Is the following syllogism, which ultimately leads to a literal interpretation of John 6 wrong:
God sent Jesus into this sinful world, therefore Jesus carried the same authority as His Father in Heaven. Having been sent by God, Jesus then sent the apostles into the world to teach all that Jesus commanded, (keeping in mind; there was no Holy Bible) --with the authoritative guidance of the Divine Holy Spirit, therefore the apostles were divinely inspired and authoritative. Having been sent by Jesus, Who had Himself been sent by God, the apostles then in turn, sent their chosen leaders/teachers into the world, to teach all that Jesus commanded, (still no codified/canonized Holy Bible) --who were also guided by the Infallible Holy Spirit, in light of their apostolic succession. (i.e. the Early Church Fathers) Therefore the Early Church Fathers who were all sinful, fallible men as were the apostles, were inspired and infallible in their teaching, just as the apostles of Jesus were.
This is what the C.C. and the E.O.C. calls, apostolic succession via the imposition of hands, and it is very biblical, and if someone leaves the church built by Jesus, as many did in the 16th century, and starts another teaching Body built by mere men, then naturally they forgo the necessary apostolic succession via the imposition of hands in Jesus’ One church built by Jesus, circa 33 AD… which is being guided by the Holy Spirit, and this was/is to be done in perpetuity, as per the Holy Bible; is that a reasonable assessment? This is the very reason why P.C.'s reject apostolic succession!!!
The early church fathers taught orally just as Jesus did, and just as His apostles did; not one person owned a bible; the Holy bible was not even codified/canonized until 393 AD! How in the world would sola scriptura via private interpretation have worked for the first 300 years of Christianity? If this written record, the New Testament, was/is to be the final yardstick against which everything was/is to be tested in order to ascertain what was/is true or false, right or wrong, then Christians belonging to Jesus’ One church, for the first 300 years…a time when she as the bride of Christ, was sporadically being persecuted by the Roman Empire, then Jesus’ established church had no Divine ballast to guide and counsel her vis-a-vis Salvation and emancipation, from the evil one!
Does any non-Catholic believe this was the case for the first 300 years of Christianity? Remember, not one person possessed a bible as we know it today, outside the C.C., FOR IT HAD YET TO BE CODIFIED/CANONIZED. Many other pseudo- scrolls disseminated by pseudo-teachers were making their way around the Mediterranean Basin, but only the C.C. possessed the Holy Bible at the turn of the first century, and she finally codified and canonized the Bible out of necessity! Apostolic succession was/is the confirmation, corroboration, and the credentials required to teach and preach infallibly, just as the apostles did, thanks to the Infallible Holy Spirit.
For the first 300 years Christians did as the Holy Bible decrees; they took unresolvable issues to Jesus’ one church as per Matthew 18:17.
If you lived in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th centuries, you would not have owned a bible… you would have simply taken the question: Was Jesus speaking literally or symbolically in John 6:53 to the C.C., and what did she believe/teach vis-a-vis John 6 in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century? Yup…the literal interpretation. If the C.C. taught erroneously vis-a-vis the Eucharist for the first 300 years, then the Holy Spirit taught erroneously, for the C.C. derives all her power/authority from the Holy Spirit sent to Jesus’ One church on Pentecost!!!
Yes or no…?
If you insist that apostolic succession is unnecessary, consider this scenario: what if some of those heretical gnostic sects that parted ways with Jesus’ apostolic church in the second century…that taught things such as, Jesus was only a man and not God --had not been quashed; what if they still existed today and claimed that apostolic succession was unnecessary; what would you say to them? I bet you would defer to the authority of the Holy Bible even though the bible tells us to defer to Jesus’ One church, and that is exactly what they would do; they would cherry pick passages to support their beliefs, just as protestants do, just as I use to do, e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16, and eventually both these non-Catholic assemblies would part ways for good!
The only reason why we can trust that the Bible is holy and inerrant is because the teachers of the C.C. are empowered by the Holy Spirit to teach all that Jesus commanded through the imposition of hands as per the bible, in perpetuity, just as the apostles and their successors did, when it all started on Pentecost! Jesus prayed for unity and oneness, as did His apostles, and that is why the imposition of hands, as per the Holy Bible, is so important; apostolic succession is the only way Jesus’ One church can credibly trace her lineage all the way back to the foundation of Jesus’ One church, built by Jesus on Pentecost; every protestant church can do the same, however, they can only trace their lineage as far back as the former Catholics who spearhead the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. They left Jesus’ One church built on the apostles, and guided by the Holy Spirit, and changed the deposit of faith, deferring to a new man-made doctrine called sola scriptura via private interpretation, just as the many did in the second century, only they were truly apostate, and the P.C.'s established by men, are not; I think that is why there is so much division outside the C.C…
. These guys didn’t just sit around and receive their pay. They had to work for it. And, no matter how little they deserved their full pay (as you correctly said, their heavenly reward!), they still had to do something to get that reward.
