Protestants: Why Abandon Apostolic Succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Metaron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, the Bible does not mention Purgatory ANYWHERE. If you believe it does, please show me where.
Hmm, well alright, I suppose this might be a rather creative way to show purgatory in Scriptures, but I can’t let this pass;

There is Revelations 12:10b, which mentions Satan the accuser/adversary (depending on your translation), then there is Matthew 5:25-26 which mentions your accuser bringing you to prison, of which you shall not leave until every last penny has been paid. Just one ‘reference.’
Second, Maccabees, according to both Protestants and Jews, is not a part of the Old Testament.
Uhm, now I fail to see what Jews not having the deuterocanonical has anything to do with the Christian Bible, seeing as they decided not to include them in some council c. 90 AD, of which it can be agreed Jews had no place to interpret or ratify Scripture anymore.
Also, Protestants didn’t come around until the 1500’s, so well… Hardly a source to go to to find out the canon of the Bible (which was first ratified by the Synod of Carthage, 367, by the ahem Catholic Church).
For those who don’t repent, there is Hell. It is very clear-cut.
Strawman. Both Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant agree on this.
Fifth, the Church has done no such thing. They fail to give any Biblical reference for Purgatory and acknowledge that when we repent, our sins are absolved.
I don’t understand. Want to rephrase that?
I hate to break it to you, but the Church is not perfect, not infalible.
And if the Church isn’t infallible, how did you get an infallible Bible to tell you such (in your mind)?
 
There is Revelations 12:10b, which mentions Satan the accuser/adversary (depending on your translation), then there is Matthew 5:25-26 which mentions your accuser bringing you to prison, of which you shall not leave until every last penny has been paid. Just one ‘reference.’
Let’s start here, shall we. Number one, Revelation 2:10 does not apply to Purgatory. I know quite a lot about this verse as it was my confirmation verse. It is a message to Christians to remain strong and faithful to Christ in order to recievee the joys of Heaven, and if they don’t do so, Hell is waiting. Number two, Matthew 5:25-26 is an instruction to settle matters of a financial nature outside of court, if at all possible. That is a worldly verse if there ever was one. It is aimed at keeping Christians out of trouble with the law.

Next, the Jews were the source for the Old Testament. We took that from them. After all, we see ourselves as the fulfilment of the Jewish Scriptures. The Old Testament was theirs and the founders of the early Church took it with them and added to it books which had been left out for a reason.
 
I probably shouldn’t reply, seeing as I am unlikely to convince anyone here that I am right; and honestly I have found most of the arguments I have read to be lacking, so I probably won’t get a reply that can convince me that I am wrong. But putting my own arrogance and pragmatism aside, this is my take on the issue. Ever play the game “telephone?” You know, the one where you stand in a line and someone whispers a word or a phrase into the ear of the person at the front of the line; then at the end of the line you find out that bumble bee turned into New York City. Well, the same can be said of a lesson that is passed down through 200 and some odd popes. Sure, at first the teaching is spot on; but then as time goes on and each person perceives and teaches the lesson differently it changes. Then at the end we find out that Jesus turns into Mary, and Heaven turns into hell. Or insert whatever words you like; the only condition is that the word at the end will not be the same as the word at the beginning. That is why we have scripture, and why oral tradition became written; because we recognized that for consistency we couldn’t rely on verbal communication for everything anymore. Apostolic succession only works as long as the lessons that are taught remain constant and none are left out or added. And While I believe in the infallibility of God, I have a much harder time with people; especially when even the Apostle Peter consistently got it wrong and had to be corrected by Christ. My money is on the accuracy of the scriptures.
Yes, but to refer to God’s Holy immutable Word as a silly child’s game is really missing out. God prepared His people for centuries in the safeguarding and transmission of the Word from generation to generation. Even when they were deported, and all their belongings stolen, burned, or otherwise taken they were still able to preserve the Word. We see examples of this method of sacred history in Acts. Every Jew had to memorize his own lineage, and the history of the People of God. You can read recitations of this in Stephen’s defense against the Sanhedrin, and in Paul’s. There are actually three separate recitations of Paul’s. This preservation of the sacred history was not a frivolous game of child’s play, but the life or death responsibility of every faithful member of the covenant. In fact, they were not initiated until they could show that they could take on this responsibility. God is able to watch over HIs word to perform it, and He is able to preserve it from generation unto generation. Now, if you choose not to accept it because y ou don’t agree with the content, you are free to do so. The Sanhedrin didn’t like Stephen’s rendition much, either. :eek:
 
I probably shouldn’t reply, seeing as I am unlikely to convince anyone here that I am right; and honestly I have found most of the arguments I have read to be lacking, so I probably won’t get a reply that can convince me that I am wrong. But putting my own arrogance and pragmatism aside, this is my take on the issue. Ever play the game “telephone?” You know, the one where you stand in a line and someone whispers a word or a phrase into the ear of the person at the front of the line; then at the end of the line you find out that bumble bee turned into New York City. Well, the same can be said of a lesson that is passed down through 200 and some odd popes. Sure, at first the teaching is spot on; but then as time goes on and each person perceives and teaches the lesson differently it changes. Then at the end we find out that Jesus turns into Mary, and Heaven turns into hell. Or insert whatever words you like; the only condition is that the word at the end will not be the same as the word at the beginning. That is why we have scripture, and why oral tradition became written; because we recognized that for consistency we couldn’t rely on verbal communication for everything anymore. Apostolic succession only works as long as the lessons that are taught remain constant and none are left out or added. And While I believe in the infallibility of God, I have a much harder time with people; especially when even the Apostle Peter consistently got it wrong and had to be corrected by Christ. My money is on the accuracy of the scriptures.
Don’t put too much money on the scriptures.😃 Base on your reasoning with the telephone game we will have to throw out the scriptures.

Peace,
DCD
 
The Roman Catholic Church paints a picture of an orderly chain of succession of popes who followed in the footsteps of the Apostle Peter. If even one of these men was not a valid Pope, then the chain is broken.

We are going to look at some popes and compare their lives with the Biblical qualifications for being a bishop. In the process, we will learn about some distressing things. However, we should not be surprised. Jesus told us that there would be tares among the wheat. (Matthew 13:24-30) He also warned us that there would be wolves among the sheep. (Matthew 7:15) So did the Apostle Paul. (Acts 20:29-30)

Every church has had its share of tares and wolves. However, the Catholic Church claims to have apostolic succession-an unbroken chain of valid popes that go all the way back to the Apostle Peter. My reason for telling you about these “wolf” popes is to demonstrate that some popes were not even valid bishops, let alone valid popes. And that breaks the “chain” of apostolic succession.

I apologize for putting you through this, but I can’t adequately make my point without giving you this information.
 
Pope Honorius reigned from 625 to 638 A.D. He was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. [Note 1]

In 769, Pope Stephen IV came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope. Stephen gave orders for his papal rival to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken, and be imprisoned until he died. Then Pope Stephen sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died. [Note 2]

Pope Leo V only reigned for one month (July 903). Cardinal Christopher put Leo in prison and became Pope. Then Christopher was put in prison by Cardinal Sergius. Sergius killed Leo and Christopher while they were in prison. He also killed every cardinal who had opposed him. [Note 3]

Pope John XII reigned from 955 to 964. He was a violent man. He was so lustful that people of his day said that he turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel. He drank toasts to the devil. When gambling he invoked pagan gods and goddesses. He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife. [Note 4]

In the tenth century, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the popes was Marozia’s son; he was fathered by a Pope. [Note 5]

In 1003, Pope Silvester II was murdered by his successor, Pope John XVII. Seven months later, John was poisoned. [Note 6]

Pope Benedict VIII reigned from 1012 to 1024. He bought the papacy with bribery. He kept a private force of “pope’s men” who were known for torture, maiming, and murder. When Benedict VIII died, his brother seized power and became Pope John XIX. He had himself ordained a priest, consecrated as a bishop, and crowned as pope, all in the same day. John died under suspicious circumstances. [Note 7]

In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade to take Jerusalem (the “holy land”) back from the Muslims. This was a “holy war.” The Pope said that Crusaders would have full remission of their sins, and if they died in battle they would be martyrs. As the Crusaders went through Europe on their way to Jerusalem, they slaughtered European Jews. When they reached Jerusalem, they were brutal in their conquest of the city. Many Muslims were beheaded, but some were tortured and then burned to death. This began a conflict between Islam and the West that is still going on today. Later popes called for other Crusades. At first they targetted Muslims, but the Fourth Crusade (in 1198) was against Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. [Note 8]

Pope Benedict IX reigned from 1032 to 1044, in 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. He became Pope through bribery. He squandered the wealth of the Papacy on prostitutes and lavish banquets, and he had people murdered. The citizens of Rome hated Benedict so much that, on two occasions, he had to flee from Rome. Benedict sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI. As part of the deal, he continued to live in the Lateran Palace, with a generous income. Benedict filled the Lateran Palace with prostitutes. [Note 9]

In 1298, Pope Boniface VIII ordered that every man, woman, child, and animal in the Italian town of Palestrina be slaughtered. He was known for torture, massacre, and ferocity. [Note 10]

Pope Clement VI reigned from 1342 to 1352. He ordered the slaughter of an entire Italian town. He lived a life of luxury and extravagance. He openly admitted that he sold church offices and he used threats and bribery to gain power. Clement purchased a French palace, which became famous for its prostitutes. [Note 11]

Pope Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope) reigned from 1492 to 1503. He was known for murder, bribery, and selling positions of authority in the Catholic Church. He enjoyed luxurious living. The art book “Treasures of the Vatican” shows a portrait of him wearing gold vestments that are covered with jewels. They look like pearls, emeralds, large rubies, and other jewels. His tiara (the papal crown) is gold, with three rows of large jewels on it. Alexander had four children by mistresses. His son Cesare was known for the kinds of murderous intrigues that make good opera plots. According to “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes,” Cesare and Alexander killed people and seized their property. Pope Alexander was so hated that when he died, the priests who came to say prayers for him were driven away by the palace guards, and his body was left unattended. [Note 12]

Pope Julius II reigned from 1503 to 1513. He became Pope through bribery. He was ruthless and violent. He had a reputation for lust, drunkenness, rages, deception, and nepotism. [Note 13]

Would you want any of these men to be your pastor?
 
Sorry, ran out of room. But there are plenty of examples of how the system of ‘papal sucession’ broke down.
  1. William Webster, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History,” pages 63-71. Peter de Rosa, “Vicars of Christ,” 208-209. (De Rosa is a practicing Catholic and a former Catholic priest. While he was a priest, he did research in the Vatican Archives.) Hans Küng, “The Catholic Church: A Short History,” page 60. (Küng is a Catholic theologian.) Claudio Rendina, “The Popes: Histories and Secrets,” pages 112-114. J.N.D. Kelly, “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes,” pages 70-71. Richard P. McBrien, “Lives of the Popes,” pages 101-103.
  2. Claudio Rendina, pages 153-157. Richard P. McBrien, pages 124-125. Malachi Martin, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” pages 85-89. (Martin was a Catholic priest.)
There is some confusion as to whether this Pope was Stephen III or Stephen IV. This is because an earlier Stephen (who would have been Stephen II) was elected Pope but he died before he was consecrated. (Richard P. McBrien, page 121.)
  1. Richard P. McBrien, pages 150-151, 435. Malachi Martin, page 123. Claudio Rendina, pages 215-217. J.N.D. Kelly, pages 118-120. (Martin and Kelly tell about the murders.)
  2. Russell Chamberlin, “The Bad Popes,” pages 40-61. Peter de Rosa, pages 211-215. Hans Küng, page 79. Richard P. McBrien, pages 157-159, 435. Claudio Rendina, pages 226-229. J.N.D. Kelly, pages 126-127.
  3. Russell Chamberlin, pages 25-39. Malachi Martin, page 119. Hans Küng, page 79. Richard P. McBrien, pages 153 (under “John X”), 154-155 (under “John XI”).
  4. Malachi Martin, page 131. Claudio Rendina, pages 243-247. (Martin tells about the murders.)
  5. Malachi Martin, pages 130-132. Claudio Rendina, pages 248-251. Richard P. McBrien, pages 168-170. (Martin gives detailed information about Benedict’s cruelty.)
  6. Jonathan Riley-Smith, “The Crusades: A History.” Thomas Asbridge, “The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam.” Jonathan Phillips, “The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople.” Robert Chazan, “European Jewry and the First Crusade.” Carole Hillenbrand, “The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives.”
  7. Russell Chamberlin, pages 62-76. Malachi Martin, page 132. Peter de Rosa, pages 54-56. Claudio Rendina, pages 251-254. J.N.D. Kelly, pages 142-144. Richard P. McBrien, pages 170-172.
  8. Russell Chamberlin, pages 77-126. Malachi Martin, page 171-176. Claudio Rendina, pages 376-379. Paul Johnson, “A History of Christianity,” pages 191, 218-219. Richard P. McBrien, pages 229, 232, 435. (Chamberlin, Martin and Rendina tell about the destruction of Palestrina.)
  9. Peter de Rosa, pages 84-88. Richard P. McBrien, pages 240-242. Claudio Rendina, pages 376-379. (De Rosa tells about destroying a village.)
  10. Peter de Rosa, pages 103-110. Richard P. McBrien, pages 267-269, 437. Russell Chamberlin, pages 161-208. J.N.D. Kelly, pages 252-254. Hans Küng, pages 119-120. Claudio Rendina, pages 431-436. Paul Johnson, pages 280, 363. (McBrien, Kelly and de Rosa tell how Pope Alexander VI and his son Cesare murdered people and seized their property.)
In the Vatican, there is a portrait of Pope Alexander VI wearing gold vestments that are covered with jewels. There is a large, full-color picture in Albert Skira, “Treasures of the Vatican,” page 86. There is a smaller full-color picture in the National Geographic book, “Inside the Vatican,” page 49. (Although it is smaller, you can still see the gold and jewels.) There is also a small black-and-white picture in Richard P. McBrien, “Lives of the Popes.” (Following page 392 there is a series of numbered pictures. The portrait of Alexander VI is Picture 10.)
  1. Peter de Rosa, pages 111-113. Paul Johnson, page 280. Claudio Rendina, pages 438-441. J.N.D. Kelly, pages 255-256. Richard P. McBrien, pages 270-272.
 
Before you all jump on me, please let me say that this isn’t a personal attack. These are historical facts, ugly as they are.

I hope that you will look into this on your own, and then you will see that papal sucession is false.

May God bless and keep you.
 
The Roman Catholic Church paints a picture of an orderly chain of succession of popes who followed in the footsteps of the Apostle Peter. If even one of these men was not a valid Pope, then the chain is broken.

We are going to look at some popes and compare their lives with the Biblical qualifications for being a bishop. In the process, we will learn about some distressing things. However, we should not be surprised. Jesus told us that there would be tares among the wheat. (Matthew 13:24-30) He also warned us that there would be wolves among the sheep. (Matthew 7:15) So did the Apostle Paul. (Acts 20:29-30)

Every church has had its share of tares and wolves. However, the Catholic Church claims to have apostolic succession-an unbroken chain of valid popes that go all the way back to the Apostle Peter. My reason for telling you about these “wolf” popes is to demonstrate that some popes were not even valid bishops, let alone valid popes. And that breaks the “chain” of apostolic succession.

I apologize for putting you through this, but I can’t adequately make my point without giving you this information.
I have to say, my own argument was weak at best, but my hat is off to AntePavelic. The man is right, and his argument is far better than mine. My point in all of this is simply that there is no authority under God that trumps the scriptures. There is no Church, and certainly no man or woman that can disagree with the scriptures in even the smallest thing and be right or truthful. Beyond that, I do not owe nor will I swear allegiance to anyone or anything but God through his son Jesus Christ. So any church that I am a part of I serve only in that I am trying to serve Christ and as a consequence the church benefits. When the church is wrong, and it is on occasion wrong (as proven in the many letters Paul wrote to reprove the church in various areas); it is my duty to stand against its heresy and foolishness. “If salt has lost its saltiness…” All this being said, I think the church is indeed important and should be accorded some authority and responsibility. I just think it is important to have a clear notion of Who is ultimately in charge and how we know him and his will. And in case I haven’t made my view perfectly clear, here it is one more time. The ladder of authority goes: God, scripture, the church , clergy, lay people. I understand that unless I am quoting scripture only my authority rests solely on the bottom rung of the ladder; but even the least of us has God given abilities and responsibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top