Church made up of "all believers regardless of denomination?"

[Erich]

However, there is nothing to indicate that such authority was to be passed on to anyone other than Apostles.

On the contrary, check out this link. Read the whole thing.

As you will see, there can be no other reason why St. Paul would leave his two spiritual “sons” (Ss. Titus and Timothy) explicit instructions about the qualifications for overseers, elders, bishops, etc. (c.f. 1 Tim 3:1-7, Tit. 1:5-9), than that he expects them to confer apostolic authority on new men who meet those requirements.

 

[Chellow]

However there were some pretty strict qualifications for who could fill the position.

Such requirements could not continue to be met since no one new could be added to the pool of recuits.

There is no record that St. Paul ever met Jesus before Jesus crucifixion, and he is roundly considered to be an apostle.

 

[SyCarl]

There is no record that St. Paul ever met Jesus before Jesus crucifixion, and he is roundly considered to be an apostle.

So Apostolic Succession is not required. God can call whoever He wants.

 

[Reuben_J]

… It’s what’s truly in your heart. Not what religious denomination you are affiliated with.

Does this mean that you do not believe in the community of the people of God?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

We can know only what God has revealed to us by His Word. To me it is the ultimate in pridefullness to say that we can really know anything.

]Truth is hard to swallow, It is not the pride of the Man that speaks, It is Christ himself, who I make reference too.

I do not have a simplicity theology. I am addressing the subject of this thread. If someone holds and follows the basic truths I stated, I beleive that the are part of the catholic (universal) church. By the way, the Church did not give us the bible. That was given to us by God. What the Church did was fix the canon that had come to be used.

**Iam impressed , you acknowledge that the Roman Catholic Church did indeed authorize the Canon of Scripture. If you are aware of this fact, then why are you Protestant against the Authority that canonized the bible, and her 2000 year old Christian teachings?. This confirms the point that Protestants or non Catholics do not fall under the Name Catholic Church, because they do not fall under the authority of the Catholic Church, . **

Of course my view comes from a non-Catholic (note the capital) perspective but I dare say that I know more about what the Catholic Church teaches than many Catholics do. I did a lot of reading and investigation when I married a Catholic so that I could understand her faith.

Oh really? Dont tell me you read the Cathechism and used your own authority, of scripture reading, to conclude what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, rather than learn it from the Catholic Church herself and her Saints that lived, taught, and died for the Catholic faith.

You are not right in stating that there was only one church for the first 1500 years.

Dont doubt me, your Questioning a fact of history, and what all bible scholars Catholic , Protestant, and Jewish authorities agree on this fact, your argument is not with me, its with the whole scholary world.

There have been divisions from very early times that have persisited to this date,

That is an accurate statement. And the divisions that you speak of are not what you suppose they are. All those who opposed Catholic teachings, or Authority in the first 15oo years were all Catholic members of the One Catholic Church, there were no Protestants, Those individual Catholics that did not recant their false teachings were excommunicated by the Catholic Church, those that repented , were reconciled back to the fold. The point I hope to make clear is that for 1500 years there was only one Catholic Church, to name the different Catholic Rites is not saying they were different churches, they were and are still one, because they believed the same, except for the few that were excommunicated by not following and obeying the Authority of the Catholic Churck. "oh I forgot you studied all this already"

although there may be some reconciliation coming now. There has been the Assyrian Church of the East and related bodies since the Nestorian controversy and the Council of Ephesus. This Church is not that large now since it flourished in what was once the Persian Empire before the Islamic conquests. At that time it had 10s of millions members. There are also the many Monophysite churches that came about with the splits after the Council of Chalcedon. Examples of these are the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Then of course there was the Great Schism in 1054 when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches split.

**You have impressed me once again, but your comment above only Truthfully confirms that there was only One , Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church for 15 centuries, all of the above believe as Catholics do, these fall under Catholic. Protestantism does not fall under the title Catholicism. Because Protestants, or non Catholics, do not agree, practice, believe what Catholics believe, obey the Authority that Jesus established in his Church. Thus PROTEST (ERS) ANT OF THE ONE TRUE FAITH.

To which I might add, your doing a good job, but it does not hold water. Your interpretation of history is not correct.**

I know what?, why don’t you ask the other 29,ooo protestant denominations if they believe what you believe about Christian teachings, and ask them If they would consider themselves under the heading of Catholic Church.

Let me know what you find out ok:thumbsup:

 

[SyCarl]

**You have impressed me once again, but your comment above only Truthfully confirms that there was only One , Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church for 15 centuries, all of the above believe as Catholics do, these fall under Catholic. Protestantism does not fall under the title Catholicism. Because Protestants, or non Catholics, do not agree, practice, believe what Catholics believe, obey the Authority that Jesus established in his Church. Thus PROTEST (ERS) ANT OF THE ONE TRUE FAITH.

To which I might add, your doing a good job, but it does not hold water. Your interpretation of history is not correct.**

I know what?, why don’t you ask the other 29,ooo protestant denominations if they believe what you believe about Christian teachings, and ask them If they would consider themselves under the heading of Catholic Church.

Let me know what you find out ok:thumbsup:

I am afraid that you are deceiving yourself if you believe all the churches formed from the splits during the first 1500 years of church history are Catholic. While they may have many similarities with the Catholic Church, they were not part of the Catholic Church, although they would have been members of the catholic Church. For example none of them accepted the authority of the Roman Pope which would exclude them from being Catholic. Did the Monophysite Churches agree with the Catholic Church’s Christiology?

Because I accept that the Catholic Church identified the canon of Scripture does not mean that I believe that it has not made errors in other areas. One can be right in some things but wrong in others.

As for my knowledge of the Catholic Church I do have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and have attended Mass. I have gone through the missals for both the Novus Ordo Mass and the Tridentine Mass. I watch ETWN when I can. I have read the proceedings of many church counsels including Trent Vatican 1 and 2, other Catechisms such as the Tridentine and the Baltimore Catechisms as well as many Papal Encyclicals. I have read Catholic apologetics extensively, the early church fathers and much of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I have spent time reading Aquinas’ Summa Theologica and even some canon law. I do not believe in learning about something from outside sources; I use their own. Would you question the credibility of these sources.

As for the number of Protestant denominations, the validity of the number used has questioned on numerous threads here. For example it includes 22,000 independent non-demoniational churches as each being a separate denomination, when they would be closer to one denomination with their belief in independent local churches rather than larger units. The data used shows 280 Catholic denominations as it counts the Church in each country separately. It does the same for Protestants.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

All Christians worship the same God and I am certainly not an enemy of the Catholic Church although I disagree with some of its teachings.

The catholic Church (small c) is the universal Christian Church made up of all beleievers that Protestants are referring to when they say the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicean Creed. The Catholic Church (capital C) is the name of a particular organization whose members form part of the catholic Church.

**That is very interesting, Ok, now I see where you are coming from. Those that confess the oath, from the Credo’s. That are not in communion with Rome, call themselves catholic. Yes, because they are our seperated brethern, who no longer have a valid Eucharist or valid Holy orders (valid priesthood), they have lost their succession from the Apostles themselves. This is a different persepective than the original post. (“all denominations”). Now this would have to take a seperat thread. Of why one can swear an oath of faith to God, and not be subjected to God’s established authority, on earth through the Chair of Peter whom Jesus appointed, and gave him the keys to his kingdom./B]

Jesus instituted 2 sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.

You forgot, Marriage, Holy orders, healing of the sick, Confession, and Confrimation (Chrism).

I know that the Catholic Church accepts 7 sacraments. I do not see Jesus instituting these in Scripture.

**Of course not, I understand why you cant see them in scripture, because you follow your own interpretation of the bible, and wont obey the teachings of the 2000 years of authoritative teaching by the apostles, and Catholic saints who handed them down to us today. If you are willing, you can still learn , a whole new world of Scripture enlightenment through the Holy Catholic Apostlic Church., ****

As such, although we do not call them sacraments, we do many of the things that go by that name for Catholics, whether you believe that Protestants can validly perform sacraemnts is up to you.

**Again your argument about valid sacraments is not with me, We can discuss why they are not valid, but ,rember I obey Jesus when he says something, I dont believe my own interpretation of scripture, My opinion does not mean anything on these matters, Although you follow your own interpretation of Christian belief , and you deem what is Truth, and get to chose what is not truth, NOT Me, I obey Jesus and his commandments, and when I fall trying, I go to the his Church just like he tells me, besides, I follow 2000 years of unbroken succession of Catholic, saints and marytrs.

You know here is another request, Name your favorite Saint, and Ask him or she, what they believed, and by what authority, they obeyed on earth as far as what church, and if they obeyed the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. **
.

I notice that in your 3 points you did not mention the salvation that is through faith in Jesus. I know that Catholics do believe this salvation.

B] I DID, I MENTIONED SACRAMENTS:

With respect to the sacraments I could, and have elsewhere, go into great detail from Scripture as to how Jesus is present in the sacraments. I do not necessarily deny the Catholic view nor do I necessarily accept it. It is with could reason that the early church fathers refer to the mysteries. With respect to the sacraments we do as we were told fully trusting that God will fufill His purpose in them, whether we fully understand it or not.

I trust you must be very intelligent, to be able to just, out of the air come up with these interpretations of Christian teachings.

I have not yet been convinced that Jesus instituted any priesthood but His own and the priesthood of all believers.I have also never been shown how the Catholic Church has the authority it claims except by its own say so. Yes I know that the Church says it was given this authority by Jesus, but how is this shown. It is said that we cannot have the bible without the Church first authenticating it. Therefore you cannot use the Scripture to show the Church’s authority because on the Catholic position we cannot have the Bible until the Church has already established its authority.

Ok, now we are getting off topic,U] I am glad to hear you have not been shown many teachings about the Roman Catholic Church. This takes courage from those who claim to have studied the Roman Catholic Church, and I pray you will not be disappointed when you do learn the question you have.

Peace be with you and may our Lord Jesus enlighten you with his Holy Spirit.

 

[deacon_d]

Does this mean that you do not believe in the community of the people of God?

Define the community of people of GOD. I think you are missing my point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

SyCarl;3290333:

All Christians worship the same God and I am certainly not an enemy of the Catholic Church although I disagree with some of its teachings.

The catholic Church (small c) is the universal Christian Church made up of all beleievers that Protestants are referring to when they say the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicean Creed. The Catholic Church (capital C) is the name of a particular organization whose members form part of the catholic Church.

**That is very interesting, Ok, now I see where you are coming from. Those that confess the oath, from the Credo’s. That are not in communion with Rome, call themselves catholic. Yes, because they are our seperated brethern, who no longer have a valid Eucharist or valid Holy orders (valid priesthood), they have lost their succession from the Apostles themselves. This is a different persepective than the original post. (“all denominations”). Now this would have to take a seperat thread. Of why one can swear an oath of faith to God, and not be subjected to God’s established authority, on earth through the Chair of Peter whom Jesus appointed, and gave him the keys to his kingdom./B]

Jesus instituted 2 sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.

You forgot, Marriage, Holy orders, healing of the sick, Confession, and Confrimation (Chrism).

I know that the Catholic Church accepts 7 sacraments. I do not see Jesus instituting these in Scripture.

**Of course not, I understand why you cant see them in scripture, because you follow your own interpretation of the bible, and wont obey the teachings of the 2000 years of authoritative teaching by the apostles, and Catholic saints who handed them down to us today. If you are willing, you can still learn , a whole new world of Scripture enlightenment through the Holy Catholic Apostlic Church., ****

As such, although we do not call them sacraments, we do many of the things that go by that name for Catholics, whether you believe that Protestants can validly perform sacraemnts is up to you.

**Again your argument about valid sacraments is not with me, We can discuss why they are not valid, but ,rember I obey Jesus when he says something, I dont believe my own interpretation of scripture, My opinion does not mean anything on these matters, Although you follow your own interpretation of Christian belief , and you deem what is Truth, and get to chose what is not truth, NOT Me, I obey Jesus and his commandments, and when I fall trying, I go to the his Church just like he tells me, besides, I follow 2000 years of unbroken succession of Catholic, saints and marytrs.

You know here is another request, Name your favorite Saint, and Ask him or she, what they believed, and by what authority, they obeyed on earth as far as what church, and if they obeyed the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. **
.

I notice that in your 3 points you did not mention the salvation that is through faith in Jesus. I know that Catholics do believe this salvation.

B] I DID, I MENTIONED SACRAMENTS:

With respect to the sacraments I could, and have elsewhere, go into great detail from Scripture as to how Jesus is present in the sacraments. I do not necessarily deny the Catholic view nor do I necessarily accept it. It is with could reason that the early church fathers refer to the mysteries. With respect to the sacraments we do as we were told fully trusting that God will fufill His purpose in them, whether we fully understand it or not.

I trust you must be very intelligent, to be able to just, out of the air come up with these interpretations of Christian teachings.

I have not yet been convinced that Jesus instituted any priesthood but His own and the priesthood of all believers.I have also never been shown how the Catholic Church has the authority it claims except by its own say so. Yes I know that the Church says it was given this authority by Jesus, but how is this shown. It is said that we cannot have the bible without the Church first authenticating it. Therefore you cannot use the Scripture to show the Church’s authority because on the Catholic position we cannot have the Bible until the Church has already established its authority.

**Ok, now we are getting off topic,U] I am glad to hear you have not been shown many teachings about the Roman Catholic Church. **This takes courage from those who claim to have studied the Roman Catholic Church, and I pray you will not be disappointed when you do learn the question you have.

Peace be with you and may our Lord Jesus enlighten you with his Holy Spirit.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have not yet been convinced that Jesus instituted any priesthood but His own and the priesthood of all believers.I have also never been shown how the Catholic Church has the authority it claims except by its own say so. Yes I know that the Church says it was given this authority by Jesus, but how is this shown. It is said that we cannot have the bible without the Church first authenticating it. Therefore you cannot use the Scripture to show the Church’s authority because on the Catholic position we cannot have the Bible until the Church has already established its authority.

NO.1, What you just stated defines Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches you can not have Sacred Tradition without Sacred Scripture, ( the two are in one, mine in paranthesis) Jesus started His Church with St. Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, Sacred Tradition is the oral Tradition passed down from the apostles to their successors. Not everything Jesus said was written, it was taught orally and handed down so say the sacred scriptures, if you need these let me know, I have look them up to make sure I give you the right ones, I have leave at this time. The Church came first before the bible. The laying on of hands, the anointing from Jesus was passed on to the successors of the apostles, we who are baptized into the body of Christ, recieve from this unbroken anointing ( Catholics use different terminology, so I use Protestant language to mean the same) also. The first century saints who were taught by John the apostle, attest to this oral Sacred Tradition. (Please read up on St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and St.Ignatius of Antioch, These Guys can tell you better than I can about the Pope of Rome, and Catholic Church, and her teachings.) Got to go, hope to speak to you more, ejoyed

Peace and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

 

[SyCarl]

I have not yet been convinced that Jesus instituted any priesthood but His own and the priesthood of all believers.I have also never been shown how the Catholic Church has the authority it claims except by its own say so. Yes I know that the Church says it was given this authority by Jesus, but how is this shown. It is said that we cannot have the bible without the Church first authenticating it. Therefore you cannot use the Scripture to show the Church’s authority because on the Catholic position we cannot have the Bible until the Church has already established its authority.

NO.1, What you just stated defines Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church teaches you can not have Sacred Tradition without Sacred Scripture, ( the two are in one, mine in paranthesis) Jesus started His Church with St. Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, Sacred Tradition is the oral Tradition passed down from the apostles to their successors. Not everything Jesus said was written, it was taught orally and handed down so say the sacred scriptures, if you need these let me know, I have look them up to make sure I give you the right ones, I have leave at this time. The Church came first before the bible. The laying on of hands, the anointing from Jesus was passed on to the successors of the apostles, we who are baptized into the body of Christ, recieve from this unbroken anointing ( Catholics use different terminology, so I use Protestant language to mean the same) also. The first century saints who were taught by John the apostle, attest to this oral Sacred Tradition. (Please read up on St. Clement of Rome, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and St.Ignatius of Antioch, These Guys can tell you better than I can about the Pope of Rome, and Catholic Church, and her teachings.) Got to go, hope to speak to you more, ejoyed

Peace and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

What is this except the Church saying that it has infallible authority simply because it says so. How do we know that it has it? The Church says that the Bible says so. But we can’t know the Bible until the Church first has the authority to determine the Bible. This is a circular argument. It would be similar to me writing a letter saying that I am the King of Siam and then pointing to that letter as proof that I am. Then because the letter says that I am the King of Siam I have the authority to write the letter. And round it goes.

Bringing in Tradition doesn’t help either. First, how do we know that Tradition is authoritative? Because the Bible tells us so, but then we are back in a similar circle.

Maybe we know the Church and Tradition are authoritative because Jesus told us they were. How do we know if Jesus said this? Well we can’t use the Bible as authoritative yet because we still don’t know the Church has the authority to define canon. And we can’t use the Bible to give authority to Tradition for the same reason. Does Tradition give the Church authority? Even if it does how do we know what Tradition is? Because the Church telling us it does, but that still begs the question of knowing the Church has the authority to tell us that.

And yes I am aware of the passages that are used to support the existence of Tradition. But even if those verses are taken to mean that the oral teachings contain something other than what is written in Scripture, the Bible is not uniform in its support of Tradition.

1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 seem to support the use of tradition. But on the other hand Matthew 15:2-6, Mark 7:1-13, and Colossians 2:8 warn us about traditions. Galatians 1:14 is neutral. Now you may say that the positive references are to Sacred Tradition while the negative are to man-made traditions. But how can we know which are which unless it is first established independent Scripture or Tradition that the Church has authority.

 

[Lapell]

Hi!
In the whole thread, no one ever mentioned about the denomination of the one quoted in the post #1 at the start of this quite heated thread! Was that person an Anglican from what they would call the High Church? I once learned that Anglicans of the High Church would call their Church “the Catholic Church”. Moreover, I think I heard some among them saying they are not Protestants per se. Only their head is considered to be not the Pope, but the King or Queen of England. If that person were an Anglican of the High Church, then the statement quoted in#1 is not so surprising. I am surprised that nobody has come up with this piece of information up to now.
For I don’t remember having ever heard people from other Western non-Catholic (Roman Catholic, if you prefer) call themselves Catholics. I thought most of them would dread doing so considering how they used to be taught about the Roman Catholic Church…

 

[Lapell]

Is it because in the U.S.A. the Anglicans are called the Episcopalians?

 

[Genesis315]

As St. Augustine said, and I am paraphrasing, all non-Catholics want to be called Catholic, but ask them where the nearest Catholic church is and thye won’t point to their own.

 

[Erich]

So Apostolic Succession is not required. God can call whoever He wants.

Right… but as you can see here, this is the exceptional, extraordinary case – for which Scripture requires the proof of miracles, signs, and wonders for authenticity!

St. Paul’s calling was extraordinary, and so, in keeping with this, he performed “extraordinary miracles”

“And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.” (Acts 19:11-12)

 

[Erich]

First, how do we know that Tradition is authoritative? Because the Bible tells us so, but then we are back in a similar circle.

Maybe we know the Church and Tradition are authoritative because Jesus told us they were. How do we know if Jesus said this? Well we can’t use the Bible as authoritative yet because we still don’t know the Church has the authority to define canon. And we can’t use the Bible to give authority to Tradition for the same reason. Does Tradition give the Church authority? Even if it does how do we know what Tradition is? Because the Church telling us it does, but that still begs the question of knowing the Church has the authority to tell us that.

From Proving Inspiration,

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. …

The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. His claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do. …

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name. …

Only after establishing the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history, and concluding that an infallible Church was founded, are we able to take the word of that infallible Church on matters of faith.

Note that this is not a circular cargument.

 

[SyCarl]

From Proving Inspiration,

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. …

The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. His claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do. …

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name. …

Only after establishing the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history, and concluding that an infallible Church was founded, are we able to take the word of that infallible Church on matters of faith.

Note that this is not a circular cargument.

Your method of proof is first to establish the Bible as infallible, for otherwise how could we conclude anything it might say about the Church is true? Then from the argument you present, the Bible confirms the infallibility of the Church. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that the Church establishes the Bible not the otherwise in the way your proof does.

Now, once the Bible has been established, how do you know that it establishes that an infallible Church was founded? That would be your private interpretation, or your agreement with someone else’s private interpretation. So you have merely established that the authority of the Church is shown by the very private interpretation for which Protestantism is condemned.

 

[SyCarl]

As St. Augustine said, and I am paraphrasing, all non-Catholics want to be called Catholic, but ask them where the nearest Catholic church is and thye won’t point to their own.

Again there is a difference between the catholic Church and the Catholic Church.

 

[Chellow]

So Apostolic Succession is not required. God can call whoever He wants.

Originally Posted by SyCarl
I would agree that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. However, there is nothing to indicate that such authority was to be passed on to anyone other than Apostles. The Apostles’ had much authority that was unique to them such as the raising the dead. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts or Acts do Jesus ask someone to confess their sins before forgiving them.

In Acts 1:20-26 the apostles did do just that, by lots Matthias was counted with the eleven apostles. It said apostle, it also says he accompanied them the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among them. It says that others accompanied but they are not counted as apostles.

Originally Posted by SyCarl
However there were some pretty strict qualifications for who could fill the position.
Such requirements could not continue to be met since no one new could be added to the pool of recuits.

There is no record that St. Paul ever met Jesus before Jesus crucifixion, and he is roundly considered to be an apostle.

**
I see that you are in denial by how well read you appear to be, and how you dragged one question after anther by affirming the negative, when by your own scholastic aptitude you must of have knew your post where not legitimate.**

 

[SyCarl]

Originally Posted by SyCarl
I would agree that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. However, there is nothing to indicate that such authority was to be passed on to anyone other than Apostles. The Apostles’ had much authority that was unique to them such as the raising the dead. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts or Acts do Jesus ask someone to confess their sins before forgiving them.

In Acts 1:20-26 the apostles did do just that, by lots Matthias was counted with the eleven apostles. It said apostle, it also says he accompanied them the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among them. It says that others accompanied but they are not counted as apostles.

Originally Posted by SyCarl
However there were some pretty strict qualifications for who could fill the position.
Such requirements could not continue to be met since no one new could be added to the pool of recuits.

There is no record that St. Paul ever met Jesus before Jesus crucifixion, and he is roundly considered to be an apostle.

**
I see that you are in denial by how well read you appear to be, and how you dragged one question after anther by affirming the negative, when by your own scholastic aptitude you must of have knew your post where not legitimate.**

I am not in denial at all. Far be it from me to deny Catholic belief that their present hierarchy are in direct line of succession from the Apostles. I do deny that it has the same authority, powers and infallibility as the Apostles had or that such succession is necessary to the validity of a Protestant minister.