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

[justasking4]

mercygate;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t see this in the scriptures. We don’t find passages where the apostles go to Peter alone to determine what should be done do we?

Also, how did Peter use the “keys” in the NT?

That may be but it does not require a pope to do this. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a pope in the NT itself. Peter never makes such a claim for himself.

mercygate;

ja4, these querulous objections are just pile-ons in your fruitless struggle to make something that is clear from both Scripture and the historical record go away for you.

If you don’t have the knowledge to answer these questions just say so. I asked a straightforward question and you didn’t even begin to answer it. Perhaps you don’t know scripture that well. Secondly history does not support the idea of a universal leader for the entire church after the apostles died. If anything there were 3 centers of Christianity in the early centuries. It was never Rome as the only supreme head in the beginning.

mercygate;

And you know it. You cannot get past the office of Bishop, the Christ’s promise to be with the Apostles “all days”, His promise to send “another paraclete” to “guide you into all the truth” and you cannot get past Matthew 16:18-19 and Mt. 18:18.

Not sure what you mean by “getting past”. Even in those passages you refer to do not mention apostolic succession.

The Apostles are the centerpiece in Christ’s plan for the continuity of Gospel teaching throughout history.

I agree. However the catholic church has not fully adhered to this but has introduced doctrines that the apostles never taught.

Why is that such a stumbling block?

It not about a stumbling block for me but the truth. If study the scriptures and church history you will not find the support for many of the claims made by the Roman Catholic church.

---

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;2848507]JA4, I would hope by this late date and hundreds of clarifying posts, has agreed that not everything about Christ or His church is plainly spelled out for him in the NT. He just can’t make even the tiniest leap of faith without written proof. I ask again: is this really faith?

My question to you is how you can have faith in something in which there is no support for? If you do, thats not biblical faith.

As in the Eucharist, Blessed are those who do not find the Son of Man a stumbling block.

Christ’s peace!

 

[Randy_Carson]

What does binding and loosing mean in the context of Matthew 18?

It means just what I said…it is the Church…not a book…that has final authority.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It goes back to my previous point and what follows from that. If the scriptures truly are from God then we know they are inerrant-inspired-infallible.

How?

There were many books that purported to be scripture or written by an Apostle in the early centuries. How were the true scriptures separated from those that were inspiring but not inspired?

How do you - today - know with certainty that the books you claim to be inspired really are?

i have never seen John 20:22-23 used to support the idea that the church is “God-breathed”. Do you have a source for this interpretation of that passage?

Why do you seek a source for this interpretation? Am I not free to interpret the Bible for myself just as you are? What authority would you be willing to accept anyway? You refuse to acknowledge the Church’s authority on other matters so why do you appeal to authority now?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where in verse 18 is Paul appealing to Peter for authority?

Why did Paul go to Jerusalem?

Galatians 2:1-3
1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.

Paul went to see Peter because he was afraid that what he had been teaching was in error. He wanted to check his doctrine with those he was sure would be correct. It was a revelation that initiated his journey. A revelation of what? Maybe it was revealed to Paul that Peter really was the head of the Church perhaps?

Hmmm?

Now, if that is not an acknowledgement of the authority of Peter, I don’t know what is.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The only thing we know of Paul’s writings is found in his letters.
Now if you mean something else besides these letters in the NT, then what specifically would that be?

What specific “traditions” were handed to Paul that is not recorded in the NT?

Infant baptism.

The order of the mass.

Stuff like that.

 

[guanophore]

He thought she had an illicit affair.

Where did you find this in scripture, ja4? And if not how to YOU know what he was thinking?!?!?!

You don’t realize that statements like this reflect your own protestant tradition. Such a statement is a speculation of men.

Are you aware that James gospels were condemned as being false?

ja4, things have now progressed to the point that you are willfully propogating falsehoods, and are in danger of being reported to the mods for this. Finding that a book does not belong in the canon does not equal that the document is “false”. In another thread, in fact, you stated that you agreed that it had historical value insofar as it represents thinking that was current at the time it was written. Now, in addition to promoting falsehoods, you are contradicting yourself!

Alll this shows is what some christians may have believed. It certainly was not based on scripture.

Right on both counts, ja4. Christians marked the walls of catacombs with figures that represented their beliefs. These beliefs were not based on scripture, but on the Sacred Tradition that was preached to them from the Divine Deposit of Faith, preserved without error through the Apostolic Succession.

The Trinity can easily be found in scripture. The real presence is far more complicated and as far as i understand there were a number of different views of it during the centuries.

ja4, think about what you are saying here. There were also a number of different views of the canon, the nature of Christ, and the Trinity. The beauty is that the Church, guided by the infallible HS, sorted out the Truth from the error, and proclaimed each and every doctrine as needed.

If that source is authoritative on one thing, then it must be on all. Otherwise, you cannot count on the source for anything. Either God preserved the church from error, or not. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It goes back to my previous point and what follows from that. If the scriptures truly are from God then we know they are inerrant-inspired-infallible.

Randy Carson;

How?

There were many books that purported to be scripture or written by an Apostle in the early centuries. How were the true scriptures separated from those that were inspiring but not inspired?

Even though this topic is not about this there is some good info on this.

Randy Carson;

How do you - today - know with certainty that the books you claim to be inspired really are?

I believe that God used the church to help the church discover what the canon was and is. I think they got it right with the NT.

Quote: justasking4
i have never seen John 20:22-23 used to support the idea that the church is “God-breathed”. Do you have a source for this interpretation of that passage?
Randy Carson
Why do you seek a source for this interpretation? Am I not free to interpret the Bible for myself just as you are?

I thought there was some source for catholics since the catholic church claims to be the only one who has authority to interpret scripture. With a magesturium that has the power to do so you would not have countless interpretations that protestants are accused of.

What authority would you be willing to accept anyway? You refuse to acknowledge the Church’s authority on other matters so why do you appeal to authority now?

I want to know if what you are saying is what the catholic church teaches offically or is this your personal opinion. If its your opinion then we can see if it agrees with the catholic church’ interpretation if it has interpreted it.

 

[justasking4]

Infant baptism.

The order of the mass.

Stuff like that.

How do you know that the apostles taught these things? Take the mass, all we have in scripture is but a brief description of the Last Supper that does not even come close to how the bread and wine are changed in the body and blood as the catholic church teaches.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It seems we agree then that the scriptures are inspired-inerrant. If that has been established then its up to you demonstrate that Tradition or the Church is also inspired. Can you do that?

I know this response comes late in the discussion, but I would like to state that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. The Church is infallible.

Your Bible points you to the Church. However, by your personal interpretation of the Bible, you explain away those verses so that you do not have to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

Thus, you establish yourself as a magisterium of one. Who are we to argue with your infallible interpretations?

 

[guanophore]

Lets not get over it. Remember the claims of the catholic church;
The popes are the vicars of Christ on Earth. They possess infallibly and yet we such evil for centuries.

Also there is no guarantee that this won’t happen again either.

ja4, I feel it is incumbent upon me to remind you that the purpose of this forum is to help people understand Catholic teaching. You have made it abundantly clear for many months now (to me) that you are not interested in learning about Catholicism. You have stated that you are here to encourage Catholics to question, challenge, and “debunk” their leadership because they have fallen into teaching a false gospel. You have stated that you consider the Sacred Traditions espoused by Catholics to be “speculations of men”.

In this post, you are stating “let’s not get over it” in relation to the inquisition. this indicates to me that you have bitterness and resentment toward the Catholic Church, and that you intend to hold onto those sentiments, to the peril of your own soul.

You also persist in propogating misunderstandings about the gift of infallibility that Jesus gave to the Church. Although this has been explained to you patiently by dozens of members, you continue to represent erroneous understandings of this doctrine.

The forum is not a venue for you to promote your fundamentalist anti-Catholic perspective. I advise against it, since you are attacking Jesus. However, if you wish to do this, you will have to take it to some other venue, as it will not be tolerated here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do you know that the apostles taught these things? Take the mass, all we have in scripture is but a brief description of the Last Supper that does not even come close to how the bread and wine are changed in the body and blood as the catholic church teaches.

Let’s take the first - infant baptism. Consider what the Church fathers wrote about infant baptism and about having received this teaching from the apostles (note Origen especially):

Early Church Fathers on Infant Baptism

---

Polycarp (69-155 AD)

“Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ” (*Martyrdom of Polycarp *9: 3)

Irenaeus

“For He came to save all through means of Himself all, I say, who through Him are born again to God, infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” (*Against Heresies *2:22:4).

“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]” (*Fragment *34 [A.D. 190]).

**Justin Martyr (100 – 166 AD) **

“Many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples since childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (Apology 1: 15).

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“The Church has received from the apostles the custom of administering baptism even to infants. For those who have been entrusted with the secrets of divine mysteries, knew very well that all are tainted with the stain of original sin, which must be washed off by water and spirit” (Commentary on Romans, 5.9).

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (*Homilies on Leviticus *8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (*Commentaries on Romans *5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Conversely, do you have quotes from any fathers forbidding infant baptism?

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2848760]I know this response comes late in the discussion, but I would like to state that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. The Church is infallible.

What do you mean that the church is infallible?

Your Bible points you to the Church. However, by your personal interpretation of the Bible, you explain away those verses so that you do not have to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.

Where is scripture is this commanded that we are to acknowledge the Catholic church?

Thus, you establish yourself as a magisterium of one. Who are we to argue with your infallible interpretations?

I have never made such claims to be infallible. I’m looking at the support catholics give for succession and its not there. You can counter by showing that the church of Rome in the late 1st century or 2nd century was acknowledged by all churches to be the head church and that it had a pope that was vested with authority by Peter. Can you show me something like this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lets not get over it. Remember the claims of the catholic church;
The popes are the vicars of Christ on Earth. They possess infallibly and yet we such evil for centuries.

Also there is no guarantee that this won’t happen again either.

The popes can be the worst scum of the earth, but this would prove they are not impeccable; it would have no impact whatsoever on their infallibility.

Regardless of their personal moral character, no pope has ever formally taught error in matters of faith and morals.

Oh, and your claim that the popes were evil for “centuries” is laughable. We’ve had maybe half a dozen true scoundrels as pope.

If you think otherwise, feel free to make an argument instead of an assertion.

 

[HailMary]

I’m looking at the support catholics give for succession and its not there.

“And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”
Acts 1:24-26

Tell me, pops, why did they “replace” Judas? Since they replaced Judas, would it be too far of a stretch to infer that they (the Apostles) replaced others when they too died?

 

[guanophore]

He did. However did He intended the Roman Catholic church in which there would be one man who would be the supreme head?

Did the apostles themselves acknowlege Peter as the supreme leader of the entire church?

Don’t fall for this, Erich. ja4 has already made up his mind to the contrary, and nothing you can say, demonstrate in scripture, or cite in the early fathers will change his mind. He is just trolling, looking for Catholics weak in their faith or uneducated, and trying to convince people here that the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines, and that the Popes are evil.

 

[guanophore]

This is what Matthew 1:19 says-- And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly.
The question we have to ask is: what would it be that would be a disgrace in this culture for him to think like this? The best explanation would be that he would have thought she committed adultery. Even the New American Bible concurs with this in its footnotes on this verse:
[19] A righteous man: as a devout observer of the Mosaic law, Joseph wished to break his union with someone whom he suspected of gross violation of the law. It is commonly said that the law required him to do so, but the texts usually given in support of that view, e.g., Deut 22:20-21 do not clearly pertain to Joseph’s situation. Unwilling to expose her to shame: the penalty for proved adultery was death by stoning; cf Deut 22:21-23.

it would have been shameful for Mary to violate a vow of chastity to God, just as much as it is for priests to do so today. Such persons deserve the death penalty.

It was only through divine revelation that he was able to change his mind. Remember there was no such thing as an immaculate conception before this and it would be very reasonable to think she had committed adultery.

Yes it is “reasonable to think”. It is also reasonable to think that she was a committed virgin. What you dont seem to realize is that your speculations are on equal par with what you think Catholics “speculate”. t’he only difference is that Catholics have 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition confirming the teachings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

He did. However did He intended the Roman Catholic church in which there would be one man who would be the supreme head?

Yes.

Did the apostles themselves acknowlege Peter as the supreme leader of the entire church?

Yes.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t see this in the scriptures. We don’t find passages where the apostles go to Peter alone to determine what should be done do we?

Also, how did Peter use the “keys” in the NT?

Well, let’s see…first there was that bit in Acts 1 about replacing Judas…none of the other Apostles said a word in disagreement about that…then there was that whole business about letting the Gentiles into the Church…that took a bit more discussion, but it seems that Peter made the right call in the end. Oh, Ananias and Sapphira…do you think they would have thought Peter had any authority?

That may be but it does not require a pope to do this. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a pope in the NT itself. Peter never makes such a claim for himself.

Sure there is…his name is Simon Peter. Peter didn’t claim it for himself and neither did any pope thereafter…the papacy is something that is given to someone under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Perhaps you don’t know scripture that well. Secondly history does not support the idea of a universal leader for the entire church after the apostles died. If anything there were 3 centers of Christianity in the early centuries. It was never Rome as the only supreme head in the beginning.

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Rome

Arguments about the authority of the papacy eventually return to the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and of the See of Rome. Did early Christians recognize this primacy, or was it something that developed only centuries after our Lord’s time and in response to political concerns? These quotations may help you decide.

**Clement of Rome **

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.” (ibid. 58:2, 59:1).

“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (ibid. 63:2).

Clement, Bishop of Rome, intervenes in the affairs of the Church in Corinth and they accept his judgment. Why? Because they accepted the primacy of the Church at Rome.

**Ignatius of Antioch **

“You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

**Hermas **

“Therefore shall you write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty, and Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But you shall read it in this city along with the presbyters who are in charge of the Church” (Vision 2:4:3 [circa A.D. 140]).

**Dionysius **

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . Thus custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Epistle to Soter [Bishop of Rome] 4:23:9 [inter AD. 166-174]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [in church]. Whenever we do read it, we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid. 4:23:11).

(cont.)