Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all your want, but do NOT make it personal!

[xzins]

Just a further note about that “Lutheran” sign....on the right hand side underneath “Celebrating Service,” does that say something like: “Preaching the Relevance of Jesus”? The size of the letters makes it hard to see.

[William Terrell]

Since the church has no army to hit people over the head or coerce anyone into joining it, no one should feel threatened by this statement.

Suppose the word going around is that you are a racist. Why feel threatened about it? You know you're not.

[Frumanchu]

There is no historical evidence that the Bible was the complete encyclopedia of the faith, before archeaology was as advanced as it is today it was possible to run around saying that reformers practiced ‘real Christianity’ however the more we uncover the more we find Christians practicing identically to how the Orthodox, Oriental Churches, and in most places Catholics do today.

That, my friend, is not relevant to the issue at hand. We are not arguing over the form or practice of worship. If you want to go that route, you'll find that many Protestant churches still have a very high liturgical service. It's not all rock concerts and motivational lectures (THANK GOD!).

More the point, an interesting change occurred relatively recently that I have yet to see any historical or archaeological evidence for in the early church: the mass is being done in English. But the Roman Catholic Church (or at least, some of it) decided that was OK.

So, to bring it all together, you're pointing to differences in practice between the early church and some current Protestant churches as proof against their claims of being true churches of Christ, but are dismissing differences in practice between the early church and the present day Roman Catholic churches as valid because of their claim of being true churches of Christ.

It doesn't work that way, friend :)

[wmfights]

Ridiculous. It is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church can actually trace it’s leadership (i.e. the priests and bishops) back to the apostles.

So! A historic lineage doesn't carry any special authority. What supernatural powers were passed on? Where in Scripture does it tell us that the Apostles would be able to pass on the gifts our LORD infused them with?

[Iscool]

This makes the oldest non-Apostolic "church" about 550 years old, circa 1500 years after the Lord established His. Take your pick.

Are you saying that when your religion murdered all those groups of 'heretics' in the early centuries, none of them survived??? You got 'em all??? You broke the lines???

[wmfights]

That is three times before he was shipwrecked in Acts. This shows me that Paul was not resting on his laurels between his 3 missionary journeys but had many more journeys not recorded. Who knows how many other churches he founded without us knowing about them.

I always enjoy it when I see something new. Thanks.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay-post!

Considering that humans are just as fallible now as they were then, is it possible that perhaps the same human mistake the Jewish leadership was making back then was replicated by some under Jesus's New Testament gospel?

Indeed.

Christ railed against the Scribes and Pharisees for putting themselves and their doctrines and traditions above God. (Matthew 23)

Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. – Mark 7:5-9

The Jews thought their lineage from Abraham was the ticket. They were wrong:

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire: - Matt 3:9-11

The power was not in Abraham's loins. Nor is it in the doctrines and traditions of men - whether Christian or Jew - including mortal designations of successors or other such vain attempts by man to insinuate himself into the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

Vain repetition of prayers are of no effect (Matt 6:7) - nor are forms of Godliness which deny His power (2 Timothy 3:5) - or other such man-made contrivances of self righteousness:

Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. - Matt 23:28

Again, I aver that the Spiritual succession is the one that counts - anything less is a broken cistern, made by man, incapable of holding His living water (the Holy Spirit, John 7:38-39):

For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, [and] hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. - Jer 2:13

Jesus Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. (I Cor 1:24)

To God be the glory!

[Iscool]

If you are going to use historical evidence as a source of doubt than begin with Exodus, and all of Torah for that matter. Don't stop there: there is no original copy of any of the apostolic or Old Testament writings. They are all copies of copies.

If they were good enough for Jesus to quote, and He called them scriptures, they're just as good as the 'originals' to me...

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautiful testimony, dear brother in Christ!

Thank God for you.

[xzins]

See the 3 underlined points in the article above.

[xzins]

Again, I aver that the Spiritual succession is the one that counts

In the 3 underlined points in the above article, the point is carefully made that even the physical succession argument is very suspect. Check it out.

Essay (again) right on the money.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your encouragements and the perfect Scripture! Indeed, God's work is by faith. Nothing less will do.

[Alamo-Girl]

In the 3 underlined points in the above article, the point is carefully made that even the physical succession argument is very suspect. Check it out.

I did read it and indeed, that is a very important point. But even if there were no flaws at all, the Apostolic succession would mean nothing to me personally because the choice is God's not man's.

That was the lesson of Cornelius, the commission of Paul, the rebuke of the Scribes and Pharisees - and the operative part of this excerpt from John's Gospel (emphasis mine):

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

[blue-duncan]

“It is a fact that the Roman Catholic Church can actually trace it’s leadership (i.e. the priests and bishops) back to the apostles.”

How could these gems pass anything on except gas? If this is the spiritual heritage of the RC’s “apostolic succession”, I think I would look for something else to prove my legitimacy.

Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.

Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Boniface VIII (1012-1024), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy

Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy

Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.

Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.

Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony.

Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

[xzins]

I agree.

However, it would have been a blessing to hear that any unbroken lineage of people had remained SPIRITUALLY faithful to the Lord.
Unfortunately, they did not.

You can’t help but wonder, though....it would be a blessing for me some future day to look down from my place in that “great cloud of witnesses” who’ve crossed to the other side to see that my descendants had remained true to the faith of their fathers.

[xzins]

In the article above, see underlined point #1.

Excellent post, btw, B-D.

As Alamo-girl has vigorously and biblically demonstrated, it is the spiritual succession only that makes sense. Your post is definitely an illustration of why she is so right.

[xzins]

Calling for an historian, OP.

In terms of history, can you expand on underlined point #3 in the above article?

[N3WBI3]

"First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy."

Which is *very* strongly implied by scripture (Luke 3:8) Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our] father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy.

Again in the Bible Matt. 15:3-6, font color=red>"And He answered and said to them, 'And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, Honor your father and mother, and, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death 5But you say, Whoever shall say to his father or mother, Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God, 6he is not to honor his father or his mother. And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."

A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so."

[P-Marlowe]

Hey, BD, watch it. Don't you know all those men were "Vicars of Christ"?

Don't you know that the "infallible" Church elected them to stand in the place of Christ on the earth.

Don't you know the "infallible" Church NEVER makes a mistake?