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

[Randy_Carson]

**Irenaeus **

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops qf the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid. 3:3:2).

**Cyprian **

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

---

**Optatus **

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas - of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

**Augustine **

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D. 400]).

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [inter A.D. 391-430]).

**Innocent I **

“If cases of greater importance are to be heard, they are, as the synod decrees and as happy custom requires, after episcopal judgment, to be referred to the Apostolic See” (Epistle to Victricius [Bishop of Rouen] 2:3:6 [A.D. 404]).

---

**Peter Chrysologus **

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try these cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the city of Rome” (Epistle to Eutyches 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Which Church was that?

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.

You did not answer the question. If sola scriptura is true, then can’t I interpret the Bible for myself and believe that Jesus “breathed on” the Apostles creating a “God-breathed” Church?

You say no. What Church has the authority to decide our disagreement?

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.

Why would an apostate Church’s opinion matter to you? You don’t accept its authority so why bother to check what it has to say on the matter. This is just one believer to another. I say the Apostles formed a God-breathed Church and I have a verse to prove it.

What do you say about it?

 

[justasking4]

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?

I was not able to find any. However there are many problems with it.

 

[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.

John 16:12-13
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

What truth do you suppose the Holy Spirit led the Apostles into later since Jesus had more He wanted to teach them?

Do you think that doctrine developed under the guidance of the Spirit?

Or was the Bible written as a complete work of systematic theology containing everything that we can know about doctrine?

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.
Randy Carson;
Which Church was that?

Catholic church.

Quote:justasking4
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.
Randy Carson;
You did not answer the question. If sola scriptura is true, then can’t I interpret the Bible for myself and believe that Jesus “breathed on” the Apostles creating a “God-breathed” Church?

Before i can answer this, what is your definition of Sola Scriptura?

Randy Carson;
You say no. What Church has the authority to decide our disagreement?

Not sure what you are asking here. Can you clarify?

Quote:justasking4
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.
Randy Carson;
Why would an apostate Church’s opinion matter to you? You don’t accept its authority so why bother to check what it has to say on the matter. This is just one believer to another. I say the Apostles formed a God-breathed Church and I have a verse to prove it.

What do you say about it?

Bring your verses out and lets see if they say what you think they do.

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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;
John 16:12-13
12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

What truth do you suppose the Holy Spirit led the Apostles into later since Jesus had more He wanted to teach them?

All we have of what Jesus and the apostles taught is to be found only in the scriptures. Now where in scripture did the Spirit guide them into what the mass was to look like? Where do we see any evidence of how a person was to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?

Do you think that doctrine developed under the guidance of the Spirit?

How would we know? What would be the evidence for the guidance of the Spirit?

Or was the Bible written as a complete work of systematic theology containing everything that we can know about doctrine?

The scriptures are sufficent for all that we need to live our lives in Christ.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What do you mean that the church is infallible?

Infallibility

In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

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

How many churches did Jesus build? One. He never said, “I will build my churches.” (cf. Matthew 16:18)

The one Church that Jesus founded has been in continuous existence since the days of the New Testament. It has a name. It is the Catholic Church.

As for acknowledging that Church, there are many verses that direct us to her, but here is just one:

1 Timothy 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It is the Church, not a book, that the Bible itself declares to be the “pillar and foundation” of the truth.

In light of this verse, are we Catholics wrong to listen to the Church?

I have never made such claims to be infallible. I’m looking at the support catholics give for succession and its not there.

I’ll provide biblical evidence in subsequent posts.

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?

The quotes provided in previous posts indicate the primacy of Rome as understood by the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION PROVED FROM SCRIPTURE

Numbers 27:15-23
Moses said to the LORD, “May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” So the LORD said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the LORD. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.” Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.

Deuteronomy 34:9
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.

Matthew 16:18
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus did not say “churches”; he said, “church” – singular. Notice that Jesus did not say, “and on this rock I will build what I must call my loosely-affiliated network of non-denominational fellowships.” He said, “I will build my church.” Each word of that little phrase is packed with implication. We also see in this passage that the Church will never be defeated by Satan.

Matthew 28:18-19
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”

First, notice in the passage known as the “Great Commission”, that the Apostles were commanded to make disciples of “all nations”. How would it have been possible for these Eleven men to travel to every country on earth at a time when travel was slow and difficult? Given that the last of the Apostles died no more than 60 years or so after the Ascension of Jesus, would there have been time for them to physically visit every nation on earth to fulfill His command? No! Clearly, the instruction of Jesus only makes sense if it was given to the Apostles and those who would take the place of the Apostles after their deaths. Those who took the place of the Apostles would have to have the same Apostolic Authority given to the Apostles handed down to them. Thus, the “Great Commission” would be fulfilled over time through the missionary efforts of a greatly expanded Church.

Second, how could He fulfill this promise if the disciples themselves did not live until the end of the age? Again, how could Jesus remain with the church until the end of the age if the Apostolic Authority of the church ended with the death of the last Apostle? Clearly, Jesus must have intended that the apostles would be succeeded by other men who are still with us and will live until the end of the age. Jesus can be with the Apostles through their successors who also have the same Apostolic Authority by means of Apostolic Succession.

John 14:16-17
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”

Does it make sense for Jesus to say “forever” if He anticipated that the Holy Spirit would depart from the church with the death of the last Apostle? No! The Spirit would remain with the Apostles and, through those who succeeded them, with the church forever.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Acts 1:15-26
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Note that the King James Version says, “his bishoprick let another take” in verse 20.

Acts 14:13-15
The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you.”

Acts 14:23
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.

Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Romans 16:7
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

1 Corinthians 12:27-31
Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts.

From this, we can see that God established the position of Apostle in the Church along with that of prophet and teacher among others. We saw earlier that Jesus did not command his disciples to “go, therefore, write books, and let everyone decide for themselves what is true”. No! The mission of the Apostles, the mission of the Church, was to teach, to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, etc. Making disciples of all nations would take time. Therefore, God established the office of Apostle in the church, but He never says anything about this being for the first couple of centuries only. He never says “until you can get the New Testament written and canonized.” The Church is still with us, so there must still be successors of the Apostles in the Church of Jesus Christ, and these current successors must still have the same authority that was entrusted to the original Twelve and passed down as was noted earlier. This is called, “Apostolic Succession.”

Ephesians 2:19-21
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ephesians 4:11-13
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

1 Timothy 3:1-13
Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

“Overseer” was traditionally understood to mean “bishop”.

1 Timothy 4:13-14
Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

1 Timothy 5:17-22
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are five generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Those who came before Paul and instructed him, 2. Paul himself, 3. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 4. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 5. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

---

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

---

2 Peter 1:12-15
****So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. ****

---

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure?

 

[guanophore]

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?

This is a Protestant error. Catholics do not espouse the “alone” theologies. Bible alone, Jesus alone, Peter alone. It is all a misapprehension of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus taught them to function as one Body, and to love and forgive one another, so that they could lay down their lives for each other. The Apostles worked together in unison, just as their successors do today.

Also, how did Peter use the "keys" in the NT?

This has already been explained on other threads, ja4. If I really thought you were interested or teachable, I would go into some depth on this. But since I know you have already made up your mind that the successor of Peter is a bunch of bunk, I will not succumb to your trolling.

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.

It seems to me somewhat arrogant to me that you put yourself in the position to decide what requires a pope and what does not. However, by this statement, you confirm my point above, that you have already made up your mind that Peter has no special status appointed by Christ, and that you cannot recognize due to your blinders the evidence that exists in the NT.

 

[mercygate]

This is a Protestant error. Catholics do not espouse the “alone” theologies. Bible alone, Jesus alone, Peter alone. It is all a misapprehension of Jesus’ teaching. Jesus taught them to function as one Body, and to love and forgive one another, so that they could lay down their lives for each other. The Apostles worked together in unison, just as their successors do today.

This has already been explained on other threads, ja4. If I really thought you were interested or teachable, I would go into some depth on this. But since I know you have already made up your mind that the successor of Peter is a bunch of bunk, I will not succumb to your trolling.

It seems to me somewhat arrogant to me that you put yourself in the position to decide what requires a pope and what does not. However, by this statement, you confirm my point above, that you have already made up your mind that Peter has no special status appointed by Christ, and that you cannot recognize due to your blinders the evidence that exists in the NT.

And so ja4 must have recourse to such statements as "if you really knew Scripture . . .

The thrashing is exhausting to watch. How can you believe the Church got it “right” in canonizing the New Testament but doesn’t get it “right” in interpreting the Testament it wrote and ratified? – especially since the historical record is unbroken and the delineation of the doctrines ja4 kicks against is all over the writings of the early Church, continuing on throughout the ages.

 

[guanophore]

justasking4:

It derived from the very nature of the scriptrues themselves. What other foundation is inspired-inerrant?

"Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:20-23

Can you deny that Jesus, who is God, breathed upon them? They are also Theopneustos. The Church is inspired and inerrant because it is God breathed, just as the scriptures.

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.

Yes, just as the Church, founded upon the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus as the cornerstone, is from God, and inerrant, inspired, and infallible. Two threads. Both Sacred, equal, and preserved by the HS.

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?

Do you have a source that says that Jesus is not God? Or that Jesus did not actually breathed on the Apostles? Or that they did not comprise the Church?

It only goes to show that there are many facts about your own family history about which you have never been exposed. I know that you will not accept this testimony, but I write this for those who are reading the threads that may be open to the truth.

 

[guanophore]

All we have of what Jesus and the apostles taught is to be found only in the scriptures.

This is a Protestant error, ja4. In it, you deny the authority that Christ gave to His Apostles.

Now where in scripture did the Spirit guide them into what the mass was to look like?

I think this is a good question, but it belongs in another thread. I would make one, but I have finally realized that you are not here to learn about Catholicism, but only to debunk what you believe is a false church full of false doctrines. This being the case, why waste energy talking about the Divine Liturgy?

Where do we see any evidence of how a person was to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?

We don’t see this anywhere. For the sake of those reading, I will say that it is the HS that changes the elements into the Body and the Blood. this is clearly taught in the scriptures and those who are willing to see it can do so.

How would we know? What would be the evidence for the guidance of the Spirit?

There is no evidence anywhere that will convince you, ja4, since you have already made up your mind that the Catholic Church long since abandonded biblical teaching in favor of the speculations of men.

The scriptures are sufficent for all that we need to live our lives in Christ.

This being the case, ja4, why are you here on the forum? SInce you already have what you need, what brings you here? Clearly you have an agenda, a goal, or a need. Since it is not to learn about Catholicism, which you have already rejected, what then?

 

[po18guy]

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.

I guess you view the belief and practice of Paul, Peter, the eleven other Apostles, the early church fathers, and every succeeding generation of Christians to this day as being something there is “no support for”.

Dunno what on earth you would call “support”, considering that Peter and Paul, James and Stephen (and many others) all died for it and the church has staunchly defended it for 1,974 years???. To me, that would appear to be support. All practiced the Eucharist. We have clearly explained what we do and why we do it.

“Biblical faith” is pure Protestantism. I am not Protestant, choosing rather obedience to Christ in the plain meaning of Scripture. He commanded to eat His Body and drink His Blood. I do it.

If you do not eat His Body and drink His Blood, as Christ commanded, isn’t He a stumbling block to you? You see and believe only bread and wine at commuunion. We see and believe Christ. Why did Christ institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper? Memory? Did He fear that the twelve would forget about Him? How could you forget the Son of the Living God? There must have been another purpose: Yes, the eating and drinking is done in memory, but its substance has become His Body and Blood. That’s why we do it-to “have life within” us.

Lutherans-the first Protestants, believe fervently in this-as do Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians. What has been lost in those churches who no longer, or never did believe it?

Since we are apparently incompetent to explain, I would suggest asking those other faith traditions on these same forums why they continue to do it-or have you already?

 

[andzy]

All we have of what Jesus and the apostles taught is to be found only in the scriptures.

The scriptures are sufficent for all that we need to live our lives in Christ.

Your answers keep confusing me: you say that only in the Scripture can we look for Christian teachings, but then you also say that the Scriptures don’t say that specifically.
I have been asking you this question three times since about 150 posts ago, but haven’t been able to get an answer from you:
**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?
**Please see post #201 to remind you the “history” of this question.
(I’m not looking for a long philosophical answer, but a simple one, for example, yes, no, sometimes when…, or something like that).
Appreciate your answer!

 

[po18guy]

What do you mean that the church is infallible? Where is scripture is this commanded that we are to acknowledge the Catholic church? 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?

I’m bailing. Anyway, I cannot seriously consider anything a “Protestant” says, because “Protestant” does not appear in the bible. It has no scriptural support.

 

[Erich]

That may be but it does not require a pope to do this.

JustAsking (or should that be JustArguing),

The Bible nowhere mentions the word “Christmas” or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn’t arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for the two key feasts.

It is Christ’s visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.

As the article Is the Church Visible or Invisible? points out, only a visible, authoritative Church could have set in place the pillars that would support Christian belief and practice through the ages. Your assignment, should you choose to accept it, is to find at least five examples.

Two down, three to go

 

[justasking4]

Your answers keep confusing me: you say that only in the Scripture can we look for Christian teachings, but then you also say that the Scriptures don’t say that specifically.
I have been asking you this question three times since about 150 posts ago, but haven’t been able to get an answer from you:
**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?
**Please see post #201 to remind you the “history” of this question.
(I’m not looking for a long philosophical answer, but a simple one, for example, yes, no, sometimes when…, or something like that).
Appreciate your answer!

No it does not say it like this.

Are there other inspired-inerrant that claims in and of themselves to be “God-breathed” as the scriptures are? If you claim Sacred Tradition please give me a specific example and where it says this.

 

[justasking4]

Erich;2850639]JustAsking (or should that be JustArguing),

The Bible nowhere mentions the word “Christmas” or the date for Christmas. The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was a decision of the Church. (The feast didn’t arise all by itself.) Much the same can be said for Easter as a feast separate from the other Sundays which commemorate the Resurrection. It was a visible Church, headed by a definitely locatable pope, that settled the dates of observance for the two key feasts.

It is Christ’s visible Church, its reach extending into the secular realm, which has given us the Gregorian calendar, named after Pope Gregory XIII.

Do you believe that the way the catholic church aligned itself with the secular authorties in the past centuries was what Christ intended for His church? Do you seriously believe that Christ intended His church to have inquistions that lasted for so long the resulted in the death and torture of so many people?

Two down, three to go