Why is Eucharist Invalid Without Apostolic Succession?

[DavidFilmer]

… while at the SAME TIME arguing that apostolic succession, which Tertullian had, has preserved completely the original teachings of the Apostles. Either Apostolic Succession has kept the teachings COMPLETELY or it hasn’t.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Apostolic succession is necessary to transmit authority, and this includes the authority to teach (and to do so infallibly, under certain specific conditions), but there’s no guarantee that someone with apostolic succession cannot be wrong (as Tertulian indicates). Even valid Popes may be heretics, with certain limitations (they can be heretical in their person, but not their Office). Apostolic succession does not, in itself, impart or preserve knowledge.

Tertullian is not considered a heretic because of his teaching on the minister of the Eucharist. Most people are not aware that he even taught it. But he is the ONLY ECF who claimed that the Christian laity could confect Eucharist (though as extraordinary ministers). If I had a notion that, among the Early Church, was supported only by Tertullian, I would not be comfortable.

The history of Early Church is full of multiple schools of thought and theology on a whole variety of issues. Contrary to popular Catholic teaching, not everyone agreed in the Early Church on all kinds of things, including original sin, apostolic succession, infant baptism, etc.

Oh, yes. The best example is that Baptism by heretics is valid. Before Pope Stephen taught this as doctrine, each and every Early Father that wrote about the topic opposed it. St. Cyprian of Carthage (my favorite ECF, nicknamed “The African Pope” on account of his great influence) would not even use the word “baptize” in the context of heretics - he referred to “those made wet by heretics.” I think that’s funny.

After Stephen proclaimed heretical Baptism as valid, Cyprian ceased writing about the subject - we have no accounts as to how he received this news. The only “Father” that opposed heretical Baptism (“on the record”) after Stephen’s proclamation was Cyprian’s friend (and ally through the time of debate), Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea, writing in a letter to Cyprian around AD 255:

In this respect I am justly indignant at the so open and evident stupidity of Stephen: that, although he glories so much in the place of his Bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church have been laid, he should introduce many other rocks and establish the new building of numerous churches, since he defends with his authority that Baptism is found in them!

After Firmillian, we find that the validity of heretical Baptism (using water and the Trinitarian form) was universally upheld (by East and West alike).

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

Not that I want to get into every point (because like I said, I don’t have time for it), I did want to bring up one point about infant baptism since that was one of the things I mentioned…I said that Church Fathers disagreed on many things…well infant baptism is one of those things. You won’t find ONE direct statement in favor of infant baptism before 200 AD. However, you won’t find an EXPRESS prohibitions against it either.

But there is a quote from Origen and St. Augustine, saying that the practice of infant baptism was handed down from the apostles.

Origen: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248])

St. Augustine: “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Augustine - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

 

[steve_b]

Several things…
First, obviously I didn’t understand the translation issue you were getting at so you are definitely right about that piece of it. However, I don’t think there is anything that you said that definitively proves anything…

What I wrote makes the point I was responding to.
j:

not to mention, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic…so the point is still the same.

Yet the writers wrote in Greek. Therefore, that’s the language we are to deal with. You’re objection doesn’t undo my points.
j:

Secondly, the argument that “Catholic Church” has been here since the 1st Century is misleading. Yes, the organization has been.

Therefore the Catholic Church has been there from the 1st century. As Paul said to Timothy, it’s the pillar and foundation of truth. That didn’t originate from Paul it came from the HS John 14:25-26 , which means it cam from Jesus John 16:12-15
j:

Have the teachings remained the same? I don’t believe they have, which is precisely why I have made all the points I have.

Examples?
j:

You say the teachings are the same. I think if you read the Church Fathers in depth (not just one quote here and there), you will find that is not true. On some issues, yes…but on many issues…No.

Again, when you make statements like that you have to give examples.
j:

The point I was “driving” at is really why one person chosen for ministry, let’s say in a Lutheran church, cannot act “in persona Christi” but a person who was ordained by a bishop in apostolic succession can.

Why is this even an issue? This has to do with authority from God in His own words to those He has chosen… Matthew 28:16-20 Jesus didn’t give such authority to joe six pak on the street. And needless to say, joe six pak on the street can’t make himself a bonafide minister with that kind of authority.
j:

“casting out demons” is not a common “good work,” and to suggest that the point of that passage is related to permission to do good works is completely ridiculous.

In that day, some sicknesses were thought of as being demon possessed. Not that they were, but were thought of as being demon possessed. Therefore, healing such a person was thought of as casting out demons. In reality, no individual person can on their own, heal another or cast out a demon. That only comes from God. But a person is there praying for another person. Truly a good work by the person praying, even if the sick person isn’t healed.
j:

Based on your reasoning, we could substitute “casting out demons” in that passage with “feeding the homeless” and the meaning of the passage would be absolutely the same. Do you really think the Apostles would come to Jesus over a concern that people “not with them” were feeding the homeless? Or being kind to others? Or doing any of the things Jesus asked us to do as “good works?”

I made an adequate qualifiction and distinction… Since the “others” were using Jesus name to heal, It’s still a good work on their part by being the one praying for another
j:

The passage is about authority. That is the ONLY conceivable and reasonable interpretation. The Apostles came to Jesus to ask Him about their concerns about the authority of this other group “not with them” acting in Jesus’ name.

All we know about them is they were attempting to heal people in the name of Jesus.

We don’t hear about them again. Jesus tells us where the direction of power is going to. It’s His apostles Matthew 28:16-20
j:

I have already shown two early church bishops, Augustine and Tertullian, disagreeing with modern Church positions on two separate issues. I apologize but I do not have time to go dig up every single quote on all of the issues I mentioned.

If you lodge a criticism, or make a controversial point, and say the ECF’s support your charge, then be prepared to always validate the charge each time you make it, providing evidence properly noted. I do it over and over with posts without being asked. Even if someone doesn’t ask I post the evidence in advance anyway, because I automatically assume in advance, someone will ask for proof of what I said.
j:

A simple Google search will yield many of the results and I urge you to check for yourself.

I don’t do someone elses work for them. If they make the point, they provide the proof with specific coordinants.

 

[steve_b]

Not that I want to get into every point (because like I said, I don’t have time for it), I did want to bring up one point about infant baptism since that was one of the things I mentioned…I said that Church Fathers disagreed on many things…well infant baptism is one of those things. You won’t find ONE direct statement in favor of infant baptism before 200 AD.

Entrance into the OT covanent was circumcision. It occured on the 8th day after birth for a male.
Entrance into the NT covanent is baptism. Baptism now replaces circumcision (Col 2:11-12) so infants were baptised male & female

Acts 2:38-39 promise is to you and your children (context is baptism)
Acts 16:15 households were baptised
Acts 16:31 households were baptised
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12).
j:

However, you won’t find an EXPRESS prohibitions against it either. You will find people not recommending it though and it is well known many Christians of the early church did not get baptized until later in life (some say this is why Constantine waited to be baptized). After 200 AD though, you find MANY supports of infant baptism. This is just one example of it.

The rule is baptise infants. That doesn’t mean people like Constantine don’t play roulette with their soul.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Apostolic succession is necessary to transmit authority, and this includes the authority to teach (and to do so infallibly, under certain specific conditions), but there’s no guarantee that someone with apostolic succession cannot be wrong (as Tertulian indicates). Even valid Popes may be heretics, with certain limitations (they can be heretical in their person, but not their Office). Apostolic succession does not, in itself, impart or preserve knowledge.

Tertullian is not considered a heretic because of his teaching on the minister of the Eucharist. Most people are not aware that he even taught it. But he is the ONLY ECF who claimed that the Christian laity could confect Eucharist (though as extraordinary ministers). If I had a notion that, among the Early Church, was supported only by Tertullian, I would not be comfortable.

Oh, yes. The best example is that Baptism by heretics is valid. Before Pope Stephen taught this as doctrine, each and every Early Father that wrote about the topic opposed it. St. Cyprian of Carthage (my favorite ECF, nicknamed “The African Pope” on account of his great influence) would not even use the word “baptize” in the context of heretics - he referred to “those made wet by heretics.” I think that’s funny.

After Stephen proclaimed heretical Baptism as valid, Cyprian ceased writing about the subject - we have no accounts as to how he received this news. The only “Father” that opposed heretical Baptism (“on the record”) after Stephen’s proclamation was Cyprian’s friend (and ally through the time of debate), Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea, writing in a letter to Cyprian around AD 255:

After Firmillian, we find that the validity of heretical Baptism (using water and the Trinitarian form) was universally upheld (by East and West alike).

Hi David, what I meant by my first statement is that while you are correct that apostolic succession, in and of itself, does not guarantee TRUE teachings, it does convey the promise that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from error. I am not saying that individual people cannot make errors, but as you well know, the Church claims it has the protection of the Holy Spirit and that protection is, in a sense, passed down through apostolic succession as successive bishops occupy protected offices (the Pope being the primary example and the only one alleged to be protected on his own).

Further, you also know that the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope and the bishops together are INCAPABLE of teaching anything which directly conflicts with the teachings of the Apostles or the Bible. The Pope and the Magisterium cannot teach what is not already true…they are not supposed to be in the business of formulating new doctrines, only expanding our understanding of existing ones. This is also what I was referring to.

So with this in mind, I will restate the point: It is ironic to me that the Church will argue that its teachings are APOSTOLIC and that they know this because the Church has received its teachings through the passing down of tradition directly from the Apostles. Yet, when it comes to people like Tertullian, who also claimed to have received his teachings from the handing down of tradition that could be traced back to the Apostles, the Church teaches he is a heretic, as if he made the whole thing up…But the truth is…it is very likely he did receive it from those who came before him. We have no reason to believe he didn’t.

My whole point is not that the Catholic Church is wrong about everything…or even most things. I think they have most of the picture right. On other issues, I think they are wrong…and on a great many issues, I believe they represent ONE historic view of the early church when many existed. I don’t think these things out of pride or arrogance. I WISH I could believe the Catholic Church was right about everything…but I think history says otherwise.

Obviously, you disagree with much of this. You believe the Church not only has preserved the teachings of the Apostles but we can trust their judgments because they have been granted authority from God and promised protection from teaching errors. I can certainly respect that view, but I believe a careful study of history shows otherwise.

 

[jinc1019]

But there is a quote from Origen and St. Augustine, saying that the practice of infant baptism was handed down from the apostles.

Origen: “The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine sacraments, knew there is in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Origen - Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248])

St. Augustine: “The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Augustine - The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Yes I agree with you. And, let me be clear, I think one of the early strands of Christianity did always teach baptism. I am not saying it was totally made up by men like Origen. I believe Origen and Augustine simply received a teaching which developed early on, likely not by an Apostle. However, I don’t deny the fact that it is POSSIBLE different apostles taught different things on certain issues, which could easily explain many of the differences in the early Church.

Augustine was from the 5th century and Origen’s quote there from the middle of the 3rd, so you should also keep in mind that while this is RELATIVELY early…it is still hundreds of years after the death of Christ. Think about the history of the United States, which is almost exactly as old as the time between the death of Jesus and Origen’s quoted statement. Do you think that we, for better or for worse (depending on your view), still use the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers did? Our entire structure has COMPLETELY changed and we know very clearly what the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution said and meant; we just ignore it. Can you imagine what things would look like if all we had from the Founding Fathers was an oral tradition? Do you really think we would have anything close to what we do now? This is my whole point. You have tons of writing from the 2nd Century and many passages referencing baptism, but none talking directly about infant baptism. It just appears, from history, that it didn’t exist back then. And while you can quote Origen in 250 advocating for it, I can quote Tertullian clearly opposing it in 200 AD.

 

[jinc1019]

What I wrote makes the point I was responding to.

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t prove anything…that’s my whole point. You try to take the word “do” and extrapolate incredibly complex arguments from it. That just isn’t historically sound, with all due respect.

Yet the writers wrote in Greek. Therefore, that’s the language we are to deal with. You’re objection doesn’t undo my points.

I agree that’s all we have to work with, but that doesn’t give you the license to draw the kinds of conclusions you want to make from it. You are trying to make a complex theological argument from the word “Do” and if you are going to even attempt to do that, you better have the right language if you want any chance of success at all. To try to draw conclusions from Greek when Jesus likely didn’t speak it is a huge stretch.

Therefore the Catholic Church has been there from the 1st century. As Paul said to Timothy, it’s the pillar and foundation of truth. That didn’t originate from Paul it came from the HS

As you well know, your entire theory is based on your interpretation of “Church” as a specific organization rather than a “community,” which is the literal meaning of the word. Your view is inherently biased for that reason (on this point, I am not saying everything you say is biased).

Examples?

I have already given examples. One such example is infant baptism. Show me one explicit proof of it before 200 AD. You can’t…because it doesn’t exist.

Again, when you make statements like that you have to give examples.

I DID. And I just did again. Baptism is an example.

 

[jinc1019]

Why is this even an issue? This has to do with authority from God in His own words to those He has chosen… Matthew 28:16-20 Jesus didn’t give such authority to joe six pak on the street. And needless to say, joe six pak on the street can’t make himself a bonafide minister with that kind of authority.

It is an issue for the very obvious reason that if one believes history teaches us that bishops were chosen locally, by local elders, and not through a laying on of hands (not in every case…in many cases the evidence shows they were chosen by laying on of hands) then the implications of that are very important. It means Holy Orders are a creation of the Church in the way that they teach it today. Matthew 28:16, by the way, doesn’t do anything for your argument. In that passage, Jesus tells his Apostles to “baptize,” as part of the Great Commission. If this command granted some kind of EXCLUSIVE authority as you claim it does, then why does the Catholic Church teach that ANY CHRISTIAN can VALIDLY baptize? Obviously your interpretation is wrong because even the Catholic Church does not agree.

In that day, some sicknesses were thought of as being demon possessed. Not that they were, but were thought of as being demon possessed. Therefore, healing such a person was thought of as casting out demons. In reality, no individual person can on their own, heal another or cast out a demon. That only comes from God. But a person is there praying for another person. Truly a good work by the person praying, even if the sick person isn’t healed.

This statement is, again with all due respect, completely historically dishonest. Nowhere do we have ANY proof that “demons” in this context means mental illness or any other kind of illness. Nowhere do we see that and for you to interject it into the text is really just copying what many scholars in the most liberal denominations do. Further, you are going against the teachings of the Catholic Church (which you claim are infallible) because even to this day, the Church employs exorcists who work to expel evil demons from people all over the world. Demons in the classic sense of the word, not demons as in “illness.” You can’t possibly deny that they make this claim as it is EXTREMELY well-documented. I am NOT saying they actually do this, by the way, but I am saying that this is what they teach. I have no idea if demons actually exist or if they can cast them out.

I made an adequate qualifiction and distinction… Since the “others” were using Jesus name to heal, It’s still a good work on their part by being the one praying for another

No you did not make an adequate qualification. The passage says NOTHING about healing…it says “casting out demons,” an actual supernatural and spiritual act. That is NOT the same as “praying for healing.” Again, using your logic the story goes like this: “The Apostles came to see Jesus because they heard those not with them were praying for sick people to get healed and they were concerned they didn’t have the authority to do that.” Really? The passage makes no sense based on your interpretation. Why would the Apostles rush to Jesus’ side to ask them if people not in the Church had the authority to pray for sick people (including mentally ill)? That makes no sense at all.

All we know about them is they were attempting to heal people in the name of Jesus.

We don’t hear about them again. Jesus tells us where the direction of power is going to. It’s His apostles Matthew 28:16-20

Again, no. We don’t know that they were trying to “heal” them in the common sense of the word, and there is NO indication that these people were “sick” in the common sense of the word either. They were, according to the plain language of scripture, possessed by demons. These “others” were performing exorcisms to remove the demons…and they were “casting” them out…not just “praying for them to get better,” as you would suggest. And we know they were successful because in Jesus’ response to the Apostles, He acknowledges they are doing good things in His name…not just trying to do something good. It astounds me that you would use such incredibly literal standards when attempting to define the word “Do” earlier in our conversation to make a complex theological point, but you would then interpret “casting out demons” to mean “praying for sick people that may or may not have been healed by the praying.” The two obviously don’t fit, and it seems to me that you are picking and choosing when to apply rigid standards based on what proves or disproves your attempted argument.

If you lodge a criticism, or make a controversial point, and say the ECF’s support your charge, then be prepared to always validate the charge each time you make it, providing evidence properly noted. I do it over and over with posts without being asked. Even if someone doesn’t ask I post the evidence in advance anyway, because I automatically assume in advance, someone will ask for proof of what I said.

Once again, I have ALREADY shown proof and given you examples. Because I enumerated such a large list, I cannot go through a write a treatise on EACH AND EVERY POINT. I don’t expect you to do that either. Examples should be good enough and I have given you examples. I will give you one again…the Early Church Fathers disagreed on whether baptism could be performed by someone outside of apostolic succession. They also disagreed about whether heretics should be re-baptized. David already posted some proof of these claims so I shouldn’t need to post more.

 

[jinc1019]

I don’t do someone elses work for them. If they make the point, they provide the proof with specific coordinants.

You didn’t even provide proof for your own argument! You said that “casting out demons” meant healing sick people…You said that people who were sick were thought to have demons…You NEVER ONCE provided any support at all. Then you find a way to criticize me for not providing enough proof? It’s all very convenient.

 

[jinc1019]

Entrance into the OT covanent was circumcision. It occured on the 8th day after birth for a male.
Entrance into the NT covanent is baptism. Baptism now replaces circumcision (Col 2:11-12) so infants were baptised male & female

Acts 2:38-39 promise is to you and your children (context is baptism)
Acts 16:15 households were baptised
Acts 16:31 households were baptised
Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12).

The rule is baptise infants. That doesn’t mean people like Constantine don’t play roulette with their soul.

You didn’t provide a single example of an infant getting baptized. Not a single one. You simply ASSUME “household” means infants were included, which is obviously a major assumption. You also erroneously state that baptism was a substitution for circumcision. This is completely false. If that were true, why were ALL Jewish Christians in the early Church (up until the time of the first Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts) also required to have circumcisions if baptism replaced it? This obviously included infants, not just converts.

Further, if circumcision was replaced with baptism, how do you explain that baptism is for everyone but circumcision was only practiced on males? Male Christians of a Jewish background, both those born into the faith and those who converted, were required to be both baptized and circumcised. Yet, girls were only required to be baptized. If your argument is accurate, no one should have been required to be circumcised AND baptized.

FURTHER, the Didache, the oldest Christian document we have outside of the Bible, does not ANYWHERE mention infant baptism. Instead, it directs that all those preparing for baptism (ALL) are required to fast and to be baptized by immersion so long as the water source is available for immersion. There is no mention of baptizing babies at all…and it is well known that baptizing babies by immersion can be quite dangerous, so it seems odd the Didache would instruct ALL those being baptized to be baptized by immersion UNLESS there is no water around to do it.

Additionally, from the time of Christ until 200 AD, we have numerous writers talking about baptism and ALL of them say nothing of infant baptism AND many of them make it clear that there should be some form of catechesis, prayer, fasting, and asking for the forgiveness of sins prior to baptism. Infants OBVIOUSLY cannot do any of that.

And, if all of this still isn’t enough…You should be aware that prior to 200 AD, there is no mention of babies having the sin of Adam imputed on them. They have sinful natures yes, but no one is worried about babies dying in sin and going to hell.

See the following PROOFS:

From the Shepherd of Hermas (150 A.D.)

They are as infant children in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remain as children. Such accordingly without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God. …all infants are honorable before God, and are first in persons with Him.

From Justin Martyr’s First Apology XVIII, (155 A.D.)

For you let even necromancy, and the divinations, whom you practice on immaculate children, and the invoking of departed human souls.

From Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, (204 A.D.)

those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent?

And…just in case you think those are not sufficient enough either:

From Clement of Alexandria’s so-called Prophetical Extracts regarding aborted babies:

(48 . 1 ) The providence of God doth not light upon them only that are in the flesh. For example, Peter in the Apocalypse saith that the children born out of due time (abortively) that would have been of the better part-these are delivered to a care-taking angel, that they may partake of knowledge and obtain the better abode, having suffered what they would have suffered had they been in the body. But the others shall only obtain salvation, as beings that have been injured and had mercy shown to them, and shall continue without torment, receiving that as a reward.

 

[steve_b]

Further, to Steve,

To suggest that you can take the word “Do” and somehow make a sweeping theological argument using that as your foundation is a big stretch. You yourself listed numerous possible definitions of the word which would disprove your own argument.

ποιεῖτε / do

open the link. Read it for yourself.

 

[steve_b]

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t prove anything…that’s my whole point. You try to take the word “do” and extrapolate incredibly complex arguments from it. That just isn’t historically sound, with all due respect.

ποιεῖτε / do

I gave you the link. I didn’t make this up
j:

I agree that’s all we have to work with, but that doesn’t give you the license to draw the kinds of conclusions you want to make from it. You are trying to make a complex theological argument from the word “Do” and if you are going to even attempt to do that, you better have the right language if you want any chance of success at all. To try to draw conclusions from Greek when Jesus likely didn’t speak it is a huge stretch.

When I present a position I give the evidence behind it all properly documented. You give me your opinion with no documentation. That’s where the problem is
j:

As you well know, your entire theory is based on your interpretation of “Church” as a specific organization rather than a “community,” which is the literal meaning of the word. Your view is inherently biased for that reason (on this point, I am not saying everything you say is biased).

Do you even open up the links I give you?
j:

I have already given examples. One such example is infant baptism. Show me one explicit proof of it before 200 AD. You can’t…because it doesn’t exist.

And I’ve already given you a response forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10989969&postcount=44

 

[Usagi]

The quote from Augustine is listed below. It appears in Book V of Augustine’s Anti-Donatists writings and is, in my opinion, extremely important. Obviously the passage is dealing PRIMARILY with baptism, since that was the issue at hand, but Augustine makes it very clear that the same principles apply to the Eucharist and all other sacraments:

As you can see, Augutine even says “even within, in the Church itself,” indicating his argument is also valid OUTSIDE of the Church.

I don’t disagree with any of that. As I noted, the Orthodox and even some of the high-church Protestants either retain or have reacquired valid orders, and even though they are technically schismatics and heretics, we do not deny that they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist and no one can take it away from them.

That is a perfectly orthodox reading of Augustine’s words. Nothing in what he says denigrates the existence of holy orders or apostolic succession. Your particular reading is no more intuitive or unbiased than mine.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

In regards to the other points you make, I don’t deny that historically many church fathers have taken the view that apostolic succession was necessary. Many, however, have not. For instance, Tertullian, in Prescription Against Heretics, writes:

As I have explained to you in other threads, “apostolic man” does not mean “someone in apostolic succession.” It means one who was not an Apostle but either a companion (Mark, Luke) or student (Timothy, Clement, Polycarp) of the Apostles in the first and second generations of Christians. The churches not founded by Apostles or apostolic men are those founded too late to have one of those men at their head. Tertullian actually says this in the parenthetical statement that follows.

Again, this statement admits of a perfectly orthodox reading and, while it doesn’t explicitly affirm the requirement for holy orders, nor does it say anything against it. You are bringing that to the text with your unique interpretation of the category “apostolic man.”

I sympathize with your general issue, that even the orthodox Fathers were more divided than we sometimes realize on issues that were only later settled. Our well-known apologists are perfectly aware of that, though – Jimmy Akin, who’s written a book on the Fathers, claims that the only unanimous opinion he found among them was an affirmation of baptismal regeneration (and even then, presumably only in the Fathers that address the subject). Heck, the history of disagreement on even vital issues is why we kind of snicker at Protestants who claim to derive the entire Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity from the New Testament alone. But your relentless quest to disprove apostolic succession and magisterial authority involves just as much cherry-picking and biased reading of ECF passages as the most irresponsible Catholic apologist.

Usagi

 

[steve_b]

You didn’t provide a single example of an infant getting baptized. Not a single one. You simply ASSUME “household” means infants were included, which is obviously a major assumption. You also erroneously state that baptism was a substitution for circumcision. This is completely false. If that were true, why were ALL Jewish Christians in the early Church (up until the time of the first Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts) also required to have circumcisions if baptism replaced it? This obviously included infants, not just converts.

This isn’t a valid response. It’s just your objection to what I said. BTW, “all” Jewish Christians were NOT required to receive circumcision. The Judaizers (a group of Jews those who came from James) were the ones requiring circumcision. And that issue was handled by Peter in the council @ Jerusalem. Circumcision was NOT to be required.
j:

Further, if circumcision was replaced with baptism, how do you explain that baptism is for everyone but circumcision was only practiced on males?

I addressed that. It’s a big difference between OT & NT entrance into the covanent.
j:

Male Christians of a Jewish background, both those born into the faith and those who converted, were required to be both baptized and circumcised.

Not true. Judaizers, were requiring both. And they were told not to do it by Peter in council.
j:

Yet, girls were only required to be baptized. If your argument is accurate, no one should have been required to be circumcised AND baptized.

Is this the first time you’ve delved into this subject?
j:

FURTHER, the Didache, the oldest Christian document we have outside of the Bible, does not ANYWHERE mention infant baptism. Instead, it directs that all those preparing for baptism (ALL) are required to fast and to be baptized by immersion so long as the water source is available for immersion. There is no mention of baptizing babies at all…and it is well known that baptizing babies by immersion can be quite dangerous, so it seems odd the Didache would instruct ALL those being baptized to be baptized by immersion UNLESS there is no water around to do it.

Baptism

• is a new sacrament established by Christ. It stands to reason when coming into a new faith in Jesus, and accepting a new sacrament established by Jesus for entrance into His covanent, that no one prior to that was baptised. Therefore, adults get baptised first then their household follows.
• Re: The didache,
• it doesn’t have to defend infant baptism. Infants (male) in the OT were brought into the covanent on the 8th day after birth by circumcision. As also Jesus was to fulfill the law.
• The NT covanent otoh AND the sign, was meant for male & female. And both male and female infants were brought into the covanent by baptism
• as far as what the Didache says about baptism,

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”

• Immersion is NOT required.
• Adults fast. Infants aren’t required to fast

j:

Additionally, from the time of Christ until 200 AD, we have numerous writers talking about baptism and ALL of them say nothing of infant baptism AND many of them make it clear that there should be some form of catechesis, prayer, fasting, and asking for the forgiveness of sins prior to baptism. Infants OBVIOUSLY cannot do any of that.

And, if all of this still isn’t enough…You should be aware that prior to 200 AD, there is no mention of babies having the sin of Adam imputed on them. They have sinful natures yes, but no one is worried about babies dying in sin and going to hell.

See the following PROOFS:

From the Shepherd of Hermas (150 A.D.)

From Justin Martyr’s First Apology XVIII, (155 A.D.)

From Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, (204 A.D.)

And…just in case you think those are not sufficient enough either:

From Clement of Alexandria’s so-called Prophetical Extracts regarding aborted babies:

What exactly am I supposed to look for?

That is NOT a proper way to reference. You give a quote, then you give the author and the specific location of the quote.

 

[jinc1019]

ποιεῖτε / do

I gave you the link. I didn’t make this up

When I present a position I give the evidence behind it all properly documented. You give me your opinion with no documentation. That’s where the problem is

Do you even open up the links I give you?

And I’ve already given you a response forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10989969&postcount=44

Ok. Obviously, you are ignoring everything I am saying and repeating yourself.

Once again…I read your post on the word “Do,” and it proves NOTHING. It is totally meaningless for all of the reasons I stated previously. I am done debating that point.

Secondly, you didn’t address a single one of my points. You continue to insist I am not posting any support when I posted NUMEROUS things to support my position. You must not be reading my posts. If you were, you couldn’t possibly come to that conclusion.

 

[jinc1019]

As I have explained to you in other threads, “apostolic man” does not mean “someone in apostolic succession.” It means one who was not an Apostle but either a companion (Mark, Luke) or student (Timothy, Clement, Polycarp) of the Apostles in the first and second generations of Christians. The churches not founded by Apostles or apostolic men are those founded too late to have one of those men at their head. Tertullian actually says this in the parenthetical statement that follows.

Again, this statement admits of a perfectly orthodox reading and, while it doesn’t explicitly affirm the requirement for holy orders, nor does it say anything against it. You are bringing that to the text with your unique interpretation of the category “apostolic man.”

I sympathize with your general issue, that even the orthodox Fathers were more divided than we sometimes realize on issues that were only later settled. Our well-known apologists are perfectly aware of that, though – Jimmy Akin, who’s written a book on the Fathers, claims that the only unanimous opinion he found among them was an affirmation of baptismal regeneration (and even then, presumably only in the Fathers that address the subject). Heck, the history of disagreement on even vital issues is why we kind of snicker at Protestants who claim to derive the entire Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine of the Trinity from the New Testament alone. But your relentless quest to disprove apostolic succession and magisterial authority involves just as much cherry-picking and biased reading of ECF passages as the most irresponsible Catholic apologist.

Usagi

I appreciate your honest and intellectual reply.

However, I cannot understand how anyone can read what I have written and come to the conclusion that the passages I cited are “orthodox” as it relates to Catholic doctrine. They simply are not as I have already pointed out.

Secondly, I am NOT saying that apostolic succession is invalid because some fathers didn’t think it matters. My point is that on virtually every single issue, Jimmy Akin is right that the Church Fathers didn’t agree.

For me, that’s what matters. The difference between Akin and myself is that he sees the Catholic Church as having the authority and protection from the Holy Spirit to sift through these problem areas and come up with true conclusions. I don’t. I think infallibility is completely untrue. Thus, every conclusion I come to must be based on an educated view of history and the Bible. That’s it. My goal is to get to the teachings of the Apostles…The Church’s goal is to do the same. The difference is, the Church thinks it knows when it gets there definitively because the Pope or the Magisterium says so. I think history has proven both have no such protection. That’s all.

I am glad we can at least agree that the Church Fathers, despite having all had access to people who could trace their teachings back to the Apostles through apostolic succession, had very different views on numerous theological issues. That is my main argument.

 

[jinc1019]

Again, this statement admits of a perfectly orthodox reading and, while it doesn’t explicitly affirm the requirement for holy orders, nor does it say anything against it.

Usagi

I don’t agree. I believe it does CLEARLY say something against it. The whole passage is about people NOT in apostolic succession in the high church sense of the word and whether or not those baptisms and other sacraments received can be considered valid. Augustine clearly say they can, even when those sacraments exist outside of the church. That is NOT an “orthodox” view of Catholic teachings, which clearly say that while baptism is valid outside of the Church, the Eucharist is not. Augustine in this passage says that it is.

This does not mean Augustine is saying apostolic succession is not necessary. He clearly thinks it is…that’s not the point I am making. I am talking about the validity of the Eucharist outside of apostolic succession.

 

[Usagi]

I appreciate your honest and intellectual reply.

However, I cannot understand how anyone can read what I have written and come to the conclusion that the passages I cited are “orthodox” as it relates to Catholic doctrine. They simply are not as I have already pointed out.

I gave you an orthodox reading of each passage. Did I leave out elements of the passages that make my readings invalid? Do you believe that Catholics and Orthodox through the centuries have been unaware of these passages?

Augustine’s passage seems to be addressing primarily the question of whether grievous sinfulness on the part of the minister invalidates the sacraments he performs. Catholic doctrine agrees with him that it does not. Even outside the bounds of the Catholic Church, in schismatic or heretical groups, the sacraments can be valid. As you probably know, the Catholic Church requires only that matter, form, and minister meet the qualifications in order for a sacrament to be valid even among those who reject Her utterly. You claim that Augustine is disavowing at least one of those requirements (the valid, ordained minister in the case of the Eucharist), but I don’t see where he addresses that question at all. Yes, he says “everywhere,” but even you don’t think he means that any lay Christian or even a non-Christian could consecrate the elements. In the context of this passage he addresses sinful and heretical ministers, leaving ordination or its lack completely unmentioned.

Tertullian also has nothing to say about holy orders. He states that even churches founded recently, that never had an apostle or other early-generation celebrity in their sees, nonetheless are apostolic if they follow the apostolic teaching and can judge heretics as wrong. Nowhere does he state that the bishops and priests of those churches are unordained or outside the succession.

Usagi

 

[steve_b]

You didn’t provide a single example of an infant getting baptized. Not a single one. You simply ASSUME “household” means infants were included, which is obviously a major assumption. You also erroneously state that baptism was a substitution for circumcision. This is completely false. If that were true, why were ALL Jewish Christians in the early Church (up until the time of the first Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts) also required to have circumcisions if baptism replaced it? This obviously included infants, not just converts.

Combining these 3 passages on baptism

Col 2: 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Acts 2: 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children **[τέκνοις (http://bibleapps.com/greek/5043.htm) ] and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 16:15 households οἶκος ] were baptised. Household i.e. their family…everyone

to summarize

• Col 2: Baptism replaces OT circumcision. And we know circumcision took place on boy infants on the 8th day after birth. So the new sacrament, will be for infants also
• Acts: There is no age restriction to the term “children” or “Household” or “family”, just that “everyone” in the household / family be baptised, male and female.

j:

Further, if circumcision was replaced with baptism, how do you explain that baptism is for everyone but circumcision was only practiced on males? Male Christians of a Jewish background, both those born into the faith and those who converted, were required to be both baptized and circumcised. Yet, girls were only required to be baptized. If your argument is accurate, no one should have been required to be circumcised AND baptized.

Judaizers were causing that problem of baptism and insisting on circumcision. Peter stopped that in the council of Jerusalem.
j:

FURTHER, the Didache, the oldest Christian document we have outside of the Bible,
does not ANYWHERE mention infant baptism. Instead, it directs that all those preparing for baptism (ALL) are required to fast and to be baptized by immersion so long as the water source is available for immersion. There is no mention of baptizing babies at all…and it is well known that baptizing babies by immersion can be quite dangerous, so it seems odd the Didache would instruct ALL those being baptized to be baptized by immersion UNLESS there is no water around to do it.

Re: The didache,

• Already male Infants under OT law were brought into the covanent on the 8th day after birth by circumcision.
• The NT entrance into the covanent AND its sign, (sacrament of baptism) was meant for male & female of all ages.

the Didache says the following about baptism,

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”

• notice Immersion is NOT required.
• Re: how Jews regard fasting, “Children under nine are not encouraged to fast but children older than nine are encouraged to do a partial fast. Girls of 12 and boys of 13 are required to fast 25 hours if they do not have any illness or are not medically unfit.” jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6033-fasting-and-fast-days I suspect Jews in biblical times, with respect to fasting, took the same approach regarding children.
• keep in mind, fasting is a discipline not a doctrine.

j:

Additionally, from the time of Christ until 200 AD, we have numerous writers talking about baptism and ALL of them say nothing of infant baptism AND many of them make it clear that there should be some form of catechesis, prayer, fasting, and asking for the forgiveness of sins prior to baptism. Infants OBVIOUSLY cannot do any of that.

And, if all of this still isn’t enough…[snip for space]

I’ve read your quotes.

Peter addressed the issue of baptism, its necessity, and that its promises are to entire families, yes that means children. No age limit to children specified.