On Apostolic Succession
Jordan Cooper | 30.I.2019
- see below with debate under heading V.
- 4:54 "aren't talking about sacramental authority"
Why would they when it is for one thing clear from the Bible (words of institution say "do this" to the twelve, John 20:21-23 promises the same body the power of forgiving or withholding forgiveness on God's behalf, St Paul to St Titus or more probably St Timothy says to recall the power given through his laying on of hands), and for another thing dangerous to reveal in an as yet Pagan world?
Gustav Wasa knew very well what a bishop and a non-bishop could do, so he forced one elderly Catholic bishop to lay hands on Laurentius Petri. This doesn't mean Laurentius Petri handed on the apostolic succession, has to do with verifiable intention.
5:15 "the way it develops later"
For reasons stated. And I object very strongly to "develops later" terminology, you pronounce it as if it were later a novum.
5:30 "it comes out of this idea of"
Ideas a and b are both stated in NT Bible books.
In Fathers, idea a is stated earlier than idea b.
Of the options:
- 1) Fathers had reason to mention a before they had reason to mention b
- 2) Fathers forgot b was in the Bible books and developed b independently from a, even if it logically doesn't follow
which one makes more sense in a Church given the promise "every day" in Matthew 28:20?
- 6:27 Obviously, with a broken link in some place, that place will have no valid bishops, priests or sacraments beyond those that laymen can confer at least in cases of necessity without a priest, that being baptism and matrimony (if a couple otherwise having the right to marry cannot find a priest willing to marry them within two months, they would make valid marriage vows even without a priest to bless them).
You cannot have any general anguish on "what if", since the Church has made sure to avoid broken links (up to changes after Vatican II, but that is in a Protestantising anti-Church, and doesn't affect all Catholic clergy, since some rejected these changes in time, like Catholics rejected changes of Protestant Reformations even when pretending to be episcopal).
- I think I'll break off watching here, since subtitles are automatic and clearly garbled, and resume the refutation when I have a computer with headphones and sound. Feel free to answer before that happens, should you have occasion.
- Debate, but muted on the other side. He wanted to get out and so he blocked me. My responses partly quote him.
- 4:20 Would you agree to two things:
- a) while changing Sabbath to Sunday is reflected in a hinting way in Acts, the change itself is not in any NT Book, and not in any OT book either?
- b) even so, sanctifying Sunday is obliging on us, up to Doomsday?
Bc if you do, how are you not defending tradition as infallible outside the purely theoretic framework of sola scriptura?
- @Tom "The Bible's Letter to the Hebrews specifically rules out this possibility."
Only if you suppose the sacrifice of the Mass to be another sacrifice and not the same as that of Calvary.
We actually consider it the same.
Two Masses are not two separate sacrifices, they are the sacrifice of Calvary made present in two times and locations often outside Palestine and often after AD 33.
@Tom "Sola Scriptura as found in the New Testament,"
Sola Scriptura is specifically ruled out by the New Testament and nowhere found in it.
- @Tom "But when assessing the gravity or degree of difficulties of such a thing, this must be, in the end, a not-infallible judgment."
It can't, due to Matthew 28:20 saying "all days".
You probably get Sola Scriptura from a comment in St Athanasius whose point was that Arius was using, not tradition, but things totally extraneous to either Bible or Tradition.
Your first difficulty with Sacred Tradition is answered.
If you read up in St Paul's three epistles to Timothy and Titus, you see bishops are being trained as guardians of tradition.
While this includes all NT as well as OT books of the Bible, some points are not directly found in it.
- @Tom I'd have to ask you (or if you prefer someone else to answer, not forcing you but I take this as public debate, not a private conversation with you):
- 1) does Malachi 1:11 indicate Mass is a sacrifice?
- 2) does the citation in Hebrews of "tu es sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec" in light of Genesis 14:18 indicate it?
- 3) supposing Mass were not instituted as a sacrifice, where was the Church not having it in 7th C AD?
Not just the one not directly stating it, but one stating or showing for them Mass was no sacrifice, and which can otherwise be defended, from the Bible, i e nothing like Gnostics, Manichaeans, Iconoclastic Emperors of Byzantine Empire, Paulicians etc. - was there one?
Matthew 28:20 says "all days". I don't believe in Sola Scriptura, I do believe in Tota Scriptura.
For good wishes, same to you. I am not an Inquisitor.
- 7:14 It can be added, some consider Apostles were never Baptised either.
Therefore, that the laying of hands was not how they received orders doesn't mean it is not strictly necessary after them.
The character is there for three sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation and Deaconal or Sacerdotal Ordination / Episcopal Consecration.
That this is not explicitly treated of in Bible or very early Church Fathers doesn't change that that is tradition.
7:40 You are also confusing "call" with character.
A man can be called to priesthood, but as long as not ordained, he cannot be living that call.
The call is God's preference for your life, the ordination gives power to transsubstantiate, offer sacrifice of Mass, absolve.