Matt Slick and the Apostles

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hope1960

Guest
I was watching part of a YouTube video today with Matt Slick. He said something about that if our Pope is a successor to the Apostles and the Apostles could perform signs and miracles, then our Pope should be able to perform signs and miracles. His reasoning is that since he can’t, he’s not really their successor. What is the answer to that assertion?
 
Hope1960 said:
What is the answer to that assertion?
Click to expand...
What if the Pope does perform signs and miracles, but Matt Slick refuses to acknowledge them? 🤔

If he refuses to acknowledge that a priest can consecrate bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood, or any of the hundreds of miraculous things that have been performed by Catholic priests, deacons, bishops, and popes throughout the century, nothing will.

Secondly, where in the Bible does it say that one must be able to perform signs and wonders to be an Apostle? In Acts, when Matthias was raised as an Apostle, why weren’t any of his signs and wonders recorded along with his election if they’re that important?
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
If he refuses to acknowledge that a priest can consecrate bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood, or any of the hundreds of miraculous things that have been performed by Catholic priests, deacons, bishops, and popes throughout the century, nothing will.
Click to expand...
Besides Transubstantiation and forgiving sins what are a number of miraculous things priests, deacons, bishops and Popes done throughout the century?
 
This is disgusting similar to Matthew 12:38

”Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

Also John 6:30

”So they asked him, "What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?”
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
Besides Transubstantiation and forgiving sins what are a number of miraculous things priests, deacons, bishops and Popes done throughout the century?
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, St. John Vianney had a way to look into the hearts of men and know their true sins. An article here lists some done by Popes:


The Church has canonized dozens upon dozens of clergy, all with miracles to their names.
 
Last edited:
Hope1960 said:
I was watching part of a YouTube video today with Matt Slick. He said something about that if our Pope is a successor to the Apostles and the Apostles could perform signs and miracles, then our Pope should be able to perform signs and miracles. His reasoning is that since he can’t, he’s not really their successor. What is the answer to that assertion?
Click to expand...
If signs and miracles are the mark of authority, then where are his?

All he does is make illogical incendiary claims. Don’t be fooled. These are not “good points”. He doesn’t have “a point” other than anti-Catholic.
 
The whole concept that the Pope isn’t legit or the true successor is actually very pharasitical and heretical when looking at it through the lense of Matthew 16:18

”And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

If the Pope was somehow not legit or the true successor, this belief would then be claiming that “the gates of hell” did take over the Papacy to some degree. If people want to make this heretical claim they can, but they have to recognize they are calling Jesus a liar in the process
 
Expanding on this, every saint ever canonized has miracles attached to them. To question whether there are miracles or not happening would be putting Jesus on trial and last I remember, satan already did this for 40 days in the desert…
 
Why single out this Pope? There are miracles that abide in the Church militant, as manifested to people of faith by relics, visits to shrines and prayer through the intercession of saints. How does he explain that?
 
The early church fathers adhered to apostolic succession but had no belief that the bishops and priests would be performing those types of miracles. The Apostles passed on the authority to minister and oversee the Church and to preserve its teachings to specific individuals, consecrating them to this role with the laying on of hands and the sacrament of holy orders. There was no expectation that they’d be miracle healers or anything of the like. Matt Slick’s idea is not what is meant by “successor to the apostles.”
 
Dan_Defender said:
Why single out this Pope? There are miracles that abide in the Church militant, as manifested to people of faith by relics, visits to shrines and prayer through the intercession of saints. How does he explain that?
Click to expand...
He didn’t say Pope Francis specifically, so I think he was talking about all Popes.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
My answer is stay away from Matt Slick. His garbage is barely worth the effort it took to type this comment.
Click to expand...
Isn’t his brand of Christianity like Jack Chick’s? I’ve heard a lot about Chick here but have never personally read any of his tracts.
 
Well Pope Clement I for example, performed miracles during his life. But never mind, Matt Slick would surely deny any miracle. In the end, faith is a gift.
 
God isn’t going to just work some miracle through his Popes or anyone else to satisfy the likes of Matt Slick.

However, it should be noted that Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were all credited with performing medical miracles after their death in order to become canonized saints.

Pope Pius XII saw the “Miracle of the Sun” personally, four times. He only told a few people and left a note in his papers about it.

Pope Pius X, also now a canonized saint, was credited with curing people while he was alive. One of his cures was a child paralyzed since birth who sat on the Pope’s lap and within a few minutes started running around the room.

Pope Pius X was pope from 1903 - 1914 and the others were all later in the 1900s.

So Mr. Slick doesn’t bother to do much research as he could have found all this stuff with a 2 minute Google. Of course, he’d probably just find some other reason why it was fake or should be dismissed. :roll_eyes:
 
He actually is talking about people being rude to HIM during debates!
 
@Hope1960

How would Matt Slick know what our Popes are doing. What absolute proof does this person have that our Popes do not perform any of the roles of the Apostles. This person is making broad generalisations that have no basis
 
Last edited:
In that video Slick was saying that Mary wasn’t a virgin after Jesus’ birth. Slick does seem to know his Bible as well as Greek etc. so he should know the Catholic apologetic that “until” doesn’t mean Mary lost her virginity after Christ’s birth. What say you?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top