Posted on 02/28/2015 11:26:52 AM PST by RnMomof7
Thomas Hobbes said The Papacy is not other than the Ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.
History has borne out this statement. The question of authority is at the heart of every discussion between Protestants and Roman Catholics since the time of the Reformation, and yet the Church of Rome (Roman Catholicism) bases all of its claims to authority upon apostolic succession
the notion that there was an unbroken succession of successors from the time of the Apostles till now.
Bryan Cross has said The Church always had the concept of apostolic succession., but that is an equivocation of terms, and it is based upon another, older, different equivocation of terms.
For a long time, Roman Catholicism claimed a direct succession from Peter, through a line of popes. However, the study of history has turned that direct succession story into a puff of smoke. More recently, the doctrine suggests that the Apostles were a college, and this college had unnamed successors but the real authority of the Apostles. That, too, is bankrupt.
We actually have a speech from Paul, in his address to the elders in Acts 20, that describes what the earliest church understood succession. Does he say, as the CCC says, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time?
There is not a hint of continuous line of succession until the end of time in Acts 20. Instead, what we have are admonitions to pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock ... This is an admonition that is set aside any time a Roman Catholic makes an appeal to suggest that Protestants are Donatists...
Paul continues fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from your own selves [those of you within, who have positions of teaching] will arise men speaking twisted things.
The twisted things are clearly shown over and over again among Roman Catholic doctrine and practice.
The word of his grace is able to build you up -- but this is not a guarantee of a continuous line of succession until the end of time. It is a warning to be diligent, for ministers to work with their hands ...
This shift of both concept and language from pay careful attention to yourselves to continuous line of succession for all time has its foundations in the Gnostic concept of διαδοχἡ (succession). That is not a biblical word, and Ratzinger equivocates by first equating the non-biblical διαδοχἡ with the biblical παράδοσιν (paradosis or tradition).
In truth, the concept of διαδοχἡ (succession) becomes swapped for παράδοσεις (tradition) in the Roman Catholic view it is an unexplained and unexplainable (from extant sources) swap that merely duplicates the method that the Gnostics of the day were already using.
As Hans Von Campenhausen pointed out, it is the Gnostic Ptolemaeus (who died prior to the time Irenaeus wrote) who provides the earliest evidence known to us of this new, theologically oriented usage. In the Letter to Flora he speaks explicitly of the secret and apostolic tradition (παράδοσεις) which supplements the canonical collection of Jesuss words, and which by being handed on through a succession (διαδοχἡ) of teachers and instructors has now come to us, that is, to him or to his community. Here the concept of tradition is plainly used in a technical sense, as is shown particularly by the collocation with the corresponding concept of succession.
That is an illegitimate way to twist the language. The apostles gave no concept of succession of persons to the early church especially not a continuous line of succession until the end of time.
But that illegitimate illusion is the focal point of the only explanation that Rome has for its own claims to authority today.
ping
Hobbes was an atheist.
Have a blessed lent.
Placemarker
Offering up "the guidance of apostolic succession" raises all sorts of questions when Rome "self-corrects" itself from bad popes. The unreliability of apostolic succession is demonstrated by Rome's having chosen "bad" popes to take the chair of Peter in the first place.
Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture........Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.
-- from the thread Apostolic Succession and the Roman Catholic ChurchThe theory behind apostolic succession is that God's authority, to be meaningful and effective, must be embodied in men today who have the same kind of authority [as the original apostles]. But if you will read carefully the following passage, you will see that this is not true at all.
In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul - who was not physically present in Corinth - wrote to them to tell them what to do with respect to a discipline case. He said (in 5:4-5) "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So you see, Paul did not pass on his authority to another man so that he could be there in Corinth. No, Paul said, in effect, if you will do what I as an apostle now instruct you to do then I will be with you in spirit, and you will also have the power of our Lord Jesus with you, to deliver that man to Satan etc.
So, to put it simply, the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.
The apostles never wrote anything that ever has needed or ever will need correction because they were inspired by God. Surely a person of average intelligence should be able to see that this has never been true of other men in history no matter how strongly they may have believed themselves to be apostolic successors!
-- from the thread Apostolic Succession and Protestantism
The question is...was he right? Even the bloody debacle between Ursinus and Damasus (circa 366AD) ended in two popes being elected simultaneously and Ursinus being driven off with the help of the emperor. Rome is definitely screwed up...
Very well said. It is a cult of men who enrich themselves on the backs of the ignorant (ignorance which they advocate and make happen, except for the very rich who support them).
Very interesting
And Calvin?
Calvin and Hobbes (weak joke).
From what I have read about him, he believed in God but did not like any organized religion. I believe his dad was a vicar but I may be thinking about someone else.
Don’t bring common sense onto these threads : )
Read more.
Doesn’t matter; anybody, even an athiest, is their friend as long as Rome is the common enemy.
2 Timothy 2:2
Use this guideline as a measure when choosing a church...
*It was founded by Jesus Christ Himself in Mt 16:18.
*It would be built on Simon Peter, Mt 16:18.
*It would be defended by GOD Himself, Mt 16:18-19.
*It would have authority given by Jesus Christ, Mt 16:19,18:17-18.
*It would be guided by the Holy Spirit who will dwell within it, Jn 14:15-17, Act 15:28,16:6.
*It would be one and undivided, Mk 3:24-25.
*It would have one fold and one shepherd, Jn 10:16.
*It would have Priests, Bishops, and Deacons, 1Tim 3:1-13.
*It must have the Holy Eucharist celebration, Jn 6:42-70, Acts 2:42.
*It must be found in all nations, Mt 28:19.
*It must be found in all centuries, Mt 28:20.
*Jesus Christ said He would be with His Church every day, in every year, until the end of the world, Mt 28:20. (This means no gaps in time.)
What are you saying? Are you saying that he has no dog in the fight so can be impartial?
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.