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

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;2852550]

Gee, does it strike anyone as ironic that Protestants all want to claim that they are individually led by the Spirit (based on a false understanding of John 17)

What do you mean by protestants being led by the HS here?

What does John 17 have to do with this?

while they deny that the Church built by Christ can be led that way?

A problem i see with this is that how do you determine this at any given time? Was the catholic church being led by the HS when the inquistions were happening?

Why are they infallible in their personal interpretations that the Spirit allegedly leads them to but the Church responsible for the entire flock is simply on its own and prone to error? (Of course, they will be very careful to avoid claiming to be infallible, but the fact is that none of them thinks that his interpretation of the Bible is in error, and they are all quite sure that other denominations “just don’t get it.”)

Thats human nature. Don’t you think this is also true among catholics you know personally? Do all of you agree and believe exactly the same things on what your church teaches?

I have even seen here on these formns different opinions from catholics on stuff i’ve read.

Finally, how is it that the Baptist “Bible Only” believer who is led by the Holy Spirit determines from his study of the word of God that infants should not be baptized and that baptism is purely symbolic and not regenerative while a Lutheran “Bible Only” believer determines from his study and prayer that infants should be baptized and that it regenerates the soul?

I think these kinds of things happen for a number of reasons. One is that we don’t have enough information from scripture and yet we are forced to draw conclusions. Some also fail to do an adequate job of studying. Some are biased by their upbringing.

Does the Holy Spirit teach contradictory doctrines to men of God in different denominations?

No. However i think my previous responce may help to explain these things. Another is that for reasons unknown to us the Spirit has chosen not to give us a complete and exhaustive knowledge.

 

[Randy_Carson]

BTW-

Is it just me or did you sort of sail right past my quote from Irenaeus listing the popes in a letter dating from the late second century?

You asked when and where the succession of Peter was mentioned so I thought you might have some thoughts on this evidence…

 

[justasking4]

Good point. Being exiled to the island of Patmos, he may not have been aware of who the pope was after Peter. That would explain the silence, too, I suppose.

Did you read this on the Vatican’s website? I didn’t think so.

But let me ask you this: so what?

Suppose that we have an incomplete or imperfect list of popes. How does this negate the validity of Apostolic Succession? One pope succeeded another whether we know his name or not.

It would not necessarily negate it. However i think there are other problems for it from a historical perspective. Early church history does not support the idea of a universal and recognized leader of the entire church in the late and 2 centuries. For one thing the church was to spread out and fragmented.

 

[justasking4]

BTW-

Is it just me or did you sort of sail right past my quote from Irenaeus listing the popes in a letter dating from the late second century?

You asked when and where the succession of Peter was mentioned so I thought you might have some thoughts on this evidence…

i looked at and it would require me to study it before i could give a opinion.

 

[Joab_Anias]

This post was taken from another thread where it was off topic.

Originally Posted by justasking4
If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

It is in scripture but Jesus didn’t found scripture. He founded a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit as the Pillar and Foundation of all Truth (1Tim 3:15).

This may be helpful:

The Marks of the Church

and

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic
Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).

 

[justasking4]

Okay, JA…how many people do you claim the Catholic Church killed in the Inquisition, hmmm?

From 1476 to 1834 probably between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed in the Spainish inquisition. Keep in mind the inquisitions went on for centuries.

 

[justasking4]

It is in scripture but Jesus didn’t found scripture. He founded a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit as the Pillar and Foundation of all Truth (1Tim 3:15).

This may be helpful:

The Marks of the Church

and

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic
Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).

So you agree that its not mentioned then?

 

[Joab_Anias]

So you agree that its not mentioned then?

Read and ascend to the teaching of these sites.

Apostolic Succession

and

The Marks of the Church

and

The Church: A Biblical Portrait - A New Testament Apologetic
Jesus Christ preached a Reign or Kingdom, the Kingdom of God (or of heaven).

It is clearly in scripture if read with the same heremenutics as the true Church of Christ which is just as the apostles and Jesus himself read and interpreted scripture. Its foolish to believe anyones interpretation except the authors.

Are Catholics into the Bible?

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 (Col 3:14). But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

• apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.266 (Cf. UR 2; LG 14; CIC, can. 205).

IV. THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC

857 The Church is apostolic because she is founded on the apostles, in three ways:

• she was and remains built on "the foundation of the Apostles,"362 Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14. the witnesses chosen and sent on mission by Christ himself;363 Cf. Mt 28:16-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:7-8; Gal 1:1; etc. - with the help of the Spirit dwelling in her, the Church keeps and hands on the teaching,364 Cf. Acts 2:42. the “good deposit,” the salutary words she has heard from the apostles;365 Cf. 2 Tim 1:13-14.
• she continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ’s return, through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, “assisted by priests, in union with the successor of Peter, the Church’s supreme pastor”:366

You are the eternal Shepherd
who never leaves his flock untended.
Through the apostles
you watch over us and protect us always.
You made them shepherds of the flock
to share in the work of your Son. . . .367

The Apostles’ mission

858 Jesus is the Father’s Emissary. From the beginning of his ministry, he "called to him those whom he desired; . . . . And he appointed twelve, whom also he named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach."368 Mk 3:13-14. From then on, they would also be his “emissaries” (Greek apostoloi). In them, Christ continues his own mission: "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you."369 Jn 20:21; cf. 13:20; 17:18. The apostles’ ministry is the continuation of his mission; Jesus said to the Twelve: "he who receives you receives me."370 Mt 10:40; cf. Lk 10:16.

859 Jesus unites them to the mission he received from the Father. As “the Son can do nothing of his own accord,” but receives everything from the Father who sent him, so those whom Jesus sends can do nothing apart from him,371 Jn 5:19, 30; cf. Jn 15:5. from whom they received both the mandate for their mission and the power to carry it out. Christ’s apostles knew that they were called by God as “ministers of a new covenant,” “servants of God,” “ambassadors for Christ,” "servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God."372 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 5:20; 1 Cor 4:1.

 

[guanophore]

The teaching of the Apostles regarding this matter is recorded in the Didache, an early writing that tells us much about the beliefs and practice of the Early Church.
As I have asked before: Do you believe the Bible is a comprehensive work of systematic theology?

ja4 is an uneducated fundamentalist. It is very possible that he does not know what a systematic theology is.

Does it contain all of the prayers and liturgical norms for each of the sacraments?

I can assure you that he does not believe in sacraments, or liturgy. He considers these portions of the Apostolic Tradition to be “speculations of men” and “false teachings”.

or were these things being taught by the actual practice of the Church long before the first word of the New Testament was ever written.

He believes that everything the Apostles taught is recorded in scripture.

IOW, mass was being celebrated, baptisms were being performed for at least 20 years before the first book of the New Testament was penned. Clearly, the teaching of the Apostles was being handed on orally long before anything about baptism was ever put on paper or parchment.

Yes, but then “heresies and false teachings crept into the church.”

Later, when the scriptures were written, they were not an attempt to capture EVERYTHING that the Apostles had handed on…many things were simply passed over in silence precisely because an authoritative Church was still teaching orally and by its practice those things which the Apostles had taught from the beginning.

Well said, Randy, but justasking4 believes that the totality of the apostolic teaching was committed to the scriptures. Further, if HE does not “see” it, it does not exist. Therefore, if you pointed him to any scriptures that were foundational to the Mass, he would not believe it.

We would know that the Church is being led by the Spirit because Jesus promised that this would be the case.

I think you are letting personal water into the wind, Randy:
"justasking4:

The scriptures do warn of false teachers in the church itself. There was no promise given by Christ that this would not happen.

ja4 has been apprised of these teachings repeatedly on many threads, and cannot be pursuaded.

Where does the bible claim to be “sufficient”? You’re not going to pin your hopes to 2 Timothy 3:16, are you?

The NT is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else is. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant. From it we can have everything we need for salvation. It actually makes this claim as you may know.

 

[guanophore]

From 1476 to 1834 probably between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed in the Spainish inquisition. Keep in mind the inquisitions went on for centuries.

ja4, are you using deaths that occurred through the inquisitions to “prove” that there is no such thing as apostolic succession? Did you think the Catholic position is that Apostolic Succession prevents people from individual sin? I think this is just another strawman.

 

[andzy]

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?

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.

Then why do you base your arguments on the premise that the Bible says it is the ONLY such foundation? You yourself just agreed, that it is unbiblical.

Now, let’s try find what other inspired foundation for Christian teachings could there be (shouldn’t be impossible to do, if we don’t believe in Dan Brown type of secreted “Christianity”). For starters, we could take a look in this very site regarding the Apostolic Tradition. You have already been given Scripture references which exhort us to follow the Tradition and how the Church (not the Scripture) is the pillar of the Truth.

P.S. I’d appreciate, if in future you wouldn’t argue from the assumption that the Bible is the only authority, as you yourself admitted that it’s unbiblical.

 

[andzy]

justasking4;2852729:

From 1476 to 1834 probably between 3,000 and 5,000 people were executed in the Spainish inquisition. Keep in mind the inquisitions went on for centuries.

ja4, are you using deaths that occurred through the inquisitions to “prove” that there is no such thing as apostolic succession? Did you think the Catholic position is that Apostolic Succession prevents people from individual sin? I think this is just another strawman.

Indeed, how does 5,000 / ( 1834-1476 ) / 12 = 1 person on average executed per month during the Spanish Inquisition “prove” or “disprove” the Apostolic Succession?
You wouldn’t say that Sola Scriptura is incorrect just because the Reformers (who claimed to be guided by the Scripture alone) had their own often violent and fatal “inquisitions”, would you?

The question was: why isn’t it mentioned in the Scripture. Basically two answers have been given:

1. it doesn’t have to be in the Scripture (since the Scripture isn’t the only source of doctrine and practice, as you yourself admitted);
2. yet it actually is in the Scripture (St. Peter appointed by Christ to overview and tend to His Church, bishops passing on their office by laying of hands, the Church being the pillar of the Truth, etc, etc.).

 

[po18guy]

This is another strawman, ja4. You have been told repeatedly that the Teachings of the Apostles, inerrantly preserve in the Catholic Church, are infallible and inerrant. You have also been told that individuals within the Church who departed from those teachings and fell into sins are not considered infallible or inerrant. Inerrancy does not equal impeccability.

However, I have grown weary of this inquisition strawman, and now that I am convinced you are not here to learn but to criticize and attempt to turn Catholics away from their faith, I will not try to educate you any longer.

It looks almost like Jack Chick and his hate mongers have launched a “squadron” of Prot Bulls to attack the RCC. From several different users, I see the same nonsense, failure to listen or converse, condescension, and derision of Peter and Mary. And then, when their OSAS/SS/SF house of cards collapses on them, the ol" Inquisition card comes out. They seem to know better than to hammer on the Crusades, because they don’t pray facing east 5 times a day. They certainly do increase our apologetic abilites.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that their faith is thin to almost non-existant, unless of course, they can read it first. Then, they’ll believe and not a minute before. We tried, but it’s up to the Holy Spirit now.

Christ’s peace to all.

 

[mercygate]

ja4, are you using deaths that occurred through the inquisitions to “prove” that there is no such thing as apostolic succession? Did you think the Catholic position is that Apostolic Succession prevents people from individual sin? I think this is just another strawman.

Not a straw man: a red herring.

And be sure you don’t tell ja4 that we STILL have the Inquisition, but it is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Church still publishes warnings against theologicans who presume to teach contrary to the Faith and sometimes restricts them.

Now let’s get off this rabbit trail and back to the topic of Apostolic Succession.

 

[mercygate]

Then why do you base your arguments on the premise that the Bible says it is the ONLY such foundation? You yourself just agreed, that it is unbiblical.

Now, let’s try find what other inspired foundation for Christian teachings could there be (shouldn’t be impossible to do, if we don’t believe in Dan Brown type of secreted “Christianity”). For starters, we could take a look in this very site regarding the Apostolic Tradition. You have already been given Scripture references which exhort us to follow the Tradition and how the Church (not the Scripture) is the pillar of the Truth.

P.S. I’d appreciate, if in future you wouldn’t argue from the assumption that the Bible is the only authority, as you yourself admitted that it’s unbiblical.

The problem with the idea that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is in the inherent problem of the written word. Catholics are fond of citing the “30,000 denomination problem.” Even if it’s only one-thousand denominations, you have “Bible Christians” interpreting the Scriptures differently.

Leaving out the Catholics for the moment, just look at the squabbles among Protestants over OSAS, infant baptism, baptism by immersion . . .

The Book CANNOT interpret itself. Different books of the Book illuminate one another (although you get a lot of kicking and screaming from Protestants when Catholics use Luke 22:22 to illuminate Mt. 16:18) but it cannot interpret itself. It is ink on paper. That is why the promise that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth” was made TO THE ELEVEN. These are the men Christ prayed would be “one” as He and the Father are one.

If an individual feels guided into a “truth” that is inconsistent with the teaching of the eleven – who were commissioned to “teach” in Mt. 28:20 – then the Apostolic teaching trumps the individual. It is for this reason that Paul went up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles who were there. He boasts that the eye-witnesses of the resurrection did not ask him to change any of his teaching: that he was preaching the same gospel.

IOW: Even Paul, with his great personal revelation from Christ Himself, is affirmed by the Church. To teach outside the teaching of the Apostles is to teach a false gospel.

Apostolic Succession protects “the Book” from false interpretations of false “spirits” and false prophets, who would pollute the Gospel.

 

[po18guy]

ja4 is an uneducated fundamentalist. It is very possible that he does not know what a systematic theology is.
I can assure you that he does not believe in sacraments, or liturgy. He considers these portions of the Apostolic Tradition to be “speculations of men” and “false teachings”.
He believes that everything the Apostles taught is recorded in scripture.
Yes, but then “heresies and false teachings crept into the church.”
Well said, Randy, but justasking4 believes that the totality of the apostolic teaching was committed to the scriptures. Further, if HE does not “see” it, it does not exist. Therefore, if you pointed him to any scriptures that were foundational to the Mass, he would not believe it.
** I think you are letting personal water into the wind, Randy**:
ja4 has been apprised of these teachings repeatedly on many threads, and cannot be pursuaded.

You’re killing me!

When the Son of Man returns, will he find any faith?

 

[guanophore]

Then why do you base your arguments on the premise that the Bible says it is the ONLY such foundation? You yourself just agreed, that it is unbiblical.

Now, let’s try find what other inspired foundation for Christian teachings could there be (shouldn’t be impossible to do, if we don’t believe in Dan Brown type of secreted “Christianity”). For starters, we could take a look in this very site regarding the Apostolic Tradition. You have already been given Scripture references which exhort us to follow the Tradition and how the Church (not the Scripture) is the pillar of the Truth.

P.S. I’d appreciate, if in future you wouldn’t argue from the assumption that the Bible is the only authority, as you yourself admitted that it’s unbiblical.

Sadly I think you are spraying personal water into a stiff breeze here, andzy. Justasking4 is not open to any study or search of this kind. After 6 months of attempting to provide him with history and Church Teachings, I finally had to accept that he is intractible. He does not accept the Apostolic Teachings, unless he can see them in the Bible. Many of the Teachings that are in the Bible he cannot see. He is so antiCatholic that he is unable to look at anything from another point of view.

If what you say is true, then this would be a false gospel since Paul was totally unaware of the many doctrines in the catholic church.

The scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. How does a catholic go about applying this principle in their church today?

(scripture)

Its all we have. Anything else is mere specualtions and its not wise to build doctrines on speculations. You need facts to show and those facts don’t exist. Thats just the way it is. What you must do is be on guard against false teachers in your own church.

He considers the Sacred Traditions as “mere speculations”. He believes that the Catholic Church is teaching a “false gospel”, and that our leadership has strayed from the pure gospel.

 

[justasking4]

andzy;2853564]Then why do you base your arguments on the premise that the Bible says it is the ONLY such foundation? You yourself just agreed, that it is unbiblical.

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?

Now, let’s try find what other inspired foundation for Christian teachings could there be (shouldn’t be impossible to do, if we don’t believe in Dan Brown type of secreted “Christianity”). For starters, we could take a look in this very site regarding the Apostolic Tradition. You have already been given Scripture references which exhort us to follow the Tradition and how the Church (not the Scripture) is the pillar of the Truth.

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

P.S. I’d appreciate, if in future you wouldn’t argue from the assumption that the Bible is the only authority, as you yourself admitted that it’s unbiblical.

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.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;

Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore
ja4, are you using deaths that occurred through the inquisitions to “prove” that there is no such thing as apostolic succession? Did you think the Catholic position is that Apostolic Succession prevents people from individual sin? I think this is just another strawman.
mercygate;

Not a straw man: a red herring.

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?

guanophore
And be sure you don’t tell ja4 that we STILL have the Inquisition, but it is now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Church still publishes warnings against theologicans who presume to teach contrary to the Faith and sometimes restricts them.

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

mercygate;
Now let’s get off this rabbit trail and back to the topic of Apostolic Succession.

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.

 

[justasking4]

The problem with the idea that the Bible is the sole rule of faith is in the inherent problem of the written word. Catholics are fond of citing the “30,000 denomination problem.” Even if it’s only one-thousand denominations, you have “Bible Christians” interpreting the Scriptures differently.

Leaving out the Catholics for the moment, just look at the squabbles among Protestants over OSAS, infant baptism, baptism by immersion . . .

The Book CANNOT interpret itself. Different books of the Book illuminate one another (although you get a lot of kicking and screaming from Protestants when Catholics use Luke 22:22 to illuminate Mt. 16:18) but it cannot interpret itself. It is ink on paper. That is why the promise that the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth” was made TO THE ELEVEN. These are the men Christ prayed would be “one” as He and the Father are one.

If an individual feels guided into a “truth” that is inconsistent with the teaching of the eleven – who were commissioned to “teach” in Mt. 28:20 – then the Apostolic teaching trumps the individual. It is for this reason that Paul went up to Jerusalem to confer with the Apostles who were there. He boasts that the eye-witnesses of the resurrection did not ask him to change any of his teaching: that he was preaching the same gospel.

IOW: Even Paul, with his great personal revelation from Christ Himself, is affirmed by the Church. To teach outside the teaching of the Apostles is to teach a false gospel.

Apostolic Succession protects “the Book” from false interpretations of false “spirits” and false prophets, who would pollute the Gospel.

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.