The catholic church to which Ignatius belonged...?

[jlhargus]

I trust that we would agree that the Church is much more than a teaching organization. I trust that we would also agree that the Church is much, much more than its leadership. IMHO the Church (as a whole) is charged with preaching Christ always…using words when necessary. It seems extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that the Church can have the most corrupt leadership imaginable but, if it can still be somehow said that no error was officially taught, then the gates of hell have not prevailed against that Church….

JL: Except for you no one has claimed the Church has the most corrupt leadership imaginable. I think it’s your imagination. The entire leadership of the Church has never been corrupt. That leadership would be the pope with ALL the bishops throughout the world. Why are you ashamed to name your sect so we can check its history for corruption? Your hypocritical dishonesty is clearly showing.

[Mt23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 **All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.] Didn’t David the apple of God’s eye also commit adultery and murder?

So if a pastor is living in sin and preaching the Word. Does that mean those who heard him preach and were saved are now not saved? Does that mean he never nor could have preached the truth, because of his corruption? Must a different sect be started every time a minister sins?

 

[joe370]

Radical

The HS was not given exclusively to the Apostles nor to the later hierarchy. The Apostles were most certainly empowered in a particular manner and that is witnessed by the mark of an Apostle that Paul described. That mark was the ability to do signs and wonders with great frequency. This mark is nowhere to be found in the Church today…no one today does miracles of the quality and frequency that was recorded for the Apostles. IMHO if one is going to claim that he is one of THE successors to the apostles, then he should back up that claim with the mark of an Apostle (and nothing less).
no one writes scripture any more either…the age of the Apostles has ended. The Church today (as always) is the body of Christ. Upon believing in Christ as Lord, one is given the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14) In accepting such believers and in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit, God did not distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-9) and does not distinguish between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orthodox today. As we are all given one and the same Spirit, we constitute the one body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:12-27) God has worked to combine us into that one body so that there should be no division (1 Cor 12:25). Within that body, all should be seen as indispensable (1 Cor 12:21-22) No part of the body should think that it is more important than any other part. (1 Cor 12:21-22 & Romans 12:3). You want to define the CC of today as the body of Christ, but Catholics today constitute about half of Christianity and, in all likelihood include about half of those who have been given the Holy Spirit. As such, if you were to judge things the way God judges things, then, by looking at the heart and at the Spirit you would note that the CC is merely half of the body of Christ.

Therefore, if you use doctrine as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the doctrine has changed so substantially. Further, if you use the possession of the Holy Spirit/membership in the body of Christ as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the CC is only a fraction of the one True Church (and a decreasing fraction at that).

When Jesus promised to be with His Church and guide His Church into all truth, until the end of time, He was speaking to all baptized Christians who possess Christ’s Spirit and bear good fruit?

In your opinion, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of infallible truth, did not continue to guide the successors of the Apostles, into all truth? This, in your opinion, ended with the apostles?

So, the present day CC is the church to which Ignatius belonged but only in an erroneously altered state, doctrinally speaking. Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[CopticChristian]

He surely wasn’t the greatest sinner when the Holy Spirit spoke through him…the overseer was to be blameless and the pursuer of righteousness. Do you really think Paul’s sins before he became an apostle in any way lessened the righteousness that he required of himself and others while in leadership?

Take your Catechism and then take the NT and the Apostolic Fathers and see when doctrines in the former are not stated in latter. The Catholic doctrines of Mary are probably the easiest to see.

As Paul aged early he said he was the least of the Apostles, later he said he was the least of the saints and in his later years he said he was the greatest of sinners. You decide if the Holy Spirit spoke through a sinner or not.

The Catechism, NT and Apostolic Fathers all line up. Check the Companion to the Catechism.

Material sufficiency means that all the bricks necessary to build doctrine is there in Scripture. However, it also teaches that since the meaning of Scripture is not always clear and that sometimes a doctrine is implied rather than explicit, other things besides Scripture have been handed to us from the apostles: things like Sacred
Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks together in the right order and position)and the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things – Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium – are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God. This is an article of Faith consistent with Scripture.

I admit that Mary was alive when the NT was written. I admit that the canon of Scripture was not declared in the Bible. I admit that the Trinity was not challenged until later. The Eucharist and other doctrines are clear. The NT does not speak of Pelagius, Arius, Nicolatians, Montanus and Protestanism are not specifically in the NT however the Church met these head on…with the material sufficieny.

 

[Radical]

So, because, (as you have suggested, I think) - the CC has the most corrupt leadership imaginable,…

had, not has

… it’s your belief that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against the CC, or have I misunderstood?

That interpretation (of that verse) would be every bit as legitimate as your interpretation…both infer what is meant by the gates of hell not prevailing.

Well, Jesus did say the following about both the preservation of truth in His church and individuals (darnel) - in His church falling into immorality…

I wouldn’t equate the kingdom of Heaven with the Church. In any event, Christ later explained that the man’s field represented the world and not the Church. (verse 38). As such, that parable is about allowing the unrighteous to remain in the world (and not about allowing the unrighteous to remain in the Church).

When Jesus promised to be with His Church and guide His Church into all truth, until the end of time, He was speaking to all baptized Christians who possess Christ’s Spirit and bear good fruit?

At that time (John 16) he was speaking to disciples who had been with him from the start. The guidance was to be done by the HS. If we are to extend that promise to subsequent centuries, then it would extend to all those who possess the HS.

In your opinion, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of infallible truth, did not continue to guide the successors of the Apostles, into all truth?

What do you mean by “all truth”? Paul, only saw dimly. Christ himself, did not know the day of his second coming. What do you mean by “successors of the Apostles”? “Successors of the apostles” is a term not used by Christ or the Apostles.

This, in your opinion, ended with the apostles?

the guidance of the HS continues to this day

So, the present day CC is the church to which Ignatius belonged but only in an erroneously altered state, doctrinally speaking. Is that what you are suggesting?

No, doctrinally the alteration is too substantial, so I wouldn’t call it the same Church. Also, as stated, I wouldn’t call it the same church to which Ignatius belonged, but only containing a fraction of those who constitute the body of Christ.

 

[Newsy]

Radical said, “What do you mean by “successors of the Apostles”? “Successors of the apostles” is a term not used by Christ or the Apostles.”. This is a moot point. Technically the words “infant Baptism” and “Trinity” are not in the Bible either, this proves nothing. We see in the opening chapters of Acts, the Apostles choose another to replace Judas. So, whether the words are actually used doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that it happened.

 

[Newsy]

Radical said"I wouldn’t equate the kingdom of Heaven with the Church. In any event, Christ later explained that the man’s field represented the world and not the Church. (verse 38). As such, that parable is about allowing the unrighteous to remain in the world (and not about allowing the unrighteous to remain in the Church).".
Let’s look at that. Form the NIV,
He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

Where does it say it refers to only the world? I see nothing mentioned about the Church. The Church is made up of people, some are “of the world” and some are “of the Kingdom”. Don’t you think the devil would want to sow seeds “of the world” in Christ’s Church? Please show me one church that doesn’t contain both people “of the world” and people “of the Kingdom”.

 

[Radical]

Radical said, “What do you mean by “successors of the Apostles”? “Successors of the apostles” is a term not used by Christ or the Apostles.”. This is a moot point. Technically the words “infant Baptism” and “Trinity” are not in the Bible either, this proves nothing. We see in the opening chapters of Acts, the Apostles choose another to replace Judas. So, whether the words are actually used doesn’t have any bearing on the fact that it happened.

Yes, we see that one was chosen to replace Judas, reestablishing the Twelve. So if that is your precedent we should see 12 Successors, selected by lot from nominees who had been with Jesus “beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up.” So, in other words, there wouldn’t be any successors of the apostles at this time.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Radical, take a seat in this chair. I have a few questions to ask you. Where were you on the night of 33 AD, the night of our saviors arrest? Where were you in the years 100 to 115… Did you dictate to Ignatius the exact words he chose, or did you coerce him to write those seemingly “catholic” words dealing with the bishop, the Eucharist and the fact that he said to do nothing without the bishop? Was he beat into saying those things, or was he one of the first apostates, heretics, that lead the people astray from the church of what’s happening now? Inquiring minds want to know. By the contradictory things I see you say, I wonder if you even know what you believe anymore.

BTW: I never got the scoop on which Bible school you went to. Not sure if they read the correct bible, KJV…Did they throw out the apocrypha [aka deuterocanon]. In studying Greek, which authoritative experts do you use. Do they happen to be Orthodox, as I have read they are the experts? Sincere questions, but with a funny twist to remain true to character. You know I was imprisoned in a Russian prison long enough to get these tattoos.

Realy, which seminary/bible school did you attend? I’m interesting in researching from where you’re coming. There is one thing listening to an Orthodox Catholic Christian [aka Eastern Orthodox Christian] saying these things. But hearing a fundamentalist is a whole new thing. It’s hilarious… kind of like talking to my in-law preachers that are educated in the Church of Christ line of thought. He seems to only disagree with what we teach from the where we receive our “authority”. I’m sure, based on my personal experience working towards becoming a preacher, that there is really a bit more than that. I guess they don’t realize just how close to becoming a preacher I was as well.

A good friend of mine some Catholics may have heard about went from baptist to Church of Christ based on conversations with an elder while working on a bible degree to become a preacher. He then met some neighbors he discovered were Catholic, so he kindly went to visit them to discuss studying the bible. Upon a second visit, the new neighbor gave him a book written by Karl Keating [not my favorite personality in the world]. He took it in all sincerity, read it and his own faith came into question based on reason, not made up stuff he had no evidence to support. He came into the Church before his wife, who about 5 years later joined him. Bruce, knows the same circle of people I know. Fortunately for Bruce, he was employed through a government organization related to the farming industry. I believe he’s expanded into oil and gas now based on the last time I called him. He’s appeared on “The Journey Home” and never suggests more than grace that led him home. But it does present the plausibility that many Protestants don’t really know what they think they know and the possibility that their beliefs are based on bad information.

So here’s where I’m headed. Having been protestant most of my childhood and adult life, I suggest you start a thread with the evidence, step by step, that proves your Protestant faith… and disproves others. Or are you one of those that talks a big talk but really have nothing to back your position? Feel free to interrogate me, I’m used to it. Remember me, Jack Bauer. I hope your sense of humor is better than most Catholics I know. They still don’t seem to get it.

 

[Wildkit]

So here’s where I’m headed. Having been protestant most of my childhood and adult life, I suggest you start a thread with the evidence, step by step, that proves your Protestant faith… and disproves others. Or are you one of those that talks a big talk but really have nothing to back your position? Feel free to interrogate me, I’m used to it. Remember me, Jack Bauer. I hope your sense of humor is better than most Catholics I know. They still don’t seem to get it.

 

[Newsy]

Yes, we see that one was chosen to replace Judas, reestablishing the Twelve. So if that is your precedent we should see 12 Successors, selected by lot from nominees who had been with Jesus “beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up.” So, in other words, there wouldn’t be any successors of the apostles at this time.

BUT… they replaced him after the Ascension. So, are they working in opposition to Christ? I don’t follow your line of logic here. There were also more than just 12 during His ministry, how does that fit in? It looks like you are inflecting your opinion onto the text.

 

[Mickey]

Apostolic Succession

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. Acts 14:23

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Acts 9:17-19 (Note: it is also possible that this is a reference to Christmaton.)

"Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. Acts 6:3-6

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 2 Tim. 4:1-6 (St. Paul hands down his ministry to Timothy)

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Tim. 1:6 (Note: Paul reminds Timothy of the gift he received through laying of hands)

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 1 Tim. 4:14 (Note: This shows that divine authority is bestowed unto someone using laying on of hands)

In those days Peter stood up among the believers(a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:15-26
orthodoxwiki.org/Apostolic_succession

 

[jlhargus]

I guess you could say that the HS taught us the Canon and that seems to be a fairly common view. It would be better if Christians left it at that, but they go on to claim that the HS has taught them all manner of other things that are then expected to be binding on others.

JL: If not thru the SENT ministers of the CC then tell us HOW the HS taught the canon of the bible. You wont of course because you can’t. If those SENT ministers could discern the books of the bible thru the guidance of the HS. Then those SENT ministers surly can bind and loose with the authority given them by Christ. [Mt18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.]

note the use of “observe”…actions and not just words. It strikes me as extremely odd that one would claim that the HS was supplied to a select group so that they would be prevented from (officially) teaching any error, but that the grace that the HS provided would be somehow limited to that purpose and would not also prevent that select group from falling into immorality.

JL: The HS could certainly prevent anyone from falling into immorality. He could make us all robots. But that would be violating a person’s free will. God wants our free will obedience of faith and love not forced love. What kind of love is forced? You can’t really love without Truth and honesty. Christ IS TRUTH and he requires His people to be truthful. It is because God loves his people that He guides His ONE VISIBLE CHURCH into ALL TRUTH, just as He promised, not hit and miss guess work.

[Jn16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, **he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.] Do you think the HS left his Church right after Pentecost? Scripture calls the Church the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15. It wouldn’t be a pillar and ground of TRUTH if the best it could do is teach hit and miss truth leading people astray with errror. Did Christ die only to leave us orphans playing Russian Roulette with hit and miss Truth? Never knowing whether we really hit or missed.

 

[Radical]

Where does it say it refers to only the world?

it doesn’t. The world and the Church are to different things. Christ identified the field as the world…therefore the field represents the world and not the Church.

I see nothing mentioned about the Church.

right

BUT… they replaced him after the Ascension. So, are they working in opposition to Christ?

how would that follow?

There were also more than just 12 during His ministry, how does that fit in? It looks like you are inflecting your opinion onto the text.

The 12 were identified as a select group in a number of the NT books (including Luke and Acts). At Acts 1:13 Luke names 11 of the 12 and then proceeds to describe the replacement of Judas (the 12th)…it seems to me to obviously be a re-establishment of the 12. BTW, when Rev 21:14 has the 12 foundations of the City bearing the names of the 12 apostles, do you think that the 12th foundation bears the name of Matthais or of Judas Iscariot?

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, we see that one was chosen to replace Judas, reestablishing the Twelve. So if that is your precedent we should see 12 Successors, selected by lot from nominees who had been with Jesus “beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up.” So, in other words, there wouldn’t be any successors of the apostles at this time.

No Apostasy for You!

 

[Cat_Herder]

I trust that we would agree that the Church is much more than a teaching organization. I trust that we would also agree that the Church is much, much more than its leadership. IMHO the Church (as a whole) is charged with preaching Christ always…using words when necessary. It seems extraordinarily disingenuous to claim that the Church can have the most corrupt leadership imaginable but, if it can still be somehow said that no error was officially taught, then the gates of hell have not prevailed against that Church….as if Christ’s proclamation to the world was, “All that really counts is what my Church (officially) says. That is how I will judge who has prevailed.”

Actually that IS pretty much what God said, because while the power to teach lies with the Church, God leaves the decision to accept and respond to the Gospel to the individual soul. In short… No Apostasy for You!

I would say that it applies to all those who possess Christ’s Spirit….and we can best determine who they are by their fruit

Indeed…

The HS was not given exclusively to the Apostles nor to the later hierarchy. The Apostles were most certainly empowered in a particular manner and that is witnessed by the mark of an Apostle that Paul described. That mark was the ability to do signs and wonders with great frequency. This mark is nowhere to be found in the Church today

Actually the Catholic Church is the only church still documenting miracles. Here is the congregation responsible for doing so.

The Church today (as always) is the body of Christ. Upon believing in Christ as Lord, one is given the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13-14) In accepting such believers and in giving the gift of the Holy Spirit, God did not distinguish between the Jews and the Gentiles (Acts 15:8-9) and does not distinguish between the Catholics and the Protestants and Orthodox today. As we are all given one and the same Spirit, we constitute the one body of Christ. (1 Cor 12:12-27) God has worked to combine us into that one body** so that there should be no division** (1 Cor 12:25). Within that body, all should be seen as indispensable (1 Cor 12:21-22) No part of the body should think that it is more important than any other part. (1 Cor 12:21-22 & Romans 12:3). You want to define the CC of today as the body of Christ, but Catholics today constitute about half of Christianity and, in all likelihood include about half of those who have been given the Holy Spirit. As such, if you were to judge things the way God judges things, then, by looking at the heart and at the Spirit you would note that the CC is merely half of the body of Christ.

All of this presupposes “once saved always saved.” Unfortunately, that is false:

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 John 5:16-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Speaking of mortal sin… Did you notice the link to the Wikipedia article on the European wars of religion up there? Did you see that all of them were started by Protestants? Did you take note of the resulting death toll of around 60 million people? Have you considered the millions more who have died as a result of Protestant dogma like abortion?

Do you think that Jesus endorses any of this?

Therefore, if you use doctrine as your criterion, then the universal/catholic church of Ignatius’s day is not the same church as the CC b/c the doctrine has changed so substantially.

You are presupposing that the original Christian doctrine was that of Protestantism, and it is very easy to disprove that, which is why I put together a Quick Answer page to do so.

 

[Radical]

Radical, take a seat in this chair…I wonder if you even know what you believe anymore.

I know that I believe that I know what I believe

BTW: I never got the scoop on which Bible school you went to.

never went

I’m interesting in researching from where you’re coming.

well, if you want to research my views (both theologically and historically) with respect to the Lord’s Supper, you could start with the works of Ben Witherington III and Everett Ferguson. More specifically, WRT Augustine’s view on the Eucharist you could look at the works of Ed Kilmartin and Garry Wills. Once you have covered that topic and are confident that you know where I am coming from on that issue, we could move on to the next matter…I expect that it’ll take you more than 24 hours.

 

[Radical]

Apostolic Succession

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust. Acts 14:23

Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength. Acts 9:17-19 (Note: it is also possible that this is a reference to Christmaton.)

"Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. Acts 6:3-6

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. 2 Tim. 4:1-6 (St. Paul hands down his ministry to Timothy)

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. 2 Tim. 1:6 (Note: Paul reminds Timothy of the gift he received through laying of hands)

Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 1 Tim. 4:14 (Note: This shows that divine authority is bestowed unto someone using laying on of hands)

In those days Peter stood up among the believers(a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. Acts 1:15-26

Mickey, thanks for posting these verses…I trust you did so to prove my point that “apostolic succession” is not even mentioned in scripture. One can only wonder what the proponents think…do they believe that any and all appointees of an apostle become successors of an apostle? If so, would they also believe that any appointee of a king, also becomes a successor to that king?

 

[Cat_Herder]

do they believe that any and all appointees of an apostle become successors of an apostle?

Yes, although the more precise term for “successor ] of an apostle” is bishop.

If so, would they also believe that any appointee of a king, also becomes a successor to that king?

Yes. It is within the royal prerogative of a monarch to determine who will be his or her heir just as it is any person’s prerogative to decide who will be their own heir. Haven’t you ever heard of something called a last will and testament?

 

[BigFellaMick]

hmmm…given that a majority of Christians do not believe in a real bodily presence and that a substantial portion of that majority holds to a symbolic view, you may wish to consider the possibility that the problem lies with your ability to comprehend and not with the reasoning capacity of the millions and millions that do see sense in that position.

consider also that Catholics outnumber protestants in this world practically ten to one in just about any and every country you go too. Consider also that the Catholic Church is 2000 years old and was created by Christ Himself, in the flesh. Consider the fact that whatever church you belong too is man made and as such does not have the divine grace of protection that Christ gave His Catholic Church in Matt 16:18. “Your” beliefs do not hold weight against “Christ’s” teachings. And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I’d pray long and hard about it. Christ did not leave a book behind Him. He left a Church. God Bless Christ’s Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church. Maybe you should take a look at the Church from the inside, as in try giving RCIA a try, before you seek to create scandal against Christ from the outside.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, thanks for posting these verses…I trust you did so to prove my point that “apostolic succession” is not even mentioned in scripture.

Surely you can’t think that your point is proven because an exact phrase is not mentioned in Scripture?

What I posted is glorious proof that Apostolic Succession is alive and well!

BTW–You have been asked a number of times, (politely), to enlighten us regarding your reformed affiliation. How bout it?