Is the Catholic church biblical?

[evidence]

Matt 16 is often the verse used to defend the church hierarchy, and righty so, because it is obviously pointing to peter as the foundation rock. If a really great musician was speaking to a student, and said " your a really talented musician, and I would like to use this talent at my next concert", everyone would know that the musician was not refering to his own talent… The petros/petras argument has be disproven for years now ( see catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp as well as the audio show “pope fiction” #2 which is a free download in the audio library of ewtn.com.)
But Matt 16 is only one of many verses that show that Jesus founded a sacramental, authoritative church, which was to be carried on through apostolic succession. For example:

Preist in NT - [Laying on Hands = ordination - Nm 27:18+19, 1 Tm 4:14, 5:22, 2 Tm 1:6-8,
(Deacons - Acts 6:1-8, 1 Tm 3:8-10) ]
Acts 1:15-26 - apostolic succession, 14:23-appointed presbyters, 15:2,4+6-Apostles and Presbyters,
1 Tm 3:1-13 - bishop
Ti 1:5-7 - bishop appoints presbyters,
1 Pt 5:1-5-overseer(bishop)gives advice to presbyters,
1 Cor 11:23 - 31, John 6, Lk 22= Eucharist
Eph 4:11 -apostles seperate and first in list(hierarchy)

Visible Church - MT 16:18-19, 18:17-18, 1 Tm 3:15,
Jn 20:23 - power to bind and loose=judge-forgive sins
Lk 10:16, Jn 14:16+26, 16:13, Mt 28:20, -Garantee of Holy Spirits guidance to apostles

The church fathers of the 1st 2 generations after Christ taught the same thing. Read them for yourself @ catholic.com - go in the library menu into fathers know best tracts. My conclusion is that the Catholic church is the only one today that still looks the same.
I’d be interested to read a logical refutation of these verses…

 

[tobinatorstark]

Matt 16 is often the verse used to defend the church hierarchy, and righty so, because it is obviously pointing to peter as the foundation rock. If a really great musician was speaking to a student, and said " your a really talented musician, and I would like to use this talent at my next concert", everyone would know that the musician was not refering to his own talent… The petros/petras argument has be disproven for years now ( see catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp as well as the audio show “pope fiction” #2 which is a free download in the audio library of ewtn.com.)
But Matt 16 is only one of many verses that show that Jesus founded a sacramental, authoritative church, which was to be carried on through apostolic succession. For example:

Preist in NT - [Laying on Hands = ordination - Nm 27:18+19, 1 Tm 4:14, 5:22, 2 Tm 1:6-8,
(Deacons - Acts 6:1-8, 1 Tm 3:8-10) ]
Acts 1:15-26 - apostolic succession, 14:23-appointed presbyters, 15:2,4+6-Apostles and Presbyters,
1 Tm 3:1-13 - bishop
Ti 1:5-7 - bishop appoints presbyters,
1 Pt 5:1-5-overseer(bishop)gives advice to presbyters,
1 Cor 11:23 - 31, John 6, Lk 22= Eucharist
Eph 4:11 -apostles seperate and first in list(hierarchy)

Visible Church - MT 16:18-19, 18:17-18, 1 Tm 3:15,
Jn 20:23 - power to bind and loose=judge-forgive sins
Lk 10:16, Jn 14:16+26, 16:13, Mt 28:20, -Garantee of Holy Spirits guidance to apostles

The church fathers of the 1st 2 generations after Christ taught the same thing. Read them for yourself @ catholic.com - go in the library menu into fathers know best tracts. My conclusion is that the Catholic church is the only one today that still looks the same.
I’d be interested to read a logical refutation of these verses…

you obviously know your stuff

 

[Robbinson]

Matt 16 is often the verse used to defend the church hierarchy, and righty so, because it is obviously pointing to peter as the foundation rock. If a really great musician was speaking to a student, and said " your a really talented musician, and I would like to use this talent at my next concert", everyone would know that the musician was not refering to his own talent… The petros/petras argument has be disproven for years now ( see catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp as well as the audio show “pope fiction” #2 which is a free download in the audio library of ewtn.com.)
But Matt 16 is only one of many verses that show that Jesus founded a sacramental, authoritative church, which was to be carried on through apostolic succession. For example:

Preist in NT - [Laying on Hands = ordination - Nm 27:18+19, 1 Tm 4:14, 5:22, 2 Tm 1:6-8,
(Deacons - Acts 6:1-8, 1 Tm 3:8-10) ]
Acts 1:15-26 - apostolic succession, 14:23-appointed presbyters, 15:2,4+6-Apostles and Presbyters,
1 Tm 3:1-13 - bishop
Ti 1:5-7 - bishop appoints presbyters,
1 Pt 5:1-5-overseer(bishop)gives advice to presbyters,
1 Cor 11:23 - 31, John 6, Lk 22= Eucharist
Eph 4:11 -apostles seperate and first in list(hierarchy)

Visible Church - MT 16:18-19, 18:17-18, 1 Tm 3:15,
Jn 20:23 - power to bind and loose=judge-forgive sins
Lk 10:16, Jn 14:16+26, 16:13, Mt 28:20, -Garantee of Holy Spirits guidance to apostles

The church fathers of the 1st 2 generations after Christ taught the same thing. Read them for yourself @ catholic.com - go in the library menu into fathers know best tracts. My conclusion is that the Catholic church is the only one today that still looks the same.
I’d be interested to read a logical refutation of these verses…

This is an excellent post - and I was “almost” there (may be some day, but didn’t quite get there . . yet). The counter argument (which is also very strong based upon scripture) is that Peter and the Apostles were given authority (and even perhaps Peter was given special authority), but that this authority was to them and they, guided by the Holy Spirit, taught authoritatively and those teachings were recorded and preserved in the cannon).

The concept of apostolic succession would be such an important doctrine, its hard to accept that it is not expressly described in scripture - at best it is implied in some respects by references to “keys to the kingdom” as an “office” as evidence of early church father practice and belief.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[wmscott]

This is an excellent post - and I was “almost” there (may be some day, but didn’t quite get there . . yet). The counter argument (which is also very strong based upon scripture) is that Peter and the Apostles were given authority (and even perhaps Peter was given special authority), but that this authority was to them and they, guided by the Holy Spirit, taught authoritatively and those teachings were recorded and preserved in the cannon).

The concept of apostolic succession would be such an important doctrine, its hard to accept that it is not expressly described in scripture - at best it is implied in some respects by references to “keys to the kingdom” as an “office” as evidence of early church father practice and belief.

Blessings,

Brian

You say that Apostolic Succession is implied. By that same standard the Trinity is also implied. I am sure there are plenty of references that can be posted if you like that, although by your standards are implied, that spells out Apostolic Succession quite well. It is all a matter if you want to trust what Sacred Scripture is telling you. Peace.

 

[Robbinson]

You say that Apostolic Succession is implied. By that same standard the Trinity is also implied. I am sure there are plenty of references that can be posted if you like that, although by your standards are implied, that spells out Apostolic Succession quite well. It is all a matter if you want to trust what Sacred Scripture is telling you. Peace.

Fair point. I’ll grant you this, if Apostolic Succession is true (a scriptural doctrine), then its “game over” on the debate between denominations. I’d like it to be true - that would be much easier - and I’ll concede that it “may be true”.

A great difficulty I have had with accepting the doctrine (together therefore with papal infallibility on doctrines of faith) relates to the Church’s miserable history with respect to Jews (including Jewish believers) until Vatican II. The writings of the early Church fathers (who the Church relies on for supporting a number of “traditions” and interpretations of scripture) with respect to Jews is just diametrically opposed to the gospel and the teachings of Jesus.

I’m thankful that the church’s position is changing … but the fact that it is changing (and took 2,000 years to do so meaningfully) is an impediment to accepting the apostolic succession and infallibililty doctrines.

I’m still praying about it though - thanks for the reply.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[lightoftheworld]

I see your point about some of the screed from early Fathers. It is important to remember that they did not limit this stuff to the Jews - the way they spoke about a lot of stuff we would not accept today.

But more important than this, you have to remember:

King David had the whole Bathsheba affair.
Solomon became an idolater
Peter denied Jesus three times and acted hypocritically
The mother of the “sons of Zebadee” attempted to get her children special privilege in the kingdom of God.

We believe in what the Fathers teach in as far as that they are teaching doctrine, not necessarily on all of their personal beliefs.

I hope this helps.

God bless,
Peter Rowe

 

[JRKH]

This is an excellent post - and I was “almost” there (may be some day, but didn’t quite get there . . yet). The counter argument (which is also very strong based upon scripture) is that Peter and the Apostles were given authority (and even perhaps Peter was given special authority), but that this authority was to them and they, guided by the Holy Spirit, taught authoritatively and those teachings were recorded and preserved in the cannon).

The concept of apostolic succession would be such an important doctrine, its hard to accept that it is not expressly described in scripture - at best it is implied in some respects by references to “keys to the kingdom” as an “office” as evidence of early church father practice and belief.

Blessings,

Brian

It’s Late and I’m tired, but felt the need to comment briefly. There are many things not expressly stated in the NT that are taken for granted. The Trinity being one of them. As to the Authority of the Church I have noted the following.
The term Church generally means assembly or community, both of which will generally have some sort of organizational offices that are passed on from person to person. Such assemblies or communities exist in the secular world as well as the religious and can last for many years, decades - even centuries and no one questions that the structure is practical and necessary or that the offices are legitimate and rightfully passed from generation to generation. Why should the Kingdom of God be any different? Why should the Kingdom of God not have structure and offices that pass from generation to generation? - Jesus did preach the coming of a Kingdom did He Not?
Yet people will say that Christ did not give such authority to the Apostles or that "Church means assembly and not a centrally organized church. Have you ever heard of a kingdom, or any government, that has NO structure and offices? How much more need is there for struccture to guard order and unity in a Worldwide Kingdom. It’s just common sense.

The Apostles started the ball rolling by appointing Presbyters and also Bishops in the various communites founded. They fully expected that their offices, along with their Christ given authority would pass on. As the Church grew offices and other governmental structures evolved in the Church, always under the guidance of Christ the King. After All Christ Himself knew that He was not coming back in the lifetime of the Apostles so why would He leave us with no Earthy authority after their death? Why would He give teh Authority only to take it away? Finally - Since the Apostles were given the authority to bind and loose, and they have “Bound” that those who follow are their rightful successors with their full authority and power, this is “Bound in heaven”.

I’m sorry if the above is a bit disjointed, but I hope it porvides at least some food for thought.

Peace
James

 

[Robbinson]

I see your point about some of the screed from early Fathers. It is important to remember that they did not limit this stuff to the Jews - the way they spoke about a lot of stuff we would not accept today.

But more important than this, you have to remember:

King David had the whole Bathsheba affair.
Solomon became an idolater
Peter denied Jesus three times and acted hypocritically
The mother of the “sons of Zebadee” attempted to get her children special privilege in the kingdom of God.

We believe in what the Fathers teach in as far as that they are teaching doctrine, not necessarily on all of their personal beliefs.

I hope this helps.

God bless,
Peter Rowe

Actually - very helpful.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Philthy]

This is an excellent post - and I was “almost” there (may be some day, but didn’t quite get there . . yet). The counter argument (which is also very strong based upon scripture) is that Peter and the Apostles were given authority (and even perhaps Peter was given special authority), but that this authority was to them and they, guided by the Holy Spirit, taught authoritatively and those teachings were recorded and preserved in the cannon).

The concept of apostolic succession would be such an important doctrine, its hard to accept that it is not expressly described in scripture - at best it is implied in some respects by references to “keys to the kingdom” as an “office” as evidence of early church father practice and belief.

Blessings,

Brian

Hi Brian!

I wish you well on your faith journey and trust God will work it all out in the end. When I read your hesitation based on the absence of Apostolic succession expressly described in Scripture, I can’t help but wonder how you dismiss the almost complete lack of a Scriptural basis for believing in a forthcoming New Testament. Where in any prophetic or NT writings do we catch a glimpse of a forthcoming “Scripture” - from both the Apostles and non-Apostles - which is to become the rule of faith in the post-Apostolic era??? And why, if it was an early teaching of the Apostles - was there no accepted canon of Scripture assembled by the Apostles themselves???

Blessings!

 

[JRKH]

Hi Brian!

I wish you well on your faith journey and trust God will work it all out in the end. When I read your hesitation based on the absence of Apostolic succession expressly described in Scripture, I can’t help but wonder how you dismiss the almost complete lack of a Scriptural basis for believing in a forthcoming New Testament. Where in any prophetic or NT writings do we catch a glimpse of a forthcoming “Scripture” - from both the Apostles and non-Apostles - which is to become the rule of faith in the post-Apostolic era??? And why, if it was an early teaching of the Apostles - was there no accepted canon of Scripture assembled by the Apostles themselves???

Blessings!

Peace
James

 

[wmscott]

Fair point. I’ll grant you this, if Apostolic Succession is true (a scriptural doctrine), then its “game over” on the debate between denominations. I’d like it to be true - that would be much easier - and I’ll concede that it “may be true”.

A great difficulty I have had with accepting the doctrine (together therefore with papal infallibility on doctrines of faith) relates to the Church’s miserable history with respect to Jews (including Jewish believers) until Vatican II. The writings of the early Church fathers (who the Church relies on for supporting a number of “traditions” and interpretations of scripture) with respect to Jews is just diametrically opposed to the gospel and the teachings of Jesus.

I’m thankful that the church’s position is changing … but the fact that it is changing (and took 2,000 years to do so meaningfully) is an impediment to accepting the apostolic succession and infallibililty doctrines.

I’m still praying about it though - thanks for the reply.

Blessings,

Brian

Brian, first off let me express my respect and admiration for the truly charitable responses I have seen from you so far. It is not very often that non-Catholics are here to truly learn, although not agreeing on every point, is respectful in their tone and disagreements. From what I can see you have a wisdom far beyond those who are here to discredit the Catholic Church and try to prostulize and shake the faith of Catholics. Your line of reasoning is clear and understandable.

I would like to just say that although in the Catholic Church’s history there have been less than charitable or even Christian attitudes or actions. We have to remember that these were sinners, and they were imperfect, as we are sinners and imperfect. Remember the Church is a hospital for sinners. However, it is the Catholic Faith, not the people (sinners), guided by the Holy Spirit, that is above reproach.

To state, “I’d like it to be true - that would be much easier - and I’ll concede that it “may be true” shows that you are discerning enough to see the wisdom of the Church’s position. This is far more than most in your position. I could, as well as many others here throw all kinds of Sacred Scripture verses, Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church letters, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church at you, however I suspect you have already read most of that information. What it really comes down to is Faith, prayers, and a willingness to believe. Only you know your spiritual wants and needs and whatever path you take, I hope you find happiness. Peace

 

[Robbinson]

Brian, first off let me express my respect and admiration for the truly charitable responses I have seen from you so far. It is not very often that non-Catholics are here to truly learn, although not agreeing on every point, is respectful in their tone and disagreements. From what I can see you have a wisdom far beyond those who are here to discredit the Catholic Church and try to prostulize and shake the faith of Catholics. Your line of reasoning is clear and understandable.

I would like to just say that although in the Catholic Church’s history there have been less than charitable or even Christian attitudes or actions. We have to remember that these were sinners, and they were imperfect, as we are sinners and imperfect. Remember the Church is a hospital for sinners. However, it is the Catholic Faith, not the people (sinners), guided by the Holy Spirit, that is above reproach.

To state, “I’d like it to be true - that would be much easier - and I’ll concede that it “may be true” shows that you are discerning enough to see the wisdom of the Church’s position. This is far more than most in your position. I could, as well as many others here throw all kinds of Sacred Scripture verses, Early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church letters, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church at you, however I suspect you have already read most of that information. What it really comes down to is Faith, prayers, and a willingness to believe. Only you know your spiritual wants and needs and whatever path you take, I hope you find happiness. Peace

Thank you for this lovely reply.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Third_Day]

Apostolic succession is clearly seen in scripture. Paul had hands laid on him in Acts 13:3. Paul tells us he laid his hand on Timothy with the council of elders

1 Tim 4:14 “ Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders laid their hands upon you.”
2 Tim 1:6 " through the laying on of my hands"

Here Paul gives us four generations of apostolic succession. The apostles appointed Paul who appointed Timothy who is to appoint faithful men who will teach others.

2 Tim 2:2 “ and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”

The laying on of hands comes from the Old Testament. The apostles clearly knew that this was God’s way of passing on authority
Old Testament
Numbers 27:18-20 “And the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand upon him; cause him to stand before Elea’zar the priest and all the congregation, and you shall commission him in their sight. You shall invest him with some of your authority, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may obey”.

Deut 34:9 “ Now Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with the spirit of wisdom, since Moses had laid his hands upon him; and so the Israelites gave him their obedience, thus carrying out the LORD’S command to Moses”

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has used the laying on of hands to pass on apostolic authority.

 

[evidence]

about the sins and failures of the catholic faithful, especially those in leadership…it is important to recognize that the infallible teaching of the church is restricted to the areas of faith and morals, and the doctrines must be taught as official doctrine by either the pope in union with the bishops or by an ecumenical council (CCC 889-892)
this goes back to the comment before about the distiction between a teaching of the church and the opinion of a single catholic, even if he is a bishop or pope.
if there was is an official teaching of the church that is anti-semetic, please post it here…it would definitely make me question my beliefs again.

about the belief that The apostles teachings were preserved in a canon and then their authority ended:
if apostolic authority ended in 100 AD, then the church could not have collected and canonized the text of the new testament as infallibly set as 27 books at the council of Hippo in 393. we would have no authority to decide which books were in the bible as there were several different “canons” floating around for the 1st 400 years of Christianity

in addition, the sacraments of confession , the annointing of the sick, and The Eucharist and holy orders had to be continuous past the apostles’ lifetimes since they are the normal way that Jesus intended to forgive us and keep us close to Him.

As a new forum member, I would also like to comment about how impressed I am at the love and respect showed here between people with different views.

Peace in Christ,
evidence

 

[po18guy]

This is an excellent post - and I was “almost” there (may be some day, but didn’t quite get there . . yet). The counter argument (which is also very strong based upon scripture)

Allow me to enter in here: Scripture is often privately interpreted, against the very advice of scripture itself (2 Peter 1:20). This has produced much confusion, due to contradicting doctrines being introduced.

is that Peter and the Apostles were given authority (and even perhaps Peter was given special authority), but that this authority was to them and they, guided by the Holy Spirit, taught authoritatively and those teachings were recorded and preserved in the cannon).

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The closest is “beloved disciple” John at only 29 times. Peter is always mentioned first, Judas last. Jesus, at some of the most important points in His ministry (the transfiguration Matthew 17:11, Mark 9:2, Luke 9:28], raising Jairus’ - the synagogue leader - daughter form the dead Mark 5:37, Luke 8:51], the agony in the garden Mark 14:33], etc.) often took “Peter, James and John” with him, leaving the others behind.

Since the Apostles were alive throughout the NT, most verses which support Apostolic succession are to be found in Acts, or the letters. Consider how Jesus commanded the Apostles to make disciples “of all nations” in Matthew 28:19. Jesus knew that much of the inhabited world was unknown to the Apostles, so how could their work be accomplished without successors?

The concept of apostolic succession would be such an important doctrine, its hard to accept that it is not expressly described in scripture - at best it is implied in some respects by references to “keys to the kingdom” as an “office” as evidence of early church father practice and belief. Blessings, Brian

In particular, the very first Apostolic succession is recorded quite clearly in Acts 1:15-26, in which Judas is replaced by Matthias. Quoting Psalms of David, (Ps 69:25, Ps 109:8) Peter declares that King David prophesied regarding Judas when he wrote “let his place be desolate, let no man dwell therein” and “Let another take his office”.

Matthias was then chosen to replace Judas. This process has been continued ever since. Additional scriptures in support of succession are Acts 14:23, Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 12:27-31, Ephesians 4:11, Ephesians 2:19-21, 1 Timothy 3:1-13, 1 Timothy 4:13-14, 1 Timothy 5:17-22, 2 Timothy 2:1-2 and Titus 1:5-9.

Do not be afraid. It is in there!