Is sacred tradition more holy than scripture?

[hasantas]

So if Jesus was the Word of God, He might be said to be the letters B and E right?

Then Allah puts the letters together and B and E are joined to become “BE” and it is?

Can you not see therefore how Jesus might be perceived as God? Because without the letters B and E there can be no Creation!

In the same way, without Allah joining the letters B and E together, again, there can be no Creation!

Allah and His Word are essential for Creation to exist.

Does that make sense? (its a bit tricky for me to explain what is in my head, but I hope I did not confuse you )

.

Do you really recognize Jesus as God? Do you mean that Qur’an imply Jesus to be God?

What does “Jesus was word of God” mean? You first explain then I will say the interpretation according to Islam.

 

[hasantas]

No.

When Jesus sent out His apostles to baptize, teach and preach unto the whole world until Jesus returns. Jesus confirmed this commission upon the apostles and breathed upon them the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus when the Apostles baptized, preached and taught the divine mysteries of Jesus Christ, they did so in the power of the Holy Spirit, what is Sacred Oral Tradition or God breathed.

These same teachings and divine revelations were later recorded under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit. But not all was written what Jesus said and did, but the Apostles revealed these orally in their oral Sacred Tradition which all Christians since Pentecost follow today. Both the Oral Sacred Tradition and Sacred Writings are practiced, taught and preached in the Catholic Church today unchanged 2000 years and counting.

Thus both Sacred Scripture and Oral Sacred Tradition are both God breathed.

The Oral Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture possess the full deposit of the Christian faith Jesus revealed in the fullness of times. It is here where God teaches us., not men.

To possess one without the other, you do not have the mind of Christ nor the Spirit of Truth who teaches and reveals to us what God divinely revealed to the human race.

For NO ONE can confess Jesus is Lord, without the Holy Spirit.

If one pretends to know God without God’s Spirit, then that one can only pretend to know God from creation with a limited carnal mind of logic by ones own spirit.

Sacred Oral Tradition and Sacred Tradition reveal both the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the fullness of Jesus humanity as the One Word of God Incarnate.

Neglect one of these, and you do not have the full Jesus Christ personified.

Peace be with you

There is no any record about mysteries of doctrines in Gospels. Oral tradition is very possible to change so it must be recorded very initially. Oral tradition got form in Pagan Rome(Paul was grow in Rome!) and it was influenced from Paganism. Believing in more than one god is a kind of Paganism. Pagans make statues of gods. To say God incarnated is sort of Paganism.

That is not vicious attack to Christianity but an essay to state the truth. In previous scriptures there are no such doctrines and neither in the last scripture. Then something might happened through oral tradition!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I agree that Jesus ordered apostles to spread faith. The problem is that the doctrines were not exist as initially especially during apostles. Paul formed and involved in scripture and faith very much. Was Paul apostle of Jesus or was Paul taught by Holy Spirit? As much I know he was opposed!

And…

Is the accepting the divinity of Jesus at First Council of Nicaea Holy Tradition? Did Holy Spirit guide some people to find truth that god is three(trinity)? But there had been many discussions!

The council of Nicaea represents a necessary definition in response to an important question concerning who the Son is. While it is true the apostolic authors do not explicitly say some of the things that the council or the fathers did, we would argue that with Nicaea the conclusions of that council were not contradictory to the scripture but represent a full interpretation of the implications of the scripture. That is when seeing scripture on the whole the declarations of Nicaea/Constantinople stand.

As far as Paul being taught by the Holy Spirit this should pose no problem since Jesus promised his Church the Spirit of Truth who would be with them forever (John 14). Paul also tells us in Corinthians 15 that Jesus appeared to him out of time, likely referring to the road to Damascus experience in acts. The Holy Spirit guiding Paul is therefore what Jesus wanted in Paul, since Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church in his direct absence.

I reccomend a book by Fr John Behr called the way to Nicaea if you want to understand how Christian theology developed from the bible to the council of Nicaea. It was not by inventing whole cloth new doctrines which had never been known before, it was by looking at the Church’s worship, seeing the deeper implications in the words of the New testament to see that Jesus Christ was truly God and Man.

In a previous post you accuse Christianity of adopting paganism, show us where. If you compare the Christian idea of incarnation tot eh pagan ideas of their mortal Gods the concepts are very different. Jesus was always existing and was the creator of the world and in his incarnation the spirit formed him in Mary. I do not not know of a similar Pagan account that matches the theology of the Christian church biblically or within the tradition of the Church, perhaps you can show us.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is no any record about mysteries of doctrines in Gospels. Oral tradition is very possible to change so it must be recorded very initially. Oral tradition got form in Pagan Rome(Paul was grow in Rome!) and it was influenced from Paganism. Believing in more than one god is a kind of Paganism. Pagans make statues of gods. To say God incarnated is sort of Paganism.

That is not vicious attack to Christianity but an essay to state the truth. In previous scriptures there are no such doctrines and neither in the last scripture. Then something might happened through oral tradition!

Sure there are many mysteries recorded in the bible and understood in faith by Oral Tradition.

To name a few; The birth of Christ, the passion of Christ, the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Eucharist when Jesus broke bread at the last supper, when Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God is at hand, when Jesus raised the dead Lazarus before many eye witnesses, When Jesus walked on water, When nature and the winds and storm obey Jesus commands, not to exclude those demonic spirits who possessed men. There are many more.

As far as doctrine. The Christian faith in the Crucifixion has never made it to the capacity of a doctrine. For the simple fact no logical thinking person ever denied it, for the Church to defend it and make the Crucifixion a doctrine of the Catholic Faith binding upon the whole earth.

Oral Tradition cannot be changed, because it is a divine revelation by God. Oral Tradition does not conflict with sacred scripture they are one. The Oral Tradition penetrates the soul and heart of the believer, whereby the Sacred Scripture helps form our mind to the mind of Jesus Christ = God.

Name me one Sacred Oral Tradition that God through His Word contradicts? Or which Oral Tradition has changed since the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

You are far from the Kingdom of God, if you believe Paul a Zealot of Judaism was a Pagan. Who persecuted Christians, and then converted by God to see the Truth in Jesus Christ as being His Lord and Savior.

You are misinformed about Paul and what Sacred Tradition is, that is practiced unchanged today both from Oral Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

 

[FractalFire]

You can explain Trinity by Catechism(Holy Tradition) through mysterious and strained statements. I can bring many verses which directly prove that Jesus was merely human and prophet. The Trinity doctrine has many conflicts which make many Christians to have scanty faith. I think Christianity will be more powerful without that doctrines.

Do you not see conflict in writing!

God is one.
(That is nice)
But,
Father is God.
Son is God.
Holy Spirit is God.
(Three gods!)
And…
Father is not Son(But Son was God so Father should not be God)
Son is not Spirit(But Spirit was God so Son should not be God!)
Spirit is not Father(But Father was God so Spirit Should not be God!)

Ofcourse there are much more conflicts in meaning!

No, once more, there are not three “gods” – one God, three persons. The logic is complicated, but don’t pretend to be able to dismiss it so easily when you haven’t even understood it. I’m not at all surprised you think you can shoot this down with a ton of verses – everyone thinks they can do that – but if you take single verses from the Bible and use them as magic bullets to solve problems, you can prove almost anything. What matters is the cohesive whole that unifies the verses and makes them make sense.

It is similar (but by no means identical) in logic to:

You are one being.
Your mind is you.
Your soul is you.
Your body is you.
Your mind is not your soul.
Your soul is not your emotion.
Your body is not your mind.

A related Duality (two parts instead of three) is already *proven *to exist, for example, in light:
Light is one thing.
Light is a wave.
Light is a particle.
Particles are not Waves.
Waves are not Particles.

By your logic, this would also be inconsistent. Yet it exists! So it is possible to have this reasoning structure and be valid.

Further, to quote Edward Feser

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. There is exactly one God

Is this not an inconsistent set? Not as it stands, it isn’t. For we need to know (among other things) what the force of “is” is in each of these propositions. (Bill Clinton wasn’t all wrong, as it turns out.) If (1) is glossed as “The Father = God” and (2)-(6) are interpreted accordingly, then we would of course have an inconsistent set. But that is not how Trinitarian theologians understand “is” in this context; that is to say, they are not using it to express what modern logicians understand by the identity relation. If instead we interpret (1)-(3) as “The Father is a God,” “The Son is a God,” etc., and (4)-(6) alone in light of the identity relation – so that (1)-(6) are understood to assert that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct members of a class of “Gods” – then, again (given (7)), we have an inconsistent set. But, again, that is not what Trinitarian theologians mean by “The Father is God,” etc.

So you can see your interpretation is staunchly rejected by theologians on this issue and is indeed flawed because it attempts to replace is with “=” which is not a valid representation of the logic in this case.

Perhaps a quote from Lewis might be better to help elicit understanding:

A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three dimensional world, you still get figures, but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things that you found on the simpler levels: You still have them, but combined in new ways – in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

 

[FractalFire]

You can explain Trinity by Catechism(Holy Tradition) through mysterious and strained statements. I can bring many verses which directly prove that Jesus was merely human and prophet. The Trinity doctrine has many conflicts which make many Christians to have scanty faith. I think Christianity will be more powerful without that doctrines.

Do you not see conflict in writing!

God is one.
(That is nice)
But,
Father is God.
Son is God.
Holy Spirit is God.
(Three gods!)
And…
Father is not Son(But Son was God so Father should not be God)
Son is not Spirit(But Spirit was God so Son should not be God!)
Spirit is not Father(But Father was God so Spirit Should not be God!)

Ofcourse there are much more conflicts in meaning!

No, once more, there are not three “gods” – one God, three persons. The logic is complicated, but don’t pretend to be able to dismiss it so easily when you haven’t even understood it. I’m not at all surprised you think you can shoot this down with a ton of verses – everyone thinks they can do that – but if you take single verses from the Bible and use them as magic bullets to solve problems, you can prove almost anything. What matters is the cohesive whole that unifies the verses and makes them make sense.

It is similar (but by no means identical) in logic to:

You are one being.
Your mind is you.
Your soul is you.
Your body is you.
Your mind is not your soul.
Your soul is not your emotion.
Your body is not your mind.

A related Duality (two parts instead of three) is already *proven *to exist, for example, in light:
Light is one thing.
Light is a wave.
Light is a particle.
Particles are not Waves.
Waves are not Particles.

By your logic, this would also be inconsistent. Yet it exists! So it is possible to have this reasoning structure and be valid. [Whether God is truly like this is another matter.]

Further, to quote Edward Feser

1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.
6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7. There is exactly one God

Is this not an inconsistent set? Not as it stands, it isn’t. For we need to know (among other things) what the force of “is” is in each of these propositions. (Bill Clinton wasn’t all wrong, as it turns out.) If (1) is glossed as “The Father = God” and (2)-(6) are interpreted accordingly, then we would of course have an inconsistent set. But that is not how Trinitarian theologians understand “is” in this context; that is to say, they are not using it to express what modern logicians understand by the identity relation. If instead we interpret (1)-(3) as “The Father is a God,” “The Son is a God,” etc., and (4)-(6) alone in light of the identity relation – so that (1)-(6) are understood to assert that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct members of a class of “Gods” – then, again (given (7)), we have an inconsistent set. But, again, that is not what Trinitarian theologians mean by “The Father is God,” etc.

So you can see your interpretation is staunchly rejected by theologians on this issue and is indeed flawed because it attempts to replace is with “=” which is not a valid representation of the logic in this case.

Perhaps a quote from Lewis might be better to help elicit understanding:

A world of one dimension would be a straight line. In a two-dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure. In a three dimensional world, you still get figures, but many figures make one solid body. In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things that you found on the simpler levels: You still have them, but combined in new ways – in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now, the Christian account of God involves just the same principle. The human level is a simple and rather empty level. On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings – just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure and any two squares are two separate figures. On the Divine level, you still find personalities, but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine. In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube. Of course we cannot fully conceive of a being like that: just as, if we were made so that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube. But we can get a sort of faint notion of it. And when we do, we are, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something superpersonal – something more than a person.

So I hope you at least begin to see how the Christians conceive of God as a Monotheistic Being with multiple Persons, even if it can’t be understood by us anymore than we could truly understand what it would be like to see in Ultraviolet.(Did you expect God to be simple, such that you and I could understand Him? ).

I have not (and don’t really intend to) provide an argument for its veracity, but I hope you will be able to comprehend that what Christians are supporting is not three Gods (or even one God with multiple personality disorder), but rather, a doctrine drawn upon enhanced knowledge of God, yet entirely consistent with its basis of Monotheism. Is it strange? Certainly. Is it consistent with ironclad Christian monotheistic? Yes.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Is there any indication which demonstrate that the doctrines were taught by apostles(except Paul!)?

This sounds like you haven’t read the Gospels.

 

[Micosil]

This sounds like you haven’t read the Gospels.

Or anything a Christian wrote in the 1st or 2nd century, outside of the Bible.

 

[FractalFire]

Or anything a Christian wrote in the 1st or 2nd century, outside of the Bible.

Then again, who has?? I certainly haven’t read more than a few chapters of Augustine and I suspect the same is true even for many Christians.

 

[Micosil]

Then again, who has?? I certainly haven’t read more than a few chapters of Augustine and I suspect the same is true even for many Christians.

Well, for the topic at hand, to see the relationship between Christ’s preachings in the Gospels, the evangelical activity seen in Acts, and the Church as we saw it develop throughout the centuries, it is fundamental to understand what the early Church taught and believed; these early Christians taught the oral, unwritten Tradition that was passed down to the Apostles, the same Tradition taught by the Church today. It is one of the things that lead me into Christianity, and Catholicism to be specific.

 

[Servant19]

Do you really recognize Jesus as God? Do you mean that Qur’an imply Jesus to be God?

What does “Jesus was word of God” mean? You first explain then I will say the interpretation according to Islam.

Jesus is the Word means that He is the “act” of Creation from Allah.

In all aspects of life, a trinity exists.

We have the Creator, the “act” of creating, and the creation
We have the actor, the “act” of acting, and the movie
We have the painter, the “act” of painting, and the masterpiece.
We have the Speaker of the Word, the Word itself, and the fruit of that Word (Creation)

If the Word is the manifestation of God’s Will to make Himself known through creation, it is natural to think that the Word is Creator.

The relationship between Allah and His Word is a very intimate one, and the possible misinterpretation that the Word is God is an understandable one.

Does Muhammad intimate anywhere that He is the Word Incarnate?

.

 

[spedteacherita]

Originally Posted by hasantas View Post
Is there any indication which demonstrate that the doctrines were taught by apostles(except Paul!)?

This sounds like you haven’t read the Gospels.

I think that hasantas has a point. I’ve read the Gospels and I don’t see some of the doctrines held by the CC. When I’ve asked about those I’m told that Tradition holds that. At this point this is why I could not convert to Catholicism.

I’m very sincere about this and would really like to know about it…

Blessings, all!

Rita

 

[spedteacherita]

Well, for the topic at hand, to see the relationship between Christ’s preachings in the Gospels, the evangelical activity seen in Acts, and the Church as we saw it develop throughout the centuries, it is fundamental to understand what the early Church taught and believed; these early Christians taught the oral, unwritten Tradition that was passed down to the Apostles, the same Tradition taught by the Church today. It is one of the things that lead me into Christianity, and Catholicism to be specific.

My question is, where do you find this Tradition written down? How does it not become similar to the “telephone game” where something is added that was not given by the Apostles?

God bless!

Rita

 

[MartinJordan]

I think that hasantas has a point. I’ve read the Gospels and I don’t see some of the doctrines held by the CC. When I’ve asked about those I’m told that Tradition holds that. At this point this is why I could not convert to Catholicism.

I’m very sincere about this and would really like to know about it…

Blessings, all!

Rita

Actually the Last Supper paved the way for the New Testament to come into being.

MJ

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I think that hasantas has a point. I’ve read the Gospels and I don’t see some of the doctrines held by the CC. When I’ve asked about those I’m told that Tradition holds that. At this point this is why I could not convert to Catholicism.

I’m very sincere about this and would really like to know about it…

Are you confusing “doctrine,” which is a core religious belief (there is one God, God is a Trinity of 3 persons, salvation is possible through the death of Jesus, original sin exists in all people…) with “rules” (women can’t be priests, you have to go to church on Sunday, mortal sins have to be confessed to a priest to be forgiven, etc.)?

I have issues with the Church, but doctrine is not one of them. You have to keep in mind that the mode of writing in the 1st century was not the same as the 21st century. The catechism is a good explanation of doctrines. It would be foolish to try and find something equivalent in the Gospels or epistles–as the catechism says on p. 32, “In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current.”

Rules can be changed by the Church–“What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven…” A good example is the rule to abstain from eating meat on Friday no longer applies except in Lent. Nor do women have to cover their heads in church. Nor is Mass exclusively said in Latin. But doctrines don’t change–they may be more fully explained as they are better understood over time, but there are no “new” doctrines and old doctrines are not cancelled.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Well, for the topic at hand, to see the relationship between Christ’s preachings in the Gospels, the evangelical activity seen in Acts, and the Church as we saw it develop throughout the centuries, it is fundamental to understand what the early Church taught and believed; these early Christians taught the oral, unwritten Tradition that was passed down to the Apostles, the same Tradition taught by the Church today. It is one of the things that lead me into Christianity, and Catholicism to be specific.

It’s interesting you bring up the evangelical activity in Acts. The first major evangelical activity outside Jerusalem is seen in Acts 8, prompted by a great persecution against the Church, and leading to as scattering throughout Judea and Samaria…“except the apostles.”

And what did these people do when they went out and about, without the apostles? Look at Acts chapter 8 verse 4 and tell me what that says.

Philip even goes around like a Charismatic Pentecostal of some sort, despite not being an apostle himself, despite the fact that none of these activities were specifically sanctioned or strategized with apostolic direction. All of this is presented uncritically and in a fairly positive light- really positive actually, as this is the first example of major evangelical activity on a scale larger than Jerusalem after the Resurrection.

I guess my main point is…all of that was probably glossed over just a bit as you were joining the Catholic Church.

 

[hasantas]

Jesus is the Word means that He is the “act” of Creation from Allah.

In all aspects of life, a trinity exists.

We have the Creator, the “act” of creating, and the creation
We have the actor, the “act” of acting, and the movie
We have the painter, the “act” of painting, and the masterpiece.
We have the Speaker of the Word, the Word itself, and the fruit of that Word (Creation)

If the Word is the manifestation of God’s Will to make Himself known through creation, it is natural to think that the Word is Creator.

The relationship between Allah and His Word is a very intimate one, and the possible misinterpretation that the Word is God is an understandable one.

Does Muhammad intimate anywhere that He is the Word Incarnate?

.

Jesus is conclusion of act or acting but Jesus is not the Creator who acts!

“Jesus is word of God” is being misinterpreted very tricky. God do not create with word but by omnipotend and power. “God says be! and it is” mean when God will to create something it is enough to say be! and power create it without any objection. Nothing can contravene. God is not kind of a human king who could not do something.

Jesus was born without a father and God to state that it is very easy for God to do such thing just saying be! is enough. God is not bound on laws indeed God creates laws.

 

[Micosil]

My question is, where do you find this Tradition written down? How does it not become similar to the “telephone game” where something is added that was not given by the Apostles?

God bless!

Rita

Like I said before to hasantas, confusing oral tradition with the “telephone game” is a misunderstanding. The Jewish culture had a much, much more rigorous way of transmitting and preserving oral tradition. Teachers would make kids recite Scripture and prayers and Oral Law until they knew it perfectly.

In the telephone game, people whisper once to the next one in line, as opposed to a whole community being able to validate what is being said.

Even in Scripture you find examples of oral tradition.

“that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’”
(Matt. 2:23)

Where is that in the Old Testament?

“The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice”
(Matt. 23:2-3)

Where does it speak of Moses’ seat in the Old Testament?

When the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.’
(Jude 9)

Where does it speak of this angelic battle between Michael and Satan in the Old Testament?

This last verse from Jude is explained as follows in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture by H. Willmering:

This incident is not mentioned in Scripture, but may have been a Jewish oral tradition, which is well known to the readers of this epistle.

Paul also requests the reader of 2 Thessalonians to hold on to oral tradition if need be:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
(2 Thessalonians 2:15)

 

[Wesrock]

Both the Gospels of Matthew and John present a very high Christology (Matthew more implicit than explicit (to our 21st century minds) than John, but still quite obvious). I don’t think it can be argued well that they present anything less than a binary God. And we see hints of this in Proverbs and Daniel, too.

Tradition does not overrule Scripture, but Tradition is apostolic in origin and authoritative.

 

[Micosil]

It’s interesting you bring up the evangelical activity in Acts. The first major evangelical activity outside Jerusalem is seen in Acts 8, prompted by a great persecution against the Church, and leading to as scattering throughout Judea and Samaria…“except the apostles.”

And what did these people do when they went out and about, without the apostles? Look at Acts chapter 8 verse 4 and tell me what that says.

Philip even goes around like a Charismatic Pentecostal of some sort, despite not being an apostle himself, despite the fact that none of these activities were specifically sanctioned or strategized with apostolic direction. All of this is presented uncritically and in a fairly positive light- really positive actually, as this is the first example of major evangelical activity on a scale larger than Jerusalem after the Resurrection.

I guess my main point is…all of that was probably glossed over just a bit as you were joining the Catholic Church.

Not really, none of that was glossed over. You seem to be forgetting that while not an official Apostle, he was one of the seven chosen by name by the actual Apostles:

And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch′orus, and Nica′nor, and Timon, and Par′menas, and Nicola′us, a proselyte of Antioch.
(Acts 6:5)

So it wasn’t as if he randomly just heard of Jesus and the Apostles by word of mouth and without knowing them went around preaching and baptizing.

Note that two Ethiopian churches, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, claim that they go back all the way to Philip the Evangelist of Acts, from these two verses:

But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south[a] to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert road. And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Canda′ce the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship
(Acts 8:26-27)

Coincidentally, both of these churches, while not part of the Catholic Church, do have a valid claim to Apostolic Succession, so they do recognize the importance of bishops and the sacraments. So it isn’t as if their churches are some sort of Protestant Pentecostal denomination as you perhaps seem to be suggesting, no; they truly are Apostolic. How then, was this activity in a way not sanctioned by the Apostles? Philip it seems did teach them the importance and high rank of the Apostles, and the importance of Apostolic Succession.

Philip is considered a deacon in the Catholic Church, he was specifically ordained by the Apostles. Just like bishops ordain deacons now to assist them.