Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Against Rome's Apostolic Succession Argument by Bullinger (Part 1)
Beggars All ^ | Dec 29,2013 | - James Swan

Posted on 02/16/2015 12:14:36 PM PST by RnMomof7

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Against Rome's Apostolic Succession Argument by Bullinger (Part 1)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was a Swiss Reformer and author of a popular writing entitled The Decades. This particular writing was influential in England, highly esteemed and used as a textbook of sorts for training English clergy. Included in The Decades is a section entitled Of The Holy Catholic Church, and included therein is Bullinger's refutation of Rome's apostolic succession argument (that Rome is the true church because of an historical succession of church authority that began with Peter). Here is the first part of Bullinger's argument:

Second, the succession of doctors or pastors of the Church does not prove anything of itself without the Word of God. The champions and defenders of the papistical church boast that they have a most certain mark of the apostolic Church, that is, in the continual succession of bishops which derives from Peter by Clement the First, and so to Clement the Seventh, and to Paul the Third who died recently, and so continuing to Julius the Third, who has only just been created pope. Moreover they add that all those members are cut off which separate themselves from that church in which alone that apostolic succession is found. And we do not deny that the right succession of pastors was of great weight in the primitive Church. For those who were then called pastors were pastors indeed, and executed the office of pastors. But what kind of pastors those have been for some time who out of the rabble of cardinals,

mitred bishops and sophisters have been called pastors of the church of Rome, only those are ignorant who are altogether without understanding. The prophet Zechariah heard these words spoken to him by the Lord: "Take to thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd; for lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not look for the thing that is lost, nor seek the tender lambs, nor heal that that is hurt, nor.feed that that standeth up: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their hoofs in pieces. Woe be to the idol shepherd that forsaketh the flock," etc. Therefore by their continual succession of bishops who do not teach the Word of God sincerely or execute the office and duty of pastors, these men do not prove any more than if they were to set before the eyes of the world a company, of idols. For who dare deny that many, indeed the majority of bishops of Rome since Gregory the Great were idols and wolves and devourers like those described by the prophet Zechariah? I ask then, what can the continual succession,cf such false pastors prove? indeed, did not the later ones fill almost the whole Church with the traditions of men, and partly oppress the Church of God, and partly persecute it? In the ancient church of the Israelites there was a continual order of succession of bishops, without any interruption from Aaron to Urias, who lived under Ahaz, and to other wicked high priests who also fell away from the Word of God: to the traditions of men, and indeed to idolatry. But for all that, that succession did not prove the idolatrous high-priests, with the church which adhered to them, to be the true high-priests of God and the true Church of God. For the true prophets of God, the sound and catholic fathers, who preached the Word of God alone apart from and indeed clean against all the traditions of men, were not able to reckon up any succession of priests to whom they themselves succeeded. Yet in spite of that, they were most excellent lights, and worthy members of the Church of God, and those who believed their doctrine were neither schismatics nor heretics, but even to this day are acknowledged to be the true Church of Christ. When Christ our Lord, the blessed Son of God, taught here on earth and gathered together his Church, the succession of high_priests ranged itself with his adversaries: but that did not mean that they were the rulers of the true Church of God, and Christ of the heretical church. The apostles of our Lord could not

allege for themselves and their doctrine an unbroken succession of high-priests: for they were ordained by the Lord, who was also himself created of God the High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, outside the succession of the order of Levi. Yet the Church which was gathered by them is acknowledged by all to be the true and holy Church. The apostles themselves would not allow any to be counted their true followers and successors but those who walked uprightly in the doctrine and way of Christ: for the saying of Paul is notable. and manifest: "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ." And though he speaks these words to all the faithful, and not only to the ministers of God's Word, yet he would have the latter his followers like all other Christians, that is to say, every man in his vocation and calling. The same apostle, speaking at Miletum to the bishops of Asia, says amongst other things: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Moreover, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them." It is from the apostolic Church itself, indeed from the company or assembly of apostolic bishops and pastors, that Paul the apostle fetches out the wolves and devourers of the Church. But do you not think that these could have alleged the apostolic succession for themselves and their most corrupt cause, that is, that, they were descended from apostolic pastors? But since forsaking the truth they have fallen from the faith and doctrine of the apostles, their derivation and apostolic succession does not in any way help them. Therefore we conclude that of itself the continual succession of bishops does not prove anything, but on the contrary that succession which lacks the purity of evangelical and apostolic doctrine is not valid.

Source: Library of Christian Classics Vol. XXIV: Zwingli and Bullinger (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), pp. 309-311



TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: apostles; catholicism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
>>In the ancient Davidic kingdom, the mother of the king<<

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's not the question I asked. The apostles said something they taught. Now, show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it to belong to the church.

41 posted on 02/16/2015 2:14:52 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas

Why should anyone read nonsense? It is not Biblical.


42 posted on 02/16/2015 2:18:41 PM PST by MamaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd; Alex Murphy
>>Doing so does not in the slightest provide proof that Catholic posters view Protestants as more problematic than Muslims.<<

CCC 841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Nuff said.

43 posted on 02/16/2015 2:20:06 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Alex Murphy
"Nuff said."

Nothing said. Alex said that reading FR will provide an individual with proof that Catholic FReepers are more against Protestants than Muslims. No such proof has been provided. So where is it?

44 posted on 02/16/2015 2:22:58 PM PST by Wyrd bið ful aræd ("We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned" -- The Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Prayers for The Religion Forum (Ecumenical) Prayers for you too.
45 posted on 02/16/2015 2:23:27 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
>>Would you please show where Christ and His Apostles taught "the Bible alone as the sole or ultimate rule of faith?"<<

Galatians 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!

How does this prove Luther's tradition of the Bible alone as the sole or ultimate rule of faith?

The quote you provided from St. Thomas, below, seems to be popular on Protestant apologetics boards, but wildly misinterpreted, misunderstood, or simply cut and pasted without understanding.

"It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." (St. Thomas Aquinas)
St. Thomas is comparing apocryphal writings to canonical writings (Sacred Scripture). Obviously, they're categorically different. He certainly isn't saying that the Bible is the sole or ultimate rule of faith.

I don't see how Gal 1:9 or the quote from St. Thomas even hint at Luther's tradition.

And there is simply no evidence of Luther's tradition prior to Luther.

+++

Here are more quotes from St. Thomas that prove that he did not subscribe to Luther's tradition:

ST Third Part, Question 25, Article 3

The Apostles, led by the inward stirring of the Holy Ghost, handed down to the churches certain instructions which they did not leave in writing, but which have been ordained in accordance with the observance of the Church as practiced by the faithful as time went on. Therefore the Apostle says: 'STAND FAST, AND HOLD THE TRADITIONS WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED, WHETHER BY WORD' -- that is by word of mouth -- 'OR BY OUR EPISTLE' -- that is by word put into writing (2 Thess 2:15)....

ST II-II, Question 5, Article 3

The formal object of faith is Primary Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church which proceeds from the Primary Truth. Hence, he who does not embrace the teaching of the Church as a divine and infallible law does not possess the habit of faith.


46 posted on 02/16/2015 2:35:59 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
Here's his comment again, first in English then in Latin.

The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith.

"Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei."

He made the comment on the verse that says this.

"If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!"

Now, show any other source that shows what the apostles taught other than canonical scripture. Sola Canonical Scriptura

47 posted on 02/16/2015 2:48:20 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: onyx; Carpe Cerevisi; Salvation
Wise post, onyx!

Just one comment:

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was a Swiss Reformer and author of a popular writing entitled The Decades. This particular writing was influential in England, highly esteemed and used as a textbook of sorts for training English clergy.

I don't know what year the book was written. Henry VIII would certainly have been a major proponent if he were alive to read it. What Henry did was tantamount to declaring himself pope in his country. Not going to spend the time.

48 posted on 02/16/2015 3:07:55 PM PST by Grateful2God (Faith alone, not good works? And Mother Teresa wasted all that time with both...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
The best progress Christianity has had is when honest individuals recognize what they have in common and build from that.

AMEN!!!

49 posted on 02/16/2015 3:11:56 PM PST by Grateful2God (Faith alone, not good works? And Mother Teresa wasted all that time with both...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
That is not my opinion. I frankly am tired of bumping into people who think that others do not have the right to believe as their consciences dictate.

I can't gauge that and others can't either. Only God can do that.

Our Founding Fathers put religion into the free market without strictures. That allows good people to ply their religions as they know best and that is beautiful.

My 100 year-old Aunt Elizabeth, before she died, said to me: "Even though we are from different faiths (she was Pentecostal and I am Catholic) I do believe that we both love Jesus and that is all that matters."

She is absolutely right.

50 posted on 02/16/2015 3:21:24 PM PST by Slyfox (I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
The best progress Christianity has had is when honest individuals recognize what they have in common and build from that.

First example I will give you is the Pro-Life movement. I could go on.

51 posted on 02/16/2015 3:24:05 PM PST by Slyfox (I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

There were bigger “fish to fry” during the Inquisition too...

******

Lol! Crusades! Hey everybody, obama’s (lower case on purpose) FR handle is RnMomof7!


52 posted on 02/16/2015 3:31:34 PM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Not hateful, but guilty of flippancy. I never engage in these apologetics threads, but I decided yesterday to at least have a set response, and one response only, to threads that have as the content of their title something against Catholicism. No reference to Catholicism, I'll leave it to you all, as I have been doing for 16 years.

But as far as Christ is concerned, I couldn't be more in agreement with you. Only He is our salvation, only in Him do we find peace. I believe you when you say this for yourself, and I trust you will allow me, a Catholic, to make this my lifechart as well.

May God keep you well!
53 posted on 02/16/2015 3:46:23 PM PST by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jobim

Syrupy words do not hide the hate that was expressed.


54 posted on 02/16/2015 3:48:16 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

The Religion Forum is where we all hammer out sound doctrine. Some of it is ugly but some of it enlightening as well.

I bet Aunt Elizabeth was a real blessing in your life! Thank for sharing that.


55 posted on 02/16/2015 4:03:32 PM PST by avenir (I'm pessimistic about man, but I'm optimistic about GOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Ouch! I truly never expected such a response from you, but life is full of surprises. I think you can review 16 years of my comments and not find hatred - a lot of sarcasm, irony, humor, but hatred, no, an anonymous forum never is able to generate hatred on my part.

Have a wonderful life, and may God go with you!
56 posted on 02/16/2015 4:14:14 PM PST by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: jobim
...but hatred, no, an anonymous forum never is able to generate hatred on my part.

Thank you for your explanation of why I must be wrong.
57 posted on 02/16/2015 4:17:29 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Funny, I was just going to address you, and thinking your name was Italian, but I see it refers to something else.

Honestly, I'm not saying you're wrong. If you are attributing my tone as conveying hatred, then I am simply saying that that was never in my heart or mind, and that you perhaps have misinterpreted me. But this is not to say you are wrong.

And regarding anonymous forums, I make it a point to never get rattled, because I don't even know the persons I am communicating with. It has nothing to do with you personally, as I can't know you personally.
58 posted on 02/16/2015 4:28:19 PM PST by jobim (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: jobim

I believe you. Thank you.


59 posted on 02/16/2015 4:44:40 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; CynicalBear; daniel1212; ...
Luther's tradition doesn't show up until 14 centuries after Christ.
The Assumption can be traced back at least to the fifth century in writing. Additionally, there are no relics of Mary, which would have been prized possessions in the early Church.
There is also biblical evidence supporting Mary's Assumption.

We know from Luke that Jesus has inherited the throne of David, and from Revelation that he holds the "key of David." Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, or Christ's Church. In the ancient Davidic kingdom, the mother of the king, the "Gebirah" or "Queen Mother" held a position greater than that of the wives of the king. The Bible records her sitting on a throne at the right hand of the king

Really ?? Do you have any scripture on this ?? Interesting that Mary holds higher position than Jesus ... I missed that somewhere ???

Now time for the ONE TIME that the queen mother sat at her sons "right hand"...HERE IS HE REST OF THE STORY...as they say

1 Kings 2:22King Solomon answered and said to his mother, "And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him also the kingdom-- for he is my older brother-- even for him, for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!" 23Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, "May God do so to me and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life. 24"Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David my father and who has made me a house as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death today."…25So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him so that he died.…

Oppps guess momma "sitting at the right hand" of the king...didn't help with her "intercessory plea huh?

BTW as Reformed believers, we use scripture to interpret scripture.. not write in our own meaning ...there is NO OTHER passage that says or implies the kings mother has a regular seat on the right hand of the king

Mary, as Jesus' mother, is the Queen Mother of the eternal, redeemed Davidic kingdom. She is the Queen of Heaven, as seen in Revelation.

Just another misrendering of scripture by Rome..

Rev12:1A great sign appeared in heaven:

Notice the prophet John did not say he saw Mary (that he knew and cared for.. he said he saw A SIGN ..Like all of Revelation this is PROPHETIC in nature..ant o replay

The end of this vision makes clear that this IS NOT MARY ..read on ..

Rev12;13And when the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child. 14But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place,... Did Mary ever grow wings and fly away?I missed that statue in the churches..

Most see the Woman as Israel .. but then most do not ned a goddess

The Case for the Assumption of Mary <<<<<<<<<<

Show me the scripture.. I have no interest in doctrinal fiction

60 posted on 02/16/2015 5:05:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson