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

[savedsinner]

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?

Why did he advise such to the church in Smyrna???

Well, let’s see…

St. Ignatius (not Ignatious) of Antioch was being led to his martyrdom in Rome, and wrote a letter to each of the churches he passed through on his way to that martyrdom, giving these churches encouragement and advice during those times of martyrdom and heresies.

I would venture to guess that St. Ignatius was writing this to the Smyrnaeans so that they would listen to their bishop for the truth instead of people like you that claim to have the “truth” but instead are teaching something that contradicts the traditions passed down from the Apostles through these bishops.

 

[tdgesq]

Why did he advise such to the church in Smyrna???

Well, let’s see…

Indeed. Savedsinner is correct. There were no special or unique circumstances existing in the Smyrnaean Church that account for Ignatius’ comments on episcopal authority. He wrote to multiple churches to strengthen their faith and to warn against various heretical sects. Here is how Ignatius characterizes the faith of the Smyrnaeans:

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . . Chapter 1.

PC, did you even look at the The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans before posting what you did? There is no indication of faithlessness or other special circumstances that would warrant your comments, especially in light of the following:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. Chapter 1.Once again, Ignatius praises the Church of the Ephesians.

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:25 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. Chapter 6.Ignatius using almost identical language to his letter to the Smyrnaeans.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians.

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. Chapter 2. Ignatius affirms the faithfulness of the Trallians in subjecting themselves to their bishop as to Jesus Christ.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.

Having been informed of your godly love, so well-ordered, I rejoiced greatly, and determined to commune with you in the faith of Jesus Christ. Chapter 1.Again, praising the Magnesians faithfulness.

Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets. Chapter 3. Same language as to the Smyrnaeans.

Your theory that Ignatius overemphasized the authority of the bishop in his letter to the Smyrnaeans because of some kind of special historical circumstance is demolished. That you haven’t read these letters before commenting on them is troubling. Troubling because:

And after a great deal of suffering he [Ignatius] came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Chapter 3.The Martyrdom of Ignatius.

St. Ignatius, martyred for the Church, a disciple of John the Apostle himself, who wrote some of the earliest Christian writings available, and you ignore them, preferring instead to speculate without any basis. It is instances like this that make your comments about Catholics having preconceived notions on Church authority a little bit difficult to swallow.

 

[guanophore]

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?

This is interesting. I just read in another post a reference to Apostolic Succession that you said could be extracted to apply to all believers at all times. Now this one is not so handy?

This was written during the same time period as

Rev 2:8-11

8 "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.

9 "‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who conquers shall not be hurt by the second death.’

It leads one to believe that the Church is being infiltrated by those who claim to hold the faith, but do not.

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.

Actually, this is a very secular mindset to impose on the Church. Jesus made it clear that leadership in the Kingdom was to be servant leadership. That is one reason the Pope signs everything “servant of the servants of God”. He is at the bottom. Christ is at the Head. I don’t think this was “required” either. Obviously, this is how Jesus chose to set it up.

  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.

People being in disagreement does not detract from the unity exept for themselves. Unity exists in doctrine, and all those who embrace the doctrine become part of that unity. Those who reject the Teachings of Jesus are no in unity with Him, or the Church He founded. Other people being in positions to resolve disputes did not have the promises that Christ gave to the Church.

 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?

For me it is because I know that it is not “Roman” as you assert. This is the case for all the Churches that are based in the Apostolic teaching and succession. In fact, the reality that it is not “roman” lends more credence for me.

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).

May he be merciful to you in His kindness.

  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.

I agree with this. There was no separate Roman Rite in the Church for almost 600 years. It was Catholic universally.

 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.

I dont’ see them either, but I do see that Jesus identifies Himself completely with His church, and that He has spoken through the Authority that He appointed consistently for 2000 years.

 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.

Jesus’ decision to build His church is sufficient validity for those who accept his words.

More later folks.

I hope you can get off that phony ‘Roman’ thing!

 

[utunumsint]

Indeed. Savedsinner is correct. There were no special or unique circumstances existing in the Smyrnaean Church that account for Ignatius’ comments on episcopal authority. He wrote to multiple churches to strengthen their faith and to warn against various heretical sects. Here is how Ignatius characterizes the faith of the Smyrnaeans:

I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that you are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, . . . . Chapter 1.

PC, did you even look at the The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans before posting what you did? There is no indication of faithlessness or other special circumstances that would warrant your comments, especially in light of the following:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians.

I have become acquainted with your name, much-beloved in God, which you have acquired by the habit of righteousness, according to the faith and love in Jesus Christ our Saviour. Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, you have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you. Chapter 1.Once again, Ignatius praises the Church of the Ephesians.

Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:25 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. Chapter 6.Ignatius using almost identical language to his letter to the Smyrnaeans.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians.

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. Chapter 2. Ignatius affirms the faithfulness of the Trallians in subjecting themselves to their bishop as to Jesus Christ.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.

Having been informed of your godly love, so well-ordered, I rejoiced greatly, and determined to commune with you in the faith of Jesus Christ. Chapter 1.Again, praising the Magnesians faithfulness.

Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets. Chapter 3. Same language as to the Smyrnaeans.

Your theory that Ignatius overemphasized the authority of the bishop in his letter to the Smyrnaeans because of some kind of special historical circumstance is demolished. That you haven’t read these letters before commenting on them is troubling. Troubling because:

And after a great deal of suffering he [Ignatius] came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Chapter 3.The Martyrdom of Ignatius.

St. Ignatius, martyred for the Church, a disciple of John the Apostle himself, who wrote some of the earliest Christian writings available, and you ignore them, preferring instead to speculate without any basis. It is instances like this that make your comments about Catholics having preconceived notions on Church authority a little bit difficult to swallow.

This post sums up my thoughts on St. Ignatius. Couples with the following quote from St. Celement, it seems as though we have a pretty good picture of what the church looked like in the first hundred years of its existence.

“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. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry.”

Apostolic succession in a nutshell.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SCALCO]

This post sums up my thoughts on St. Ignatius. Couples with the following quote from St. Celement, it seems as though we have a pretty good picture of what the church looked like in the first hundred years of its existence.

Apostolic succession in a nutshell.

God bless,
Ut

Exactly.

According to Clement and Ignatius:

1. A bishop is required.
2. A bishop must be appointed by another bishop.
3. The first bishops were appointed by the Apostles.

This is the line.

 

[tdgesq]

Couples with the following quote from St. Clement, it seems as though we have a pretty good picture of what the church looked like in the first hundred years of its existence.

Some historical information on St. Clement of Rome:

1. According to William Jurgens, Clement wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians in ca. 80. books.google.com/books?id=l62q-d4Wi20C&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=jurgens+cyprian&source=web&ots=ZcTk7Z8eHV&sig=Kjz2uIX5voRcYDx5kRoMPTXJ3d8&hl=en#PPP15,M1
2. He was Bishop of Rome during that time, and Schaff, who is not Catholic, concludes that Clement ministered with St. Paul in Phillipi. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.i.html
3. Tertullian, writing ca. 199 affirms that Clement was ordained by St. Peter himself.
4. Clement writes about the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Paul, which occurred during his lifetime. newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm.

The structure and authority of the Church are set out long before the canon of the New Testament was ever established. Yet for some reason Protestants continue to view those much later writings as more reliable than those that were written by students of the original Apostles. Astonishing.

 

[utunumsint]

If you look at the 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, and Titus, the setting of these Epistles is that Paul is instructing his disciples on how to conduct themselves after he had gone.

2nd Tim 4:6-7 For I am already being poured out like a libation, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have competed well; I have finished the race; I have kept the faith.

So these letters constitue a kind of passing on of the torch to the successors to the apostles. The situation he speaks to consistently is the appearance of false teachers.

1 Tim 4:1-2 Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.

1 Titus 1:10-13 For there are also many rebels, idle talkers and deceivers, especially the Jewish Christians. It is imperative to silence them, as they are upsetting whole families by teaching for sordid gain what they should not. One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, “Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons.” That testimony is true. Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith,

2 Tim 3:1-9 But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power. Reject them. For some of these slip into homes and make captives of women weighed down by sins, led by various desires, always trying to learn but never able to reach a knowledge of the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth–people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith. But they will not make further progress, for their foolishness will be plain to all, as it was with those two.

The answers made to this situation is constantly the establishment of presbyters (elders) and bishops.

1 Titus 1: 5-9 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

This is the beginning of the chain which constitues apostolic succession. Its purpose, among others, is to exhort with soud doctrine (orthodoxy) and to refute opponents.

In the letter of St. Clement of Rome, and the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch, we are simply seeing a flowering of the this institutional church founded by the apostles.

Continued

 

[utunumsint]

1st Clement is explains this apostolic chain in chapter 42 to the rebelious church of the Corinthians with an upstart faction of rebels.

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.
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. 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, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. 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. 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.

God appoints Jesus, Jesus appoints the 12, the 12 appoint the bishops (presbyters) and deacons.

Chapter 44 is even more explicit

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.

And these successors to the ministry of the apostles cannot be arbitrarily removed.

We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

And finally, the threefold structure of the church is explained by St. Ignatius

Smyrneans chapter 8 Let nothing be done without the bishop.
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. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Irenaeus provides the first list of bishops of Rome stemming from Peter and Paul as his proof for the authenticity of his teachings and the falsehood of the teachings of the gnostics.

Against the Heresies Book 3, chapter 3, section 3. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

All of this shows one unified church under the authority of the bishops. The Easter Controversy that occured under Pope Victor, had only bishops among the disputants. It was this living authority that governed the people of God and made vital decisions on behalf of the faithful. It is this institution that is preserved today in the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Ut

 

[SCALCO]

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.)

Where are the other 11?

Regarding Apostolic Succession, why is there not a 1 to 1 relationship for the other 11 Apostles like there is for Peter?

Good question. I’ve seen it come up several times.

Repeating a few answers from this thread and other threads:

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.

This idea of a 1 to1 one relationship is alien to the Church. A bishop can ordain several successors, or several bishops one successor. The real point is the continuity of the college.

I wasn’t aware that the rest of the Apostles didn’t have successors? For instance, after James was executed in Jerusalem, there was a new bishop selected there after the destruction of the temple.

The other Apostles became bishops in various areas. These areas became bishoprics.

Paul set up Tim as a successor to him, even instructing him on how to ordain others so that they can teach others. This is four levels of Apostolic Succession demonstrated in Scripture.

I could be wrong here, but the Apostles DO have successors to their office.

Theodore II is the successor to the office of Mark the Apostle, and I’m not sure who the current successor to Saint Thomas’ office is but they’re headquartered in India where The Doubter was said to have been martyred.

There were originally 12. They replaced the 12th. Soon, apostolic power and authority were required of more than 12 in order to spread the Gospel, so others were added in a manner similar to that used for choosing Matthias. Perhaps Justus Barsabbas, who “lost” the election in Acts 1 made it in the second round?

The original 12:

Matthew 10:2-4
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (1) (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew (4); James son of Zebedee (2), and his brother John (3); Philip (5) and Bartholomew (6); Thomas (8) and Matthew (7) the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus (9), and Thaddaeus (10*); Simon the Zealot (11) and Judas Iscariot (12), who betrayed him.

These 12 have a specific role:

Matthew 19:27
Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

So, does any of this completely answer the question where are the other 11 successors? I think it is a partial answer. Maybe someone else can explain better or add a little.

 

[Teflon93]

Where are the other 11?

Regarding Apostolic Succession, why is there not a 1 to 1 relationship for the other 11 Apostles like there is for Peter?

Good question. I’ve seen it come up several times.

Repeating a few answers from this thread and other threads:

According to my bishop, the practice in the Church is for bishops to have hands laid upon them by multiple bishops as they assume their office. This has the practical effect of giving each bishop multiple lines of succession back to the apostles.

It should also be noted that distance and martyrdom in the early Church may have closed off some lines of succession entirely.

The original 12:

Matthew 10:2-4
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (1) (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew (4); James son of Zebedee (2), and his brother John (3); Philip (5) and Bartholomew (6); Thomas (8) and Matthew (7) the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus (9), and Thaddaeus (10*); Simon the Zealot (11) and Judas Iscariot (12), who betrayed him.

These 12 have a specific role:

Matthew 19:27
Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

So, does any of this completely answer the question where are the other 11 successors? I think it is a partial answer. Maybe someone else can explain better or add a little.

 

[Brady_W]

Hey guys and gals,

Just wanted to ask ya all a question. I am currently talking with about 10 non-denominational Christians who are interested in learning more about Catholicism at my College. We are getting ready to go over the necessity of the Catholic Church. To pre-pare I am basically writing some tracts, I email them to them, and they read them and come with questions. Instead of me writing everything twice, would it be ok with you all if I just post my little writings on here as I complete them?
I’ll be doing them in this order (I think)

1. The Necessity of the visible unity of the Church
2. The Church as the Body of Christ and Authority
3. Apostolic Succession
4. Primacy of Peter
5. Apostolic Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura

Sorry haven’t posted for a while, finals are about to swamp me ha ha.

God bless you all,

Brady

 

[guanophore]

Where are the other 11?

Regarding Apostolic Succession, why is there not a 1 to 1 relationship for the other 11 Apostles like there is for Peter?

Good question. I’ve seen it come up several times.

So, does any of this completely answer the question where are the other 11 successors? I think it is a partial answer. Maybe someone else can explain better or add a little.

All of the Apostles ordained many bishops to succeed themselves. There is also a line of Bishops from Peter originating in Antioch, before he went to Rome.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The longer this thread goes on the more overwhelming is the proof that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded and who he gave authority.

I know some of you cradle Catholics have always known that the Catholic Church is the one true church but even having know it for years–when you once again hear all the proof:

Doesn’t it make you want to weep for joy and give praise to God and ask God to have mercy on your souls?

Doesn’t it really make sense that Jesus knew what He was doing when He selected the disciples and gve them the power to forgive and retain sin and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven?

Sure makes a whole lot more sense to me than the invisible authority less church that Satan wants people to believe in–how does that church lead to unity with God’s will?

 

[Teflon93]

The longer this thread goes on the more overwhelming is the proof that the Catholic Church is the church that Jesus founded and who he gave authority.

I know some of you cradle Catholics have always known that the Catholic Church is the one true church but even having know it for years–when you once again hear all the proof:

Doesn’t it make you want to weep for joy and give praise to God and ask God to have mercy on your souls?

Doesn’t it really make sense that Jesus knew what He was doing when He selected the disciples and gve them the power to forgive and retain sin and gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven?

Sure makes a whole lot more sense to me than the invisible authority less church that Satan wants people to believe in–how does that church lead to unity with God’s will?

Amen!

 

[PC_Master]

While quite a few of the posts since my last were filled with the same rhetoric and off-topic points as before, there were a couple of things I wanted to respond to:

Why did he advise such to the church in Smyrna???..I would venture to guess that St. Ignatius was writing this to the Smyrnaeans so that they would listen to their bishop for the truth instead of people like you that claim to have the “truth” but instead are teaching something that contradicts the traditions passed down from the Apostles through these bishops.

Okay – here’s the problem. You’re making assumptions:

1. That there were other people teaching who didn’t have the truth.
2. That the traditions passed from the apostles to the bishop in question were passed on flawlessly.
3. That these early writers (not just Ignatius, but also Clement, et al) knew for certain that these particular bishops were teaching the truth without error.

Now, given the failure of any one of these points, your entire line of thinking doesn’t stand up to reason.

The real key is that, as you say, you’re guessing – trying to make it fit what you choose to believe, rather than reading history and seeing what it says. You’re looking for apostolic succession, papal authority, etc, and so you’re sure to find it. This isn’t entirely unexpected, but it is disappointing in that I was hoping for something a little more objective…this time around.

According to Clement and Ignatius:

1. A bishop is required.
2. A bishop must be appointed by another bishop.
3. The first bishops were appointed by the Apostles.

This is the line.

We see that some bishops were appointed by the apostles, but we don’t see that bishops must be the ones to appoint other bishops. But more importantly, we don’t see anything about disqualifying bishops who were appointed by bishops.

Also, again, you shouldn’t assume that because early authors advised listening to bishops on occasions they wrote about, that it was impermissible for anything to happen without a bishop.

The structure and authority of the Church are set out long before the canon of the New Testament was ever established.

As previously pointed out, historical evidence suggests:

1. That Paul’s writings (probably consisting of 12 letters) were in circulation by the end of the first century, and there’s evidence in early writings and even in scripture itself (as I recall), that such writings were read in many of the churches at the time.
2. The four gospels were undoubtedly in place by the middle of the second century.
3. The Muratorian fragment shows that almost all of the NT canon was well in place before 200AD.

Yet for some reason Protestants continue to view those much later writings as more reliable than those that were written by students of the original Apostles. Astonishing.

Wait – so writings that were dated to the first century, written by the apostles themselves, or within a generation thereof (Mark, Luke, Acts) should be secondary to writings of a later date?

Also, while we’re on the subject of canonicity – I just ran across the dates Roman Catholicism claims for canonization again.

397AD – Council of Carthage defined an NT canon consisting of the 27 books.
393AD – The Synod of Hippo defined a canon of 27 books.
382AD – Council of Rome defined a canon of 27 books.

Now, this is just a passing thought, which I haven’t had much time to research, but the obvious question raised is – if Rome was truly recognized as being in charge of the church, would a council at Rome regarding biblical canon not have settled the issue for the church at large, thereby making the later events of 393 and 397 rather contradictory?

Where are the other 11?

Good question. I’ve seen it come up several times.

[List of quotes omitted]

The original 12:

I hope we all agree who the original twelve were.

These 12 have a specific role:
Matthew 19:27
Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”

28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Okay – so the twelve (the specific twelve who were with Christ) were to sit on twelve thrones. Note that this seems individual-specific, not a power of office, persay.

So, does any of this completely answer the question where are the other 11 successors? I think it is a partial answer. Maybe someone else can explain better or add a little.

This is a good attempt at an answer, but I think it leaves a lot lacking.

All of the Apostles ordained many bishops to succeed themselves. There is also a line of Bishops from Peter originating in Antioch, before he went to Rome.

You insist apostolic succession requires one, and only one, successor of Peter, even though he appointed more than one bishop, and you also maintain that it’s important to know who that one successor is today…yet you don’t find it equally important, or even worthwhile at all, to apply the same requirements to the other 11?

 

[tdgesq]

As previously pointed out, historical evidence suggests

Before we go any further than this, I believe you are conflating early reliable historical documents with what is declared to be Scriptural.

1. That Paul’s writings (probably consisting of 12 letters) were in circulation by the end of the first century, and there’s evidence in early writings and even in scripture itself (as I recall), that such writings were read in many of the churches at the time.

For all of these answers, remember what I said above.

I have seen no evidence from you that any of the books of what we now call the Bible were circulating in the first century. Even if you can show me, circulation does not equal canonicity. The entire question here is whether they constitute the infallible word of God. Circulation, like the widely circulated Shepard of Hermas for instance, does not make it Scripture.

1. The four gospels were undoubtedly in place by the middle of the second century.

I have no idea what this means. “In place” in that it was being cited in second century writings? Look at what I wrote at the very beginning of this post. The entire question is whether it was identified as Scripture, not whether some 2nd century writers were talking about it.

1. The Muratorian fragment shows that almost all of the NT canon was well in place before 200AD.

The “in place” language again? That makes no difference when it comes to whether it is the infallible word of God. You don’t know who wrote the Muratorian fragment, so it’s highly puzzling to me that you rely upon it. Perhaps the writer left out the four absent New Testament books because he was heretic. I don’t believe that’s true, but only because that document appears in 10th-11th century documents held by the Holy Catholic Church.

Wait – so writings that were dated to the first century, written by the apostles themselves, or within a generation thereof (Mark, Luke, Acts) should be secondary to writings of a later date?

Here is where your confusion becomes manifest. Assuming that your dating is historically accurate, none of those writings claim that they are the infallible word of God, so why do you believe that they are? They should just be considered by you to be early historical writings, in which case parts of them could be mistaken.

Also, while we’re on the subject of canonicity – I just ran across the dates Roman Catholicism claims for canonization again.

397AD – Council of Carthage defined an NT canon consisting of the 27 books.
393AD – The Synod of Hippo defined a canon of 27 books.
382AD – Council of Rome defined a canon of 27 books.

Now, this is just a passing thought, which I haven’t had much time to research, but the obvious question raised is – if Rome was truly recognized as being in charge of the church, would a council at Rome regarding biblical canon not have settled the issue for the church at large, thereby making the later events of 393 and 397 rather contradictory?

You are engaging in the fallacy of diversion. This isn’t about whether local councils at a time there wasn’t a printing press and the fastest form of communication was by horse demonstrates that the Church at Rome lacked authority. It’s about whether the structure and authority of the Church was testified to by history before the New Testament writings were identified as Scriptural.

It’s a simple debate. Let’s compare the historical evidence for the Scriptural nature of the New Testament writings with the authority and structure of the early Church. Why don’t you just come over to the winning side PC?

 

[Teflon93]

I have seen no evidence from you that any of the books of what we now call the Bible were circulating in the first century. Even if you can show me, circulation does not equal canonicity. The entire question here is whether they constitute the infallible word of God. Circulation, like the widely circulated Shepard of Hermas for instance, does not make it Scripture.

We’re still waiting to see evidence of any stripe from PCM. When may we look forward to this evidence?

You are engaging in the fallacy of diversion. This isn’t about whether local councils at a time there wasn’t a printing press and the fastest form of communication was by horse demonstrates that the Church at Rome lacked authority. It’s about whether the structure and authority of the Church was testified to by history before the New Testament writings were identified as Scriptural.

PCM doesn’t seem to have much of a notion how the world really worked in the 1st century. Apply his contentions to secular politics and he’s claiming that there was no Roman Emperor, coins, legions and buildings notwithstanding.

Whence did the notion of Rome’s primacy in the Church come from? Read the ECFs. They clearly turn time and again to Rome for guidance and protection from heresy. Why?

It’s a simple debate. Let’s compare the historical evidence for the Scriptural nature of the New Testament writings with the authority and structure of the early Church. Why don’t you just come over to the winning side PC?

I’ll place my bet on “pride” in the office pool for this question. Until PCM starts providing actual evidence for his claims, they seem to be grounded in reason not at all.

 

[PC_Master]

I won’t bother with most of the slanderous ad hominem attacks thus far, and simply would point to the lack of any reasonable response to my prior inquiries as the “proof in the pudding”, so to speak.

However, I do take issue with two things:

You don’t know who wrote the Muratorian fragment, so it’s highly puzzling to me that you rely upon it.

Regardless of who wrote it, or whether or not they were a heretic, the Muratorian fragment proves that a vast majority of the New Testament was considered scriptural, and if we take the text as legitimate (and we have no reason not to, especially considering the numerous other texts supportive of the same scriptures), we see that at least a good portion of the churches considered these volumes as such. Does this establish their canonicity in itself – no. What it does is proves that Rome really wasn’t settling an issue that was very devisive in the church. Scripture was already well on its way to becoming established long before that, and without the action of any council or pope, I might add.

You are engaging in the fallacy of diversion. This isn’t about whether local councils at a time there wasn’t a printing press and the fastest form of communication was by horse demonstrates that the Church at Rome lacked authority.

Oh come on! We’re talking a period of more than 10 years between the supposed canonization by Rome, and the next known canonization event. I’d consider it close to impossible that the word of Rome’s decision wouldn’t have reached to Africa by then, and again, if Rome had decided, there’d be no reason for the others to do so, and in fact we should expect them to have made reference simply as promulgating the decision of Rome. And even so, we should expect to see that much sooner than over a decade later.

It’s about whether the structure and authority of the Church was testified to by history before the New Testament writings were identified as Scriptural.

They were identified as scriptural within the first century. Peter’s works seem to indicate that Paul’s writings were considered as scripture in his very own lifetime. So, do you have something that’s earlier than that?

I’m also still waiting on the question of the 1-to-1 successors of the other 11 apostles, since apostolic succession is so important.

As for evidence – are you actually disputing that the gospels and Paul’s writings were in circulation in the first century? If not, what are you saying actually happened to them during this time? Or are you doubting their dates of authorship?

 

[Brady_W]

Hey P.C.

Don’t have time for a lengthy post but I would like to hear your opinion on the following from St. Irenaeus. He’s not as early as Ignatius, but still wrote around 160-180 A.D. and may well be considered the most important theologian of the second century. In “Against Heresies” I’ve taken a few excerpts:

“It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received with the succession of the episcopate, the charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held is suspicion.”

“The true gnosis is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which successions the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere; and the very complete tradition of the scriptures, which have come down to us by being guarded against falsification, and which are received without addition or deletion; and reading without falsification, and a legitimate and diligent exposition According to the Scriptures, without danger and without blasphemy; and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and more honored than all the other charismatic gifts.”

God Bless.

 

[utunumsint]

Hey P.C.

Don’t have time for a lengthy post but I would like to hear your opinion on the following from St. Irenaeus. He’s not as early as Ignatius, but still wrote around 160-180 A.D. and may well be considered the most important theologian of the second century. In “Against Heresies” I’ve taken a few excerpts:

“It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received with the succession of the episcopate, the charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held is suspicion.”

“The true gnosis is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the Body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which successions the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere; and the very complete tradition of the scriptures, which have come down to us by being guarded against falsification, and which are received without addition or deletion; and reading without falsification, and a legitimate and diligent exposition According to the Scriptures, without danger and without blasphemy; and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and more honored than all the other charismatic gifts.”

God Bless.

Here is another one I like from Ireneaus:

The Church, which has spread everywhere, even to the ends of the earth, received the faith from the apostles and their disciples. By faith, we believe in one God, the almighty Father who made heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them. We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became man for our salvation. And we believe in the Holy Spirit who through the prophets foretold God’s plan: the coming of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, his birth from the Virgin, his passion, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension into heaven, and his final coming from heaven in the glory of his Father, to recapitulate all things and to raise all men from the dead, so that, by the decree of his invisible Father, he may make a just judgement in all things and so that every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth to Jesus Christ our Lord and our God, our Saviour and our King, and every tongue confess him.
The Church, spread throughout the whole world, received this preaching and this faith and now preserves it carefully, dwelling as it were in one house. Having one soul and one heart, the Church holds this faith, preaches and teaches it consistently as though by a single voice. For though there are different languages, there is but one tradition.
The faith and the tradition of the churches founded in Germany are no different from those founded among the Spanish and the Celts, in the East, in Egypt, in Libya and elsewhere in the Mediterranean world. Just as God’s creature, the sun, is one and the same the world over, so also does the Church’s preaching shine everywhere to enlighten all men who want to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Now of those who speak with authority in the churches, no preacher however forceful will utter anything different – for no one is above the Master – nor will a less forceful preacher diminish what has been handed down. Since our faith is everywhere the same, no one who can say more augments it, nor can anyone who says less diminish it.

By the way, how are the tracts comming along?

God bless,
Ut