If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

[Orionthehunter]

From justasking4: I didn’t say it was unbilbical but that you don’t find a specific phrase that says this.
Is the Bible used in the catholic church used as a foundation for its doctrines?

But it is ironic that you claim the Bible is the SOLE source of divine revelation when it is a claim that the Bible does not use.

To your second question, Christ is the foundation of Catholic doctrines. Read the Catechism. It sites the Bible more than any other document, the encyclicals are replete with underlying reference to Scripture, and the same can be said of many writings of the Doctors of the Church who support their writings with Scripture.

From justasking4: i never have. I have never stated there are not other authorities in the church. What i have said is that the scriptures alone are the only inspired-inerrant word of God. Not tradition nor the church itself is inerrant-inspired.

This is a fundamental difference. We believe otherwise.

From justasking4:i disagree. If the pope is truly part of the successions of the apostles and is the vicar of Christ on earth then we should see evidence of this throughout time. To claim to be a vicar of Christ who is in succession of the apostles does mean they would be like Christ and the apostles not only in authority but in action. If this is true and that person who was pope and acted in these evil ways would that negate him as vicar of Christ?

You do not have the intellectual understanding of the distinction/difference between impeccability and infallibility.

from justasking4: Will theologians be tortured and put to death if they don’t recant?

No. But as someone has noted on this thread or another. The early Protestants (Puritan and Anglican) in England and of course Salem in the New world weren’t above torturing and putting to death those they deemed heretics.

from justasking4: i don’t think this is a rabbit trail at all but an important part of this discussion. It helps us to see in history if there really is such a thing by studying what popes have done. If you say these evil popes were not popes then you have other problems to deal with.

You need an understanding of the difference between infallibility and impeccability.

from justasking4: Am i to believe that there are no different interpretations of the scriptures and catholic doctrine in the catholic church? i have met a number of catholics when i ask there interpretation what a particular passage means i usually get a number of different interpretations. What should i make of this?

You should make of it that individual Catholics are as likely to misinterpret scripture as non-Catholics. However, we don’t look to our own interpretation as infallible but that of the Church.

from justasking4: Can you recommed a good commentary on the Bible written by a catholic scholar? I’m looking for one that has interprets verses and passages of the scriptures.

Any such study guide will not be infallible regarding Church teaching doctrine. I know of none that have the imprimatur nor stamped with an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Pope. However, I’m sure many on here will have references that will give you a glimpse and insight into Catholic understanding of certain Scripture. However, you must always keep in mind that Catholic Scriptural Study is a study of the whole in context of the whole of Revealed Truth. We don’t practice selective parsing of Scripture like some of our separated breathren.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Can you recommed a good commentary on the Bible written by a catholic scholar? I’m looking for one that has interprets verses and passages of the scriptures.

The Navarre Bible is the best.

Also the CCC where it references scripture in the footnotes reflects the teaching of the Magisterium and consensus of what the Apostolic Bishops are charged to teach as sound doctrine and interpretation throughout the whole Earth.

For expediency there are a couple of good scriptural Catholic sites;

catholicapologetics.org/aptoc.htm
and
scripturecatholic.com/index.html

 

[mercygate]

i disagree. If the pope is truly part of the successions of the apostles and is the vicar of Christ on earth then we should see evidence of this throughout time. To claim to be a vicar of Christ who is in succession of the apostles does mean they would be like Christ and the apostles not only in authority but in action. If this is true and that person who was pope and acted in these evil ways would that negate him as vicar of Christ?

This addresses two different questions. Apostolic Succession is about authority, not about impeccability. It protects the TEACHING of the Church via the continuing thread of doctrine. You’re running down the lane of impeccability, which has never been a part of the definition of Apostolic Succession.

We have evidence in Scripture that Jesus’ chosen head of the Apostles was far from “like Christ.” I think Jesus did that for a reason: to show us that HE is the true Head of the Church and that whoever is sitting in Peter’s Chair holds the job as vicar, not as Boss. Actually the “bad” Popes are clear evidence that this system works. They never taught false doctrine.

Will theologians be tortured and put to death if they don’t recant?

No but we can hope… But they are inhibited and their works are publicly labeled as not in accord with the teaching of the Church.

i don’t think this is a rabbit trail at all but an important part of this discussion. It helps us to see in history if there really is such a thing by studying what popes have done. If you say these evil popes were not popes then you have other problems to deal with.

No. It’s a rabbit trail. However, WHAT THE POPES HAVE DONE is to maintain the teaching without deviation despite their personal shortcomings. All doctrinal developments square with all that was received from the beginning. Even the scurrilous sinners among the Popes NEVER TAUGHT FALSE DOCTRINE. Never. And the evil popes were still popes. We are not Donatists. That heresy was closed in the 2nd century.

 

[mercygate]

Am i to believe that there are no different interpretations of the scriptures and catholic doctrine in the catholic church? i have met a number of catholics when i ask there interpretation what a particular passage means i usually get a number of different interpretations. What should i make of this?

Actually, you usually get a pretty consistent answer from us concerning the key matters. There are only about a dozen scriptural passages that Catholics are required to interpret in a certain way. Otherwise, we have great freedom. The classical example is that we are free to interpret Jonah as actual history or as a parable of God’s mercy.

Can you recommed a good commentary on the Bible written by a catholic scholar? I’m looking for one that has interprets verses and passages of the scriptures.

One of the best would be the Navarre Bible. But it’s a multi-volume set; very expensive.

 

[justasking4]

This addresses two different questions. Apostolic Succession is about authority, not about impeccability. It protects the TEACHING of the Church via the continuing thread of doctrine. You’re running down the lane of impeccability, which has never been a part of the definition of Apostolic Succession.

We have evidence in Scripture that Jesus’ chosen head of the Apostles was far from “like Christ.” I think Jesus did that for a reason: to show us that HE is the true Head of the Church and that whoever is sitting in Peter’s Chair holds the job as vicar, not as Boss. Actually the “bad” Popes are clear evidence that this system works. They never taught false doctrine.

No but we can hope… But they are inhibited and their works are publicly labeled as not in accord with the teaching of the Church.

No. It’s a rabbit trail. However, WHAT THE POPES HAVE DONE is to maintain the teaching without deviation despite their personal shortcomings. All doctrinal developments square with all that was received from the beginning. Even the scurrilous sinners among the Popes NEVER TAUGHT FALSE DOCTRINE. Never. And the evil popes were still popes. We are not Donatists. That heresy was closed in the 2nd century.

Then what am i to make of Pope Honorius who had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod for teaching heresy?

 

[davidv]

Then what am i to make of Pope Honorius who had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod for teaching heresy?

That even if one is called to a very high office, one is not immune from sin.

However, the sin does not invalidate the office.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;2855304]Actually, you usually get a pretty consistent answer from us concerning the key matters. There are only about a dozen scriptural passages that Catholics are required to interpret in a certain way. Otherwise, we have great freedom. The classical example is that we are free to interpret Jonah as actual history or as a parable of God’s mercy.

Then what makes the catholic church any different that protestants who are accused of having thousands of different interpretations of the scriptures? Just as catholics accuse each protestant having his own private interpretation of scripture so do catholics.

One of the best would be the Navarre Bible. But it’s a multi-volume set; very expensive.

Thank you. I’ll look into it.

 

[mercygate]

Then what am i to make of Pope Honorius who had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod for teaching heresy?

Wasn’t Honorius the guy who dealt with the monothelitist heresy? I believe the problem was not that he TAUGHT heresy but that he failed to STOP a heretical teaching. The infallibility clause goes to actually promulgating heresy, which Honorius did not.

The fact that one must go back so far to dig up a morsel of supposedly false teaching is, in itself, an extraordinary testament to the integrity of the Apostolic teaching throughout the ages.

 

[davidv]

Then what makes the catholic church any different that protestants who are accused of having thousands of different interpretations of the scriptures? Just as catholics accuse each protestant having his own private interpretation of scripture so do catholics.

Thank you. I’ll look into it.

That key difference is that the varied interpretation must be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The only private interpretations that are condemned are those used to attach the Church.

 

[justasking4]

That key difference is that the varied interpretation must be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The only private interpretations that are condemned are those used to attach the Church.

How does a catholic do this? There is so much that the catholic church teaches in so many places how do catholics know if they are consistent with church teaching on a particular passage?

 

[mercygate]

How does a catholic do this? There is so much that the catholic church teaches in so many places how do catholics know if they are consistent with church teaching on a particular passage?

Actually the basic message of salvation is clear across much of Scripture, and a Catholic fairly well grounded in his faith, already has his “sniff test” in working order.

When we have a question, we come HERE!

 

[mercygate]

davidv:

That key difference is that the varied interpretation must be consistent with the teachings of the Church.

The only private interpretations that are condemned are those used to attach the Church.

justasking4:

How does a catholic do this? There is so much that the catholic church teaches in so many places how do catholics know if they are consistent with church teaching on a particular passage?

Come to think of it, how does a non-Catholic ascertain that his reading of a particular passage is correct? I just had an interesting dialogue with a Protestant pastor regarding “born of water”, which he claimed was absolutely, unquestionably, and “clearly” a reference to amniotic fluid. It did not faze him in the least that none of the sola Scriptura Reformers ever DREAMED of amniotic fluid in connection with this passage. Even THEY were linked to the Apostolic Tradition to some degree and did not challenge this.

OK: Off topic. Back to Apostolic Succession.

 

[justasking4]

Come to think of it, how does a non-Catholic ascertain that his reading of a particular passage is correct? I just had an interesting dialogue with a Protestant pastor regarding “born of water”, which he claimed was absolutely, unquestionably, and “clearly” a reference to amniotic fluid. It did not faze him in the least that none of the sola Scriptura Reformers ever DREAMED of amniotic fluid in connection with this passage. Even THEY were linked to the Apostolic Tradition to some degree and did not challenge this.

OK: Off topic. Back to Apostolic Succession.

Thats a good question you asked the protestant. Now how would it be answered in the catholic church? Has it always been answered the same way?

i agree. Back to the topic–

 

[justasking4]

Actually the basic message of salvation is clear across much of Scripture, and a Catholic fairly well grounded in his faith, already has his “sniff test” in working order.

When we have a question, we come HERE!

The problem is that when i come here i sometimes get different answers…

 

[mercygate]

The problem is that when i come here i sometimes get different answers…

You don’t get many REALLY different answers. If it’s a passage of Scripture related to a theological issue: justification, salvation, baptism, prayer – you could certainly look it up in *The Catechism of the Catholic Church. *

SInce 90 percent of what Christians believe is the same (Trinity, Nature of Jesus’, virgin birth, etc) I gave a Plymouth Brethren colleague at work a CCC to use in supporting his pulpit speaking.

He told me he was completely surprised at how deep in Scripture the *Catechism *is. It constantly refers to Scripture in delineating points of doctrine. So, short answer: if Scripture prompts a question about a doctrine, go to the Catechism.

 

[mercygate]

Thats a good question you asked the protestant. Now how would it be answered in the catholic church? Has it always been answered the same way?

You already know the answer. “Born of water and the Holy Spirit” refers to baptism. Both “water” and the “Holy Spirit” are essential to Baptism, which effects what it symbolizes. Real grace, effecting the remission of original sin.

OK, OK, OK. **Back to topic. BAD :tsktsk: mercygate! **

 

[Janet_S]

Am i to believe that there are no different interpretations of the scriptures and catholic doctrine in the catholic church? i have met a number of catholics when i ask there interpretation what a particular passage means i usually get a number of different interpretations. What should i make of this?

Can you recommed a good commentary on the Bible written by a catholic scholar? I’m looking for one that has interprets verses and passages of the scriptures.

Did you ever see this site:

St Paul Center for Biblical Theology
salvationhistory.com/

This site has commentaries on the Gospels by the Church Fathers:
catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php

You might try reading this. Pope Benedict is a Biblical theologian:
amazon.com/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385523416

 

[Ignatius]

You don’t get many REALLY different answers. If it’s a passage of Scripture related to a theological issue: justification, salvation, baptism, prayer – you could certainly look it up in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

SInce 90 percent of what Christians believe is the same (Trinity, Nature of Jesus’, virgin birth, etc) I gave a Plymouth Brethren colleague at work a CCC to use in supporting his pulpit speaking.

He told me he was completely surprised at how deep in Scripture the *Catechism *is. It constantly refers to Scripture in delineating points of doctrine. So, short answer: if Scripture prompts a question about a doctrine, go to the Catechism.

Excellent, I had never thought of it that way. That’s great.

 

[andzy]

I didn’t say it was unbilbical but that you don’t find a specific phrase that says this.

Yes, you did:

Do you or do you not agree that the Bible does not say that it is the ONLY inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice?
justasking4;2855076:

No it does not say it like this.

If you agree that the Bible doesn’t teach the statement that the Scripture is “the only inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice”, then you agree that this statement is unbiblical.
If you meant this “no” as something else, please explain, and show where the Bible approves such statement. As long as it’s not done, my only option will be to take your word as it is, and consider that you’ve said that the Bible doesn’t agree that it is “the only inspired-inerrant and foundation for all doctrine and practice”.

Is the Bible used in the catholic church used as a foundation for its doctrines?

No, God is the foundation of all doctrines. The Bible couldn’t possibly be this foundation, otherwise there’d be a total anarchy and chaos in the Christian theology during the first centuries (before it was know what is the Bible and that it exists at all).

If you are referring to 2 Thes 2:15 then tell me specifically what traditions Paul was referring to?

Traditions of the Church, taught by him and other Apostles, which they passed on to their successors, of course. If you want a list, then you’ll have to do your own homework, and study the Catechism and the Church Fathers. (The “list” is simply too long to be put in a thread, since there have been so many disputes and misinterpretations of the Faith.)

i never have. I have never stated there are not other authorities in the church. What i have said is that the scriptures alone are the only inspired-inerrant word of God. Not tradition nor the church itself is inerrant-inspired.

I think it was quite easy to understand from the context that I meant the only inspired and infallible authority.
You have indeed said that the Scripture is the only such authority, but you have also said that the Scripture doesn’t say that about itself. Thus you’re either contradicting yourself or simply following an unbiblical teaching (and ignoring the scriptural teaching that the Church is such authority).

 

[po18guy]

The problem is that when i come here i sometimes get different answers…

You read a lot. Get a catechism. All of the answers that you disagree with are in it. Point being???