Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[Teflon93]

That’s an excellent point, Christine.

I for one bridle at the notion that we Catholic converts either don’t know the faith we’ve adopted, didn’t care enough to research it before adopting it, or simply took the Church’s claims at face value.

Fact is, my wife and I spent over two years in a quest for truth once we decided to leave the Church of God branch of Pentecostalism (I spent many more years as an Episcopalian and even spent some months in Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church prior to this). We attended nondenominational, Presbyterian (in fact we were married by a Presbyterian minister), and nearly joined the United Methodist Church before arriving in spiritual desperation in the office of our Catholic deacon. It wasn’t emotion which drove us into the arms of the Church, but reason, and reason which came at a great price.

It’s ludicrous for Americans to think it’s easy to become a Catholic. We are a small minority in this country, and often a persecuted one here in the Bible Belt. There is a price to be paid when we cross ourselves before eating or saying the rosary in public. Most people are polite most of the time, but the anti-Catholic screeds preached in many a pulpit here do result in some behavior you wouldn’t expect to see in this day and age from time to time.

It would have been far easier to become a Baptist or remain a Pentecostal here. In fact, my wife’s family, hardly observant Christians, even gave her a variation of the “Anything But Catholic” line when she mentioned we were considering conversion.

None of this is a big deal, and it doesn’t compare at all to the sacrifices made in the early Christian era or being made today in places like China and North Korea by faithful Catholics. The point is simply that the notion that anyone in America would become Catholic in order to have an easier life in any fashion is completely ridiculous, as is the notion that someone would convert frivolously based on, I don’t know, liking the big hat the bishop wears or the smell of incense or something.

 

[justinthemartyr]

To say that the Catholic Church is not an authority, is to say that Christ Himself is not an authority.

that would be utterly rediculous, since Christ speaks through his one church, just as is stated in matthew 18:16-20

 

[qui_est_ce]

It would have been far easier to become a Baptist or remain a Pentecostal here. In fact, my wife’s family, hardly observant Christians, even gave her a variation of the “Anything But Catholic” line when she mentioned we were considering conversion.

Yes, I have seen how difficult it is for people to cross over, even when intellectually, they agree with everything the Church teaches. Some have been completely cut off from their families.

The point is simply that the notion that anyone in America would become Catholic in order to have an easier life in any fashion is completely ridiculous, as is the notion that someone would convert frivolously based on, I don’t know, liking the big hat the bishop wears or the smell of incense or something.

Now wait a minute, I just found out the Pope really wears red shoes to walk in, not just to be buried in. And don’t get me going on the smells and bells part. That’s important too!

 

[pneuma07]

Hi !

     I have  been lurking the thread .    While engaging a daily exchange  is out of   my present  possibilities  (  we could   explore whether that is to be considered  anyway the most fruitful form of dialogue offered by  the forum)  I'd like to write down some  observations on the lines which have been offered  on our topic.

Allow to go on quoting from J. H. Newman’s “Development”, to begin with:

If the Christian doctrine, as originally taught, admits of true and important developments, this is a strong antecedent argument in favour of a provision in the Dispensation for putting a seal of authority upon those developments. … There are various revelations all over the earth which do not carry with them the evidence of their divinity. Such are the inward suggestions and secret illuminations granted to so many individuals; … There is nothing impossible in the notion of a revelation occurring without evidences that it is a revelation; just … But Christianity is not of this nature: it is a revelation which comes to us as a revelation, as a whole, objectively, and with a profession of infallibility; and the only question to be determined relates to the matter of the revelation. If then there are certain great truths, or duties, or observances, naturally and legitimately resulting from the doctrines originally professed, it is but reasonable to include {80} these true results in the idea of the revelation itself, to consider them parts of it, and if the revelation be not only true, but guaranteed as true, to anticipate that they too will come under the privilege of that guarantee. (From Chapter 2)

If so, then, a Christian should expect the existence within the divine design of a permanent accessible teaching authority, preserving and “translating” within history Jesus’ message. Even without considering that a necessary postulate, we should at least look at that as to a reasonable expectation.
To which , and to the Catholic Church as natural candidate to that role, alternative views can of course be offered.

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

First, it can be affirmed, in a radically alternative vision, that the visible sub-apostolic Church began going astray and astray,
and that the Catholic Church is but a fruit of that corruption process.
I’d like to try to express a couple of difficulties I see in this view.

   1)  My judgement on the supposed corruption process  comes  ultimately by postulating something special or exceptional  for myself,   possessing today the personal ability  to know correctly what was wrong with the preaching and the practice of the sub-apostolic and ancient church.   An ability I cannot acknowledge in my  contemporary brothers, who generally  are no less in error than the early Church was.

This is a kind of approach which I’m unable to accept in any of its the versions I have been able to know.

1. From the point of view of history, a catholic and non catholic paradigm can share a concept of development ( corruption is indeed an illegitimate form of development). The catholic sees
   the essential continuity of the Church from the Revelation to our time ( a continuty through which Jesus’ message is delivered at present to us) , the western non catholic sees the mentioned corruption process.

Admitting nevertheless the original non exixtence of the catholic Church, and her present existence, we have to consider a date of birth for her. True, corruption is considered a gradual process, but an entity is here which did not exist in the early time. Then she has a birth date within the history of Christianity. Rejecting the catholic Church as original element, does need offering her birth date and explaining it.

TBC

 

[pneuma07]

Our understanding of the action of the Holy Spirit appears crucial in the thread.

*4. Jesus adds: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."19 The Holy Spirit will be the Counselor of the Apostles and the Church, always present in their midst-even though invisible-as the teacher of the same Good News that Christ proclaimed. The words “he will teach” and “bring to remembrance” mean not only … they mean that he will ensure continuity and identity of understanding in the midst of changing conditions and circumstances. The Holy Spirit, then, will ensure that in the Church there will always continue the same truth which the Apostles heard from their Master. *

*5. In transmitting the Good News, the Apostles will be in a special way associated with the Holy Spirit. "When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning."20 *

*Apostles were the direct eyewitnesses. They “have heard” and “have seen with their own eyes,” “have looked upon” and even “touched with their hands” Christ, as the evangelist John says in another passage.21 This human, first-hand and “historical” witness to Christ is linked to the witness of the Holy Spirit:…
The supreme and most complete revelation of God to humanity is Jesus Christ himself, and the witness of the Spirit inspires, guarantees and convalidates the faithful transmission of this revelation in the preaching and writing of the Apostles,22 while the witness of the Apostles ensures its human expression in the Church and in the history of humanity. * ( John Paul II, Dominum et vivificantem) ( you can find the encyclical in one minute googling).

We don’t have in the Upper Room the promise of individualistic revelations, apart from Jesus’ earthly life and the unique experience alongside Him by the apostles ( also described in 1 John 1). We have remembrance, we have the witness by the Apostles as human expression, divinely assisted, of Jesus’ message.

Does the assistance to the preservation of the Lord’s message cease with the Apostles ? Here are Paul’s words to his spiritual child Timothy: ( 2 Tim 1:14)

*13What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us. *

TBC later

 

[PC_Master]

pneuma> You’re bringing up some great points, which I hope to be able to address…coherently once you’re done.

 

[clammyside]

For all the non-RCs out there, can someone tell me who is authorized to bind and loose and forgive sins, as Christ explicitly authorized the Apostles (the first bishops) to do?

Who is authorized to do so and by what right?

The RCC says this is from the unbroken apostolic succession.

 

[justinthemartyr]

also, if your church does not have bishops with a line of visible succession to the original apostles, then you are not in the church Chirst built.

 

[PC_Master]

also, if your church does not have bishops with a line of visible succession to the original apostles, then you are not in the church Chirst built.

For all the non-RCs out there, can someone tell me who is authorized to bind and loose and forgive sins, as Christ explicitly authorized the Apostles (the first bishops) to do?

Who is authorized to do so and by what right?

The RCC says this is from the unbroken apostolic succession.

Both of these posts are based on false assertions, which I will hopefully address in or at the same time as my response to Brady’s and pneuma’s posts.

 

[Teflon93]

Both of these posts are based on false assertions, which I will hopefully address in or at the same time as my response to Brady’s and pneuma’s posts.

Excellent—we look forward to your evidence that false assertions have been made, particularly any definitive evidence you may provide.

 

[pneuma07]

The Sacrament of Reconciliation looks tangential to the presnt topic. Yet James 5 14-16 has been considered as making obvious a scriptural misinterpretation by the Church.

The first two verses are considered by the Church as main witness to the divine institution of the unction (anointment) of the sick. As for the following verse here is what we say every Sunday:

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

Here is how these verses are followed and profoundly respected in the life of the Church.

As for reconciliation, the main scriptural witness to its divine institution ( by the Risen One the day of His Resurrection) is, as already mentioned, John 20:21-23.

 

[tdgesq]

Both of these posts are based on false assertions, which I will hopefully address in or at the same time as my response to Brady’s and pneuma’s posts.

I think not. Let us compare what the early Church documents tell us about the constitution of the visible Church versus the the canon of the New Testament.

Remember all of the quotations from Ignatius of Antioch about the authority of bishops? Now look what occurred at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., attended by 318 bishops (or their legates) of the Church:

And those who say

1. “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that
2. he came to be from
   * things that were not, or
   * from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia],
   affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

1. These bishops proclaim anathema any person who denies the eternal and divine nature of Christ.
2. They do so as the universal and apostolic church, specifically saying “these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.”

Later on the “**ishops assembled at Nicaea” specifically anathemized Arius and his followers. “Against all this the holy synod pronounced anathemas . . . .”

They direct how bishops are to be ordained as follows:

1. It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.

How is the ordination performed?

“8. Concerning those who have given themselves the name of Cathars, and who from time to time come over publicly to the catholic and apostolic church, this holy and great synod decrees that they may remain among the clergy after receiving an imposition of hands.”

So here we have a synod of bishops who claim to have authority on behalf of the universal church, who then exercise it to declare anathema all those who profess the Arian heresy, and further specify that bishops are to be ordained by other bishops through the laying on of hands. All of this by the self-proclaimed apostolic Church in 325 A.D.

piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

Now let’s look at the canon of the New Testament. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was not fixed in the western Church (including Africa) until the beginning of the fifth century, which is when the council of Carthage (419 A.D.) finally cataloged it.

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Of course the counsel consisted of bishops and their legates.

Now, on the one hand we have early historical evidence for the claim and transmission of authority by bishops, much like the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim today. On the other hand we have later historical evidence for the final acceptance of the canon of scripture, which ironically enough is promulgated by those same bishops who claim apostolic authority.

Honestly. How can one accept on an historical basis the canon of the bible and reject the apostolic authority of the bishops?**

 

[PC_Master]

Okay, here we go. First, let me apologize to those whose posts I won’t be replying to. My reasons have been mentioned previously, but still, it’s regrettable that I’m actually going to ignore certain posts (I usually try not to do this – I try to address everything thrown my way). However, at least I have the peace of mind knowing that I’m not ignoring the posts because I am unable to respond, so that’s good, I suppose.

Now, onward (I’ll get to Brady’s and others’ points first, and then try to get to pneuma’s stuff – if not tonight, probably tomorrow)…

PC Master,
First, thank you for telling me to quote I appreciate that.

No problem – however it seems you’re still having trouble. What you want to do is put a quote] tag before the start of the quote (removing the asterisks), and a /quote] tag after it. I think you were missing the right bracket on the first quote tag. Fix that and your quotes should work without a problem.

I have written a rather lengthy response to your last post(sorry bout that), and I had to do quite a significant amount or reading and research to do it, so I hope that you will take the time to read it all.

Why are you apologizing for researching? I mean, really – have you seen some of my posts? They get pretty long. Seriously, it’s nothing to be concerned about. I encourage you to keep studying and learning, and posting long posts (at least in cases where you expect you can find spiritual counsel).

Christ had many disciples, but He didn’t tell all of his disciples this, He told the apostles.

This is true – in fact, a large portion of what’s in scripture wasn’t told to the public. It was the recollections of the private teachings of Christ, and letters written to specific groups of people – almost never to the church as a whole.

That said, just because it’s given to a specific group does not mean that it’s useless to others, and that the truths, instructions, and wisdom therein can’t be applied to the individual believer.

PC, you said in an earlier post, that before Christians had the cannon, they relied on the teachings of the Apostles, and their direct disciples I.E Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp…If Jesus didn’t give the Authority to the successors of the Apostle’s, why did people listen to the early Church Fathers? Because in your point of view, they would have had no Authority.

By not having authority, I mean that they did not have administrative control over the church (as in a hierarchal system like the RCC). However, Paul clearly believed himself to have authority as an apostle of Christ, and he claimed it at the start of his letters to various churches.

There’s a difference between being recognized as someone with great spiritual maturity and understanding, and thus having people listen to your teaching, and being considered authoritative as a king, who holds a specific office, and cannot be disobeyed. Christ himself was a teacher, and his great wisdom and understanding led some to follow him…of their own accord, but not out of obligation to do so. The same was true of the apostles, in my opinion. New converts to Christianity recognized the spiritual understanding and knowledge of the apostles (and other teachers in the church) and therefore gave them respect and submission in many cases. But this was not due to being appointed to an office in “the church”.

Acts 1:20 “For it written…‘May another take his office’”
Judas was enlisted in the ministry of Apostle. If Authority of the Apostles dies when the Apostles die, there would have been no need to fill the vacant office. The fact they did choose another for the vacant office means the authority was transferred to another.

Interesting point. Let’s follow this logically then – if it is necessary for another to take his office, we’re saying that with the death of Judas, this vital “slot” in the group of the apostles was left vacant, and had to be filled, right? If so, what happened when each of the other apostles died? Yes, you believe Peter has a clear replacement, but how about for the rest of the group? Where are the other 11? (And yes, I do think it’s reasonable to say it should be 11 if it’s a succession of a specific office.)

…St. Clement of Rome, who historically was known to be a disciple of Peter, he writes:

There is some argument to this point – I would still question whether Peter was in Rome or not – however, this is not the topic of this thread. Let’s just say that Clement was a respected leader in the church in his time.

"The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God.

So, God appoints Christ to a task, and Christ goes and does it. Christ appoints twelve apostles to a task…and they go.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost…

Note here that they went because of Christ and the holy spirit, not because of any commissioning by any earthly source. (Just to be clear, we cannot compare the commissioning of the apostles by Christ to the commissioning of others by the apostles.)

And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Note that the criterion of the apostles for leadership was the guidance of the holy spirit, not any decision by themselves.

Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

Honestly, I couldn’t find the exact reference for this quote. If you can help me out here, I’d appreciate it. There were a couple of things in Isaiah, all with a decidedly different meaning than the implication you made, Brady, but I’ll wait to see what the reference is before commenting here.

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”

Here’s a key point – after those appointed by the apostles die, we see that other approved men are to take their place in ministry. Note that Clement makes no mention as to who should approve of these other men, and I have seen nothing else of reasonable antiquity that claims there to be some central authority which must approve of new ministers. The plain text reading might lead me to believe it would be those approved of by the holy spirit…but it certainly would not lead me to think of some earthly hierarchy. Second, we see that the succession is to ministry, not office, or even to authority.

They could bring them in front of a collective beleivers, but this doesn’t help matters out, there is no authority to settle the matter in a collective of beleivers.

In the case of a collective of spiritually mature believers, none is necessary. Likewise, early groups of Christians were able to clearly understand matters of Mosaic law, and various heresies, all without asking one authoritative person.

Well while I was trying to persuse through all of the previous posts to see what had been covered, I noticed some people using the spiral argument, first using the Bible as a merely Historical book, then inspired…you know the argument. I won’t use that one because clearly you did not find it convincing.

It’s not only that it’s not convincing – it’s that it’s not logical. If scripture is to be used entirely as a historical source, and not a theological one, then interpretations of theology cannot enter into understanding it in terms of defining the authority of the RCC.

If I understand correctly, your whole purpose of this thread is that we can’t really use the bible in any way to validate the authority of the Church, because you think this is circular reasoning. (BTW if you take this approach, you have to concede the point that the bible is a document of RCC, otherwise we could certainly use it to validate authority.)

Actually, I have no problem at all with using scripture to validate the RCC. What I have a problem with is using the RCC’s interpretation of scripture to validate the RCC, because it relies upon itself being an authority to make it an authority…that just won’t work. If the RCC has to guide the understanding of that which supposedly authorizes it, then the source isn’t really that which authorizes it at all.

Anyways, I’ll use the Church Fathers, they are not the bible, and as you say, they were the one true Church, and dissapated throughout history to what we have now.

Well, I don’t think we can say that all of them were perfectly so, but generally, yes, I would say the documents you’re referring to are sound in their teaching (though clearly even the RCC doesn’t espouse all of the writings of all of those authors).

Also bear in mind that even heretics like Arius were taught by apostles and their followers.

If thats true one would expect that Church to look different from what it does now, this is where I’ll start.

Are we looking for explicit disclaiming of RCC teaching? I don’t think you’ll find it. If what we’re looking for is (as it should be) a lack of explicit (or even implicit) proof of similarity, I think you certainly can find that.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

St. Ignatius of Antioch, thought to be a disciple of the Apostle of John writes:

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”

This is an instance where surrounding context matters. This writing was regarding a particular circumstance in a particular church, and we need to understand that. We cannot simply say that this text applies across all lines and at all times. Obviously, even today the RCC teaches that some priests/bishops should not be followed if they’ve fallen into or are teaching heresy, so clearly it’s not a matter of “follow him because he’s the bishop”. The question then is, why did Ignatious advise such to the church in Smyrna?

See a lot of stuff above.

The question I asked is not at all conclusively answered by those points. They can be interpreted in that way, certainly, but there’s certainly nothing explicit that requires not only bishops, but a hierarchy which a pope at the top.

I don’t see it as being quite as simple as this. For one there was division in the protestant church starting from the fathers of the Reformation on important doctrines. One of them being the cannon of the New Testament, Luther kicked James, Revelation, Hebrews, and maybe some others out of the Cannon, while his cohorts were tried and succeeded to bring them back. Calvin beleived in a very strict predestination, where our will is always trumped by God’s, and we are pre-determined to be damned or saved. This is clealy not the opinion of Luther, and many protestants down through the ages. To this day it still occurs, you yourself dismiss one of Protestant’s most important doctrines, I.E. Sola Scriptura.

Yes – no doubt there is division in all branches of Christianity, both one from another and within each.

The RCC is not divided, by definition all rites of the Church are in full union with the Church and her doctrines, or else they wouldn’t be a rite of the Church.

By definition, perhaps, but in reality – no. As I’ve said, what matters in terms of unity is the beliefs of the individual, and these are nowhere near united. Heck, throughout history people in the RCC have disagreed on things which are now formally defined by the hierarchy as being important matters of faith. People disagreed on the assumption of Mary, something which was infallibly decreed later on. That’s disunity, whether it was resolved decades later or not. The ability of a hierarchy to resolve disputes and problematic issues is not unique to the RCC either – governments have been doing that for a long time.

It all comes down to the question of how do you know that Christ intended it to be the way the RCC says it is?

I think both you and I agree that the Bible is Authoritative, but not the only authority, (otherwise it would be SS), I have explained what I beleive to be my Authority (1 Tim 3:15), and ask you to do the same.

My authority is God, whose will is revealed as I’m willing and able to accept it through scripture, the holy spirit, and through the working of the holy spirit in the lives of other individuals (which is exactly what gave us scripture in the first place).

To say that the Catholic Church is not an authority, is to say that Christ Himself is not an authority.

that would be utterly rediculous, since Christ speaks through his one church, just as is stated in matthew 18:16-20

Now, as I said before, this has a false assertion – actually there are two.

First, to say that the RCC is not an authority is not the same as saying that Christ isn’t an authority. To say this is the case assumes that Christ explicitly and clearly established this – and this is the point being disputed. I’m not arguing that “oh Christ did establish the RCC, but I think he was wrong”…I’m arguing that Christ did not actually establish the RCC.

Second, how do you read Matthew 18 and see Christ saying “I speak through my one [Roman Catholic] Church”? I guess I missed those words.

The faulty premise is that the interpretation you have, which is that of the RCC, is actually valid. And then the question is, upon what can we establish that validity? And no one has given a logical answer to that yet.

More later folks.

 

[Teflon93]

More later folks.

Maybe then we’ll get to see some evidence.

 

[guanophore]

My reasons have been mentioned previously, but still, it’s regrettable that I’m actually going to ignore certain posts (I usually try not to do this – I try to address everything thrown my way).

Yes, you have made it clear that you consider some of our posts unworthy of response.

I encourage you to keep studying and learning, and posting long posts (at least in cases where you expect you can find spiritual counsel).

Is that what you consider yourself to be providing here?

By not having authority, I mean that they did not have administrative control over the church (as in a hierarchal system like the RCC. However, Paul clearly believed himself to have authority as an apostle of Christ, and he claimed it at the start of his letters to various churches.

How do you see that Jesus intended a difference or separation between administrative and spiritual authority? It seems to me that creating a division between these was a necessity of the Reformation.

There’s a difference between being recognized as someone with great spiritual maturity and understanding, and thus having people listen to your teaching, and being considered authoritative as a king, who holds a specific office, and cannot be disobeyed.

I agree. Are you saying that the Apostles were not intended to be both?

Christ himself was a teacher, and his great wisdom and understanding led some to follow him…of their own accord, but not out of obligation to do so. The same was true of the apostles, in my opinion. New converts to Christianity recognized the spiritual understanding and knowledge of the apostles (and other teachers in the church) and therefore gave them respect and submission in many cases. But this was not due to being appointed to an office in “the church”.

This may be true, but certainly when the need for decision making and guidance was required, it fell to the Apostles and their successors to provide it.

if it is necessary for another to take his office, we’re saying that with the death of Judas, this vital “slot” in the group of the apostles was left vacant, and had to be filled, right? If so, what happened when each of the other apostles died? Yes, you believe Peter has a clear replacement, but how about for the rest of the group? Where are the other 11? (And yes, I do think it’s reasonable to say it should be 11 if it’s a succession of a specific office.)

Yes, there are successions stemming from each of the Apostles all around the world. Most Westerners are not aware of those that have been preserved in the East, especially after the Schism. However, these Apostolic Successions are recognized by the Roman See as well as one another.

There is some argument to this point – I** would still question whether Peter was in Rome or not **-- however, this is not the topic of this thread. Let’s just say that Clement was a respected leader in the church in his time.

Really! Is that because you reject the post NT writings?

So, God appoints Christ to a task, and Christ goes and does it. Christ appoints twelve apostles to a task…and they go.

Continued…

Well, at least we can agree on that much. Do you believe that God gave Jesus Authority,a nd the Jesus gave that same authority to His apostles, or was everyone just to go “do the task” appointed?

Note here that they went because of Christ and the holy spirit, not because of any commissioning by any earthly source. (Just to be clear, we cannot compare the commissioning of the apostles by Christ to the commissioning of others by the apostles.)

Well, Jesus was on earth when He commissioned them…

Note that the criterion of the apostles for leadership was the guidance of the holy spirit, not any decision by themselves.

You don’t think it was incumbent upon them to choose to leave their nets and money tables, and follow Him when He called?

Here’s a key point – after those appointed by the apostles die, we see that other approved men are to take their place in ministry. Note that Clement makes no mention as to who should approve of these other men, and I have seen nothing else of reasonable antiquity that claims there to be some central authority which must approve of new ministers.

Do you mean to say that you do not think the Apostles chose successors for themselves? Is this because you reject the post NT writings?

 

[guanophore]

The plain text reading might lead me to believe it would be those approved of by the holy spirit…but it certainly would not lead me to think of some earthly hierarchy. Second, we see that the succession is to ministry, not office, or even to authority.

Do you imagine that these can be somehow separated from one another, and still be effectual?

In the case of a collective of spiritually mature believers, none is necessary. Likewise, early groups of Christians were able to clearly understand matters of Mosaic law, and various heresies, all without asking one authoritative person.

I hope that you will give an example of this.

Actually, I have no problem at all with using scripture to validate the RCC. What I have a problem with is using the RCC’s interpretation of scripture to validate the RCC, because it relies upon itself being an authority to make it an authority…that just won’t work. If the RCC has to guide the understanding of that which supposedly authorizes it, then the source isn’t really that which authorizes it at all.

I agree, that is a circular arguement. It is only by the commissioning of Christ that any authentication exists.

Well, I don’t think we can say that all of them were perfectly so, but generally, yes, I would say the documents you’re referring to are sound in their teaching (though clearly even the RCC doesn’t espouse all of the writings of all of those authors).

Yes, so if there is historical evidence in them for the presence of Peter in Rome, and the Apostolic Succession, on what grounds to you reject this evidence?

Also bear in mind that even heretics like Arius were taught by apostles and their followers.

Which is a very good example of why Apostolic Succession is so critical. The Arian communities were also full of “mature believers”.

 

[Teflon93]

Which is a very good example of why Apostolic Succession is so critical. The Arian communities were also full of “mature believers”.

Precisely. PCM’s contention that early Christians neither recognized nor needed authority is false on its face, as even a cursory glance at one of Paul’s epistles makes clear.

This “mature community of believers” stuff is nonsense. The apostles were men, not gods, nor puppets of God.

The New Testament is no freer of the struggle to be truly holy than the Old.

Guanophore, one question you bring to mind is:

“Was elevating Paul over the Gospel writers as an authority necessary for the Reformers?”

I hope the line of my inquiry is plain.