SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[Linda_Marie]

Another assumption is that God’s Word is something more than just Scripture, when Scripture itself also says it is sufficient.

Scripture does not say it is sufficient. It says it is useful.

2 Timothy 3:16 (NRSV)
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.

Sort of like a class textbook. If you don’t attend the lectures, you probably won’t understand the textbook or will have questions that need clarification. Without the oral teaching (the lectures), the textbook, although useful, is not sufficient.

 

[atmmgraves]

My stars. I take a break from CAF for a couple of weeks due to hurricane’s Gustav and Ike, and I come back to find JA4 up to his same old tired tricks.

What I find amazing is that his routine never changes. He gets answered, gets boxed in, gets his redundant queries answered by guanaphore (who should be heralded by the powers that be here at CAF for the effort) and others and then says something like he did here:

“I agree with most of what you say here. Sadly the church has erred in many areas…”

What makes this such a lame, weak, utterly disasterous response to having been pushed into a corner and then having to rely on the quicksilver-slippery approach is that JA4 apparently believes that we - I - have no memory. JA4 has already been reminded by me, specifically, and by others far more eloquent than myself that “The Catholic Church” cannot err at all. It is impossible, because the Catholic Church is the creation of Christ Himself.

JA4 has been tutored well on this, and he should by now know that people - mere humans, not unlike himself - within the Catholic Church can, have, and are “erring” in many ways - BUT! - the Catholic Church herself cannot err.

So, JA4, you persistent and predictable poster, your fall-back-crutch statement of “Sadly the church has erred in many areas…” is yet another example of you chasing your tail and trying to get others to join you in your whirling, unending orbit of obfuscation. Your elusive obtuseness at one time did prompt some frustration in me (e.g., JA4 asks question, gets answered, does not agree/cannot accept answer, asks again, gets answered this time with Biblical citations, squirms, throws out another question - this time more “open ended” to allow escape room, still gets pinned down, throws out “not in the Bible”, gets that tossed back at him with - again - Biblical references, states “who said?”, which starts another off-thread topic, gets defeated again, realizes defeat and cries out that the discussion has gotten off topic, that we can all return to that discussion later, then…) but no more. My goal with you now is to simply watch, read, digest, and then to point out your methods to those here who might not be familiar with you.

Others have asked, and I will do so again: what is your purpose here other than to be what I clearly recongize you as - a mere agitant?

God bless.

PS - Hurricane Ike has truly devasated the Texas gulf coast. Please keep these people in your prayers.

 

[guanophore]

What exactly is Tradition? Where has the church listed all its Traditions? This is vitally important so we can make distinctions between Scripture and Tradition. They are not the same thing.

No. It is not ‘vitally important’ except to those who reject the Apostolic Sucession. There is not “distinction between 'Scripture and Tradition” as you suggest. The entire NT was produced completely from Sacred Tradition. That pure Word of God did not “vanish” suddenly after part of it was written.

Where is this stated in the Scriptures that bishops have the same authority as Apostles?

Many places, but the understanding of those passages is part of
what was not written.

Sacred Tradition is what is referred to in Scripture as the “paradosis” = that which is handed down.

The office of a bishop and an apostle are 2 different offices with different functions.

For the most part, no. But it is good to see that you recognize that they are offices. More proof that there are several persons using this login.

If the person using it now is only 13 as you have claimed, then I commend you for having intellectual prowess beyond all your predecessors together, none of whom could grasp this… there is definitely hope!

Once John died that was the last of the apostles. For example do we see anyone in the 2nd century claiming to be an apostle? If so, who was it?

How do you know that John was the last Apostle?

Chapter and verse, please. Did it say in his letters he was the last?

 

[ryanoneil]

The office of a bishop and an apostle are 2 different offices with different functions. They are not the same things. Once John died that was the last of the apostles. For example do we see anyone in the 2nd century claiming to be an apostle? If so, who was it?

I’m not claiming that anyone from the 2nd century is claiming to be an apostle.

What do we know about the apostle Matthias?

Acts 1:24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Or are they just talking about the authority of Judas’ office (his “bishopric”)?

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.'

Please explain this to me?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Took me 45 minutes to get caught up

Still mulling…

Basically, I realize that I can’t make sense of the fact that I’m willing to accept the church’s official declaration of what is Scripture (the canon), and yet unwilling to accept proceeding official declarations (transubstantiation, etc…). I can think of many reasons why I reject those proceeding declarations (they contradict scripture IMO), but I can’t prove that I am right about those reasons (why is my interpretation of Scripture regarding these things better than the church’s at that time?).

It’s obviously an assumption on my part (and others’) to say that the church was right about the canon and wrong about many proceeding things. But i can’t let go of the fact that many of the church’s later teachings seem to contradict the Bible. And yet I suppose that if that is truly the case, I ought also to question the canon itself. I know it doesn’t make sense to trust the canon and then reject many other things.

The only way I can maintain that the Bible was preserved and not necessarily anything else is that God (in the Bible) promised to preserve His Word. But He did not say how or where it would be preserved (whether exlusively in a written form or not). He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, but again he did not say how (through successorship for example) .

All I can answer is that I assume the things I do about the CC because they seem to contradict Scripture. Yes, the very Scripture that the early church declared as inspired. I guess I simply believe that it’s common sense that God had to have preserved His revelation to us in some way (or there’d be no point in doing all He did only to be forgotten or distorted over time) and the Bible has always been the most acceptable source for me to believe as being from God. And when I consider how it was preserved it almost seems irrelevant to me exactly how or from whom it was preserved b/c God could have used me to preserve it if it had been His will (thankfully it was not! ). God used people in the OT to do His will and they did not remain faithful.

So I guess I just take it on faith that the Bible was preserved as God intented it to be, and I use my imperfect human reasoning to evaluate the rest according to my imperfect human interpretation of the Bible. How do I remain comfortable with that admission? Because of such things as this:
** “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.”**
They will know you’re my disciples by your love for one another…"
I do not assume that the wise and learned establishments of our time have all the answers. From what the Bible has taught me I do not assume that the same body that delivered the Bible to us remained faithful. I do not assume that body is correct in faith in morals when it does not show evidence of being Jesus’ disciples through their love for one another.

 

[Thing]

God (in the Bible) promised to preserve His Word.

Did He not promise to preserve ‘His Church’. Where were all the modern christian faiths when He promised this? Nowhere, they simply did not exist. Only one ‘Church’ has maintained its existance and its beliefs since the beginning 2000 years ago, and if it did’nt then Christs promise is a lie and a deception. What does it say about us if we lose faith in His promise to do what He said.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I did address your question about preserving the church. The question is how and where He preserved His church. The Bible gives us many clues as to how to recognize His disciples - successorship not being the only one. I see that the Apostles choose people to succeed them, but I don’t see the guarantee that they would remain faithful in all things. Like a parent that tries to pass on good morals and such to his children but can’t guarantee that child will live on in it. In fact, take many adults today and ask them what they believe about such and such and it is hard to tell what exactly was originally taught to them in their youth b/c they don’t remain faithful to it. The only way to find out is to ask the parents or find out what they believed from as original a source as possible.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church, but He also foretold of error creeping up from within. He said few would find the way. He warned us to guard against many deceptive teachings and false signs and prophets. Taking all these things into account I think it is vitally important to use the most original sources and weigh everything else against it.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

And I suppose we have to use our imperfect reasoning to do this weighing, but likewise we have to use the same imperfect reasoning to weigh and conclude that the CC has remained faithful. My imperfect reasoning has led me to believe it has not remained faithful in all things and yours has concluded that it has. I believe I have been most careful in consulting as orignal a source/sources as possible to draw my conclusions. I believe God makes provision for our imperfections; that if we seek with a sincere heart He will lead us. God is also longsuffering and meets us where we are. For this reason I do not bash another’s faith and do not conclude that there is nothing good or useful that can come from their faith or church, but I weigh everything (“test everything”) against the Bible (most original source).

K, gotta stop this rambling…

 

[Thing]

Its very simple to my mind.
He said He was establishing a Church.
He would never leave it.
He would guide it.
He would protect it, not even the gates of hades…

If what you believe is true.
Then He did leave His Church.
He refuses to guide it.
He no longer protects it.
And the gates of Hades have indeed prevailed…

But I say again that He promised.
For 1,500 years His promise ‘worked’, it had to because there was no other ‘Church’.
Did He break His promise post 1500 or does He honour His promise and remain with the Church He established.

If the Church ‘left God’ as you may think.
Then you will need to find another church, established in Apostolic times, which has survived, documented, intact, verifiable, which also satisfies Christs command to the Apostles that they be ‘one’ and that they preach the gospel throughout the world.
Your new Apostolic Church needs to be One in doctrine and it needs to be universal - spread all over the world - teach all the nations! - this should be well underway after 2000 years working.

 

[guanophore]

Still mulling…

And you are to be commended for doing so.

But i can’t let go of the fact that many of the church’s later teachings seem to contradict the Bible.

There is no need to “let go” of that. In fact, this apparent contradiction can serve you well, as you have said, you are reading and mulling, and a faithful person should continue this throughout life until every contradiction is resolved. We may not see that this side of the grave, but if we hold the contradiction in ourselves with humility and perseverance, then light will gradually come.

All I can answer is that I assume the things I do about the CC because they seem to contradict Scripture. Yes, the very Scripture that the early church declared as inspired.

In fact, no contradiction exists. Since they both came from the same Source, they are in perfect agreement. It is we who are lacking in understanding of one, the other, or both.

So I guess I just take it on faith that the Bible was preserved as God intented it to be, and I use my imperfect human reasoning to evaluate the rest according to my imperfect human interpretation of the Bible.

This is a very honest representation, and contains the humility needed to reconcile the apparent contradictions.

I do not assume that body is correct in faith in morals when it does not show evidence of being Jesus' disciples through their love for one another.

I see your point, and I have the same difficulty. However, remember that Jesus affirmed the position of the Pharisees (they occupy the Seat of Moses). Although he staunchly railed against them for their hypocrisy and unbelief, He affirmed that the disciples should “do all such things as they tell ye, but do not do as they do”.

Hypocrisy does not stamp out the truth, anymore than Judas’ betrayal can invalidate what Christ taught.

 

[guanophore]

I see that the Apostles choose people to succeed them, but I don't see the guarantee that they would remain faithful in all things.  Like a parent that tries to pass on good morals and such to his children but can't guarantee that child will live on in it.  In fact, take many adults today and ask them what they believe about such and such and it is hard to tell what exactly was originally taught to them in their youth b/c they don't remain faithful to it.  The only way to find out is to ask the parents or find out what they believed from as original a source as possible.

True, but they are still the children. They don’t cease to be successors because they have not responded to well to the parenting. It is not the parenting that is the error.

Besides, such a framework precludes that God is faithful to preserve and protect that which He has built. Faithless people have never been successful in thwarting His plan.

 

[ryanoneil]

Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church, but He also foretold of error creeping up from within. He said few would find the way. He warned us to guard against many deceptive teachings and false signs and prophets. Taking all these things into account I think it is vitally important to use the most original sources and weigh everything else against it.

There is nothing wrong with weighing things against Scripture. Just make sure that your understanding of Scriputure isn’t formed by the the deceptive teachings and false prophets we are warned about.

Scandals have always existed in the Church, just as they have existed outside of the Church. This should not cause us to lose hope in the Church. God’s mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time.

Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly. (don’t start questioning Scripture) Judas was unfaithful by betraying Jesus. But his apostolic office was preserved and this did not weaken the Church. All of Jesus’ apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church. (don’t start questioning Scripture) Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India.

**Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net thrown into the sea, which collects fish of every kind. When it is full they haul it ashore and sit down to put what is good into buckets. What is bad they throw away. Thus it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth. Matt. 13:47-50 **

God revealed this to us so that we will not get discouraged by the sinfulness of the Church’s members. no matter how sinful its members conduct themselves, Jesus promised that the gates of death will never prevail against the Church. We have seen that the sinfulness of the Pharisees does not minimize their teaching authority. They occupy the “cathedra” of Moses. And just as Jesus Christ has both a human and a divine nature, the Church, His Bride, is also both human and divine. It is the holy and spotless bride of Christ, with sinful human members.

**Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Eph. 5:25-27 **

No one denies that Church elders might be unfaithful, but Scripture is clear that God remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself. The real point is: THE CHURCH, NOT REBELLION AND SCHISM, DEALS WITH THESE MATTERS.

Pray for faith in these matters and peace be with you!

 

[justasking4]

atmmgraves;4205665]My stars. I take a break from CAF for a couple of weeks due to hurricane’s Gustav and Ike, and I come back to find JA4 up to his same old tired tricks.

What I find amazing is that his routine never changes. He gets answered, gets boxed in, gets his redundant queries answered by guanaphore (who should be heralded by the powers that be here at CAF for the effort) and others and then says something like he did here:

“I agree with most of what you say here. Sadly the church has erred in many areas…”

What makes this such a lame, weak, utterly disasterous response to having been pushed into a corner and then having to rely on the quicksilver-slippery approach is that JA4 apparently believes that we - I - have no memory. JA4 has already been reminded by me, specifically, and by others far more eloquent than myself that “The Catholic Church” cannot err at all. It is impossible, because the Catholic Church is the creation of Christ Himself.

JA4 has been tutored well on this, and he should by now know that people - mere humans, not unlike himself - within the Catholic Church can, have, and are “erring” in many ways - BUT! - the Catholic Church herself cannot err.

So, JA4, you persistent and predictable poster, your fall-back-crutch statement of “Sadly the church has erred in many areas…” is yet another example of you chasing your tail and trying to get others to join you in your whirling, unending orbit of obfuscation. Your elusive obtuseness at one time did prompt some frustration in me (e.g., JA4 asks question, gets answered, does not agree/cannot accept answer, asks again, gets answered this time with Biblical citations, squirms, throws out another question - this time more “open ended” to allow escape room, still gets pinned down, throws out “not in the Bible”, gets that tossed back at him with - again - Biblical references, states “who said?”, which starts another off-thread topic, gets defeated again, realizes defeat and cries out that the discussion has gotten off topic, that we can all return to that discussion later, then…) but no more. My goal with you now is to simply watch, read, digest, and then to point out your methods to those here who might not be familiar with you.

Others have asked, and I will do so again: what is your purpose here other than to be what I clearly recongize you as - a mere agitant?

God bless.

i’m glad you’re back and i’m sure our friends are to. It hasn’t been going to well for them and i’m sure they will appreciate your support…View attachment 4144

PS - Hurricane Ike has truly devasated the Texas gulf coast. Please keep these people in your prayers.

Amen

 

[justasking4]

I’m not claiming that anyone from the 2nd century is claiming to be an apostle.

What do we know about the apostle Matthias?

**Acts 1:24
Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
25
to take the place in this apostolic ministry **from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
26
8 Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

Or are they just talking about the authority of Judas’ office (his “bishopric”)?

Acts 1:20
For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.’

Please explain this to me?

These passages refer to the replacement of Judas and the qualifications for it is found in Acts 1:21-22 which shows us who would qualify:
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—
22 beginning 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.”

As you can see from this no one today would qualify.

 

[JLongoria]

These passages refer to the replacement of Judas and the qualifications for it is found in Acts 1:21-22 which shows us who would qualify:
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—
22 beginning 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.”

As you can see from this no one today would qualify.

No on denies that there are no Apostles today, since it requires that they would have seen the risen Lord. But again, no Catholic claims that bishops are apostles.

Make sure you take a look at those quotes I gave you earlier. Succession is a very real thing; we see it when Paul sends out Timothy in his stead to the Thessalonians.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Although he staunchly railed against them for their hypocrisy and unbelief, He affirmed that the disciples should “do all such things as they tell ye, but do not do as they do”.

Hypocrisy does not stamp out the truth, anymore than Judas’ betrayal can invalidate what Christ taught.

Heh, after my last few posts that very thought occurred to me…

The problem with that is Judas was not continued to be used in Jesus’ ministry.

It seems to fly in the face of common sense that God would give us His revelation from the Apostles (eventually written) and then have His church claim it has orally preserved traditions but by a simple reading of Scripture those traditions (many of them anyway) seem to contradict what was written.

Common sense also tells me that the Apostles wrote for good reason. Indeed even the gospel of Luke begins with this explanation: “1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning wer eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.” And I believe that was partially the point of compiling a canon as well, so that we would know the certainty concerning the things that would be taught in the future; having some rule of measure with which to determine a teaching’s rightness (is that really a word?).

God’s mysterious plan requires the wheat and the weeds to be side by side in the Church until the end of time.

Does it though? Or at least, if it does, are we talking about us being able to determine which are weeds? What I mean is, I would expect some hypocrisy in the church, and I would not expect us to know the hearts of others, but I would also expect the church to follow the command to “put out from among you that evil one” (insomuch as one can determine by outward acts who that evil one was) and other such commands that we ought obey in order to keep the church as pure as possible. The seperation in the end would then be firstly, an eternal separation of those in the world who never accepted Christ and also a separation in the church between those who lived sincerely striving for perfection and those who lived in hypocrisy.

Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to be the leader of the Church, and taught and wrote infallibly

.Peter’s later repented though and was restored when he 3times confessed his love to Jesus.

All of Jesus’ apostles were unfaithful by abandoning Him in the garden of Gethsemane, yet they are the foundation of the Church. (don’t start questioning Scripture) Thomas the apostle was unfaithful by refusing to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, yet he taught infallibly in India.

They erred as humans do, but they didn’t promote error afterwards. They also had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

True, but they are still the children. They don’t cease to be successors because they have not responded to well to the parenting. It is not the parenting that is the error.

But they would not be handing down the truth as taught to them. **"…or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent." ** This doesn’t sound like a church we should follow. It sounds like a church that once had authority and “light” but that fell into error and was no longer Jesus’ intention for people to continue following. Again, remembering Jesus’ prophesy that error would arise and to be on our guard, and considering the above passage from Revelations, it is very hard to accept that a church continues being faithful just because it has the most original roots. Revelations is good evidence that Christ established a church that later fell into error and lost its authority.

 

[justasking4]

No on denies that there are no Apostles today, since it requires that they would have seen the risen Lord. But again, no Catholic claims that bishops are apostles.

Make sure you take a look at those quotes I gave you earlier. Succession is a very real thing; we see it when Paul sends out Timothy in his stead to the Thessalonians.

Do we agree there is no such thing as apostolic succession?

 

[JLongoria]

Heh, after my last few posts that very thought occurred to me…

The problem with that is Judas was not continued to be used in Jesus’ ministry.

It seems to fly in the face of common sense that God would give us His revelation from the Apostles (eventually written) and then have His church claim it has orally preserved traditions but by a simple reading of Scripture those traditions (many of them anyway) seem to contradict what was written.

Common sense also tells me that the Apostles wrote for good reason. Indeed even the gospel of Luke begins with this explanation: “1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, 2 even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning wer eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,
3 it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.” And I believe that was partially the point of compiling a canon as well, so that we would know the certainty concerning the things that would be taught in the future; having some rule of measure with which to determine a teaching’s rightness (is that really a word?).

What teachings are St. Luke referring to? Do you know who St. Luke was?

First, St. Luke was not an Apostle. History and Sacred Tradition tell us that he was an auditor of St. Peter; he was a guy that, for all intents and purposes, sat around listening to their teachings, and a most blessed one he was.

The “teachings” he’s referring to are easy to see: he’s writing an account of the Gospel. He’s writing so that people might believe that the events that transpired were true; he was writing that they might believe. We find a similar parallel in the Gospel of St. John:

But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

St. John 20:31

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

St. John 21:24

Does it though? Or at least, if it does, are we talking about us being able to determine which are weeds?

Yes, it does. Jesus gave us the parable for a reason; He himself it would be destructive to the harvest to cut the weeds out before the harvest was completed.

Peter’s later repented though and was restored when he 3times confessed his love to Jesus.They erred as humans do, but they didn’t promote error afterwards. They also had not yet received the Holy Spirit. But they would not be handing down the truth as taught to them.

Oh come now, friend!

For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control. So do not be ashamed of your testimony to our Lord, nor of me, a prisoner for his sake; but bear your share of hardship for the gospel with the strength that comes from God.

2 Timothy 1:6-8

Welcome to the laying on of hands; a full dose of the Holy Spirit imparted to a believer to give them charge. Christ “breathed” His spirit out upon the Apostles, and now they lay hands upon others and instruct them to teach.

What would you say to that? Or would you ignore it?

**"…or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent." ** This doesn’t sound like a church we should follow. It sounds like a church that once had authority and “light” but that fell into error and was no longer Jesus’ intention for people to continue following. Again, remembering Jesus’ prophesy that error would arise and to be on our guard, and considering the above passage from Revelations, it is very hard to accept that a church continues being faithful just because it has the most original roots. Revelations is good evidence that Christ established a church that later fell into error and lost its authority.

It’s really funny that you should write about Revelations here. Remember the Church in Smyrna?

For a history lesson, the Book of Revelations is authored by the youngest and last apostle, St. John. Now then, St. John was in isolation at the time of the letter’s writing; yet he mentions this particular Church as being exemplary and “rich”.

The very same St. Polycarp (the Early Church Father you were so quick to sweep away) was bishop of Smyrna at the time of the writing of the Book of Revelations. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John, and St. John charged him with being his successor in that Church, teaching them and instructing them in Christ.

"To the angel of the church in Smyrna, write this: " 'The first and the last, who once died but came to life, says this: “I know your tribulation and poverty, but you are rich. I know the slander of those who claim to be Jews and are not, but rather are members of the assembly of Satan. Do not be afraid of anything that you are going to suffer. Indeed, the devil will throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will face an ordeal for ten days. Remain faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” ‘“Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The victor shall not be harmed by the second death.”’

Revelations 2:8-11

Funny that the St. Church that Polycarp is leading should be mentioned.

St. Polycarp, in turn, chose St. Irenaeus as his successor. It is through Irenaeus that we know who authored the Gospels that don’t claim authorship.

 

[JLongoria]

Do we agree there is no such thing as apostolic succession?

Obviously not.

Yet you clearly have the wrong idea of apostolic succession: one that is thoroughly un-Catholic.

Catholics don’t believe that the bishops are apostles; the apostles are inspired, and the bishops are not. The bishops can’t add to, or retract from, the deposit of faith, the fidei depositum.

Yet the bishops do have the authority to teach, and they teach infallibly so long as they teach the Sacred Tradition that was handed to them “whether by letter or by word of mouth” (2 Thess. 2:15), just as St. Paul gave the same authority to St. Timothy and St. Titus.