Thursday, February 9, 2023

Yes, St. Paul Wrote Pastorals, Yes, Apostolic Succession Holds True

Yes, St. Paul Wrote Pastorals, Yes, Apostolic Succession Holds True · Is "ben green" a Shrink or Just a Jerk? Anyway, the Consensus of Catholic Bishops is More Impressive than Pseudo-Consensus (actually bare majority) of Scholars

No, the Pastoral Epistles Aren't Forgeries
Testify, 6 Febr. 2023

10:03 "and these concerns are far more developed" ... than Liberal Protestants in Germany in the 19th C. wanted to grant to a fully Apostolic age.

Why? Because these concerns with a framework favour an interpretation of that framework being by and large Catholic.

Like, compatible with confessions:
  • Roman Catholic
  • Eastern Orthodox
  • Coptic
  • Armenian
  • Syrian
  • Assyrian
Like incompatible with anything Protestant.

Gotcha, Testify! You have to convert now!

10:24 It's not just a question of Pastoral letters containing bishops and deacons.

It's about them making admission to these ranks depend on acceptance by previous such.

When David Bawden assembled an "emergency conclave" in 1990, there was no immediate plan for when and by whom anyone elected would be ordained bishop. A layman may be elected Pope or bishop of any other city (St. Ambrose was not even baptised when elected bishop of Milan, he received baptism, confirmation, episcopal consecration (including priestly ordination) on the same day. But if accepting, he has to accept to be consecrated bishop as soon as possible. As mentioned, no bishop was present at the emergency conclave - not even any lower clergy. If there had been any, he or one of them, would probably have been elected in priority over David Bawden. This means, it took bishops confronted with his claim to be the real Pope 21 years before two of them accepted to "impose hands on him" ... because of 1 Timothy 5:22.

Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.

This is a prooftext against the idea that people after the apostles and outside their immediate vicinity just need someone electing them to have an office. Or at least to exercise it.

And that it's officeholders who do the imposition of hands, i e in this case not confirmation, but ordination, consecration.

A bishop ordained by St. Timothy would have an episcopal lineage:
himself - 1) back to St. Timothy - 2) back to St. Paul - 3) back to the "prophets and doctors," in Antioch, Acts 13 - 4 or 3) back to one of twelve apostles or including one of them if Simon Niger was Simon Peter - 5 or 4) back to Christ, before Ascension.

The other direction of episcopal lineage is called apostolic succession.

Do you see now, why Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy more than Philippians is a challenge to Protestantism?

10:54 Yeah, precisely the point.

Philippians and Thessalonians allow the interpretation "or simply those that took the lead" - and that is exactly what the pastorals exclude.

Ellis needs to call it a "development" - if he had admitted that the directives given in Pastorals were always there from Pentecost, and therefore understood but left unstated in Philippians and Thessalonians, he'd have had to convert.

So, what you are saying is, this "development" is kind of optional for Christians these days?

That's where we Catholics believe all of the Bible.

11:13 Douglas Tenyon Silver misses that the Pastorals do not just give directions about qualifications for office, they specify that the personal recipients, who got St. Paul's hands imposed on them, are the ones who impose hands and doing so apply the qualifications.

Hence, the majority of Protestant scholars, being Liberal Protestants, more concerned with staying non-Catholic than with staying Christian, need to conclude that they weren't Pauline.

12:54 I'm much obliged that you, presumably while still a Protestant, make firewood of certain Protestant arguments.

Thank you!

No comments: