SPLIT: Opposition: Apostolic Succession

[ytee64]

JustaServent, this good stuff, over 80 Sacred Scripture references for Apostolic succession and irrefutable. I am sure there are more. Ytee64 will probably come up with a handful of misinterpreted verses to the contrary. I was going to post this also if ytee64 wanted to discuss apostolic succession. The thing I have noticed is that ytee64 keeps making accusations without any citations. However, ytee64’s problem is that he is lumping massive amounts of anti-Catholic falsehoods into one post; he really needs to ask one question at a time.

Yes, Christ wants us to respect the authority given to the 12 apostles and I do and always will. My problem is the Catholic church claiming Apostolic authority as if they are the only ones who can shepherd flocks in the body of Christ, forgive sin,etc. It seems to me that I have stumbled upon the root cause of the division in the self important belief of Apostolic succession.
I have been accused here of being like Diotrephes when it is clear that you are the ones who claim self importance and denying the brethren under the guise of Apostolic succession. This all started for me when I was denied communion in one your churches. Now I ask you…would one of the apostles do that? Would Christ do that? I say no.

 

[JustaServant]

This all started for me when I was denied communion in one your churches. Now I ask you…would one of the apostles do that? Would Christ do that? I say no.

Do you beleive the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood of Christ? If not, that is why you were denied it. For the sake or your own soul, not ours. It is an act of mercy.

 

[ytee64]

III. Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority
Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

Rom. 15:16 � Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the �sacrifice� and Paul does the �offering.�

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 � these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”).

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

2 Cor. 3:6 � Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are “ambassadors” for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ’s mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

2 Cor. 10:6 � in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate those who disobey her.

2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (�priests�) of the Church.

Titus 2:15 - Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 � in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 - Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 - Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 - Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 - John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John’s apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

Deut. 17:10-13 - the Lord commands His faithful Israel to obey the priests that He puts in charge, and do to all that they direct and instruct. The Lord warns that those who do not obey His priests shall die.

Num. 16:1-35 - Korah incited a “protestant” rebellion against God’s chosen Moses in an effort to confuse the distinction between the ministerial and universal offices of priesthood, and Korah and his followers perished. (This effort to blind the distinctions between the priests and the laity is still pursued by dissidents today.)

Sirach 7:29-30 - with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the Church, there is error, chaos and confusion.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a
minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text
for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate
successor of the apostles.

• The scripture says that Ananias was a disciple, your church added the word bishop. And if this is a powerful proof text of Apostolic succession as you say, then wouldn’t Ananias have to be an apostle.

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes, Christ wants us to respect the authority given to the 12 apostles and I do and always will.

I really can’t tell. You argue against the every doctrines that they taught…

My problem is the Catholic church claiming Apostolic authority as if they are the only ones who can shepherd flocks in the body of Christ, forgive sin,etc.

So you want sacraments? Then you need to follow the scriptural ones laid out in the New Testament and be part of the church that Our Lord Himself founded. You might benefit from these 2 articles on my blog. (if you’re even really reading any of our\ responses…)
“I Find No Sacraments In the Bible” he said. and My Reformation Theory

It seems to me that I have stumbled upon the root cause of the division in the self important belief of Apostolic succession.

“Self important”? I think not sir. The fact is that some 500 years ago a bunch of rebels departed and went their own errant way and began to teach wrong doctrines that you have apparently accepted and embraced. When one looks at the New Testament and sees that there is a big difference between most of the modern n-C messages today and that of Our Lord and the apostles and upon examining the verifiable historical writings of the early church, then you see, (as I have) the reason to insure that what you receive as teaching comes from an authentic apostolic source and not the new winds of modern doctrines of men.

This all started for me when I was denied communion in one your churches. Now I ask you…would one of the apostles do that? Would Christ do that? I say no.

You say? Who are you and what authority do you have to set and standards or rules for believers? None that I can see and especially so based upon your contentions against the sound Christian doctrines of our most holy faith.

It was in your best interest both spiritually and physically that you were denied communion, for you deny the very doctrines that would effect such true communion and according to 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 might have endangered both you soul and body had you taken it.

You ask what the apostles and Our Lord would have done? Let’s look at what St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about this very problem in his letter to the church at Smyrna.

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Would you even consider bearing a false witness to others? I would hope not. So then, why would you dare to present yourself at the altar to receive the Eucharist if you do not share the very scriptural beliefs that make it the Real Presence, the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

We faithful Catholics do not take communion in your services, in part for that very reason. We refuse to bear witness to something that we do not believe.

Pope John Paul the Great taught this in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia. See for yourself.

1. Precisely because the Church’s unity, which the Eucharist brings about through the Lord’s sacrifice and by communion in his body and blood, absolutely requires full communion in the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance, it is not possible to celebrate together the same Eucharistic liturgy until those bonds are fully re-established. Any such concelebration would not be a valid means, and might well prove instead to be an obstacle, to the attainment of full communion, by weakening the sense of how far we remain from this goal and by introducing or exacerbating ambiguities with regard to one or another truth of the faith. The path towards full unity can only be undertaken in truth. In this area, the prohibitions of Church law leave no room for uncertainty,92 in fidelity to the moral norm laid down by the Second Vatican Council.93

I would like nonetheless to reaffirm what I said in my Encyclical Letter *Ut Unum Sint *after having acknowledged the impossibility of Eucharistic sharing: “And yet we do have a burning desire to join in celebrating the one Eucharist of the Lord, and this desire itself is already a common prayer of praise, a single supplication. Together we speak to the Father and increasingly we do so ‘with one heart’”.94

1. While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist* under special circumstances, to individual persons *belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an *intercommunion *which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

1. In my Encyclical* Ut Unum Sint* I expressed my own appreciation of these norms, which make it possible to provide for the salvation of souls with proper discernment: “It is a source of joy to note that Catholic ministers are able, in certain particular cases, to administer the sacraments of the Eucharist, Penance and Anointing of the Sick to Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid”.97

**These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases, because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive communion in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of Orders.98

**
The faithful observance of the body of norms established in this area 99 is a manifestation and, at the same time, a guarantee of our love for Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, for our brothers and sisters of different Christian confessions – who have a right to our witness to the truth – and for the cause itself of the promotion of unity.

 

[losh14]

In Revelation there are 7 churches, only 2 is Christ pleased with, Smyrna and Philadelphia.What were those churches teaching?

Careful with reading too much into the 7 churches - there were churches in more locations than just those 7. Where is Corinth, Rome, and Thessaloniki in the list?

I see where you get your statement about “those who say they are Jews and are not” (Rev 2:9 and Rev 3:9). Christ calls Smyrna and Philadelphia in subsequent verses to perseverence under trial against the slander of those who call themselves Jews “but are a synagogue of Satan”. Clearly that metaphor was relevant at the time as Christians suffered under Jewish authorities as well as Imperial Rome. By projecting it to modern times, are you trying to argue that Christians remain under attack by apostate Jews, or rather non-Jewish people who are acting as though they were Jews?

There are 12 tribes of Hebrews only a remnant remain in Judea the other 10 tribes went north into the Assyrian captivity and then to cross the Cuacasus Mountains and then to Europe and to the whole world. Most of those Hebrews have lost their identity and don’t even know they are of Hebrew descent or as you say"semetic". Not by a claim of spiritual adherence to Judaism but actual Hebrew descendency. To deny this is to say one is un-learned.

That claim is both absurd and irrelevant.
Absurd because, while Scripture does not support the return of the 10 tribes, there’s little evidence in the historical record of how far they’ve spread. People from China to Jamaica have argued that they are of the lost tribes, despite lack of evidence. Even if the Jewish diaspora spread all across Europe, as you claim, it did not mean it left it’s mark or even intermarried with the native European ethnic groups. Just as many Jewish communities in the U.S. and elsewhere today remain tightly knit and shun intermarriage with non-Jews, so have Jewish communities historically. And why did they not leave their marks? No European language resembles any of the Semitic languages - you will not find infixes, which are characteristic of Semitic languages, outside of classical Latin and Greek, and even there they are limited. The few examples of similar words are loan words from Scripture.

Irrelevant because, even if I have an Israelite in my ancestry, that does not make me Jewish, nor does your ancestry make you Jewish, nor does having such ancestry have any bearing on your relationship with God today. Nor is there reason to think that the false Jews in Rev 2:9 or Rev 3:9 symbolically indicate their descendants two millenia hence.

Possibly converted in the times of the Apostles, I don’t know yet, but I think you will agree that we all came from somewhere not constrained by the grip of time.

It would be a feat of thanatology to trace your ancestry earlier than the widespread use of the printing press. “We all came from somewhere” but that somewhere doesn’t make us who we are.

You had better send me a private message

Why? If your understanding of Scripture and history has merit, you can defend it publicly.

 

[wmscott]

Yes, Christ wants us to respect the authority given to the 12 apostles and I do and always will. My problem is the Catholic church claiming Apostolic authority as if they are the only ones who can shepherd flocks in the body of Christ, As stated there is over 80 Sacred Scripture references, some being Christ’s commandments, for Apostolic succession. forgive sin,etc. Remember this is one subject at a time; this thread is on Apostolic succession. It seems to me that I have stumbled upon the root cause of the division (hence Protestantism) in the self important belief of Apostolic succession. Not self important, but through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the Catholic Church is carrying out Christ’s commandments. I have been accused here of being like Diotrephes when it is clear that you are the ones who claim self importance and denying the brethren under the guise of Apostolic succession. This all started for me when I was denied communion in one your churches. Now I ask you…would one of the apostles do that? Would Christ do that? I say no. Since you have tied the Eucharist to Apostolic succession, then yes, they would. However, it is not that the Catholic Church’s desire to deny access to Christ through the Eucharist, the Catholic Church has a duty to ensure those they do are doing it properly. The following was taken from this link.
The Holy Eucharist is the most important of the seven sacraments because, in this and in no other sacrament, we receive the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Innumerable, precious graces come to us through the reception of Holy Communion. Because of the gravity of Jesus’ teaching on receiving the Eucharist, the Church encourages Catholics to receive frequent Communion, even daily Communion if possible, and mandates reception of the Eucharist at least once a year during the Easter season. Before going to Communion, however, there are several things one needs to know. The following is taken from the library here at Catholic.com.
“The Church sets out specific guidelines regarding how we should prepare ourselves to receive the Lord’s body and blood in Communion. To receive Communion worthily, you must be in a state of grace, have made a good confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication.

First, you must be in a state of grace. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (1 Cor. 11:27–28). This is an absolute requirement, which can never be dispensed. To receive the Eucharist without sanctifying grace in your soul profanes the Eucharist in the most grievous manner. “

 

[losh14]

So what you are saying is I am wrong, when I say, I don’t need an Apostolic successor to be forgiven of my sins.

We (Catholics) believe that it is the ordinary way in which serious sins are forgiven. We understand this as Apostolic Authority and see examples in Mt 16:18-19, Mt 18:18, James 5:14-15, etc. We see this practiced as such from the earliest records of Christianity. So if you have access to this authority to forgive, why wouldn’t you use it?

Furthermore, how can you prove Apostolic succession?

Because you can’t prove that the authority of the Apostles died with them, nor has the historical record been refuted. Otherwise, God would have allowed us to operate in error for two millenia.

When the work on The Cross was finished, the veil to the Holy of Holy’s was split in 2, allowing access to the Throne of God through Christ to “whom so ever will”.

I think you misunderstand the nature of that access. The Work on the Cross was finished (redemption) but OUR work was not done. We’re off the sinking ship but we’re not yet at shore. Christ never said “Let me take care of everything, don’t you lift a finger or that shows you aren’t trusting me.” Rather he said to deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow Him (Luke 9:23), while Peter preached obedience (1 Pt 1:2) and Paul preached
“Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Ph 2:12), and he taught us to persevere ( 1 Tim 4:16 and Heb 10:36). Why is perseverence needed if there is no more work to be done?

In my interpretation of scripture, I have a High Priest in Jesus and so do you. WE don’t need Apostolic succession,or a pastor to be forgiven… do we?

High Priest - not sole priest. The comparison that Paul gives in Hebrews is meant for the understanding of the Jewish community at Rome and was offered against the High Priest of the Temple, with which 1st century Jews would have been familiar.

Like the High Priest, Jesus:

• was a son of Abraham (Heb 2:16)
• was a faithful servant, like Moses (Heb 3:2)
• was able to sympathize with the temptation humans face (Heb 4:15)
• was selected from among men to offer gifts and sacrifice (Heb 5:1)
• was designated as a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10)

Unlike the High Priest, Jesus:

• was more worthy than Moses (Heb 3:3)
• has gone through the Heavens (Heb 4:14)
• Himself became the source of eternal salvation (Heb 5:8-9)
• was also Himself the perfect sacrifice (Heb 7:26)
• offered His sacrifice once for all (Heb 9:25)

Meanwhile, the high priest had subordinate priests who would serve him, and likewise Christ has His Apostles and their successors. If Christ were the Sole Priest, then what was Paul thinking he was doing?

 

[losh14]

Yeah, I know. But he can’t say the question wasn’t answered. The problem I notice with many anti-Catholics is they do not read any of the posts.

That is frustrating - it’s almost as though there’s a script and deviation from the script is met with repetition rather than argument.

 

[losh14]

Yes, Christ wants us to respect the authority given to the 12 apostles and I do and always will. My problem is the Catholic church claiming Apostolic authority as if they are the only ones who can shepherd flocks in the body of Christ, forgive sin,etc. It seems to me that I have stumbled upon the root cause of the division in the self important belief of Apostolic succession.

Respecting authority means heeding to it where it is present. If there are others who claim Apostolic authority, what is their source for this claim? Where is it in Scripture? Where is it borne out in history?

Apostolic succession is not only for the purpose of granting the right to preach, but more importantly to keep the doctrine intact for our salvation (1 Tim 4:16). Divergence from that succession raises the question of whether the doctrine remained intact or became corrupted (1 Tim 4:1-3, for example). In the most simple sense, it is a matter of who has maintained Scriptural teaching, and indeed Scripture itself. We did not receive Scripture from the Gnostics, Arians or Marcionites, even though all of these cited Scripture as their source.

This all started for me when I was denied communion in one your churches. Now I ask you…would one of the apostles do that? Would Christ do that? I say no.

What was the reason for which you were denied the Eucharist?
If you came up to the Eucharistic minister and said “I’m not a Catholic” then the Eucharist was denied you for your own good based on what could be learned in those few seconds.

Did the Eucharistic minister know you were receiving the Eucharist in a worthy manner (1 Cor 11:27)?
Did the Eucharistic minister know you examined yourself before receiving the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:28)?
Did the Eucharistic minister know you understood you were receiving the Body of Christ (1 Cor 11:29)?

Catholics are taught to only receive the Eucharist when they are in a right relationship with Christ - something we call a State of Grace. I have personally withheld myself from the Eucharist when I have not been in that right relationship because I fear being “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27).

Perhaps you had the right understanding and the right relationship but were not yet Catholic - but there was no way for that minister to know. This is why non-Catholics are not allowed to receive the Eucharist, if it is known that the person is not Catholic.

At the same time, there were non-Catholics who received the Eucharist at my wedding. The priest did not know many of those present and so had no means to discern. In that case, whatever guilt for unworthily receiving the Eucharist falls on the ones who received it alone.

 

[losh14]

The scripture says that Ananias was a disciple, your church added the word bishop. And if this is a powerful proof text of Apostolic succession as you say, then wouldn’t Ananias have to be an apostle.

Ananias was a disciple, not a bishop.

When Ananias laid hands on Paul (Acts 9:10-18) it was so Paul could be healed, not ordained. If Ananias then baptized Paul, it means that Ananias was at least an elder (presbyteros in Greek, priest in English), not necessarily a bishop.

Paul’s ordination comes, at the earliest in Acts 13:3.

 

[ytee64]

Yeah…Bishop Sheen was right when he said.

“Few people in America hate the Catholic religion,
but there are many who hate
what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion
—and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion,Catholics would hate it too.”

Is this another thread and if so, how can I comment on Bishop Sheen’s comments? Because I really want to comment where the mistakes are and I will go one by one.

 

[losh14]

Ytee64, stick to the topic. We’ve already split once.

Let me rephrase so it is as clear to you as it is to most of us on these boards who are Catholic:

Most disagreements over what the Catholic Church teaches is actually over a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches, not over the teaching itself.
Between the propaganda that started with the Reformation and the media-driven perceptions that most citizens of industrialized nations adhere to, there is widespread misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine and an obtuse ignorance of Church history.

 

[wmscott]

ytee64:
I assume that the first mistake on your list is Apostolic succession, did you read posts 25, 26, & 27 on page 2 posted by JustaServent, or did you gloss over and dismiss them because they did not fit you own fallible personal interpretations. JustaServent provided substantial amounts of citations from Sacred Scripture citing apostolic succession and really nothing from you. So, is the subject of apostolic succession over and you wish to move on to the next mistake on your list? As I have stated earlier, one subject (mistake) at a time.

 

[JustaServant]

Tradition / Church Fathers
I. The Church Has Apostolic Succession

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.”
Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as�Anencletus and Clement to Peter?”
Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’"
Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

 

[Erich]

So what you are saying is I am wrong, when I say, I don’t need an Apostolic successor to be forgiven of my sins.

Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sin. Would He have done so if He did not expect them to use it? And how could they even begin to use that power anyway, if not via auricular confession?

Furthermore, how can you prove Apostolic succession?

Did you read By What Authority yet?

When the work on The Cross was finished

In John 19:30, what did Jesus mean when he cried, ‘It is finished’? What does the 'it’ refer to?

It does not refer to the completion of our redemption… that only happened after Jesus was ‘raised for our justification’ (Rom. 4:25).

 

[Church_Militant]

Quote my post and feel free to use it as a the OP of a new thread and I’ll be there.

 

[wmscott]

Where has ytee64 gone? We are still looking forward to you response to the posts provided here regarding apostolic succession. You have been provided with massive amounts of Sacred Scripture, which is in context, in support of apostolic succession. It is OK to admit you were and are wrong on this issue. Is there another anti-Catholic falsehood you wish to explore next?

 

[ytee64]

Where has ytee64 gone? We are still looking forward to you response to the posts provided here regarding apostolic succession. You have been provided with massive amounts of Sacred Scripture, which is in context, in support of apostolic succession. It is OK to admit you were and are wrong on this issue. Is there another anti-Catholic falsehood you wish to explore next?

Ask you moderators why my posts in reply aren’t getting getting posted. The truth is, you are being controlled. The freedom of Christ is definately not on this web-site

 

[losh14]

Ask you moderators why my posts in reply aren’t getting getting posted. The truth is, you are being controlled. The freedom of Christ is definately not on this web-site

Moderators - your (name removed by moderator)ut?

ytee - let’s see your evidence.