Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happened with Constantine
Answering "Asaph Vapor": Answering Asaph Vapor · Continuing the Answer to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor's long answer, part I · On Papacy and Apostolic Succession to Asaph Vapor · Answering Asaph Vapor on Blessed Virgin Mary and Church · On Eucharist, Confession and some Other Matters, to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor refuted some more
«I noticed you love to make false claims without any scriptural proof. Pls prove from Scriptures, Church = RCC believers.
And book. For identity with RCC, I give Matthew 28:20 in a first approximation, and Matthew 16:19 with John 21 in a narrowing in. What are yours for disidentity?
«Why AD500? There was always true believers. Dont you know history?
Yes, there always were. AND they always were visible.
"Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house."
This means, they need to be documented for any time between AD 33 and now and on to Doomsday.
So, this is what narrows things down to exclude Protestantism. Let's take wikipedia for that year:
//Battle of Dijon: A coalition of Franks and Burgundians crush the forces under Gundobad. King Clovis I pursues him to Avignon, where he surrenders and promises to pay a yearly tribute.//
Gundobad was an Arian. Clovis I had become a Catholic after the Battle of Tolbiacum. But Eastern Orthodox would consider he was an Orthodox. Like with Gundobad's son Sigismund, considered a martyr by both Catholics and Orthodox. Meanwhile, John I was neither, he is only venerated by Copts.
Armenians had just had one other "Saint John I" as Katholikos in Dvin, and had his successor Babken I (490–516):
And Assyrians were obeying 23:rd Catholicos of the East, Babai (497–503):
In other words, RCC / EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians were all present in 500, all are in that respect valid claimants to the promise of Matthew 28:20.
Arians were also present back then, but you would consider them heretical, rightly so, and they can also be ruled out bc of this criterium, since they were all gone by AD 1000.
«How else the gospel is passed down till today?»
As you say : by true believers.
«You mean in AD500, all believers disappeared ?»
No, but those who you would call so had not appeared yet.
«You know what i meant. Church refers to believers. Not some church organisation or building or institution!_
'Your theory that "church (institution) must be there at every point in history" is not valid.'«
Well, yes, it is valid, how else was the Gospel transmitted?
Plus you miss, ekklesia does not mean a population (like believers), it means _an institution of_ a population (like a town hall, a coetus populi, a diocese or all dioceses together.
Building is simply a red herring. Or a way of making a parody of what we say.
Where? Which Scripture?
Matthew 28:20. The Apostles themselves in person are no longer around, so being with them "all days" must involve "with them andd their successors". Plus several places in Acts and letters to Timothy and Titus showing there was an organised succession.
«No believer in AD480-520? Where is your proof?»
I was asking you for an example there was one, one who was known and one whom YOU would consider as a believer. On YOUR theory that RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians are "un-Biblical". I have already given examples, if I am right on where the Church was, there were believers.
Where are the believers in AD 500 on your theory?
«So who were the 12 APostlse who succeeded the Original 12 Apostles. Pls list them out»
First, this is a red herring. Episcopate are conjointly successors of the 12, like presbyterate conjointly of the 72 and diaconate conjointly to the 7.
Second, some of them in a sense did have successors of the kind you ask about. All of them had successors not in dioceses as much as in the series of imposition of hands.
1 St. Peter's successor in Rome : St. Linus. Before that he had a successor in Antioch, who was not Pope, since he retained papacy when going to Rome.
2 St. Andrew's successors in Byzantium were just presbyters prior to Constantine, after that he also has full bishop successors there.
3 / 4 Sts James and John have no such known successors, as far as I could see.
5 St. Philip, dito
6 St. Bartholomew seems to have had successors among the territory later under Armenian schism.
7 St. Matthew seems to have no such known successors
8 St. James of Alphaeus may be the brother of Jesus who succeeded the twelve and was therefore first bishop of Jerusalem
9 St. Thomas established seven Churches in Kerala, and therefore has successors in 7 places in India (in some cases united with Rome)
10 St. Simon the Zealot seems to have joined St. Bartholomew and St. Jude Thaddaeus
11 St. Jude Thaddaeus also had successors in Armenia.
12 Judas the Traitor had St. Matthias as replacer, Acts 1. St. Matthias seems to have no such known successors.
«So who are the modern days 12 APostlse who succeeded the Original 12 Apostles?»
Refuse, since that is not what Apostolic succession means, as already stated.
«1. So which part of the BIBLE says 12 new Apostles succeeded the Original 12 Apostles? Chapter verse?»
None, as you interpret the claim. Matthew 28:20, Acts 1, Acts 13:3, epistles to Timothy and Titus, Apocalypse 2 and 3 for the claim as it actually stands. Episcopal dignity started with the 12, but did not end with them.
«2. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out the actual people. DOnt say same as the past. THose in the past were all dead!»
For the Pope, I'd say Pope Michael. For "twelve in general" two bishops were reconciled with him before consecrating him a bishop. One or both of them would still be in communion with him.
Tradition is recorded by lots of people who are now departed, like the Church Fathers, therefore I have to cite people you call dead, and I call alive in Christ.
«False. Church in the BIBLE does refer to worldwide believers. Not just the gathered! BIBLE says Church is the Body of Christ.»
Exact reason why beside the local ekklesia also called diocese there is a worldwide ekklesia, also called Catholic Church. Note very well, EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all of them claim to be or be parts of that Church.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
You have another translation of verse 27.
*Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member.*
*Vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro.*
Meaning diocese or Church of Corinth is a member and all members of it are members of a member.
«What requirements arrogant?»
Mat 28:20 _teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen._
Mis-cited. ALL DAYS, not "always.
YOU = 11. ALL DAYS => they had successors. TEACHING ALL THINGS => the successors (or at least one line of these) preserves all correct doctrine + (as they were teaching nations) are teaching in public. This means they can be documented. As can their true teachings.
That is why I am requiring you to cite who YOU think this applies to in 500 AD and how THEIR teaching is what YOU consider as Biblical.
«1. Which part of Mat 28:20 says you need to have successors ?»
Since Peter, Andrew, James and John and the rest were not immortal, the part that says "all days".
«Nowhere says Apostolic Succession. BIBLE says its leadership succession! Titus 1:5.»
For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:
Perfect example. St. Paul was an apostle on par with the 11 and Matthias, by the vision Christ gave him. He got succession from them through presumably successors in that line of them in Antioch as per Acts 13, along with Barnabas. He in his turn laid hands on Titus, and he required Titus to lay hands on others.
How many generations of apostolic succession? 1) original apostles, 2) disciples in Antioch, 3) Paul and Barnabas, 4) Timothy and Titus from Paul (and St. Narn of Bergamo from Barnabas, if I recall correctly), 5) those on whom Timotyhy and Titus laid hands.
«2. Which part of Mat 28:20 says you need to have successors in 500 AD and in 2000 AD and even in 2020 AD? You are clearly adding to Scriptures arent you?»
Again, "all days".
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
Again, miscited with the more general and fluid "always". Pasas tas hemeras means all days. (Or if it was pasais tais hemerais)
500 was 366 days of those, 2000 was 366 days of those, 2020 will have been 366 days of those. If St. Peter and the others are not personally around those dates, they need to have successors these dates.
«So according to you Jesus only directed 11 Apostles?»
With that particular promise yes, and they were apostles.
«Which part says you need a successor who succeed the APostles? WHere?»
The "all days" part.
«You are spinning as you go.»
No, you are evading the obvious.
«Nowehre in the BIBLE says new 12 Apostles succeeded the Original 12 APostles!»
Irrelevant, since such is not our claim.
«You are not answering my question ""Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?»
In English that is not a question. If you wanted a question, it is "since when is anyone calling etc?" or "since when does anyone call etc.?"
I took it as a statement, and answered it by a refutation.
So, "since when is anyone calling Bergoglio "Pope Francis"?" - answer : since a pseudo-election in 2013 those adhering to his equally non-pope predecessor "Pope Benedict XVI" are usually considering him as "Pope Francis". I am one of those rejecting both.
«Conciliar Church is still RCC.»
As in not Protestant? Not EOC? Not Yes. As in the historic RCC? No.
«Neo Catholic is still RCC.»
No, they are dissenters from it, even if perhaps more numerous than the remnant of true RCC. Depends on how many who think Bergoglio is Pope are nevertheless true Catholics, if confused such.