Apostolic succession

[johnnys4life]

Ah! Another thread to print out and try to read all 18 or 19 pages of. I'm starting to think this topic is making me mentally ill. Why can't we Protestants and Catholics all just get along? Are we going to try to be open to learning, or just trying to prove each other wrong? Maybe one of us is more on the right track than the other - I don't know! But I do wish our attitudes here were more conducive to finding out the truth, and less conducive to having insults hurled back and forth. Come on people, we are all Christians, and you don't want to make Christians look petty do you? Don't we both love the same Jesus?? Maybe you should think about that.

This IS a relevant topic because it lays the foundation for a discussion on whether or not the Protestant faith has any credibility at all, I understand that much. But when you do disprove someone, if you do, you must do so NICELY as you can, or else they won't even listen to you at all anyway. Sorry, but it's true.

I personally have never understood the doctrine of sola scriptura, so NetDoc if you are trying to prove something by using it, as it seems your entire argument rests heavily upon it, I would really like to know why. Personally, I am favoring No*s more right about now. The argument for the celibacy of priests really does make sense to me, considering there is a verse from Paul where he talks about how everyone should have thier own husband or wife BECAUSE of the present distress. It was obviously meant to apply only to a certain period in time. Using Sola Scriptura is tricky, because it relies on your own understanding so much, and you must remember to keep it in context, my friend. Because you do not always have ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE about the culture of the times.

There was a religious group which did forbid marriage in the early part of the 20th century, I do believe they claimed to be Catholics. However, I do not believe they were supported by the Pope, I could be wrong there, so please correct me if I am. I will try to look it up on my own later on.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Johnnysforlife,

I am neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jew.

I am merely Christian.

I have no problems with other teachings where they DON'T contradict the New Testament. The teachings in the Bible about Elders and Deacons is incredibly clear... they are to be married and a Dad of at least two kids. Succession among those who are not permitted to be Elders/Bishops doesn't make sense.

The Holy Spirit is what makes ALL of this work. There does not need to be a physical succession. At least there is nothing in the New Testament that would indicate this. In fact, I would challenge you to find succession in the New Testament. Jesus is not worried about the outward appearance as he is with the heart.

As for "Sola Scripture", my views seem to anger others, so I have kept quiet about them. If you really want to understand, then please PM me and I will explain as best as I can. I will say that while it has been ascribed to me continuously, I do not feel a need to "label" my beliefs. Labels tend to polarize issues and reduce important concepts to mere rhetoric.

 

[anders]

Scott wrote

Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

The Church of Sweden (Evangelical Lutheran, but if I understand it correctly, not evangelical in the US meaning) claims a maintained apostolic succession.

Regarding the 'priest' exchange of views, I mainly agree with No*s, and even from my atheist PoV, I think it is important to consider the meaning of words at the point of writing, and no to let separate words obscure the general message.

 

[Scott1]

The Church of Sweden (Evangelical Lutheran, but if I understand it correctly, not evangelical in the US meaning) claims a maintained apostolic succession.

Many Churches make such a claim...... but all seem to ignore that to break from the Church that maintains the Apostolic line is to sever yourself (and your Church) from the true Church of God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So Scott...

do you believe in I Timothy 3 as the qualifications for elders/bishops?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... to break from the Church that maintains the Apostolic line is to sever yourself (and your Church) from the true Church of God.

Why would that be, SOGFPP? Even assuming the historicity and divinity of Jesus, is it therefore given that the apostolic line is inerrant while all other traditions are predetermined to fall short in some way?

 

[Scott1]

So Scott...

do you believe in I Timothy 3 as the qualifications for elders/bishops?

Sure.... but remember Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand in my faith......

Why would that be, SOGFPP? Even assuming the historicity and divinity of Jesus, is it therefore given that the apostolic line is inerrant while all other traditions are predetermined to fall short in some way?

You are making an assumption about other traditions..... it is so because that's what I believe..... if you would like to talk about another tradition that "fell short", please be specific and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.

Thanks fellas!
Scott

 

[anders]

The Church of Sweden (Evangelical Lutheran, but if I understand it correctly, not evangelical in the US meaning) claims a maintained apostolic succession.

Many Churches make such a claim...... but all seem to ignore that to break from the Church that maintains the Apostolic line is to sever yourself (and your Church) from the true Church of God.

The CoS surely maintains that it is a church maintaining the apostolic line, so it experiences no problem there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are making an assumption about other traditions.....

I do not understand the response, so let me try again and you can tell me where I'm being unclear ...

SOGFPP

... to break from the Church that maintains the Apostolic line is to sever yourself (and your Church) from the true Church of God.​

Deut. 32.8

Why would that be, SOGFPP? Even assuming the historicity and divinity of Jesus, is it therefore given that the apostolic line is inerrant while all other traditions are predetermined to fall short in some way?​

SOGFPP

You are making an assumption about other traditions..... it is so because that's what I believe..... if you would like to talk about another tradition that "fell short", please be specific and I'll be happy to discuss it with you.​

I'm making 3 assumptions for the purpose of discussion: the historicity and divinity of Jesus and the expectation that "the true Church of God" would be that Church which most accurately and completely represented the message and intentions of its founder. This, in turn, would suggest that all other Churches have "fallen short" in one way or another. What I am questioning is the Catholic equivalent to "the Divine Right of Kings", i.e., the belief that (a) in one particular Church the accuracy and integrity of the message is guaranteed by virtue of apostolic lineage and, conversely, that (b) the absence of Apostolic lineage guarantees that all remaining Churches have fallen short as defined above.

I am not here asking if the Catholic Church is the one true church, only if that status is inherited. We know, for example, that the Papacy is far from inerrant. I suspect, for example, that you would not support the Summis desiderantes of Pope Innocent VIII. So why would one consider apostolic lineage indicative of anything whatsoever?

Thanks.

 

[Scott1]

Now I get ya..... thanks for the help..... I'm a bit slow sometimes OK, here we go:

I am not here asking if the Catholic Church is the one true church, only if that status is inherited.

OK.... I don't know if this will answer your question the "way" you might want, but I'll answer it from a Catholic teaching perspective..... Just to be perfectly clear, I am giving my opinion, and that of my faith:
If we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church:
The Church we seek must be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865) The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.

Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

We know, for example, that the Papacy is far from inerrant. I suspect, for example, that you would not support the Summis desiderantes of Pope Innocent VIII. So why would one consider apostolic lineage indicative of anything whatsoever?

Thanks.

You are quite right...... the Papacy is not the Church, and our definitinitions of what inerrant means in this case I imagine are quite different (but that's for another day).

Going by the three assumptions you gave, and from your extensive knowledge of history and the Bible, am I sure you have noticed that Apostolic influence/guidance/founders/lineage was the force behind the leaders of the Christian Church after the death of the last Apostle. The Book of Acts is a defense of Paul's "credentials" as an Apostle..... done by comparing him to Peter, an Apostle that was beyond reproach in relation to the validity of his Apostolic status.

There is much more to this, but I hope I answered your questions to your satisfaction.
Scott

 

[johnnys4life]

I have no problems with other teachings where they DON'T contradict the New Testament. The teachings in the Bible about Elders and Deacons is incredibly clear... they are to be married and a Dad of at least two kids. Succession among those who are not permitted to be Elders/Bishops doesn't make sense.

QUOTE]

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:27-34).

Now, why would someone who is more concerned about worldy affairs make a better religious leader than someone who isn't? It seems to me that Paul is saying the opposite, and the fact is that he himself was not married. So your saying that it is required would make him a hypocrite. The way I see the verse you're thinking of, Paul wasn't saying a man HAD to have a wife to be a bishop, but that he HAD to have less than 2 wives, and if he did have children, they were to be obedient.

I can think of many other scriptures which support celibacy for a church leader. Paul himself said that some are eunichs for the sake of the kingdom.

He who marries "does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better" (7:38).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Why do you edit the caveats in that scripture?

The sentence just before this passage is quite revealing:

I Corinthians 7:26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.

I don't think we are in that "present crisis" anymore. Do you?