Validity of Apostolic Succession, and RCC as the One Holy Catholic Church

[JesusFan]

what are you talking about? scripture plainly states what I said... I am not promoting heresy since it is in the bible @makesends

The ONLY tradition that counts is what was recorded down in the scriptures to us period

 

[Arch Stanton]

the apostles were RCC? Show me the list.

Peter, John, James, Paul, Luke, Matthew...

writers of the NT that were Catholic

And???

you forgot the oral traditions

By holding to the authority of the Scriptures.

even on this site you have multiple 'truths' ... who is correct? which 'ecclesial community' is correct?

So does the RCC, as history richly demonstrates

which comes from Christ to His one true church

 

[Arch Stanton]

The ONLY tradition that counts is what was recorded down in the scriptures to us period

where does scripture tell you that?

 

[Arial]

Tell that to Peter, John, James, Paul, Luke, Matthew...

I can't. They are all dead. When did you speak with them? I have their recorded work in Scripture and none of them ever stated they were Catholic.

Historically, that is false... it was the only Church in the first century!

The RCC wasn't. And what is known as the Catholic church today wasn't.

Define Church. Seriously, you seem to have some strange definition of it that does not even match the word as used in Scripture. So, define it. If you refuse to do that then it shows you are not interacting with members in good faith. Rather you are just slandering every non-Catholic believer, the Bible, and you are proselytizing (rules violation) instead of attempting an honest discussion of points of disagreement.

That is a new idea brought forth during the protestant revolt.

Incorrect. It is the definition of the Greek word translated "church" in the NT. And the Protestant revolt as you call it instead of what it was---the Protestant Reformation---was a breaking away from the corrupt hierarchy and the corruption of the word of God that existed in the RCC for personal and political gain. You will not be able to rewrite history here.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I can't. They are all dead.

alive in Christ... God of the living... great cloud of witnesses

The RCC wasn't. And what is known as the Catholic church today wasn't.

the acorn becomes the oak tree over time -- still protected by the HS from error [faith/morals]

 

[Arch Stanton]

Define Church. Seriously, you seem to have some strange definition of it that does not even match the word as used in Scripture.

Acts 9:31-32 The CHURCH THROUGHOUT all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

As PETER was passing THROUGH EVERY REGION, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda.

[Catholic means ‘Universal’…the ‘Church Throughout’ IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH… “Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans VIII 110 AD] [Disciple of John – third Bishop of Antioch]


In Catholic teaching, the Church is God's "called out" assembly (from Greek ekklesia), a visible yet spiritual community of believers founded by Jesus, united in faith, sacraments, and submission to the Pope as Peter's successor, functioning as the Body of Christ, the People of God, and the instrument of salvation. It's a visible society with divine origins, comprised of the faithful worldwide, local communities, and liturgical assemblies, all linked by apostolic succession and shared belief, aiming to fulfill God's plan for humanity. [AI]

 

[Arch Stanton]

the Protestant Reformation---was a breaking away from the corrupt hierarchy and the corruption of the word of God that existed in the RCC for personal and political gain.

reform is from within
revolt is from the outside

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I didn't say it denies all traditions. It does deny the habit of traditions usurping the word of God.

according to one's own personal, fallible, interpretations of scripture

Fallibility is inherent in interpretation and use of Scripture. The RCC has always been fallible, and their interpretations personal, according to whoever carries the scepter or has the loudest voice, one man or a magisterium. The difference is that denominations, or rather, individual church doctrinal statements, if they are any good, hail back ALWAYS to the authority of Scripture, which ostensibly, the RCC does not, claiming authority of the church in matters of interpretation, except where they see the need to walk both sides of the fence.

The pope, and the members of the magisterium, and anybody else who purports to speak for God, is as corrupt and fallible as the rest of us, as history has shown.

cherry picked but the next poster had it right 'early acts'... do you need me to supply ECF's that speak of tradition as well?

-the next bishop in line was Matthias
-laying on of hands to the next generation

So you say. C'mon, let's see it.

N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

So he says. I'm not asking for a summary. A list, with evidences.

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Martyr, etc.

Matthias laid his hands on Polycarp? Polycarp to Clement?

You claim a list. Show it. Which apostle(s) had a successor(s) by your laying on of hands (or whatever real designation), no breaks in the line. And, please, don't slough across gaps on the sly. Citations, evidence, would be good, too. Not just somebody's say-so. (Oh, and by the way, these need to none of them say anything that denies what the one(s) before them said under their authority, or they are false.)
-------------------

Let me cut this short: Anyone can go to AI and get a list. AI, on the sly, will claim no gaps, but doesn't give firm dates for Linus and Clement and Cletus. Furthermore, just as you said, the supposed APOSTOLIC succession—that is, the claim of apostolic authority, the ability and responsibility of adding to the word of God—counters what the Scriptures say in several places, as written by the original apostles. Start with the fact that an apostle must be a witness to the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 1:22)

I've heard, in the usual way of attempting to walk on both sides of the fence, that the popes (not to mention the succession of members of the magisterium) do not introduce new scripture, but only to interpret scripture on their own authority. Ignoring, for now, the fact of disinheriting or denying what a former pope/magisterium said, how does that indicate apostolicism, then? Thousands of supposed believers do that! Is the supposed succession of this club's members not to follow the demonstration of Apostolic authority as enumerated by the word of God? For eg, do they demonstrate the signs of a true apostle? Can anything they say be undone? Do they speak for God or for the magisterium?

You've got a long row to hoe. Be careful not to begin with frustration here, and start expostulating again. You have arguments to make, and arguments to undo.

 

[makesends]

still protected by the HS from error [faith/morals]

Seriously? You support the historical record of the behavior of the RCC this way?

 

[makesends]

you forgot the oral traditions

Show me where the Scriptures designate oral traditions since Peter and Matthias et al as inspired by God. Plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[Arch Stanton]

makesends said:
I didn't say it denies all traditions. It does deny the habit of traditions usurping the word of God.

again, that would depend on one's personal, fallible interpretations of scripture

Fallibility is inherent in interpretation and use of Scripture. The RCC has always been fallible, and their interpretations personal, according to whoever carries the scepter or has the loudest voice, one man or a magisterium. The difference is that denominations, or rather, individual church doctrinal statements, if they are any good, hail back ALWAYS to the authority of Scripture, which ostensibly, the RCC does not, claiming authority of the church in matters of interpretation, except where they see the need to walk both sides of the fence.

love to see evidence before I respond further

The pope, and the members of the magisterium, and anybody else who purports to speak for God, is as corrupt and fallible as the rest of us, as history has shown.

and yet infallibility is not impeccability

So you say. C'mon, let's see it.

Irenaeus​

For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles (Against Heresies 2:9 [A.D. 189]).

John Chrysostom​

"So then brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther (Homilies on Second Thessalonians[circa A.D. 400]).

Jerome​

Don’t you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law (The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 [A.D. 382]).

Matthias laid his hands on Polycarp? Polycarp to Clement?

no... Matthias was picked by the apostles in Acts 1 to be the next bishop
Linus - Peter .... Cletus and Clement followed shortly after
Polycarp - John
Timothy/Titus - Paul
Ignatius [disciple of John] - Peter

Let me cut this short: Anyone can go to AI and get a list. AI, on the sly, will claim no gaps, but doesn't give firm dates for Linus and Clement and Cletus. Furthermore, just as you said, the supposed APOSTOLIC succession—that is, the claim of apostolic authority, the ability and responsibility of adding to the word of God—counters what the Scriptures say in several places, as written by the original apostles. Start with the fact that an apostle must be a witness to the resurrection of Christ. (Acts 1:22)

Was Barnabas a witness to the resurrection?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Seriously?

Yes, seriously...Christ did not break His word

 

[Arch Stanton]

Show me where the Scriptures designate oral traditions

2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS that you were taught, EITHER by an ORAL statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Thess 3:6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they RECEIVED from us.

2 Tim 2:2 And what you HEARD from me through many witnesses ENTRUST to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
[APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION…from Paul to Timothy to the next generation…]

1 Cor 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and HOLD FAST TO THE TRADITIONS, just as I handed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13 And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from HEARING us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God, which is now at work in you who believe

3 Jn 13-14 I have much to write to you, but I DO NOT wish to WRITE with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can TALK face to face.

2 Jn 12 Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to SPEAK face to face so that our joy may be complete.

 

[Arial]

Christ when He established the only universal/catholic church 2,000 years ago.

That is like saying "Christ when he established the universal/universal church. It can't be the Catholic religion because the Catholic religion reinstates an earthly priesthood system of forgiveness of sin, even though Jesus abolished it and holds the only office of High Priest. The Catholic religion says no one comes to Christ except through them, when the God the Father says no one comes to Christ unless he gives them to Christ.

 

[Arial]

reform is from within
revolt is from the outside

It began from within Arch. Luther, Calvin and I don't know how many others were Catholics. They attempted to reform the corruption from within but got excommunicated for rebelling against self-proclaimed authority. Totalitarianism.

 

[Arch Stanton]

It began from within Arch. Luther, Calvin and I don't know how many others were Catholics. They attempted to reform the corruption from within but got excommunicated for rebelling against self-proclaimed authority. Totalitarianism.

but it didn't stay within the church... wasn't Luther given 'protected passage' to Rome but he refused?

 

[Arch Stanton]

They attempted to reform the corruption from within but got excommunicated

Let's say there was the selling of indulgences by several priests in Germany, how does that change the fact that Christ established His Church 1,500 years earlier and protected that Church from a false gospel?

 

[Arial]

Acts 9:31-32 The CHURCH THROUGHOUT all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria was at peace. It was being built up and walked in the fear of the Lord, and with the consolation of the holy Spirit it grew in numbers.

As PETER was passing THROUGH EVERY REGION, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda.

[Catholic means ‘Universal’…the ‘Church Throughout’ IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH… “Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans VIII 110 AD] [Disciple of John – third Bishop of Antioch]

That is not the definition of church. It is the definition of catholic and the RCC claimed for itself the name Catholic and still does and uses its own self-proclaimed authority to make it so. Bad news. They can't make it so, because it isn't so and Jesus tells the the gates of hell will not prevail against HIS church. The Catholic religion/denomination/institution does not have dominion over Christ's church. Christ does. He is the head of His church.

In Catholic teaching, the Church is God's "called out" assembly (from Greek ekklesia), a visible yet spiritual community of believers founded by Jesus, united in faith, sacraments, and submission to the Pope as Peter's successor, functioning as the Body of Christ, the People of God, and the instrument of salvation. It's a visible society with divine origins, comprised of the faithful worldwide, local communities, and liturgical assemblies, all linked by apostolic succession and shared belief, aiming to fulfill God's plan for humanity. [AI]

That is Catholic teaching. But it is not the teaching of God in his word therefore invalid. There is no mention of a pope in scripture and no mention of apostolic succession. That is added to the scriptures and therefore, anathema.

 

[Arch Stanton]

That is like saying "Christ when he established the universal/universal church. It can't be the Catholic religion because the Catholic religion reinstates an earthly priesthood system of forgiveness of sin, even though Jesus abolished it and holds the only office of High Priest.

High Priests have a lower priesthood...

In the Old Testament, there were THREE levels of Priests:
High Priest [Aaron]
Levitical Priesthood [Ex 30:30; Lev 5:5-6; Numbers 15:27-28]
General priesthood of the rest of the believers. [Ex 19:6]

In the New Testament, there are also three levels of Priests:
Jesus, our High Priest (1 Tim. 2:5, Heb. 7:22-25),
The Ministerial Priests (James 5:14-15; John 20:23; 2 Cor 2:10; 2 Cor 5:18)
The General Priesthood of all Christians (1 Peter 2:5-9).

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Seriously?

Yes, seriously...Christ did not break His word

Notice in answering this, you neglect to copy what I actually said. That is disingenuous. What I actually said was:

still protected by the HS from error [faith/morals]​

Seriously? You support the historical record of the behavior of the RCC this way?​

If you answer only the "seriously?" without context, you pretend to admit to what I asked, but without mentioning what I asked. Do you, or do you not, say that the historical record of the behavior of the RCC demonstrates error in their morals and faith? You would claim that the HS is protecting their authority without regard to their behavior? "By their fruits ye shall know them"

We aren't talking about salvation here, where the HS seals and is the source of faith. We are talking about corruption, disobedience, pride, misuse of scriptures, disobedience to scripture, separation from scripture, adding to scripture, etc. in spades. For the most part, when, in most denominations, a cleric is found out, it is nipped in the bud. Nobody but the RCC and other cults and, of course, no lack of individuals, claim to be the authorities, by God's designating them as such, over the interpretation and use of scripture and of further revelation, without regard to their behavior. Even Peter relented.