Sacramental Preisthood?

[YinYangMom]

If there isn’t a scriptural foundation for the preisthood, thats awful disconcerting…

When people ask which came first, the chicken or the egg, the answer is the chicken.
God created all the animals (he created everything).
He created them with reproductive systems (the chicken is created with the ability to produce eggs as designed).
For those creatures which require a mate, he created the mate, and then, just as with Adam and Eve, He moved them to get on with the business of populating the planet with that particular species.

One can’t carry on a discussion about the rest of the events following that beginning if they don’t agree on the beginning.

Such is the case with your insistence on Catholics providing scriptural evidence to support the very Tradition from which scripture was created.

Scripture (the written word) didn’t establish the structure of the Church or even the institution of the Sacraments - Jesus (the Living Word) did that orally long before any of that was written down, so it makes no sense to insist on using the bible as the map to heaven.

The bible does not contain a record of everything which transpired while God was man as **the Word **became flesh in Jesus.
It does record, however, the institution of the priesthood as described in the story of the last supper.
It records the passing of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven from Jesus to Peter until He comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead.
It records the birth of the Catholic Church thru the story of Pentecost.
It records the promise of our Lord that the gates of hell will not prevail against that Church He established through those apostles.
It records the covenant Jesus established with His one bride, His church, to which He will remain faithful until He comes again.

So, one cannot insist on scripture to be used as the source of Tradition, since scripture exists because of Tradition.

I get that you don’t want to discuss those other points which keep getting raised whenever you ask for direct scriptural evidence of a particular practice of the Catholic Church, but Apostolic succession and Oral Tradition cannot b****e dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion of what Jesus said before and after His death as revealed in scripture.

The apostles were the ones who travelled the paths with Jesus but they were not the ones to create the maps. They passed on their information to others and guided those others down the same paths. It is those others who finally created the maps and they even included the footnote which states not all that they saw and heard was written because there would not be enough papyrus to record everything. The fact remains that many Traditions which did not make it into the Bible continued to be passed down orally over the years through the Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church.

 

[Afterburned6387]

then lets throw out scripture, why not? the Catholic Church can teach us everything we need to know, I guess I’ll just throw away my bible.

Do you not see that the Bible is Apostolic Succession? (I actually just thought of this) The books of the Bible were most likely written at the end of the lives of the apostles. They were dying, and needed the teachings to continue, so they put pen to paper and wrote the New Testament! If oral tradition is to be the foundation of our faith, then it is prone to transmissional error, and manipulation (as it has been throughout the ages). Why would the apostles have given us the New Testament if not as a guard against heresy?

The New Testament was written by the Apostles (most of it, anyway), if they were writing, shouldn’t the Priesthood come up?

once again, any scriptural evidence?

 

[YinYangMom]

then lets throw out scripture, why not? the Catholic Church can teach us everything we need to know, I guess I’ll just throw away my bible.

Do you not see that the Bible is Apostolic Succession? (I actually just thought of this) The books of the Bible were most likely written at the end of the lives of the apostles. They were dying, and needed the teachings to continue, so they put pen to paper and wrote the New Testament! If oral tradition is to be the foundation of our faith, then it is prone to transmissional error, and manipulation (as it has been throughout the ages). Why would the apostles have given us the New Testament if not as a guard against heresy?

The New Testament was written by the Apostles (most of it, anyway), if they were writing, shouldn’t the Priesthood come up?

once again, any scriptural evidence?

Wow. There are so many errors in those statements I don’t even know where to begin.

The Bible is not Apostolic Succession.
Apostolic Succession came from the Living Word, Jesus, conferring sacraments, grace, and authority to real people - the Apostles.

He did not write the Bible.
He taught the Apostles, who taught others, who then began to write the teachings.

Most of the commentaries I’ve read about the new testament is that the four gospels most likely were not penned by the apostles themselves so I don’t know where you get the idea that they were.

I also did not say oral tradition was the foundation of our faith, I said it was the source. Scripture records much of that Tradition, but not all, therefore we also need the Tradition which continued to be handed down by other means. It is not an either or and cannot be. One cannot extricate the Living Word from the written word, as there is but One Word. That Word became flesh and remains with us through His Bride, the Catholic Church and the Eucharist.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Afterburned6387, if you want to come to the truth you cannot filter it by false assumptions. For this very reason I ask you to get free of the false (and ironically not scriptural) assumption called Sola Scriptura. Think about it, if Sola Scriptura is false, and it’s only Satan’s tool to lead people from the Truth, are you not endangering your quest for the Truth (I assume that that’s what you’re doing) by sticking to it?

Thus I ask you one thing: stop right here and for some time stop taking Sola Scriptura as given. Let us step aside and then look at it, examine it, question it and try to understand why it’s not possible. In other words, before you get into discussions like the one in this thread I simply suggest that we discuss the concept of Sola Scriptura. After you dismiss it then we can fully explain to you the Sacrament of the Holy Orders.

How about make a new thread, take a closer look at Sola Scripture and and then come back to this one? How does that sound? I think it’s better then what we’re doing right now!

In Christ,
~T

 

[Afterburned6387]

I’m sorry, I’ll be sticking to Sola Scriptura, if for no other reason than when you take the Word of God literally, amazing things start happening. There are so many overlapping symbologies, and ideological correlations from Genesis 1 to Maps, I cannot help but say all of them were written by God, There are so many corroborating verses to support Protestant positions, as well as uncover so many deep truths about life, death, reality, and what God is doing on this earth. The spirit inside me screams for the divinity of scripture, and I will hold on to it till my death.

It’s almost like you could base a whole religion on Scripture!

As for the bit about the Gospels not being written by the people identified with them, the Evidence we have shows that the earliest copies we have of those manuscripts (70-90AD) were not originals, and weren’t penned by the Apostles themselves, they were duplicates. In fact, so far as I know, even the Catholic Church holds to Apostolic Authorship on all but Mark, Luke & Acts, Hebrews, and Jude.

 

[CollegeKid]

then lets throw out scripture, why not? the Catholic Church can teach us everything we need to know, I guess I’ll just throw away my bible.

Do you not see that the Bible is Apostolic Succession? (I actually just thought of this) The books of the Bible were most likely written at the end of the lives of the apostles. They were dying, and needed the teachings to continue, so they put pen to paper and wrote the New Testament! If oral tradition is to be the foundation of our faith, then it is prone to transmissional error, and manipulation (as it has been throughout the ages). Why would the apostles have given us the New Testament if not as a guard against heresy?

The New Testament was written by the Apostles (most of it, anyway), if they were writing, shouldn’t the Priesthood come up?

once again, any scriptural evidence?

This article has plenty of Scriptural evidence for a sacramental priesthood. Why don’t you look it over, tell us what you agree with, disagree with, whatever your reaction is.

 

[mlldrl]

After,

He didn’t ask you to put scripture aside. No Catholic would do that. He said the notion of sola scriptura. You seem to have completely missed Gandalf’s point.

M

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I’m sorry, I’ll be sticking to Sola Scriptura, if for no other reason than when you take the Word of God literally, amazing things start happening. There are so many overlapping symbologies, and ideological correlations from Genesis 1 to Maps, I cannot help but say all of them were written by God, There are so many corroborating verses to support Protestant positions, as well as uncover so many deep truths about life, death, reality, and what God is doing on this earth. The spirit inside me screams for the divinity of scripture, and I will hold on to it till my death.

Great! You should hold to the scriptures to your death. All Catholics should.

Look, Afterburned, you need to understand that I’m in no way downgrading the Scriptures, saying that they aren’t the word of God, that they don’t speak great wisdom or anything like that. Rejection of Sola Scriptura (as done most of the Christian world and all early Christians) is not the rejection of the Scripture. It is the rejection of the unbiblical, unhistorical and illogical assumption that all we need is the Bible and that that’s how God wants it.

Also, I’m not saying that you should just say bye to Sola Scriptura (which you however should do ). I’m saying that you should really examine this assumption before you start basing your search for truth on it (if you don’t build your house on a ‘lie’, how can it stand?). I’m urging you to do it. I will make a new thread about it and I invite you to join.

You say that many verses support Protestant positions and I don’t doubt you see it this way. But while saying that consider the fact that some people use Scriptures to deny the Trinity. They read the Bible and see it as completely Biblical.

It’s almost like you could base a whole religion on Scripture!

You certainly can and many have done so. This not only includes many Protestants but also JW’s and Mormons.

As for the bit about the Gospels not being written by the people identified with them, the Evidence we have shows that the earliest copies we have of those manuscripts (70-90AD) were not originals, and weren’t penned by the Apostles themselves, they were duplicates. In fact, so far as I know, even the Catholic Church holds to Apostolic Authorship on all but Mark, Luke & Acts, Hebrews, and Jude.

I don’t deny that part where written by the apostles but I point out to the fact that most Jesus nor most of the Apostles contributed to the Bible and those who did didn’t write everything.

God bless!
~G

 

[maryj]

Please people, once again, I thank you for posting, I’ve read them, and many posts are interesting, but once again, to the Topic!

Scriptural Evidence for a Sacramental Preisthood

I did not start this thread to discuss “Apostolic Succession”

I did not start this thread to discuss “Sola Scripura” or “Tradition” as a basis

I did not start this thread for any other reason than to uncover a SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR THE PREISTHOOD!

stop bloviating and start PROVING (sorry, I’ll admit I’ve been a bad example)

If you really wanna knock my socks off, use scripture, then cite church fathers using that scripture to support a sacramental preisthood, please, I wanna see it!

The most convincing proofs you can give me are:

A. Systematic Theologies, i.e. one scripture leads to another, groups of passages indicate a concept

B. Tradition as an extention of scripture, show me the foundation., and then where it goes

Remember, I’m a baptist, we have traditions too, like not drinking. What is the scriptural foundation for that? in romans we are told not to conduct ourselves in ways that may tempt our brothers, but in the same token we dont (or we shouldnt) look down on, or condemn those who drink responsibly

If there isn’t a scriptural foundation for the preisthood, thats awful disconcerting…

Let’s see…
Instituted by Christ
Luke 22:19 “do this in memory of me”
John 20:21-22 "as the Father has sent me, so I send you…He breathed on them…“receive the Holy Spirit”

Confered by imposition of hands
Acts 6:6 The apostles who prayed and laid hands on them"
Acts 13:3 They laid hands on them and send them off
(see also 1 Tim 5:22; James 5:14)

Give Grace
1 Timothy 4:14 "the gift you have, which was confered on you…through imposition of hands
2 Tim 1:6 "stir into flames the gift of God that you have through the imposition of hands
Acts 14:22 (Apostles appointing presbyters

Priests have authority in spiritual matters
Luke 10:16 "whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me
2 Chorinthians 19:11 “high priest over you in everything that pertains to the Lord (that’s a good one)
Mal 2:7 “lips of the priest are to keep knowledge/ and instruction is to be sought from his mouth”
Matt 10:1 “summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits”
Matt 28:19-20 " Go teaching all that I have commanded you”
Luke 22:19 Jesus tells his apostles to break bread in memory of Him
John 20:22-23 "He breathed on them…‘whose sins you forgive are forgiven them’
Acts 20:28 "watch over…whole flock…holy spirit has appointed you overseers
See also Matt 18:18; 1 Tim 5:22; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 2:5-10; 2:24-25

Given to the celibate
Matt 19:12 "some are incapable of marriage…renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom
1 Cor 4:14-16 “I became your father in Christ Jesus…be imitators of me”
1 Cor 7:7-8( Paul encourages corinthians to stay celibate as he is)
See also 1 Samuel 21:4-5; Is 52:11; Mal 1:10-11; Acts 14:22-23)

Priestly celibacy
Jer 16:1-4 Jeremiah told not to marry or have children
Matt 19:12 Jesus, who was celibate, praises celibacy.
1 Cor 7:8 St. Paul was celibate
1 Cor 7:32-35 St. Paul recommends celibacy for full time ministers
See also 1 Tim 5:9-12; 2 Tim 2:3-4

That’s a good start I think anyhow.

 

[DJim]

I’m sorry, I’ll be sticking to Sola Scriptura, if for no other reason than when you take the Word of God literally, amazing things start happening. There are so many overlapping symbologies, and ideological correlations from Genesis 1 to Maps, I cannot help but say all of them were written by God, There are so many corroborating verses to support Protestant positions, as well as uncover so many deep truths about life, death, reality, and what God is doing on this earth. The spirit inside me screams for the divinity of scripture, and I will hold on to it till my death.

Umm, Scripture is not divine–it’s divinely inspired…that is an infinitely HUGE difference…

Anyway, a couple of points–

1. You never replied whether you were familiar with St. Ignatius’ letters–I’ll take the silence as a “no”.
2. The transmission of Scripture has also been subject to human error. In that sense, it is not more or less reliable than the Living Tradition of the Catholic Church.
3. I must emphasize strongly that Catholic Tradition is NOT simply “oral”. It ain’t.
4. Can you tell me whether Mark 10:26 is divinely inspired, or not? I would appreciate knowing once and for all.

DJim

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Afterburned, here is the Sola Scriptura thread I promised.

God bless,
~G

 

[Pax]

Afterburned,

Please note that both the Old and New Testaments share much in common. The OT covenants are a foreshadowing of the New Covenant. In the NT we have 1 Peter 2:9 which says, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,”

Please compare this verse to the following from the OT.

Exodus 19:5-6
“Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”

Obviously, the Jews were a priestly people in the Old Covenant just as Christians are a priestly people in the New Covenant. The declaration that we are a “priestly people” does not negate the ministerial priesthood. After God makes the declaration in Exodus concerning the people as a kingdom of priests, he then tells Moses the following:

Exodus 19:22-25
And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves, lest the Lord break out upon them." And Moses said to the Lord, “The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou thyself didst charge us, saying, ‘Set bounds about the mountain, and consecrate it.’” And the Lord said to him, “Go down, and come up bringing Aaron with you; but do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to the Lord, lest he break out against them.” So Moses went down to the people and told them.

Exodus 28:1-3
THEN BRING near to you Aaron your brother, and his sons with him, from among the people of Israel, to serve me as priests–Aaron and Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty. And you shall speak to all who have ability, whom I have endowed with an able mind, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood.

Exodus 28:41
And you shall put them upon Aaron your brother, and upon his sons with him, and shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests.

Likewise in the New Covenant we have deacons, presbyters/priests, and bishops. This is the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant and it is in no way negated by your contentions.

In the OT we read about Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16:1-33. It says in part: "NOW KORAH the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men; and they assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” When Moses heard it, he fell on his face;
…
…
Moses responds to Korah with this]

And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered together; what is Aaron that you murmur against him?"

Later in the narrative we read that God destroys Korah and his followers that attempted to usurp the ministerial priesthood. Likewise there is a warning in the NT. In Jude 1:11-13 it says, " Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion."

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the book of Jude concerning Korah’s rebellion is that there are those that would attempt to usurp the ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant just as Korah did in the Old Covenant. Any denial of the proper place of the ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant is synonymous with Korah’s rebellion.

I hope this helps.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Tell me something: if Paul forgives “In Persona Christi”–In the Person of Christ" in 2 Corinthians 2:10–how can that not be Sacramental?

How can anyone forgive In the Person of Christ without God exercising such sacrmental grace through an ordained bishop or priest?

I as a layman can’t forgive In the Person of Christ–can any of you?

And for all Protestants who disbelieve the translation just read the KJV–it translates it the same–later Protestants changed it because they couldn’t stand the fact that confession and absolution were indeed in the sciptures!

 

[Afterburned6387]

Unfortunately, no. It seems only to reinforce my very Protestant, and Baptist belief that we are all Priests of the new covenant. What I’m looking for is evidence that there is a select few out of the body of believers who have special abilities given to them by God, not just Leadership given to them by their congregation.

Thanks for trying though, and thanks for using Scripture…

 

[Turtullian]

Unfortunately, no. It seems only to reinforce my very Protestant, and Baptist belief that we are all Priests of the new covenant. What I’m looking for is evidence that there is a select few out of the body of believers who have special abilities given to them by God, not just Leadership given to them by their congregation.

Thanks for trying though, and thanks for using Scripture…

So how do you deal with Jude’s warning of Christians not to follow th error of Korah? After all Korah and his followers also believed that all of Israel were priests and could offer sacrifices to God and were smacked down because of it. It would make no sense for the HS to inspire Jude if all christians are ministerial priests. Israel was a priestly nation but not all of Israel were priests

Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: and after the error of Balaam they have for reward poured out themselves, and have perished in the contradiction of Core.

 

[Crumpy]

Specifically, that the relationship between say, me and God, is any different than between say, a Priest and God.

As for the objection to Sola Scriptura, the term may have been invented 500 years ago, but remember, the Catholic Church was not only the primary religious authority, but the primary political authority as well. At many points in history, people obeyed the Catholic church not due to Apostolic Succession, but under pain of Death.

If we assume that Papal Authority as it exists now began in 850AD, and we know that the Waldensians and Albingenses, heretics as they were, were beginning to use scripture as the basis of a religion itself, about 1100AD, we are left with only a 300 year gap in the 2000 year history of the church where Scripture was not the ultimate authority. The reformation in 1500 was not only a religious reformation (that had been going on for some 400 years at that point) but that event was also a political reformation.

This political aspect of the reformation is often thrown in my face by Catholics like it was us Protestants who wanted to rule the world, but the fact is, it was a Political Reform cause by Political Problems of an Autocrat who claimed divine authority (another Caesar perhaps?)

Also, I expect people to reason with quotations, not just fling them at me en masse. Show me where, point out where specific points are made or supported. Debate with the God Given Logic you have.

Whoa! there partner. There have been some mighty posts offered up to you with plenty of scriptural references. Your post quoted above reflects no evidence of reading what you have requested.

Why don’t you show some intellectual honesty yourself and read a couple of these? And, yourself, why not some evidence, from wherever, that a priesthood does not exist, which is certainly your starting assumption. This thread is just going to be your personal shooting gallery if you don’t play by some rules yourself.

 

[Afterburned6387]

Let’s see…
Instituted by Christ
Luke 22:19 “do this in memory of me”
John 20:21-22 "as the Father has sent me, so I send you…He breathed on them…“receive the Holy Spirit”

Are you saying we don’t all have the spirit?

Confered by imposition of hands
Acts 6:6 The apostles who prayed and laid hands on them"
Acts 13:3 They laid hands on them and send them off
(see also 1 Tim 5:22; James 5:14)

Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

1 Tim 4:14 – Elders could also lay on hands (sometimes translated “bishops”, of which marriage was a requirement as listed in 1 Tim 3:2)

Give Grace
1 Timothy 4:14 "the gift you have, which was confered on you…through imposition of hands
2 Tim 1:6 "stir into flames the gift of God that you have through the imposition of hands
Acts 14:22 (Apostles appointing presbyters

Priests have authority in spiritual matters
Luke 10:16 "whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me

This applies to seventy two people who were sent by Christ, no where does this indicate a Priesthood

2 Chorinthians 19:11 "high priest over you in everything that pertains to the Lord (that’s a good one)

My second Corinthians only goes to chapter 13
And my first only goes to 16

Mal 2:7 “lips of the priest are to keep knowledge/ and instruction is to be sought from his mouth”

Old Testament Priests exist, I accept that, I’m asking for a new testament presence. Besides, can I not also instruct? I would say in the new covenant, this also applies to all believers

Matt 10:1 “summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits”

He calls them disciples, the same word he uses in the Great Commission to describe us. Does it not also apply to us?

Matt 28:19-20 " Go teaching all that I have commanded you"

so you mean I am excluded from the great commission? but I liked evangelism!

Luke 22:19 Jesus tells his apostles to break bread in memory of Him
John 20:22-23 "He breathed on them…‘whose sins you forgive are forgiven them’
Acts 20:28 "watch over…whole flock…holy spirit has appointed you overseers

Given to Overseers, once again, they MUST be married (1 Tim 3:2)

See also Matt 18:18; 1 Tim 5:22; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 2:5-10; 2:24-25

Given to the celibate
Matt 19:12 "some are incapable of marriage…renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom

Says everyone should try, but there still is no logical connection to “preists”

1 Cor 4:14-16 “I became your father in Christ Jesus…be imitators of me”

Isn’t this also a command to all of us? To the Ephesians, Paul writes “be imitators of God, as dearly loved children” (Eph. 5:1)

1 Cor 7:7-8( Paul encourages corinthians to stay celibate as he is)
See also 1 Samuel 21:4-5; Is 52:11; Mal 1:10-11; Acts 14:22-23)

Priestly celibacy
Jer 16:1-4 Jeremiah told not to marry or have children
Matt 19:12 Jesus, who was celibate, praises celibacy.
1 Cor 7:8 St. Paul was celibate
1 Cor 7:32-35 St. Paul recommends celibacy for full time ministers

In context, he is writing to the members of the Corinthian church, it applies to all in the church (1 Cor 7:29)

See also 1 Tim 5:9-12; 2 Tim 2:3-4

That’s a good start I think anyhow.

Not quite, I am still looking for evidence of Exclusivity of Ability, which I haven’t found yet. Sorry I haven’t responded to each text in detail, but I’ve tried to point out the biggest fallacies, Most of them are out-of-context problems, or irrelevancy problems.

As an entire argument, you still need to get out of the problem of Christ calling the twelve “disciples,” and then telling them to go make “disciples.” I interpret that as meaning that each of us has just as much authority as any apostle. And yes, this includes binding and loosing. If each of us is truly spirit-indwelled, and sensitive to that spirit leading, we have the Mind of Christ, and can interpret on our own in good faith (for Mind of Christ, see 1 Cor 2:16, in context, speaking to all members of the Corinthian Church)

 

[Afterburned6387]

Tell me something: if Paul forgives “In Persona Christi”–In the Person of Christ" in 2 Corinthians 2:10–how can that not be Sacramental?

Well, as in context, Paul is telling the “Church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia,” Paul is saying to all the believers of the church in Corinth have this ability. There is no scriptural indication that he was speaking to just the overseers, deacons, or any other one group. This was a church address.

Context, please, people. Scripture was written as entire letters, not individual verses!

 

[Afterburned6387]

So how do you deal with Jude’s warning of Christians not to follow th error of Korah? After all Korah and his followers also believed that all of Israel were priests and could offer sacrifices to God and were smacked down because of it. It would make no sense for the HS to inspire Jude if all christians are ministerial priests. Israel was a priestly nation but not all of Israel were priests

The invocation of Korah in this context is as an example of rebellion, no where does it equate his error to this error, only his rebellious nature, how else would you also explain the reference to Balaam, and Cain? If the rush into profit of Balaam is to be avoided, what about indulgences for pay?

 

[fellowChristian]

Acts 1

16"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

17"For **he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." **

18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
** ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’ **

21"Therefore it is necessary that of the **men who have accompanied us all the time **that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–

**22beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." **

23So they put forward** two men**, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus),** and Matthias. **

24And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, **show which one of these two You have chosen **

25** to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." **

26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to **Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. **

**The “offices” were “passed” on by the laying on of hands (ordination). **

** Acts 6:6**

6And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.

**Acts 9:17 **

17So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after **laying his hands on him **said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

**Acts 13:3 **
3Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

Acts 15:22-27

**
Colossians 1:25 **
25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,

1 Timothy 3

1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

The laying of hands is ordination. The Apostles ordained other men who aspired to these higher offices. And this was after Jesus.The Apostles went out to spread the Gospel and build the church. They would preach then lay hands on a man then leave him to tend to the flock. When St. Peter went to Antioch he laid hands on Evodius and left him to tend the church there.Evodius died then St. Peter had to choose someone to replace Evodius. St. Peter handpicked Ignatius who became the 3rd bishop of Antioch and was taught by the Apostle John. (Peter was the 1st. bishop) We have those letters that St. Igantius of Antioch wrote. He is called an Early Church Father.

More on the Early Church Fathers and the letter they wrote.
newadvent.org/fathers/

The list of the popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION in Scripture
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html