Code:
This argument would make more sense to me if there weren't also multiple churches claiming apostolic tradition that are not in communion with one another. Granted, not as many. And I've talked to some catholics that explain to me that the orthodox split off from the catholics and that it's well documented so it's not really the same thing... but orthodox claim it to be the other way around. I'm fascinated with the history on the subject but I'm not expert and there is no way (yet) for me to really discern which of the churches claiming apostolic succession all the way to the beginning is telling the truth.
The reason is is called “schism” is because each separate from the other. Apostolic succession, however, is not one of the points of disagreement. Both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox have valid Apostolic succession. The disagreements are over other matters many of which have already been reconciled.
The question then becomes, if all those communities founded by Apostles have these same doctrines in common, how can it be justified to jettison them in the Reformation?
You make mention of a passage that mentions that there are SOME parts of the bible that can be difficult to understand and that therefore the bible need to be interpreted. The passages are distorted by the untaught and the unstable. What you ignore is that if a person reading it is stable and is taught, then they can read and understand.
I think this is implied in Peter’s statement. So what type of teaching and interpreting are we talking about here? How is it that those who are separated from the Apostolic Succession understand and interpret so differently?
Peter and the other Apostles taught that the Sacred Tradition is what brings understanding and stability to the reading. Once that is rejected, everyone who reads has their own ideas of what it means.
Code:
I don't believe "untaught" in this context means "not taught how to understand a particular passage" so much as it means "not taught how to read properly." After all, the passage that warns that the bible can be distorted is simply warning not to distort the bible, not to find an appropriate interpreter.
But reading properly IS EXACTLY that. it means using the right interpretation.Jesus taught this to His Aposltes, and they taught it to their successors, the Bishops.
Luke 24:24-27
25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 **And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. **
I think we will all agree that the authority to interpret comes from Christ. How then, is that passed down?
Mark 4:34
…privately to his own disciples he explained everything.
Luke 10:16
16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
This statement was made only to those whom Jesus commissioned for apostolic work.
We get lots of denominations in this world not because the bible can’t be understood but because people see what they want to see and that happens regardless of a magesterium.
Code:
Anyway, I don't really deny apostolic succession because it doesn't feel right to me. I just don't see a biblical basis for it.
This is probably also grist for another thread, although there are also many of these here at CAF! It is possible that you don’t “see” what is there because you have anti-Catholic blinders on.
Code:
I don't see it established anywhere in the bible. The closes we get is when the apostles appoint a new apostle to replace Judas, but that's not really the same thing.
I have to wonder what you actually think is meant by “apostolic succession”. I can’t imagine what else it could possibly mean!
Code:
We don't have apostles today, just bishops and there's no clear indication that all of the apostles later became bishops of churches. Just some of them.
Apostles were considered overseers, but they were not generally tied to a certain locale. Bishops, on the other hand, were regional and specifically assigned. One can learn much about this by reading the Early Church fathers.
We get the laying on of hands to pass the holy spirit on to another but there’s no indication this only happened to establish bishops. If I am not remembering something correctly please let me know.
You are right, there are many purposes for the laying on of hands, including the commissioning of deacons, priests, and apostolic missions.
And I know the immediate response (as someone else already mentioned in this thread) is that if the bible doesn’t say not all revelation can come from it why am I so opposed to the idea of revelation beyond the bible?
I’m not. But how can I trust just any source that claims revelation? I know I can trust the bible. I trust that. But when the bible doesn’t lead me to trust anything else today then I’m stuck.
Yes, this is understandible. That is why so many of us are puzzled when the contents of the Bible are not used (because they point to the Church as the pillar and ground of the Truth) and because you seem to trust the Sacred Tradition to preserve and canonize those scriptures upon which you depend.
It really is a trust issue. It boils down to not being able to believe that Jesus has the power or ability to keep His word where He placed it in the Church.
