Apostolic Succession

[handsome pete]

What is the evidence for and against Apostolic succession and was Mary perfect?

[handsome pete]

typical. the christian world is divided in two by this point and both sides call the other side foolish when the other sides not around. but the moment i ask christians about it in detail, they have nothing to say.

[Monarchist]

typical. the christian world is divided in two by this point and both sides call the other side foolish when the other sides not around. but the moment i ask christians about it in detail, they have nothing to say.

Don't be so quick to say "typical", like some disapproving mother who's "tisk-tisk"-ing her children. Do you realise how condescending that sounds?

Apostolic Succession is a simple bit of logic. Christ declared Peter the "rock" upon which the Church would be built. Peter spread the word across the West, appointing various people to see to matters in his absence. As Christ had touched Peter, so Peter touched them, and they their successors, and on and on. It's rather like a line of descent in a genealogy, except this blood does not thin over time and it is not promoted by sexual intercourse.

[basics]

" Apostolic Succession is a simple bit of logic. Christ declared Peter the "rock" upon which the Church would be built. Peter spread the word across the West, appointing various people to see to matters in his absence. As Christ had touched Peter, so Peter touched them, and they their successors, and on and on. It's rather like a line of descent in a genealogy, except this blood does not thin over time and it is not promoted by sexual intercourse."

Monarchist,

Jesus Christ did not declare Peter to be the Rock on which the church is built. He certainly called him rock but why? Because Peter had said in his reply to Jesus the very thing on which the church is actually built. That Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God is the Rock on which men are saved or perish. Just a few verses later Jesus is calling Peter Satan so where does that come in your appraisal above?

Peter was the Apostle to the Jews albeit he certainly preached to Gentiles as well, but it was Paul who was ordained by Jesus Christ Himself to preach to the Gentile nations. There is no proof whatsoever that Peter preached in the West, never mind him ever being in Rome itself. For sure it is tradition that says, but tradition introduced to make Rome safe as the superior church in the eyes of all around.

It is also tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, yet herein lies a big problem. We know that Paul was there and we know that before that he communicated with the already established church there. Now Paul was a victim of habit, of consistency, and one of these was the ordination of bishops, elders and or deacons to all the churches of Christ. Therefore I say that had Peter ever stepped foot in Rome he would have found a bishop, elder or deacon already in place. But that is tradition for you.

[SigniferOne]

Ugh

Anyway apostolic succession was defined after interpreting certain lines from scripture. This succession had over time come to be seen as being divinely inspired, namely that God himself instrumented the successors and highest officers in the church. This came to mean that whatever the church was, was good.

Protestants reject apostolic succession. They have done so, at Reformation, on the basis of the fact that the church has often not been good. That just because you say you're a Christian does not grant inherent excellency to you, and especially just because you're the Pope does not mean you're even better. In fact the Pope has often been the worst of the bunch, and the higher you went in the Catholic church, often the worse you became. It became unreasonable for all thinking Christians to equate high Catholic posts with spiritual excellency, and so the docrine was seen as insupportable.

[handsome pete]

sorry i wasn't sure if the ugh was directed at me or the fact that the christian world is divided on something most of them don't understand or often debate.


okay but there is more to it than that. apostolic succession starts in the new testament. and there are a few verses that state you should not only follow the bible, but that you should follow the traditions passed down by the apostles. that apostolic succession has gone sour doesn't deal with the original issue of apostolic succession or the catholic church's claim that some of their beliefs come from the original apostles themselves.

after all the catholic church pre-dates the fall of rome and has access to some pretty huge and old stores of early church history.

[SigniferOne]

sorry i wasn't sure if the ugh was directed at me or the fact that the christian world is divided on something most of them on either side don't understand.

No, it was at you. Did you do intelligent surveys to find out that 'most on either side' don't understand this issue? It seems like a common basic element that neighborhood pastors or priests should've explained to you.

that apostolic succession has gone sour doesn't deal with the original issue of apostolic succession or the catholic church's claim that some of their beliefs come from the original apostles themselves.

I know that's what the Catholic Church claimed; but the evidence of church behavior was to the contrary, so as Protestants people concluded that the original line of reasoning must've been wrong in the first place.

[handsome pete]

my computer was playing up for a bit.

i think i can have a good idea on the present state of Christendom regarding this issue. You just said that i cannot know without conducting "intelligent studies" but then implied that you can. and if the reason you can is because you're using a weak form of "intelligent studies" why can you but i can not? the former statement (you can) makes sense to me because you know your personal experiences better than i do but the latter does not.

sorry i'm a bit confused why if you're proclaiming the existence of a moral god and to be spiritually closer to him, your method of illuminating people is a face palm.

that apostolic succession has gone sour doesn't deal with the original issue of apostolic succession or the catholic church's claim that some of their beliefs come from the original apostles themselves.

I know that's what the Catholic Church claimed; but the evidence of church behavior was to the contrary, so as Protestants people concluded that the original line of reasoning must've been wrong in the first place.

But not all the apostles were ordained by Jesus's mouth. and where does it say in the NT that apostolic succession ends in the bible.

to be technical if protestants are saying that they doubt certain contemporary popes, how can they know that there was a continuity between them. and the catholic church has numerous beliefs based on their historical records so how can you throw all of them out at once without inquiry. otherwise what was god's purpose in the two or three verses that say "don't just follow the scriptures follow the traditions passed down by the apostles" (besides potentially confusing people).

[SigniferOne]

my computer was playing up for a bit.

i think i can have a good idea on the present state of Christendom regarding this issue. You just said that i cannot know without conducting "intelligent studies" but then implied that you can. and if the reason you can is because you're using a weak form of "intelligent studies" why can you but i can not?

Because I don't make claims in which whole halves, or wholes of Christianity don't understand some core, central facets of their beliefs. You do. That statement is incredulous on its face, and would require some substantial backing before being taken seriously.

But not all the apostles were ordained by Jesus's mouth. and where does it say in the NT that apostolic succession ends in the bible.

It doesn't; nor does it specifically ordain the apostolic succession in the way that the Catholics have taken it. What Catholics have taken was a particular interpretation of the relevant verses, an interpretation which the Protestants have seen was unnecessary, or in fact flat out incorrect given the empirical evidence of many Catholic Popes. It is quite possible that the Catholics have taken the extra step from verse to their unique interpretation as a necessary and powerful expedient to survive the Middle Ages; but it was in principle a secular, unsubstantiated interpretation; once the Church was able to unify and survive the middle ages, certain facts later came out about characters of highest Catholics officials, which formed a vast body of evidence that that interpretation was not true, and practically wasn't necessary either. Thus Protetestants had no longer any reason to endorse it.

There are to this day several Christian aspects which are maintained solely out of habit, without clear scriptural backing, but they do not violate moral sensibility and so there's no reason to abolish them like there was this one.

to be technical if protestants are saying that they doubt certain contemporary popes, how can they know that there was a continuity between them.

Eh? It's not the Protestants but the Catholics who claim there was a continuity between the Popes, namely the apostolic continuity.

[basics]

" What is the evidence for and against Apostolic succession and was Mary perfect?"

handsome pete,

Jesus commanded the disciples to go out into all the world and preach the good news. The consequences were that others were born again, regenerated, into the body of Christ and on that happening each was given gifts according to the measure of God. All those gifts were for the overall consolation of the church in that each part had its part to play that the body might function properly.

But, in each case every single one became not only an adopted son or daughter, but a priest of the Most High. Was one priest better than another? Not according to regeneration. Each may have different gifts but their succession in terms of delivering the Gospel as the disciples did is afforded to all, indeed all having an input through prayer and the Spirit to do that to the glory of Jesus Christ our Lord. As priests they have a God given mandate to deliver the message that Jesus Christ saves.

So if there was a succession that process came about through the whole congregation praying that the Spirit would provide a name for each gathering but not necessarily for the church as a whole since it was accepted that Jesus Christ was the living Head of all called the church. In other words those chosen for certain offices were chosen to serve and not to rule, and from among them men of sound background and experience should have been the leaders as it was in the beginning laid out by Paul.

In almost every case these men called then, bishops, elders and or deacons did not go out to evangelise, rather to stay in the community to serve its needs or to see that these needs were apportioned where need was most required. They didn't act without the knowledge of the others within the congregations and certainly not without communal prayer listening to the word of the Spirit.

But of course we know that false men of faith infiltrated the churches, gained power by stealth, gaining the offices to which they used to make their superiority final, thus bringing into the church what Paul called other gospels leading to dissection and eventually mass murder of many thousands. This has become what many even on these threads consider Apostolic Succession if only because that is what they learned from within the organisations that use the term.

Now regarding Mary let no-one doubt what is written. Mary like all women had her periods before the birth of Jesus as well as after and under the Law of God had to go through the cleansing process, usually about a week, before she could enter the Temple or synagogue, therefore she was not in that respect perfect. However perfection came on the day of Pentecost when Mary and all them with her in that room were made regenerate.

What that means is that because Jesus Christ was her substitute, He paid her price for sin, thus bringing her into what God considers perfection. The day she was born again was that day and none other. That she too had died to the Law at the cross therefore made any cleansing because of her periodic blood unnecessary. The Law of God could find nothing to condemn her for any more. So Mary is just like all others in respect of saving grace. She had to be born again to enter heaven.

That she is called the mother of God, thus making for some sort of divinity, is no more than sleight of hand. For a start Jesus Christ existed from the beginning whilst Mary was born into sin by human parentage so how can she be the mother of God? For sure she carried our Lord and God through His union with her egg to make Him like us but that her body was prepared and overshadowed by God the Spirit must prove that she was never divine.

And when we consider that it is also written before and after her confinement that Joseph would fulfill his obligation to her through the birth of other children, which only the numpties would deny, this itself is further proof that she was not and never was divine in any aspect of her life. But of course there are certain men who want to place her on that pedestal to authenticate what their leaders introduced as a further agenda to Scripture many centuries before. That alone tells the character of these men.

[Monarchist]

Either way, Protestants will keep saying Peter was nothing special in this regard, Catholics will say he was, Orthodox will say they were all Popes, and atheists will laugh at us. The cycle goes on, no matter how well we understand the past.

I thank you for your dedication and energy, though, basics.

[basics]

" Protestants will keep saying Peter was nothing special in this regard,...."

Monarchist,

Oh but he was special just not as Rome has made him. Peter when following Jesus was as solid as a rock, his fault, if one can call it that, was that he tended to leap before he looked, voiced before he thought. Yet on the day of Pentecost it was Peter who delivered to the Jews one of the Gospel's greatest speeches. What he had been was not what he was now because the power of God flowed through him as it did to all the others.

I can imagine him to have been heavily muscled and thick set being the Galilean he was and a fisherman to boot. With his knack of putting his foot in it he must have been some character. Yet Jesus saw something more than the outward appearance when He called him. Peter had a simple Gospel because he was a simple uncomplicated man. Paul on the other hand didn't have these attributes.

This showed when Peter was almost bullied by them sent from James about his eating with Gentiles. Rather than face down James, he withdrew himself showing his nature had changed dramatically from all that he had been before Pentecost. Paul on the other hand stood down for no man, no, not even James showing why Jesus Christ had chosen him and who sorted out both Peter and James when he got to Jerusalem.

Protestants have a tremendous affection for Peter. Its just that we don't see him as being the type to be enthroned on his Saviour's rightful place, no, not even on earth. We don't believe that this man of God would have allowed himself to be put on a pedestal. Not surprisingly there is nothing in all Scripture to suggest that this was the case.