T
TriuneUnity
Guest
One who subscribes unconditionally to the Lutheran Confessions contained in the Book of Concord, as a true exposition of the teaching of Scripture.
If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 3
- Status
C
celticcrusader
Guest
which branch of the Lutheran Church do you belong to ? ELCA,M/S Bretheren?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
LCMS.
C
celticcrusader
Guest
now if you believe that papal infalibility was not passed down , how can you believe that the power to consecrate bread & wine was passed down? selective power transfer?
C
celticcrusader
Guest
also again what part of the mass is a problem for you?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Not sure the context of your question?
The two are not related (papal infallibility and consecration). The consecration of the bread and wine is affected by Jesus’ promise given at the Last Supper, and the Word of God as given in the words of institution.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
The work of the Mass as a sacrifice for the sins of those assembled there via the eucharist and the “treasury of merit”; The buying and selling of Masses; private Masses; the Mass being applied for the remission of souls in purgatory…to name a few things.
R
Robbinson
Guest
TriuneUnity
One scriptural evidence of apostolic succesion (which certainly got me thinking) was the replacement of Judas with another apostle to fill his office. Acts 1:24-25 (Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen
1:25
to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” )
This is a clear example of apostolic succession in the New Testatement. Admittedly, this was an example limited to replacement of an apostle with another who walked with Jesus - so some might/would object to extending this concept to apostolic succesion beyond the lifetime of those who walked with Christ. But I think that argument falls down in that Paul was made an “apostle” well after Jesus death and resurrection and he was not one who walked in the way during Jesus liftime on earth.
Somthing to think about.
Blessings,
Brian
One scriptural evidence of apostolic succesion (which certainly got me thinking) was the replacement of Judas with another apostle to fill his office. Acts 1:24-25 (Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen
1:25
to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” )
This is a clear example of apostolic succession in the New Testatement. Admittedly, this was an example limited to replacement of an apostle with another who walked with Jesus - so some might/would object to extending this concept to apostolic succesion beyond the lifetime of those who walked with Christ. But I think that argument falls down in that Paul was made an “apostle” well after Jesus death and resurrection and he was not one who walked in the way during Jesus liftime on earth.
Somthing to think about.
Blessings,
Brian
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
While Matthias did indeed “suceed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas), with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority.
No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).
Therefore, true apostolic succession is that church which adheres faithfully to the teachings of the apostles.
R
Robbinson
Guest
I understand that interpretation/conclusion well (as I am Protestant). However, I’d say that the outgrowth of the reformation and split from the Church has led to literally over 30,000 different protestant denominations (many, if not most), claiming to hold the “correct” interpretation of the scriptures and recorded by the apostles. This is not the “unity” in the Church that Jesus (and after him, the apostles) prayed for emperically suggesting that perhaps we really do need apostolic succession and guidance
Yours in Christ (another brother just searching for the truth with an open mind and trying to leave behind prior conceptions and perspectives).
Brian
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
That is true, bro. But a negative does not prove a positive. The fact that once a solo scriptura view developed within the Protestant communions major schisms and sectarianism resulted does not prove an infallible teaching authority with direct apostolic succession in Rome. The fact of the matter is that there already was a schism in the Church prior to the Reformation; whether it’s 2 churches or 200 churches that result, a schism is a schism; so supposed apostolic succession did not prevent that one from occurring, either.I understand that interpretation/conclusion well (as I am Protestant). However, I’d say that the outgrowth of the reformation and split from the Church has led to literally over 30,000 different protestant denominations (many, if not most), claiming to hold the “correct” interpretation of the scriptures and recorded by the apostles. This is not the “unity” in the Church that Jesus (and after him, the apostles) prayed for emperically suggesting that perhaps we really do need apostolic succession and guidance
Yours in Christ (another brother just searching for the truth with an open mind and trying to leave behind prior conceptions and perspectives).
Brian
B
BLUEMOON74
Guest
I love your signature–People ask me if I can fix anything. I say yes except, broken hearts & stupidity!! --I know it’s off topic but I just had to tell you bc it tickeled me so!
B
BLUEMOON74
Guest
R
Robbinson
Guest
TriuneUnity - Jay29 was kind enough to post this reply a while back to my inquiry re: Apostolic succesion. I found it extremely helpful:
Authority is Transferred by the Sacrament of Ordination
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.
**Acts 1:20 **- a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
**Acts 1:22 **- literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
**Acts 9:17-19 **- even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
**2 Cor. 1:21-22 **- Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
**1 Tim. 4:14 **- again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
**1 Tim. 5:22 **- Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
**2 Tim. 2:2 **- this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
**Exodus 18:25-26 **- Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
**Exodus 40:15 **- the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”
**Numbers 16:40 **- shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.
**Sirach 45:15 **- Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Helpful, but misguided. Ordination does not confer apostolic authority upon those receiving it. It ordains them for ministry. Once the apostles themselves died, the charism that was given to them died with them. No more revelation; no more supernatural gifts bestowed on ministers. The above passages show ordination, not apostolic succession as Catholics define it.
B
BLUEMOON74
Guest
Can you quote the Bible in proof of that statement?
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Actually, I would point to a lack of biblical statements that show apostolic authority was granted on those appointed by the apostles for ministry. Authority within the churches the elders were appointed to is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the charism of the apostles as it pertains to divine witness.
In other words, how many bishops today give new revelation or raise dead people to life?
C
celticcrusader
Guest
triuneunity: have you ever attended a Catholic Mass? Reading something once by Dr.Scott Hann about the Mass and how it is found in and relates to the book of Revelation, it was very interesting . When I reviewed Rev. again I could see he was right ! The Catholic Mass was in the Bible.If anyone wants the info. I am sure he has a web site with it on it.
C
celticcrusader
Guest
Ijust remembered the source, it is a book written by Dr. Scott Hann " the lambs supper" are you familar with Scott Hann?
R
Rachel_J
Guest
Why am I not catholic? A number of reasons, some of which are common protestant issues.
The biggest however is fear. I was taught the Catholic Church is the “whore of babylon”. Intellectually I know the arguments against this, but still… what if its true? The bible says that in the end many will be deceived. I don’t want to be one of them and I found God in my protestant beliefs. Perhaps it is better to stay there than ‘risk it all’ on the Church.
What is causing me to even look at the Chruch?
Tradition. The church can give some argument about why I should listen to her. A protestant can’t - I listen to them because I agree. I know they are right 'cause I read my bible. The problem is I don’t trust myself and my interpretation. So it doesn’t make a good comparision value.
- Mary. I can accept the Marian dogma… but it can go so far sometimes and that concerns me.
- Prayers to saints. I realise it is not worship, but I don’t “get” it. Why ask for St xxx to pray for me, when I can go to God directly? he cares infinitely more about me than any St ever will.
The biggest however is fear. I was taught the Catholic Church is the “whore of babylon”. Intellectually I know the arguments against this, but still… what if its true? The bible says that in the end many will be deceived. I don’t want to be one of them and I found God in my protestant beliefs. Perhaps it is better to stay there than ‘risk it all’ on the Church.
What is causing me to even look at the Chruch?
Tradition. The church can give some argument about why I should listen to her. A protestant can’t - I listen to them because I agree. I know they are right 'cause I read my bible. The problem is I don’t trust myself and my interpretation. So it doesn’t make a good comparision value.
- Status