most of the Catholic saints never asked us to have blind faith either.

 

[po18guy]

Hi all,

This is a question that’s been bothering me and I wanted to get the Catholic perspective. There’s the game of “telephone” that many of us played as kids, where we would be at a table and start a rumor and everyone passes it around to the person next to them. The thing is, by the time it gets back to you it’s nothing at all like what you originally said.

All of the earliest churches hold to the concept of apostolic succession. I realize that many of our earliest Bishops were direct disciples of the Apostles, and they passed on everything they knew to their successors. What’s to keep anything from getting lost in translation, that over time was due to human error?

I know that Jesus promised “the gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, but I just keep wondering about this.

The Holy Spirit. Is He not enough?

 

[po18guy]

The Church is not a merely human institution, it’s the Body of Christ and his Bride. The Holy Spirit is not influenced by the passage of time nor does he care about human societies and cultural norms. The Holy Spirit can only tell the truth, therefore, Christ’s Body can only do the same. We have more than oral witnesses to the early teachings of the Church, we have the Church Fathers and historical documents and encyclicals as well as the NT writings.

It was the Church that preserved all this through the Dark Ages, along with the wrtings of the ancient philosophers and historians. Without monks tirelessly coping these works we wouldn’t have them now.

In any case, it comes back to the Holy Spirit who is the enlivening force of the Church just as our souls enliven us. As long as the Holy Spirit exists, the Church will teach and practice what God desires–what Christ taught his Apostles, passed on to their successors and on to us.

The unseen, and often forgotten third Person of the Holy Trinity ensures that all is passed on intact. Is the Holy Spirit not enough?

 

[bzkoss236]

True there are witnesses dating back to the 2nd century. Paul is the earliest writer when it came to the New Testament, but do we have any contemporaries of St. Paul as well that testified? Which encyclicals, and historical documents are you referring to?

I agree with you about the Dark Ages, and the monks preserving the knowledge. As to the Holy Spirit, that’s another mystery to me. How God revealed himself as “Trinity” over time, when this concept was not there previously and still isn’t in today’s Rabbinical Judaism. Mystery can be a good thing, but I know most of the Catholic saints never asked us to have blind faith either.

He’s referring to the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Just as there was scripture written, there were things written that weren’t scripture, but complimented scripture and were based on the oral teachings. These writings have been kept and guarded by the Church. Electronic versions of some (or all?) can be found online in various places.

And Judaism wouldn’t get to the concept of the Trinity because they do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, or as one in God Himself. From the NT scriptures we can see that Jesus alluded to the concept of the Trinity, even though it is never quite explicitly stated. But in areas where we see Jesus say things like, “The Father and I are one” and statements such as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (and Jesus is called the Word of God; bolded emphasis is mine), it is kind of staring us in the face.

 

[iloveangels]

Hi all,

This is a question that’s been bothering me and I wanted to get the Catholic perspective. There’s the game of “telephone” that many of us played as kids, where we would be at a table and start a rumor and everyone passes it around to the person next to them. The thing is, by the time it gets back to you it’s nothing at all like what you originally said.

All of the earliest churches hold to the concept of apostolic succession. I realize that many of our earliest Bishops were direct disciples of the Apostles, and they passed on everything they knew to their successors. What’s to keep anything from getting lost in translation, that over time was due to human error?

I know that Jesus promised “the gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, but I just keep wondering about this.

catholic-hierarchy.org/events/index.html

 

[jwinch2]

I suggest reading the Church Fathers. In addition, I would caution you to remember that the Holy Spirit is not only ensuring that Sacred Scripture is inerrant, but also Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church, and we must remember that it is the Church who compiled the Canon of Scripture to begin with, guided by the Holy Spirit of course.

Also, from a purely practical standpoint, we have to remember that the Apostles and Early Bishops were not little kids playing a game. They were proclaiming the Gospel over and over again, to anyone who would listen. The people they passed their authority on to, probably heard their sermons scores, if not hundreds, of times, by the time they were ready to shepherd their own flock. In addition, they wrote things down, most of this we have lost of course, but it isn’t like there was no written language to record things with.

Peace,

 

[kaneata]

Hi all,

This is a question that’s been bothering me and I wanted to get the Catholic perspective. There’s the game of “telephone” that many of us played as kids, where we would be at a table and start a rumor and everyone passes it around to the person next to them. The thing is, by the time it gets back to you it’s nothing at all like what you originally said.

All of the earliest churches hold to the concept of apostolic succession. I realize that many of our earliest Bishops were direct disciples of the Apostles, and they passed on everything they knew to their successors. What’s to keep anything from getting lost in translation, that over time was due to human error?

I know that Jesus promised “the gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, but I just keep wondering about this.

Believe what you typed!

 

[AveChriste11]

He’s referring to the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Just as there was scripture written, there were things written that weren’t scripture, but complimented scripture and were based on the oral teachings. These writings have been kept and guarded by the Church. Electronic versions of some (or all?) can be found online in various places.

And Judaism wouldn’t get to the concept of the Trinity because they do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God, or as one in God Himself. From the NT scriptures we can see that Jesus alluded to the concept of the Trinity, even though it is never quite explicitly stated. But in areas where we see Jesus say things like, “The Father and I are one” and statements such as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (and Jesus is called the Word of God; bolded emphasis is mine), it is kind of staring us in the face.

True they do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, so when Jesus might have made any of those statements it would come across the wrong way no doubt. Including the fact that Judaism currently teaches very specific things about the Messiah and his role in the world, most importantly that he would be human and of a natural birth. In order to recognize Jesus, you must also work around some of those statements as you mentioned – and I can see how the Trinity developed from that. There are other Messianic ideas also which are at odds with the traditional Christian perspective.

The Logos was a familiar concept among Hellenized Jews I’m certain, of which probably my name’s sake Andrew was such a Jew. I remember reading somewhere that Philo of Alexandria described the Logos as being the mediator between the Creator and creation, which is in alignment with what the Church teaches about Jesus.

 

[JRKH]

Hi all,

This is a question that’s been bothering me and I wanted to get the Catholic perspective. There’s the game of “telephone” that many of us played as kids, where we would be at a table and start a rumor and everyone passes it around to the person next to them. The thing is, by the time it gets back to you it’s nothing at all like what you originally said.

All of the earliest churches hold to the concept of apostolic succession. I realize that many of our earliest Bishops were direct disciples of the Apostles, and they passed on everything they knew to their successors. What’s to keep anything from getting lost in translation, that over time was due to human error?

I know that Jesus promised “the gates of Hades” would not prevail against the Church, but I just keep wondering about this.

Yes - If the Faith were handed down by whispers one person to the next - quickly and without a chance to ask questions or double check - Then I suppose that your concern would be valid. But his is not how oral tradition played out in the ancient world…Even Jesus did not do it this way.

Jesus taught twelve Apostles intensely for three years before sending them out. These taught many more and some of these also became close and carefully instructed men.
So - consider…Jesus tells the twelve…they talk among themselves. One of the twelve gets it wrong, the other eleven correct him, even asking Jesus for clarification if needed.

After Pentecost, the Apostles start teaching…their closest disciples likewise talk among themselves and if someone gets something wrong he is corrected by the others…and they ask their teacher (one of the Apostles) if needed…

Then - within one generation - some of the things start getting written down. Not everything of course, because writing is an expensive and time consuming process, but enough to provide “talking points” for those who have been taught “at the knee” of one of the masters.

Now things begin to get a bit more busy and complex from here, but the same basic thing occurs over and over, generation after generation…

See how different this is than the “telephone” game?

Also - bear in mind that in ancient cultures, oral history was a crucial part of life. It was taken seriously by these people. Very different than in today’s culture where writing things down is simple and cheap.

Peace
James

 

[AveChriste11]

I suggest reading the Church Fathers. In addition, I would caution you to remember that the Holy Spirit is not only ensuring that Sacred Scripture is inerrant, but also Sacred Tradition. The Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church, and we must remember that it is the Church who compiled the Canon of Scripture to begin with, guided by the Holy Spirit of course.

Also, from a purely practical standpoint, we have to remember that the Apostles and Early Bishops were not little kids playing a game. They were proclaiming the Gospel over and over again, to anyone who would listen. The people they passed their authority on to, probably heard their sermons scores, if not hundreds, of times, by the time they were ready to shepherd their own flock. In addition, they wrote things down, most of this we have lost of course, but it isn’t like there was no written language to record things with.

Peace,

True they weren’t playing any games. A person wouldn’t risk serious harm to themselves and even martyrdom over a game. They had undergone several persecutions by the Romans, especially around the time of the Council of Nicea – where the Bishops were assembled like an “army of martyrs” according to Eusebius of Caesarea if I remember correctly. However, I also know that just because someone is willing to die for what they believe – doesn’t make it true. I guess it all depends on what it is.

 

[AveChriste11]

Yes - If the Faith were handed down by whispers one person to the next - quickly and without a chance to ask questions or double check - Then I suppose that your concern would be valid. But his is not how oral tradition played out in the ancient world…Even Jesus did not do it this way.

Jesus taught twelve Apostles intensely for three years before sending them out. These taught many more and some of these also became close and carefully instructed men.
So - consider…Jesus tells the twelve…they talk among themselves. One of the twelve gets it wrong, the other eleven correct him, even asking Jesus for clarification if needed.

After Pentecost, the Apostles start teaching…their closest disciples likewise talk among themselves and if someone gets something wrong he is corrected by the others…and they ask their teacher (one of the Apostles) if needed…

Then - within one generation - some of the things start getting written down. Not everything of course, because writing is an expensive and time consuming process, but enough to provide “talking points” for those who have been taught “at the knee” of one of the masters.

Now things begin to get a bit more busy and complex from here, but the same basic thing occurs over and over, generation after generation…

See how different this is than the “telephone” game?

Also - bear in mind that in ancient cultures, oral history was a crucial part of life. It was taken seriously by these people. Very different than in today’s culture where writing things down is simple and cheap.

Peace
James

This must have also happened at the Ecumenical Councils, am I right? When the Bishops would gather together, they could easily compare notes and decide if some new idea was in alignment with what they were taught. That’s how certain “heresies” were fought against.

 

[JRKH]

This must have also happened at the Ecumenical Councils, am I right? When the Bishops would gather together, they could easily compare notes and decide if some new idea was in alignment with what they were taught. That’s how certain “heresies” were fought against.

Certainly - this makes sense. Of course some of the things that came up at the councils were things that had not been specifically addressed or maybe not clearly defined and so different views would emerge.
By coming together and talking and praying and listening to the Spirit (just like they did at the council in Acts 15) the bishops would come to the core and the truth of a given matter.

Peace
James

 

[ConstantineTG]

What’s to keep anything from getting lost in translation, that over time was due to human error?

Conciliarity. That is why there were 12 Apostles and not 1. That is why every teaching needs to be compared to the teachings of numerous Fathers of the Church, to test the consistency of our present understanding. For example, what St. John Chrysostom in 400AD is teaching must be consistent with St. Maximos the Confessor in the 600s to more contemporary saints in the Second Millennium. We can’t just base our faith on one person and disregard the others.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This must have also happened at the Ecumenical Councils, am I right? When the Bishops would gather together, they could easily compare notes and decide if some new idea was in alignment with what they were taught. That’s how certain “heresies” were fought against.

It is not just the bishops of the time comparing notes, they have to compare their faith with those who preceded them. If you read some of the “notes” from the Ecumenical Councils, you will see references to teachings from the past.

 

[mardukm]

Conciliarity. That is why there were 12 Apostles and not 1. That is why every teaching needs to be compared to the teachings of numerous Fathers of the Church, to test the consistency of our present understanding.

That’s not conciliarity. That’s collegiality. Conciliarity, as the name itself denotes, restricts infallibility to a formal council. The Catholic teaching, the teaching of the Fathers, is that the Holy Spirit can protect the Church with His infallibility even outside the formal setting of a council. Even dispersed throughout the world, the universal ordinary Magisterium can teach with infallibility. This is collegiality, not conciliarity.

For example, what St. John Chrysostom in 400AD is teaching must be consistent with St. Maximos the Confessor in the 600s to more contemporary saints in the Second Millennium. We can’t just base our faith on one person and disregard the others.

Praise God for the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PoorKnight]

True they weren’t playing any games. A person wouldn’t risk serious harm to themselves and even martyrdom over a game. They had undergone several persecutions by the Romans, especially around the time of the Council of Nicea – where the Bishops were assembled like an “army of martyrs” according to Eusebius of Caesarea if I remember correctly. However, I also know that **just because someone is willing to die for what they believe – doesn’t make it true. **I guess it all depends on what it is.

AveChriste, I just wanted to, first off, commend you for wrestling with this. Many people just don’t care enough to wrestle with certain concepts.

I wanted to comment on the bold part above. Yes, people in many different religions have died for what they believe in. However, no one ever dies for what they know to be false.

How does this apply here? The Apostles. They were claiming that Jesus was the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. The most popular non-Christian point of view is that the Apostles may have stolen Christ’s body and claimed He rose from the dead.

Except for St. John, ALL the Apostles went to a torturous death instead of retracting their claims. Especially when all they had to do was retract and they could go free. And to be clear, St. John never renounced the claim, but he was the only Apostle not martyred.

Put yourself in that possition. Immagine you created a religion, that was false. If you got caught and they stated if you admitted your religion was false, you could go free. If you were brave (or stupid?) enough to stick by it, the guards would seize you, strap you down to a table and begin sharpening a knife. Again, they give you a chance: “Deny your religion and you can go free.” If you were “brave” enough to stick by your false claims, they would make a slice to the ball of one of your feet, grab the loose flap of skin and begin pulling, starting the process of skinning you alive. Time and again, all you’d have to do is deny your religion and you could go free…

On top of that, most suffered terribly before they were martyred. Not just in the act of martyrdom, but for years and years before that. Many were flogged, beaten, exiled, stoned, had no place to sleep, not enough to eat, kicked out of towns, ridiculed, spit on etc etc etc.

However, as I stated before 11 of the 12 Apostles (including Mathias, not including Judas) went to horrific torturous deaths rather than state that Christ had NOT risen from the dead. St. Nathaniel (my namesake) was most likely skinned alive, St. Thomas was dragged to death behind horses in India, but most were Crucified. Crucifixion is generally thought to be the most torturous, lingering way to die in human history! So horrible was the pain that a new word had to be created to describe it: Excruciating, meaning “from the cross”.

How much money, fame or sex would make this worth while to you? I only ask because that’s the other claim, is the Apostles made this all up for some alterior motive. This would be a good argument… except for it’s lack of evidence. None of the Apostles got rich, as I pointed out previously, they were anything but popular in most places by most people, and most remained celebate. So what motivation was there exept Truth.

Now, imagine you’re a disciple of the apostles (say Polycarp of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch or Clement of Rome) and not only did you learn from the Apostles themselves, but you also spoke to many of the others who had seen the Lord and His miracles - like Polycarp. When the Apostles and those men and woman who had seen the Lord began being tortured to death, rather than renounce what they claimed, how much greater importance would you place on their words? Wouldn’t you hunt out the last remaining Apostles (as they did - St. John) and listen to their words in a way we can hardly understand, knowing YOU had to hand it on to the next generation?

I used to think the same way you did, about the game of telephone, but once I studied the actual history (and also discovered that the majority of information was passed on orally with great accuracy) I realized how foolish I was to even begin to compare what happened in the first few centuries with a silly classroom game. They are NOTHING alike.

I hope this helps you.

God Bless you on your journey.
:knight2:

 

[AveChriste11]

PoorKnight and others, So how would you respond to those who say Jesus and the Apostles probably never existed, as there is very little that we can say of what they did, or how they died? Most of the accounts of them, including the ones you mentioned are not entirely trusted and the various accounts of what happened to the Apostles and where they went are disputed. That’s why books such as the “Acts of Andrew”, etc. were not part of the cannon of Scripture. I have read this very claim by atheists and others who had abandoned their Christian faith.

 

[Della]

PoorKnight and others, So how would you respond to those who say Jesus and the Apostles probably never existed, as there is very little that we can say of what they did, or how they died? Most of the accounts of them, including the ones you mentioned are not entirely trusted and the various accounts of what happened to the Apostles and where they went are disputed. That’s why books such as the “Acts of Andrew”, etc. were not part of the cannon of Scripture. I have read this very claim by atheists and others who had abandoned their Christian faith.

Even secular historians would dispute such claims. People can say anything and make any excuse they please, but it doesn’t change a thing. The problem isn’t that this or that can’t be proved beyond all doubt–it’s that some people simply don’t want to believe it so they don’t have to believe it. I’m talking about the militantly anti-religion types, not those who are honestly seeking/searching. It’s the same thing as trying to talk a rabidly anti-Catholic Fundamentalist out of their odd notions about the Church. If their hearts are hardened and their minds closed no amount of “proof” will convince them. I know because I’ve tried on many occasions and gotten nowhere. All people of faith can do in such cases is present what they know to be true and pray. The rest is up to them and the mercy of God.