(Jesus instituted His Church with a clear line of Apostolic succession.)
“He did?”
Yes, He did. And the Church still stands after 2,000 years, the original Universal Church of Christ.
“We see apostles, but where you see any successors in Scripture”
The error of Sola Scriptura is well known and is not to be found in even the Bible.
Saint John tells us in his gospel that Jesus said and did far more things than were actually written down in the Bible …John 21:25.
Nonetheless…
Jesus speaking to Peter... I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. — Matthew 16:18-19
Jesus speaking to the apostles... Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning any thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. — Matthew 18:18-19
Jesus again speaking to the apostles... after he had sealed the New Covenant with his own blood... When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. — John 20:22-23
The apostles would lay hands upon those whom they chose to succeed them in apostolic authority. We see the first incident of this immediately after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ...
“And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” — Acts 1:23-26
“The apostle James was martyred, (Acts 12:2) but there is actually zero mention of any successor for him. (What a missed opportunity one might say for such a cardinal doctrine”
Most of the writings on the Apostles were lost or not found. The fact that something is not mentioned in Scripture, does not make that “something” an untruth. What we do know is that succession itself existed by the laying on of hands. And in fact Jesus said it was so.
The first non-biblical Christian authors, such as St. Clement, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, write specifically of succession, so we know it was completed.
And even in Catholic historians such as Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor] writes...
Klaus Schatz may be a theologian, but his work here is purely historical development…………
” institutions of papal primacy and Roman infallibility do appear as a constant feature of the Roman church going back to the earliest information we possess.” Writing from the historical basis, we have partial information for various reason from which to properly assess from an historical perspective.
But I’d have to note that I don’t know this particular author or his inclinations. There are many within the Church who seek to do what they will to prop up their particular belief in what they perceive as unsound doctrine. I make no judgments as to what this author’s motivations were. However, I will point out that he is a Jesuit lol.
I think it is a good idea that you are reading Catholic Church history. I’m sure you will read those Catholic historians that study and write from both an historical and theological perspective. Seriously, I will have more to write about Klaus Schatz when I can get the time to read him. There are some obvious flaws in his conclusions, however, and I will write about them on Thursday.
Yes, He did. And the Church still stands after 2,000 years, the original Universal Church of Christ.
I see that you are appealing to me on the evangelical basis of determining truth in order to persuade me to simply trust in Rome for assurance of truth. However, your assertion here is simply begging the question, as this does not establish that there were apostolic successors after Judas, or that those in the Roman Catholic Church are indeed the successors to the 12 apostles, for which only one was supplied to maintain division number. The contrasting lack of power, among other things, of Rome's supposed apostolic successors, etc. testifies to the contrary, as does even their manner of elections.
The error of Sola Scriptura is well known and is not to be found in even the Bible.
That is incorrect. As said, and in contrast to an infallible magisterium or nebulous oral tradition, that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, is abundantly evidenced .
In addition, the material sufficiency of Scripture provides for recognizing writings as being of God and therefore additions to additions to in Scripture and thus for a Canon. As regards formal sufficiency, God has always provided and made it apparent the means of salvation, pointing to Christ, and basically what is required of man to walk in fellowship with him.
Saint John tells us in his gospel that Jesus said and did far more things than were actually written down in the Bible …John 21:25.
It seems that we have come to the point when more things things I have written are ignored, for as said two days ago, "Nor does holding Scripture supreme and sufficient mean that all that can be known is written, as Scripture states otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but all that is needed is either formally or materially provided."
This is the interpretation, and yours does not even enjoy unanimous consent of the fathers, and even an alternative, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (CCC 424) is also affirmed by Rome.
Nowhere in the rest of Scripture is Peter said to be the rock upon which the church is built. In stark contrast, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)
Neither those this does not establish the claims of Rome, despite the fondness of RCs for it, as it is spoken to all the disciples in simply establishes the basis for judgment in the church as regards personal disputes (“brother shall trespass against thee”). This is seen in principle in the government and jurisprudence of the Old Testament, (Dt. 1:13-17; 19:15) which the writers so often hearken back to, and in application, the apostle Paul writes, “If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.” (1 Corinthians 6:4) A larger application of binding and loosing however, is seen in dealing with doctrinal disputes, such as Acts 15. And wherein after the testimony of Paul and Barnabas and Peter and his appeal, James provides the definitive sentence in this disciplinary matter, to which the whole church concurs, the confirmation of God granting the Gentiles repentance (Is. 11:10; Amos 9:11,12; Joel. 2:28; Gen. 22:18; Is. 41:22; cf. Acts 11:18) as well is the obedience enjoined upon them having clear scriptural substantiation. (Gen. 34:2,27; 35:2; Ex. 20:3-5; Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; Rm. 15:8-12,19; Num. 23:19 Amos 9:11-12) This was the basis for our assurance, not the premise of assured infallibility. And this magisterial oversight is applicable and sees its application in any true church, while I have already on the ideal of a universal centralized magisterium and the lack that what prevents it.
This is another text taken out of context. Besides more than the apostles being present when these words are spoken, (cf. Lk. 24:13ff) what Catholicism has done with in turning this and similar texts into its sacrament of confession is to take the aspect of binding and loosing out of its Biblical context. In the Old Testament the judges would adjudicate hard cases, and the decision was to be accepted, and thus they were bound in their guilt or loosed from it. (Dt. 17) Men such as the apostles had more veracity and power than they, as we see in acts chapter 5 with two dead people.
What the normative power of binding and loosing is manifest to be in the New Testament is that of exercising discipline such as in 1 Corinthians 5, and special cases of intercession such as James chapter 5:14,15, and which it is likely that the man was being chastised for some unknown unrepentant sin, for which merciful intercession may be made. And which evangelical pastors engage in. And frankly, the Catholic sacrament of last rites which James 5 is invoked, stands in contrast to it, as the former is usually a precursor death, not of healing.
The fact is that nowhere do we see disciples coming to NT pastors to have sins forgiven. And when a New Testament pastor did tell his a pastor he was guilty, he was told himself to pray to God that perhaps the thought of his heart would be forgiven him. Upon which the man asked for intercessory prayer, (Acts 8:22-24) which is scriptural, but there is nothing about Peter regularly hearing confessions and in order to grant absolution.
None of the other so-called proof texts Roman Catholics invoke constitutes Catholic confession in which the people regularly have to come to pastors to find forgiveness of sins. Confession itself is good and right, but the only confession commanded in Scripture is that which is exhorted in James 5, which is a general expectation to confess sins one to another, not simply to pastors, and pray for healing. “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16) Being a righteous man is not restricted to pastors, though they should be the primacy examples of such. Meanwhile, believers are promised, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9) with no mention of a priest.
in addition, Christ is the ONLY pastor the Holy Spirit titles "priest" (hiereus) in the NT church, while all believers constitute the only priesthood of the NT church, as Peter writes, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Rv. 1:6; 20:5) as all engage in offering spiritual sacrifices, (Rm. 12:2; Heb. 13:15) The attempt to render presbuteros as hiereus is etymological extrapolation based on imposed functional equivalence, assigning to pastors a unique sacrificial function which they nowhere are given, and thus taking presbuteros which means senior/elder, to have the same as meaning as hiereus, which is never used by the Holy Spirit for NT pastors, but which are part of the general priesthood of all believers.. See more here.
The apostles would lay hands upon those whom they chose to succeed them in apostolic authority.
Once again, besides apparently missing when I have written before, you are engaging in unwanted extrapolation. For as said, there is only one apostolic successor mentioned in Scripture, which was to maintain the number of the original twelve, thus,only one was chosen, (Acts 1:15-26; Rv. 21:14) and none for the martyred apostle James, (Acts 12:2) nor did the apostle Paul in his way to expected martyrdom, make any mention of another apostle taking his place, nor did Peter. Instead, pastors, such as Timothy, were commissioned to carry on the work.
In addition, it was not simply the apostles, who laid hands up on men, but Ananias, who was simply called “a certain disciple” “a devout man,” was the one who laid hands of Paul and conveying the Holy Spirit and then baptize him. (Acts 9:10-18) And prophets and teachers also were the ones who laid their hands on Barnabas and Paul in sending them forth to preach under the direction of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 13:1-3) Nor is authentically ordaining and commissioning men to ministry in the body of Christ unique to Catholicism, nor does historical descent constitute perpetual spiritual authenticity in the body of Christ.
Most of the writings on the Apostles were lost or not found. The fact that something is not mentioned in Scripture, does not make that “something” an untruth.
Please. Mormons love that line of reasoning, but this is not a matter of what may be true, but of doctrine, and you do not build doctrines on silence. It is simply untenable to hold that Almighty God would fail to record a successor to James, which is only in the 12th chapter of Acts, or any manifest mention of one by any of the other apostles expecting martyrdom, with apostolic succession being such a cardinal doctrine. But again, RCs much rely upon arguments from silence in trying to support traditions of men, which really have oral tradition as there basis, from Scripture, such as in the perpetual virginity of Mary, even though it is a characteristic of the Holy Spirit to make mention of notable aspects of persons of interest.
You could also argue that since we apparently will have a small amount of what the so-called church fathers wrote (and most of what we do have on the Internet is the work of Anglicans), then they believed in the bodily Assumption of Mary from the earliest centuries, contrary to the evidence we do have. But, which would simply be a speculative weak argument, nor do their writings carry the weight of Scripture authored by the Holy Spirit, who provides manifest scriptural evidence for primary doctrines.
The first non-biblical Christian authors, such as St. Clement, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, write specifically of succession, so we know it was completed.
Which neither validates them as being successors the apostles, nor translates into Rome being infallible and the church of the New Testament today. It is simply a critically different and presumptuous church. God can raise from the stones, men with the faith of Peter to continue to build his church as the body of Christ, manifest wherever faith worketh by love in accordance with the Scriptures.
Klaus Schatz may be a theologian, but his work here is purely historical development……There are many within the Church who seek to do what they will to prop up their particular belief in what they perceive as unsound doctrine.
That is the normal out, despite the work of many other modern researchers i linked to. They cannot be right at the disturb the image of the New Testament church looking to a papacy in Rome reigning supreme over the church as its infallible head, as the rock Matthew 16:18. Yet is Schatz is not trying to refute apostolic succession, but is seeking to find a way to support it while being honest in the light of what history shows. Schatz concludes, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time”,” and he goes on to seek support for that as a development.]
However, I will point out that he is a Jesuit lol.
However it's your church, which you promote, that elected one. And Schatz is far from alone, while Scripture is sufficient to manifest Romans is not what she claims to be.
I think it is a good idea that you are reading Catholic Church history.
And the more I do in a letter Scripture the more I realize how much the church made erroneous traditions of men into doctrine, despite pious man, and needed critical reformation, which was never fully realized, and some of what was we are going back on. And I am much a work in progress, and in need of such, as well.