The Apostolic succession

[Circe]

The apostolic succession seems to be the favorite argument of the catholic bishops.
For some reason, though, when other groups, besides the orthodox, claim the same direct lineage of their teachings, their argument is discounted or ignored.
For example, the gnostic Valentinus was a disciple of Theudas, who was one of Paul's followers. Another gnostic Basilides was a pupil of Glaukia, the disciple of Peter.

 

[okinrus]

For example, the gnostic Valentinus was a disciple of Theudas, who was one of Paul's followers. Another gnostic Basilides was a pupil of Glaukia, the disciple of Peter.

I don't think this is true. Why do you believe that Theudas and Glaukia were one of Peter's followers? I don't think Valentinus' claim to apostolic succession is convincing. http://www.ntcanon.org/Valentinus.shtml

 

[Circe]

Why do you believe that Theudas and Glaukia were one of Peter's followers?

It's not a matter of belief, I'm just pointing out that Clement of Alexandria mentions what I wrote above in his Miscellanies.

 

[Leo Volont]

The apostolic succession seems to be the favorite argument of the catholic bishops.
For some reason, though, when other groups, besides the orthodox, claim the same direct lineage of their teachings, their argument is discounted or ignored.
For example, the gnostic Valentinus was a disciple of Theudas, who was one of Paul's followers. Another gnostic Basilides was a pupil of Glaukia, the disciple of Peter.

There really is no Apostolic Succession and the Bible proves it. Paul was not an Apostle. He was just a successful fund raiser who was granted a Franchise for the Gentiles -- see Acts 15 for the details of the Franchise Letter. The Letter which authorized the Gentile Franchise was secondary to what was understood to be the Primary Organization -- the New Judaic Dispensation which was the Organization of the Apostles. But look at the Christian Church today. Clearly it is the Church of the Non-Apostolic Franchise of the Gentiles. No Apostle ever precided over it.

The New Judaic Dispensation did not last long. Christ Himself said that it would not last beyond a generation. Paul's Gentile Congregations rallied behind Paul's Antisemitic Anti-Law propaganda and rioted against Jewish Institutions and Apostolic Followers in Greece and Hellenic Asia Minor. The Jews of Jerusalem reacted with riots of their own against those of the Messianic Dispensation. Rome stepped in to restore order, but when they were attacked also, the Imperial Authorities had enough and leveled Jerusalem, finishing off what would have been a legitimate Apostolic Succession.

In the Coptic Church and the Thomas Church of India we might have a Real Apostolic Succession. But the Roman Church, who most brags of it, most certainly does not possess it. Why would the Jewish Apostles have institutionalized an entirely Gentile Church which neglects every Jewish Holiday and Ritual. Clearly the Roman Church is a offshoot Franchise... and most certainly doctrinally corrupt at the most basic levels.

 

[okinrus]

It's not a matter of belief, I'm just pointing out that Clement of Alexandria mentions what I wrote above in his Miscellanies.

I'm not too sure. Clement of Alexandria would have to have relied on second-hand knowledge, correct?

Whenever apostatic succession is spoken of, it's usually used to determine who celebrates a proper Eucharist. For example, the Orthodox church has Apostatic Succession, even though they are schism. Thus they are considered to have valid sacraments despite not being in full communion with the Church.

Also, the Apostatic Succession would require that Theudas be a bishop and Valentinus as well.

 

[Circe]

lso, the Apostatic Succession would require that Theudas be a bishop and Valentinus as well.

The way I see it, the apostolic succession means continuity of Jesus' teachings. One doesn't have to be a bishop to do that. One doesn't have to be told by the pope to do what's right. Claiming connections back to the apostles by the Roman catholic church served one purpose only: to strengthen and legitimize their authority as exclusive recipients and heirs of Jesus' wisdom. It wasn't so much about religion, it was politics.

In the end, it all comes down to who got Jesus' teachings right.

I'm not too sure. Clement of Alexandria would have to have relied on second-hand knowledge, correct?

Probably. But is there a first hand knowledge of Jesus nominating catholic bishops as his spiritual heirs?

 

[okinrus]

The way I see it, the apostolic succession means continuity of Jesus' teachings.

Yes, it means that. But I think there's supposed to be a special chrism that the Bishop receives when the hands are layed upon him. For example, Moses layed his hands upon Joshua to become the leader of the tribe. The words spoken by the early Church father's also say something similar. Ignatius, for example, says that nothing should be done without the Bishop, and that no one celebrate a mass without the Bishop's approval. Iranaeus, however, is the one who is most often quoted on this matter.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7317_1944667 chapter III "Perpetual Succession of Bishops"

One doesn't have to be a bishop to do that. One doesn't have to be told by the pope to do what's right.

I agree that the Pope does not declare what is right as only God judges, but he's vested with the power to say who celebrates a valid Eucharist and who doesn't. This is supported in what Luke said to Peter: (something like "Who then is allotted the task to distribute the manager's food allowances." )

Claiming connections back to the apostles by the Roman catholic church served one purpose only: to strengthen and legitimize their authority as exclusive recipients and heirs of Jesus' wisdom. It wasn't so much about religion, it was politics.

It unlikely that Ignatius or Iranaeus were concerned about politics. Ignatius wrote most of his letters in prision, I think.

Probably. But is there a first hand knowledge of Jesus nominating catholic bishops as his spiritual heirs?

Iranaeus and Ignatius are closer to the time period of the Apostles than Clement of Alexandria. Iranaeus knew Polycarp who knew John, and Ignatius was a disciple of John.
.

 

[Circe]

Yes, it means that. But I think there's supposed to be a special chrism that the Bishop receives when the hands are layed upon him. For example, Moses layed his hands upon Joshua to become the leader of the tribe. The words spoken by the early Church father's also say something similar. Ignatius, for example, says that nothing should be done without the Bishop, and that no one celebrate a mass without the Bishop's approval. Iranaeus, however, is the one who is most often quoted on this matter.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7317_1944667 chapter III "Perpetual Succession of Bishops"

Do you really think that laying on hands involves something supernatural? How much of what the bishop knows changes after this ceremony? Do they suddenly know something they didn't before?

I think it's in Matthew, where you can read "seek and you shall find, knock and it will be open.." Nothing about the middle men -the bishops or the popes.

Iranaeus and Ignatius are closer to the time period of the Apostles than Clement of Alexandria. Iranaeus knew Polycarp who knew John, and Ignatius was a disciple of John.

That means nothing. All of the above could be wrong. Remember, even the apostles didn't always understand what Jesus said and meant. And these were the people who accompanied him daily.

 

[okinrus]

Do you really think that laying on hands involves something supernatural?

I would assume that as an ordained bishop, God would give the grace sufficient to do their task. I really can't make any comments on how or when this occurs though.

There's no reason not to assume that knowledge won't proceed naturally from grace or study.

I think it's in Matthew, where you can read "seek and you shall find, knock and it will be open.." Nothing about the middle men -the bishops or the popes.

I don't see the bishops or the popes are middlemen.

 

[Circe]

Whatever the're getting is not grace exclusively. They're getting carte blanche to do whatever they desire. It seems to me only very few of them, if any at all, really occupied themselves with thoughts of Jesus. Let's not even bother with bishops, let's have a look at some of the more infamous popes. Tell me, what kind of grace made them so intolerant, vindictive, promiscuous and greedy?

Infamous popes

 

[okinrus]

Whatever the're getting is not grace exclusively. They're getting carte blanche to do whatever they desire.

No, they must answer to God and the Pope and the just laws of goverment. They are in charge of small part of the organization of the Church.

It seems to me only very few of them, if any at all, really occupied themselves with thoughts of Jesus.

I don't know any bishops. I know that for every opportunity there is for grace, there's an opportunity to reject grace. Perhaps bishops have greater responsibility and thus if they fall, they really do fall.

Let's not even bother with bishops, let's have a look at some of the more infamous popes. Tell me, what kind of grace made them so intolerant, vindictive, promiscuous and greedy?

Popes aren't guarenteed salvation. They might have greater responsibility than you, but they are given the grace necessary to fullfil this responsibility, just as you. But if they should reject this grace, then they have rejected more because they were given more.

 

[§outh§tar]

The Pope is NOT an authority, in ANY way whatsoever okinrus.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterVsPapacy.htm

The Bible does not give any man any such authority, that any one should "answer" to them on a basis of exclusive divine authority.

And hence we expose another one of the fallacies within the Catholic Church, surely inspired by Satan, the serpent and dragon of old..

 

[okinrus]

he Pope is NOT an authority, in ANY way whatsoever okinrus.

I don't think I claimed he had? The Holy Spirit allows the Pope to make ex-cathedra statements. The rest of the time the Pope could make a mistake.

The Bible does not give any man any such authority, that any one should "answer" to them on a basis of exclusive divine authority.

I don't quite know what you mean by "'answer' to them on a basis of exclusive divine authority."

And hence we expose another one of the fallacies within the Catholic Church, surely inspired by Satan, the serpent and dragon of old..

You will have to do a better job than pointing out that 1 and 2 Peter doesn't mention something. Peter says "be living stones," which emphasizes what Jesus said to Peter.

Jesus remains the cornerstone and Rock but not the only stone, nor the only witness. Christ is the cornerstone, as is mentioned in Isaiah. I think Isaiah also predicts Peter somewhere?

 

[§outh§tar]

I don't think I claimed he had? The Holy Spirit allows the Pope to make ex-cathedra statements. The rest of the time the Pope could make a mistake.

Where in the Bible is this claim founded on?

I don't quite know what you mean by "'answer' to them on a basis of exclusive divine authority."

That is the verb you used. Surely we understand that the Bible advocates submission to authority, but the Pope receives no such exclusive authority as opposed to a government which does not claim to receive authority directly from the Divine. In this case, where in the Bible is the Pope's authority validated?

You will have to do a better job than pointing out that 1 and 2 Peter doesn't mention something. Peter says "be living stones," which emphasizes what Jesus said to Peter.

Jesus remains the cornerstone and Rock but not the only stone, nor the only witness. Christ is the cornerstone, as is mentioned in Isaiah. I think Isaiah also predicts Peter somewhere?

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/peterRock.htm

Where does Isaiah "predict" Peter? Christ IS the only stone.

"No one comes to the Father, except through Me". And if that is your case, then Paul is surely "predicted" as well, as the very same Scripture reminds us that even us Peter was given to the Jews, Paul was given unto the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7-8
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

It doesn't get any clearer than this. And again IN THE SAME CHAPTER:

[6] But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

According to John Wesley:
"God accepteth no man's person — For any eminence in gifts or outward prerogatives. In that conference added nothing to me - Neither as to doctrine nor mission."

And AGAIN, the Bible SPECIFICALLY identifies the High Priest of God as Jesus. There is NO room for interpretation to say that any man on earth was given even a similar position on Earth. (See Hebrews 9:11-)

 

[Jenyar]

And hence we expose another one of the fallacies within the Catholic Church, surely inspired by Satan, the serpent and dragon of old..

This wasn't a particularly productive or loving comment. The pope is the traditional authority of the RCC, and those who accept his authority should obey it. It is unfortunate that Luther was excommunicated, and that the differences weren't resolved before it led to division, but that doesn't mean we should reinforce those differences.

 

[§outh§tar]

This wasn't a particularly productive or loving comment. The pope is the traditional authority of the RCC, and those who accept his authority should obey it. It is unfortunate that Luther was excommunicated, and that the differences weren't resolved before it led to division, but that doesn't mean we should reinforce those differences.

I gave ample evidence on why his presumed authority is invalid. There is NO scripture whatsoever that gives a man authority over God's Church. Unless you know of some..

 

[okinrus]

Southstar, I'm able to defend a central heirachy as the best organization, but at no point do we believe the Pope upsurps power or is an authority over the Church. We believe that the grace and power flows within the Pope.

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar, I'm able to defend a central heirachy as the best organization, but at no point do we believe the Pope upsurps power or is an authority over the Church. We believe that the grace and power flows within the Pope.

Yes, but I am asking, WHERE is the Biblical justification that "grace and power" flows within him?

 

[okinrus]

Yes, but I am asking, WHERE is the Biblical justification that "grace and power" flows within him?

The Church does not believe that the Bible is the final authority, but I'm willing to argue using the Bible. But instead of arguing who is the current leader, we should determine if there even should be a leader underneath Christ? If the Bible does not say explicitely that there should not be a leader, then any claim that Peter was the leader, however small, outweighs any evidence to the contrary.

Note also that the Pope must also respond to humanitarian and moral needs that are not necessarily doctrinal. Without a central head, is disorganization not inevitable? So to presuppose that there should not be a leader, you must come up with an alternative?

 

[§outh§tar]

The Church does not believe that the Bible is the final authority, but I'm willing to argue using the Bible. But instead of arguing who is the current leader, we should determine if there even should be a leader underneath Christ? If the Bible does not say explicitely that there should not be a leader, then any claim that Peter was the leader, however small, outweighs any evidence to the contrary.

Note also that the Pope must also respond to humanitarian and moral needs that are not necessarily doctrinal. Without a central head, is disorganization not inevitable? So to presuppose that there should not be a leader, you must come up with an alternative?

Now you are siding with the Church's Satanically inspired view that the Word of God, by IMPLICATION ALONE, not even bringing evidence from within to assert It's authority and settle the matter, is FULLY sufficient for AND I QUOTE:

2 Tim. 3:16
"...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Secondly, I did not say that central organization was unnecessary, not did I say it is not, for that matter. But if there IS to be a leader underneath Christ, surely it is only logical that this would be by HIS choosing as opposed to a secular government system, am I correct? And is this not evident in the case of David and Saul?

1 Peter 2:13
Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

As far as I am concerned there is a difference between "ordinance of man" and "insitution of God", do you not agree?

Furthermore, are you implying that without a Pope, the Church of God would cease to be united? Do you forget in the time of David that there was a priest set over Israel named Samuel? And do you remember that he served a function other than mere pomp, especially regarding adherence to the scripture which "the Church" now disdainfully disregards and throws to the wind.

Do you NEED a Pope to "respond to humanitarian and moral needs"? Or do you presume that the instructions in the scriptures concerning "true and undefiled religion" is but secondary?

And as for the Bible not "explicitly" saying there should not be a leader, you are the one claiming that "grace and power flows" through the Pope, which surely you must understand, implies the Divine hand is upon his seat? And yet you provide no scriptural proof of such but to assert that "central organization" was necessary. Also as I previously mentioned, the Bible has specifically named Jesus as the High Priest, negating any man's claim over authority over the "central organization" which unifies the Church.

Moreover and even more shockingly, you say that the mercies of God, even the fruits of the Spirit, are not SUFFICIENT to unify the Church, even though Scripture CLEARLY says otherwise. Now this puts you in a dilemma, do you therefore say that Scripture is wrong?