Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)
- Q
- Does Apostolic succession give the Catholic church any special consideration?
https://www.quora.com/Does-Apostolic-succession-give-the-Catholic-church-any-special-consideration/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl
- C on Q
- Jesus said to Peter he was the rock upon which He would found His church, and the Pope is supposed the be the descendant of Peter over the years, but their greed and flamboyance were totally against everything Jesus taught. Did the Catholics high jack their power for Earthy gain & ignore the word?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
- Written 2m ago
- "Does Apostolic succession give the Catholic church any special consideration?"
Very definitely any Church which has Apostolic succession is likelier to be the Church Christ founded than one which totally lacks it and cannot be the Church of Christ.
Without Apostolic succession, your pastors cannot be taken as a unity with the eleven to which Christ adressed the final words of St Matthew's Gospel.
"Jesus said to Peter he was the rock upon which He would found His church, and the Pope is supposed the be the descendant of Peter over the years"
Heir, not descendant by physical sonship.
Here we can note, apostolic succession is about TWO kinds of succession:
- 1) succession within a see, of one bishop succeeding another bishop as bishop of that see : in this persepctive the See of Rome, as the third and final see of St Peter is privileged over other sees, since St Peter is privileged over other Apostles;
- 2) succession of ordination and consecration, of one man having episcopal orders laying hands on another man first to make him a priest and then (together with two other bishops) to make him a bishop : in this perspective all sees and all bishops who are not even bishops of a see are equal as to the sacramental effect, but when it comes to jurisdiction, only ordinations and consecrations made in communion with Rome are licit.
"but their greed and flamboyance were totally against everything Jesus taught."
Do you mean the greed of popes? Even if some were greedy, what does that matter for the apostolic succession of all the rest, or even for their own apostolic succession? A greedy Pope is still a bishop, and can still lay hands on another man to make him a bishop. A greedy Pope does not make all and every other bishop in the world greedy.
If you mean EVERY bishop throughout the word was grasping for personal riches, you are way out, and even most popes can, while being described as having resources (though not as many as a US President, over history), not be described as greedy.
So, most Popes are not what you describe, but perhaps you imagine you know history better than those who actually read about it in other sources than Jack Chick tracts and similar. As to bishops, did you know that Bishop Nicolas Steno, a Dane, when converting(*) in Florence, decided to become priest, and was on his last days DYING on roads where he slept with no shelter, due to inhospitality of Protestants in North Germany? In Denmark, Catholicism was not even legal at the time.
And what exactly do you mean by "flamboyance"?
Could it be so simple that you take the precious garments used only for liturgy as a sign of homosexual flamboyance? What kind of idiotic prejudice are you into? Has it not occurred to you that heterosexual men who are modest as to their own persons (and who dress very soberly outside liturgy, not very different from Reformers for most bishops, and Popes differ by using white instead of black) might not share your prejudice and therefore not think it is homosexual flamboyance or in any way opposed to the teaching of Jesus Christ to take on for liturgic acts garments involving linen, silk and gold threads spelling out letters where they aren't in red or white threads?
"Did the Catholics high jack their power for Earthy gain & ignore the word?"
I don't see any kind of earthly gain in using fine garments during liturgy, since these are taken off and hidden for all acts outside liturgy.
And I don't think men who are reading Bible readings (at least two, of which one from Gospel and other from other Bible books) each Holy Mass and also often enough reading the Bible over and over again in lectio continua can be accused of ignoring the word!
Also, I don’t see a realistic occasion on which Catholics could have hijacked the power, nor a realistic unit for where any clearly Protestant Church could have survived such a hijacking outside the Catholic Church (the Church of Christ has had to survive from then to at least now, according to Matthew 28), and also not a realistic case on either Biblical or other grounds for early Church being Protestant rather than Catholic.
(*) Steno was not a bishop before converting. He was raised to bishop after having been a priest and volunteered for priest despite a good carreer as a layman.
- Scott Robnett
- Amateur theist
- Written 2h ago
- It is Peter's confession of who Jesus is that the church is founded upon, not Peter himself. Belief in who Jesus is is what makes a Christian:
John 1:12,13- But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
The only person that could be described as foundational to the church is Christ Himself:
1 Corinthians 3:11- For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
No, there is no Apostolic succession, and Catholicism should have no special consideration. Christians are to have Christ as their king. No earthly man, no matter how holy, can measure up to Jesus Himself. The office of Apostle died with the original Apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ. No one today can make that claim.
As Christians, we should be:
...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith - Hebrews 12;2
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- You said : “The only person that could be described as foundational to the church is Christ Himself:”
1 Corinthians 3:11- For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Note that here St Paul is speaking of a foundation other than Christ, not about other persons than Christ belonging to the foundation which is He. How do I know this?
Ephesians 2:20 - Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:
In other words, both prophets of Old Testament (due to writing most of the Bible) and Apostles (due to Apostolic succession) belong to the one foundation which is Christ, or, as said here, of which Christ is the main corner stone.
- Scott Robnett
- 19m ago
- You bring up a good point (and thank you for your comment! :) ) The original Apostles were part of the foundation of the early church, and their writings and examples continue to speak to us today.
However, this does not establish Apostolic Succession.
Paul (the Apostle) said in his letter to the Galatians that the gospel that he taught them should not be changed:
Galatians 1:8- But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
When decrees from the top were made for forbidding priests to be married, veneration of saints, infallibility of the Pope, etc., these were changes not found in that gospel preached once for all time, and qualify as 'a different gospel'.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Just now
- "The original Apostles were part of the foundation of the early church"
Correct, so far.
"and their writings and examples continue to speak to us today."
What writings?
NT is written by 8 men, of whom 2 are evangelists but not apostles and one apostle not one of the original eleven. Leaves 6 apostles [five of the eleven] as NT writers, where are the writings of the other ones?
Not quite comparable to most OT named prophets also being OT hagiographers, is it?
And what examples, if most Apostle lives are not in the Bible, but in lives contained within Church Tradition and belonging to Veneration of Saints category?
The other names OT prophets, like Nathan, were at least given as examples. By showing how they were exemplary.
"However, this does not establish Apostolic Succession."
How not, in consideration of Matthew 28?
"Paul (the Apostle) said in his letter to the Galatians that the gospel that he taught them should not be changed:
Galatians 1:8- But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"
Fine, if a Church actually contradicts the original message, and it can be proven, it is not the Catholic Church.
You still have to account for where the Church is which has the Apostolic succession.
"When decrees from the top were made for forbidding priests to be married,"
St Paul probably in the proof text you are referring to meant that the candidate had to be married before becoming a married priest. Not excluding celibacy volunteers or widowers from priesthood.
He certainly meant the priest must not have MORE than a single wife.
"veneration of saints,"
Is there in St Elisabeth venerating the Mother of the Lord.
Also, St Gabriel venerated her. Even before She was pregnant with Him. So, found in original Gospel, not a novum.
"infallibility of the Pope,"
Infallibility of Pope is limited and infallibility of Apostles (with successors, these including the Pope) is implied in Luke 10:16 - He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
Said by Jesus to a selection of Disciples from which the twelve apostles were selected.
Not a novum.
"these were changes not found in that gospel preached once for all time, and qualify as 'a different gospel'."
Not these, no, except "etc." which is not sufficiently specific for judging.
I notice however that you are not judging on what Apostolic Succession means, since you are instead DODGING the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment