M
Montalban
Guest
Ah, so the 12 were picked to judge… later on!
- Status
M
Montalban
Guest
I’m not Roman Catholic so I’d never make that point!
M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed, and we know for instance that they taught others and consecrated others.
M
mozart-250
Guest
…except this does not clearly show apostolic succession,
Judas never served as an apostle.
M
Montalban
Guest
Don’t they mention him as part of the 12?
M
mozart-250
Guest
He died before he could actively serve as an apostle.
M
Montalban
Guest
So the replacement for him then acted as an Apostle. What’s the objection?
M
mozart-250
Guest
The objection is the following logic in attempting to prove apostolic succession from the Bible.So the replacement for him then acted as an Apostle. What’s the objection?
The Bible shows that Matthias replaced Judas. Therefore we should expect similar replacements for the remaining 11 apostles.
This logic neglects the fact that (in contrast to Judas) the remaining apostles died after the start of the church age and actually functioned as apostles in the apostolic church. Therefore the Bible is ambiguous on apostolic succession.
If you want to show apostolic succession, in my humble opinion the better case would be the historic one. If you can show that an impartial historian would accept the fact that this did indeed occur, the next logical question would be “Were the apostles wrong?”
M
Montalban
Guest
I still don’t get your objection. Judas would have gone on to be an “Apostle” (if he wasn’t already) and thus there would have been the ‘12’ originals. Judas died and was replaced. I don’t see any significance about him being replaced, except that it shows that the Apostles (the others) had the idea that they needed to find a replacement AND that they had the power to appoint such.
The 12 -the Aposltes weren’t necessarily bishops but the founders of bishoprics. Though they could do both.
M
MotherNoRest
Guest
I think this whole argument devolves to the REAL argument: Sola scriptura vs. Church Authority. Church authority has been there and understood from day one when Jesus appointed Peter. If Catholics are expected to jump through hoops to “prove” apostolic succession from the Bible, and the only authority we can defer to in the debate is an admittedly ambiguous text, then no one wins. It can only devolve to a matter of opinion.
Most of the debates on doctrine will wend their way, inevitably, back to the issue of authority. Protestants have an often ambiguous book and Catholics listen to the Church.
It is like two kids arguing over when they can eat their dessert and all they have is a note left by mom: “You can have the cookies later.” They can argue all day what “later” means but only mom can step in and explain what she meant.
Most of the debates on doctrine will wend their way, inevitably, back to the issue of authority. Protestants have an often ambiguous book and Catholics listen to the Church.
It is like two kids arguing over when they can eat their dessert and all they have is a note left by mom: “You can have the cookies later.” They can argue all day what “later” means but only mom can step in and explain what she meant.
M
Montalban
Guest
Of course, there are those with a different tradition that says Jesus did no such thing re: Peter!
M
mozart-250
Guest
It is logical to assume that the apostles had the power to appoint replacements. It is not logical to assume based on this scripture that the apostles would conclude they needed to replace themselves based on this Scripture.
M
MotherNoRest
Guest
I realize that there are those who said Jesus did not give Peter any special role or that his role died with him, etc.
This is the same debate as the debate over apostolic succession: if Catholics are limited in this debate to an ambiguous text (though I’d argue, it’s not terribly ambiguous in the case of the primacy of Peter) then we are denied the one thing that can prove our point, the opinion of the Church.
Old Testament/New Testament exegesis makes Peter’s role as the Royal Steward and keeper of the keys quite apparent.
But how can anyone logically argue with opinion?
Protestants, would you debate the meaning of the Consititution of the United States without being able to refer to the mindsets, opinions, faith backgrounds of the framers or to the political situation that they were trying to escape? Could you fully interpret the meaning of the Constitution while being limited to its words only? I think you’d find that a frustrating endeavor and we see the same phenomena with this document as with the Bible: abiguity and a myriad of opinions.
This is the same debate as the debate over apostolic succession: if Catholics are limited in this debate to an ambiguous text (though I’d argue, it’s not terribly ambiguous in the case of the primacy of Peter) then we are denied the one thing that can prove our point, the opinion of the Church.
Old Testament/New Testament exegesis makes Peter’s role as the Royal Steward and keeper of the keys quite apparent.
But how can anyone logically argue with opinion?
Protestants, would you debate the meaning of the Consititution of the United States without being able to refer to the mindsets, opinions, faith backgrounds of the framers or to the political situation that they were trying to escape? Could you fully interpret the meaning of the Constitution while being limited to its words only? I think you’d find that a frustrating endeavor and we see the same phenomena with this document as with the Bible: abiguity and a myriad of opinions.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Read I Clement. He was appointed by the Apostles and wrote before the last of them, St. John died.
Read I Timothy and Acts. All this laying on of hands business. Why?
And what do you think the bishops in I Timothy were supposed to be doing?
Any “ambiguity” being READ INTO the NT is because the Apostles were alive while it was being written. Had to, as they were the ones who wrote it.
M
mozart-250
Guest
If I recall the quote correctly, that is quite convincing at least on the basis of history. I would like to see a Protestant response to that quote saying either (1) it is not apostolic succession (I’m reading the quote wrong or out of context) or (2) it is not historically accurate (there are other historical sources that contradict Clement).
However the laying on of hands in the New Testament does not necessarily mean succession. Succession means replacement of one by another. One can not conclude by reading these New Testament passages that the objects of these activities were replacing somebody else. In fact since there was no mention of any deaths in these passages, the natural explanation would be that they were not.
S
st_felicity
Guest
Spare me…
What a logic wiggle.Check out Matthew 10: 1-12 and Mark 3: 13-19, …seems the Bible disagrees with you.
S
st_felicity
Guest
BTW: “Apostles” were the ones who walked with Christ (Paul was an Apostle because Jesus made Himself present to Paul). Over time, they all would die, but that doesn’t mean the authority of their teaching died–it was passed on as Paul demonstrates Titus 2:14.
M
mozart-250
Guest
No, that is not a “logic wiggle”. It is a significant distinction.Spare me…
Check out Matthew 10: 1-12 and Mark 3: 13-19, …seems the Bible disagrees with you.
I am well aware that the gospels use the term apostle in speaking about the 12. That is why I used the term “actively serve”. I probably could have been more clear and use the term “actively serve the church”.
The point is that It is faulty logic to Biblically conclude that the remaining 11 apostles would have chosen successors to themselves based on the relationship Judas->Matthias, which was a special case.
BTW you must have the wrong Scripture in Titus 2:14. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote. someplace, that “The tragedy of Judas is that he could have been St Judas”.
In any case, he was one of the 12 apostles…
Now the argument I have heard made (& which I think is a:hypno: :doh2: **really **wild and :whacky: :whacky: stretch!!), is that “the only reason God called Paul on the road to Damascus, was because the disciples had
sinned by appointing Matthias”.:dts:Now there is an example of **real **weaselling:shrug:…IMNSHO.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Try Titus 1:4-9
- Status