Why do you think Jesus gave authority to the Apostles that would expire on their deaths?JoyToBeCatholic said:
I don’t presume to have the mind of God. Why do you think He gave authority to the Apostles that would continue past their deaths? What is insufficient about Scripture that we need ongoing revelation or authority? What truths are contained in the Catholic teachings that are essential to our faith that are not already contained in the most original Apostolic teachings preserved in Scripture? And if simpletons were capable of grasping and submitting to Jesus’ good news as it fell from His lips, why does anyone think that something additional is needed today in order to gain salvation?
Like with parents instructing their children in the hopes to pass on family tradition, the children sometimes go astray. They were hopeful. Jesus prophesied that there would be error amongst the church.
Three things.
Jesus Himself shows scripture to be insufficient. He tells the Apostles to take irresolvable issues “to the Church”.
Dear, I was not asking for some infallible pronouncement, only your opinion!
I will give you my opinion on this. I think He did this because He established a Church, which He intended to be His Body on earth. He intended that all members of His Body be nourished and guided by that Church, of which He is the Head. He knows the hearts of people, and knew that they needed people in authority to guide them.
We do not need ongoing Revelation and Authority because Scripture is insufficient, we need it because humans are insufficient. The Revelation is to lead us into all truth. We are falling and finite creatures, and cannot find the Truth without divine intervention.
The manner in which the writings are to be understood. You can easily see this with the plethora of interpretations. For example, I am in dialogue with a forum member who believes that baptism has nothing to do with water. When I imagine him in the room with the 12, I see them all appalled that he should even propose such a preposterous notion. However, he has been trained in a very anti-Catholic, anti-Sacramental tradition, so he cannot possibly accept any “rituals” as valid.
Sacred Tradition is not “additional” to the Words of Christ, but part of them, they proceed from the same Source, the written and the unwritten Word. Those that reject the Sacred Tradition reject part of Jesus good news, and that is where the revelation begins to become diluted.
Yes, and He also prophesied that He Himself would prevent that error from destroying the Church.
Indeed. One of the things I have always been curious about…why didn’t Jesus appoint another Apostle to replace Judas when He was with the Apostles for 40 days prior to His ascension? Why have Peter do it later?If not explicit apostolic succession was implicit- after Jesus’s death ,resurrection and ascension it was the apostles- not the rank and file believers that controlled the Church- A sucessor to judas was appointed by lot- if a replacement for an apostle was not necessary why was he appointed and why was he called an apostle also? Apostolic sucession- modern term- would not be a term they would use.there are plenty of terms and doctrines we take for granted that would not be familiar at all to those who composed the NT. Trinity ,Hypostatic union,redemptive suffering…all terms that evolved in the course of time-implied? certainly but not written out.
Because Pete was in charge and the Lord wanted everyone to know it!!
Scripture itself reveals, in at least two places, (John 21:25 and Luke 3:18) that it is incomplete. Scripture, or any written document for that matter, requires proper interpretation so that the mind of the author who inspired it may be known. Otherwise, individual (or private) interpretation leads to error and false conclusions. How many times have you been confused by the directions in an owner’s manual? However, if the writer of that manual is there to explain, the confusion passes away.
Sorry, I knew I shouldn’t have posted so late!
Does Apostolic authority cease after the death of the Apostles if their teachings have been preserved?
I don’t think they do. I see a lot of distortion amongst Catholic beliefs. Again, I don’t think an infallible church solves the problem of fallen humanity. I think conversion is the answer - and I don’t think we need 2000 years worth of evolving and complicated teachings and guidance to bring one to it.
THere are also many interpretations (accepted teachings and discarded church teachings) amongst Catholics. It isn’t b/c the truth hasn’t been revealed but rather b/c not everyone is willing to understand it or obey it. I believe God enables us to understand what is necessary, according that what we are able - when we are properly disposed for it. Not everyone was able or willing to understand Jesus in His own time either, and not for lack of a church to interpret.
But how do we know this? How does the average person determine those high claims of the CC to be true? Many believe the purpose of Scripture was to be that rule of measure. Yet Catholics say Scripture is too complicated to be that rule of measure, or at least, we can’t know how to measure with it - that is the job of the church. So, that means there is no way to measure the church. This is problematic.
But it depends on how you define church.
It may not contain absolutely everything that Jesus did or said, but Scripture also reveals that what is contained therein is sufficient. And I have yet to have heard of any extra-biblical teachings of Christ that the church has revealed.
Really? Do you think the written word confuses, or could it be that sinful man distorts it? What do you think God prefers: for man to lay aside his ego and love for sin so he can embrace God’s Word, or for man to just follow what he is being taught in the hopes that it will save him?
My problem with the claims of the church regarding Apostolic Succession have nothing to do with extra-biblical terminology. I don’t have a problem with the appointment of religious leaders or any such thing - I just don’t believe that it guarantees faithfulness.If not explicit apostolic succession was implicit- after Jesus’s death ,resurrection and ascension it was the apostles- not the rank and file believers that controlled the Church- A sucessor to judas was appointed by lot- if a replacement for an apostle was not necessary why was he appointed and why was he called an apostle also? Apostolic sucession- modern term- would not be a term they would use.there are plenty of terms and doctrines we take for granted that would not be familiar at all to those who composed the NT. Trinity ,Hypostatic union,redemptive suffering…all terms that evolved in the course of time-implied? certainly but not written out.
I don’t think the two can be separated from one another. In fact, I think it is the Apostolic Authority that is responsible for the Teachings being preserved. If this were not the case, I don’t think they would have been able to close the canon. Whenever there was a question about the doctrine, it was settled as Jesus directed (take it to the Church). It was the bishops/teaching authority appointed by the Apostles that settled the disputes over doctrine.
Perhaps not, but it does provide an immuntable standard to which that fallen humanity can confidently look for guidance.Nick_Jones said:
I agree, but how shall we be converted without hearing, and how shall we hear without a preacher? And how will conversion be authentic if the word being preached is not authentic? Yes, there are as many different individual understandings as there are belly buttons. But the Doctrine delivered “once for all” through Jesus Christ to the Apostles does not change.Nick_Jones said:
I cant argue with that!Nick_Jones said:
Yes.Nick_Jones said:
I suppose this as individual as the belly buttons too. For myself, it was the study of historical theology and the early fathers. For another, I am sure otherwise.Nick_Jones said:
It is not too complicated, but neither was it meant to be separated from the communion by which, and for which it was written. The authors would be appalled to see what has happened by the separation.Nick_Jones said:
Yes, I think this is right on. For Catholics, it is the bishops together in union with the Successor of Peter.Nick_Jones said:
I think this is the beginning of the New Covenant Church authority.
No, it doesn’t. It says, when all else doesn’t work, take your issues to the Church to be resolved. It doesn’t say, look it up in Scriptures. It specifically says, take it to the Church.
This is what I mean. You believe what the CC teaches about this and that is why it is clear to you, but it is clear to me that this is not what it means.
You are curently in the church which exhibits the ultimate expression of Christian faith. The only church that traces directly back to Christ. Please pray about the situation, and I know you are. Ple3ase tell us what specific part of the CC you have trouble with.
The written word needs proper interpretation to be correctly understood. Such private interpretation of scripture has lead to thousands of fractures in Christianity. They ALL can’t be right! So, Christ left Peter in charge, and we have the Pope, who is the rock of stabillity. Sola Scriptura churches are built on sand, as they have no teaching authority, no roots back to Christ.
This is a very interesting perception of history. Apostolic succession is nothing to be “bragged about” any more than any of the other graces of God. However, I am curious, all those bishops that can trace their lineage back to the Apostles, do you think they are caught up in some sort of group hallucination?Old_Scholar said:
Yes, Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, as do the 22 other Rites of the Catholic Church that are not Roman.Mannyfit75 said:
Amen. History shows Apostolic Succession