Rome's Meaningless Claim to "Unbroken Chain Of Succession"

Thoughts of Francis Turrretin ^ | November 26, 2010 | TurretinFan

[af_vet_1981]

I know, right? And the thing is, they never even listen to what they are saying!

False, if you are writing of me. Which Protestant derived faith community did you abandon ? What drove that decision ?

[BlueDragon]

Posts have been deleted for that exact same sort of question albeit when it was a Catholic asking that question of an anti-Catholic.

I don't believe that.

But I do notice that of the more primary questions ---- none were answered.

[MamaB]

Something happened years ago which devastated me. I chose to forgive. People think I am nuttier than I am for that. But, like I told them, Jesus taught forgiveness. If I had held a grudge, it would have been me “paying the price.”.

[af_vet_1981]

Why do you add, "so to speak"?

It is used to show that what I am writing is not to be understood as a pro forma acceptance of the use of the term in and of itself. When a Protestant denomination or derived faith community marries two people of the same gender, is it a marriage, so to speak ?

[MamaB]

I just have to LOL.

[MamaB]

The Lord’s Prayer was an example on how to pray.

[Alex Murphy]

....there are always gaps and breaks in the chain...But there is no actual standard of what gap of time is acceptable, and what gap would break succession. Thus, it is simply impossible to say what gap is acceptable. For example, according to a typical list of popes (example) there was no pope during the whole years 259, 305-307, 639, 1242, 1269-1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416, not to mention the many partial years. That's over a half dozen breaks of over a year.

....Being deposed?
....Being outrageously sinful?
....Being a heretic?
....Leaving Rome?
....Needing an Ecumenical Council to Jump-Start it?

....How much more broken could it really get?

Offering up the guise of apostolic succession raises all sorts of questions when Rome has to "self-correct" itself from bad popes. The unreliability of apostolic succession is demonstrated by Rome's having chosen "bad" popes in the first place, demonstrating that they failed to heed the infallible and inerrant guidance of their predecessors:

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 Church

The 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

[kinsman redeemer]

...do you still say the "Our Father ?"

I read Mt 6:9-13 and Lk 11:2-4 and I learn the form of prayer- just as the Lord intended.

Do you hunt rabbits?

o do you agree that the so-called Sinner's Prayer is a relatively new marketing tool to generate so-called decisions in certain denominations, faith communities, and sects ?
o Which Protestant derived group baptized you, so to speak ?
o do you still say the "Our Father ?"

Each of your questions is antagonistic ("so-called", "marketing tool", "derived group", and "so to speak". Elsewhere in the forum you take the same tact.

.

You don't respond to the content of what I say, you respond with new questions.

Therefore, Good-bye.

[RnMomof7]

Bump !!

[NRx]

” You mean Rome can’t be one lung and the earthly head all at the same time? No lung at all? Not part of the One Undivided?

Just what are you trying to say?”

Rome is either THE CHURCH or she is at the very least in schism from it.

“...from so-called Orthodox perspective, just where is the RCC left?”

Rome has been in schism from the Church for centuries and has made some disturbing additions to the Deposit of the Faith.

“Or United as One, even though they have some wacky ideas like all must be subject to the bishop of Rome and the magical mystery tour (RC) Magesterium?”

See above. The claims of the First Vatican Council
are universally rejected in Orthodoxy as a theological innovation.

[RnMomof7]

Ugg. The annulment issue has been explained to you so many times. Typing your lie over and over again doesn’t make it true

Can you show us where Christ gave the apostles the infallible authority to decide what marriages HE CONSIDERS" INVALID"?

The audacity of Rome to think it can read the mind of God.. and know what marriages He has not "joined together" ...that He has had allowed to live in fornication and produce a bunch of bastards...

Annulments are nothing but Rome dancing around divorce ...

[Tao Yin]

You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

I'm not sure you understand how this protestant thing works. Sure, some believe in the anything goes, personal interpretation, what the words says to me today approach.

Others are part of a disciplined group of believers who are members of declared synods: people who walk together in faith. As part of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, we hold that Scripture is the supreme Truth and the Book of Concord is in complete agreement with that Truth.

Members of our synod are not free to interpret any verse in any way they see fit. If their interpretation disagrees with our confessional documents, their errors will be shown in scripture. If they maintain their error, pastors can be removed from office, while a member of the laity may be refused communion if the error is grave enough.

[BlueDragon]

See above. The claims of the First Vatican Council are universally rejected in Orthodoxy as a theological innovation.

I think Ratzinger, before he was 'pope' anyway, understood what you mean, and all but concedes the point...

From page 198 of Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology;

"We may not interpret as truth that which is, in reality, a historical development with a more or less close relationship to truth."

Check the context. He knew then that "papacy" as defined by Rome is not actual truth.

A "more or less" close relationship?

He's trying to apologize for the error(s) which have built up over the centuries, without having to confess that they (the RCC) are truly wrong to have developed such theological monstrosities as they have.

And then here, apparently speaking to [Roman] Catholics;

Nor is it possible, on the other hand for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding upon all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

[RnMomof7]

OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS NOTED IN THE CATECHISM...This is what catholics have to believe as we've been told time and time again.

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day.204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation,205 permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compared to this posting at catholic.com Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence
In other words....THEIR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE!!!!!!!!

Ealgone..do not confuse them with facts....

The truth is the catechism is not an infallible document and is subject to change or "reinterpretation "

Every sermon they hear is just the personal interpretation of the priest.. every RC book they read , every apologist they read, is all nothing more than personal opinion

[RnMomof7]

It’s from New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. This is the truth.

A fallible source with a Roman agenda ...hardly an unbiased source

[avenir]

Reading or listening (highly recommended) to Scripture YOURSELF, day after day, will help you understand what it MEANS.

This assumes you are a believer in Jesus Christ and have been given the Holy Spirit and have your ear inclined to Him. He reveals Himself to babes, no scholarship required (though not bad in itself, scholarship puffs up many).

If the above is true of you, you can be shown what correct interpretations are by the Lord. Yes, he uses other believers in our lives, but the idea that you cannot seek God YOURSELF and get real truth from Him is plainly false.

Seeking Him in truth should have alarm bells going off in your spirit when someone claims to be channeling a message from Christ’s earthly mother. Knowing His word will enable you to see clearly the Serpent behind the coy channeled messages, too.

So stop criticizing “Protestants” for seeking to know Him through Scripture and try it out for yourself. If you find in HIS word a blazing expose of the falsehood of your church’s teachings then have the integrity before God to challenge and refuse any such teachings.

[kinsman redeemer]

You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

2 Tim 2:15 seems like a good place to get resolution to this problem - if it exists. Right division is the key. You have to WANT to understand the entirety of the Word. Picking and choosing what to hang onto and ignoring the other part of "All" brings on heresy.

2 Tim 3:16 is also a benefit to learn the purpose of studying and knowing God's Word. There's a list worth memorizing!

Isn't God's Word AMAZING?? It has everything you need - Right There!

[CynicalBear]

The RCC has given them no alternative but to interpret for themselves.

[RnMomof7]

The RCC has given them no alternative but to interpret for themselves.

And yet has the nerve to claim only "the church" can do it...so the sheeple think they are hearing truth when their priest does a homily..when it is nothing more than the opinion of a man

[Elsie]

I know exactly what you mean!