Posted on 03/06/2010 3:52:39 PM PST by NYer
You were there?
There is no scripture giving the apostles permission to appoint apostles as successors..
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos (as there is in Protestantism).
There is no apostolic success in the NT, there is no Priesthood in the new church, there is no papacy in the new church..
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
My husband says those are his favorite words from me to him. lol.
Amen. You could write a hymn with that as the refrain.
"Lord, I don't want to be stuck
On the wrong side of the cross..."
I have something just as good as an eyewitness account..Peters words.. 1 Peter 1 Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,
Acts 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man....something todays 'pope would never say BTW
As for the keys, they are only useful to open something, Christ gave Peter the honor of opening the gospel to the Jews on Pentecost. Once the door is open, there is no further need for the keys
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.
The question is did he have the authority to do that? Christ never indicated or gave over that authority to any man
We need only look at the situation to see that was NOT Gods plan, it was mans plan.
God had ordained and raised up a man of HIS choosing to replace Judas...Paul.
Mans selection was never heard from again in scripture while Gods choice went on to be the major teacher and apostle to the gentiles in the new church
Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles' special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.
In 2 Cor. 2:17, Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority. Shortly after this, in 2 Cor. 3:6, Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination. In 2 Peter 2:10, Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.
The question is not what did men think..the question is what does God think..
In 2 Cor. 2:17, Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God's word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.
2Cr 2:17 — For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ
This is dealing with false teachers. It has nothing to do with apostolic succession..
. Shortly after this, in 2 Cor. 3:6, Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant.
The fact that this is being taught by Paul, who was not selected by men does not help the apostolic succession claim..
This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination. In 2 Peter 2:10, Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them
2Pe 2:10 — But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
Once again this is about false teachers not apostleship or apostolic succession, the papacy or the priesthood.. none of which are taught in the New Testament.All of these doctrines, are man made, with no infallible biblical support
All of it is in the NT as witnessed by those who were with Jesus Christ in His lifetime. Matthew 16:16-19.
Sirach 7:29-30 - with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the Church, there is error, chaos and confusion. That is what we see today ... x thousands of churches, all claiming to be christian, but which can't agree on scriptural interpretation. Our Lord did not leave us to our own whims. He left behind a hierarchical church, guided by the Holy Spirit. In its 2000 year history, not one pope, regardless of how bad he was, has ever erred in church teaching on matters of faith or morals.
One thing is for sure,dear friend...You know people like Fr Corapi is doing the Lord's work when unholy people can only attack his past
Some people around FR think they are immaculate
There is no papacy or priesthood or apostolic succession in scripture..
The priesthood was a type of christ, when fulfilled it had no other purpose and so there was no role for a priest in the new church.. There is no teaching of apostolic succession in the NT as we see God dismissed the attempt to replace Judas by the apostles, in fact their 'replacement ' is no where mentioned in scripture after they "ordained" him .As for Peter being the rock, lets look at that
Did Peter believe that He was the rock?
Did the early church believe that Peter was the Rock?
Mat 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mat 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them,But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: [for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.[
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
In Matt 16 Jesus asked his disciples what people were saying about Him Peter responds under the illumination of the Holy Spirit
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Peter's CONFESSION OF FAITH IN CHRIST is the ROCK upon which the true church is built - not Peter the STONE.
Shortly later Jesus says this to Peter
Matt 16:23 "But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"
So which is it Rock or Satan?
Did Paul believe that Peter was the Rock?
Paul, who was contemporary to Peter never greeted the "Pope " in Rome or the "Bishop of Rome " or even his fellow apostle Peter in Rome when he lists the workers in the church of Rome.
Peter was the apostle to the Jews not the gentiles.
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
Peter would have had to be disobedient to his call to the Jews to be in Rome
Paul openly opposed Peter because Peter erred . Do you believe that Paul would never have openly opposed Peter if he was the head of the church? Can you imagine a Catholic bishop publicly opposing the Pope today?
Not ONE apostle or early father ever even hinted that Jesus made Peter the head of the church.. Peter never claimed it for himself. Such silence is deafening. The first person to propose this was a Bishop of Rome in the 4th century. Over 300 years after Christ As late as 396 Church theologians were teaching the rock on which the church was built was a confession of faith.
Whose hands had sown the Divine seed in the ground, that is Rome, we shall never know
Conjectures built upon foundations too insecure to be sanctioned history ,takes the Apostle Peter to Rome during the first reign of Claudius AD 42...About the time that that St. Paul gained his liberty, St Peter came to Rome.He had perhaps been there before. [ But it can not be proved. We have no information whatever as to Peters apostolic work in Rome Early History of the Church Abbe Duchesne ( Roman Catholic Historian)
Peter knew who the rock was
Christ is the cornerstone, the stone the builders rejected. Who did Peter believe the Rock was?
1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
The Catholic church claim for Peter something he did not claim for himself, something the early church did not claim for him
Maybe you need to ask why?
The early Church historian J. 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).
The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Pope Clement I
We have had this discussion several times before, Mom. If you are not ready to explore the writings of the Early Church Fathers, then please refrain from repeating your posts.
Pax et Bonum
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.