Posted on 06/12/2015 3:29:33 PM PDT by NYer
Legitimate succession was always a matter of concern in biblical religion. The book of Genesis is careful to give the lineage of the patriarchs, from the first man, Adam, to Noah (Gen. 5). The book of Exodus takes similar care as it sets down the priestly generations (Exod. 6). The Chronicles make clear that the monarchy was legitimately passed from father to son (1 Chron. 3). Indeed, the Old Testament histories assure us that “all Israel was enrolled by genealogies” (1 Chron. 9:1).
This article is from the Catholic Viewer’s Guide to AD: The Bible Continues (airs Sundays at 9/8c). Read more of this fascinating history in Ministers and Martyrs.
And the concern for lineage did not pass away in the New Testament. To establish Jesus’ credentials as Messiah, the Gospels detailed His lineage through generations, going back to Abraham (Mt. 1) and even through Adam to God (Luke 3).
In the Old Testament, succession took place in the natural order, through genetic transmission. In the apostolic age, we see a new principle at work. St. Paul was a man who made a firm commitment to live a celibate life (see 1 Cor. 7:1, 7-8), yet he could pass along the grace he had received — by means of the same act by which he himself received the grace: the laying on of hands (Acts 13:2-3).
St. Paul discussed the act in his later letters to Timothy, whom he had ordained (1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6). From Paul we learn that ordination is a “gift of God,” although it is conferred by one man upon another. We know that it is a supernatural event consummated by the prayers of those who are authorized to give such “prophetic utterance.” We know that the gift is given through “elders” in the Faith to those of a new generation in ministry — who will in turn give it to another generation. As the Father sent the Son, so the Son sent the Apostles — and so the Apostles sent their disciples to serve as bishops.
As time passed and the Faith spread to new lands, the Church valued apostolic succession all the more. It was a safeguard against heresy. The Church could point to a succession that was public and sacramental, whose authenticity could be easily verified. One of Paul’s Roman disciples, a man named Clement, spoke of the matter:
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. Having received their orders . . . they went forth with the good news that the kingdom of God was to come. So preaching everywhere, in country and town, they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons to those who should believe. . . .
Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention over the office of bishop. That is why, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterward they gave the offices a permanent character, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Saint Clement of Rome, To the Corinthians 42:1-4; 44:1-2).
And so they still succeed today, to the offices established by the Apostles.
Well; it's CLEAR to me!
“Except that no replacement Apostles procedure was commanded nor taught in Scripture.”
Peter clearly says that scripture teaches it:
“For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms: “’May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “’May another take his place of leadership.’
And the word translated as “place” there is really “office”. The Greek work is really (when we think of common English usage) “bishopric” - just as it is translated in the KJV.
Bishops. Apostolic Succession.
“Please show where “the teaching” included the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.”
Notice that it doesn’t say that the teaching must be in scripture explicitly? Notice how it says in “accordance” with rather than “according to sola scriptura”? Thus, here is the teaching you asked for: http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
The typical anti-Catholic would now claim he actually wanted something according to sola scriptura instead. What will you do?
First of all the verse says nothing at all about scripture. Please read the verse again.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Now, please prove that the apostles taught (preached) the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it. If you cannot prove that the apostles taught it then we must consider the Catholic Church accursed by God.
Catholics like to trot out this "tradition" as if it magically stupefies people. Yet they can't show us that what the Catholic Church calls tradition is exactly what the apostles meant when they wrote the word "tradition". Nor can they show us that the two are the same thing.
We have the above words of Paul to warn us of those who want to make up stuff and claim it to be from the apostles. Then we have his words in the following verse.
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
Now, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write those words. Do you want to try to say that the Holy Spirit didn't know what was going to be written and preserved for us today? Are you trying to tell me that the Holy Spirit didn't understand that what the apostles wrote would be considered scripture?
Do you expect us to take the words of some man or men over what the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to write? How does that make Catholics any different then Mormons, Muslims, JWs, or any other religion that relies on some writer other than the apostles? Either prove that what the Catholic Church calls tradition is exactly the same as what the apostles called tradition and that it was written down or expect us to consider whatever the Catholic Church teaches to be accursed just as the Holy Spirit through Paul told us to do.
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
1 Corinthians 4:6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
So your task should be easy. Simply show that that apostles taught the assumption of Mary and that it was written. The site you referenced did NOT show either of those things. I will therefore consider the teaching of the Catholic Church to be accursed just as the Holy Spirit through Paul told us to do.
“we have preached to you”
Right. Not sola scriptura.
“”Do not go beyond what is written.””
Which appears to be about Paul’s writings to Corinth he just made about man’s role in God’s work.
“Simply show that that apostles taught the assumption of Mary and that it was written.”
Ah, just predicted now the claim is about sola scriptura when that was not what was demanded earlier. Since sola scriptura is no where taught in scripture it is self-refuting. Since you asked for the teaching - and were given it in a previous post (a direct link that is) - your question was answered. Changing your question now to be about sola scriptura won’t help you.
“I will therefore consider the teaching of the Catholic Church to be accursed just as the Holy Spirit through Paul told us to do.”
A typical anti-Catholic probably would consider “the teaching of the Catholic Church to be accursed” in any case. Bigotry closes the mind after all. Anti-Catholicism: lead paint chips for the mind.
“Peter clearly says that scripture teaches it:”
The passage was not directly about Judas. Peter used this passage, with his other knowledge of 12 thrones for 12 Apostles to replace “his office.”
All full now.
In revelation 21, there are 12 foundations, each with the name of an Apostle. All full now.
Peter is fulfilling scripture. The Church is now. Clearly the number of bishops would not be limited to 12 - otherwise Paul would not have discussed the issue as he did.
No, it's not about sola scriptura. You can use whatever source you want to prove that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary. If Catholics can't do that then they should just man up and admit it's made up from assumptions and leave it at that. That is after all what the site you sent to me says.
Your point is ludicrous. There were 12 original Apostles - after Judas betrayed Christ - then Matthew was selected to replace him. However, Paul, was also an Apostle, but not one of the original 12. The foundations of the New Jerusalem are in honor of the original 12 - all who died a martyr’s death - except for John. And, the Apostles planted churches - duh! We don’t find the word missionary in the Bible, but, their role is to evangelize and plant churches. Exactly, what the Apostles in the Bible did.
Dig deeper.
Peter replaced Judas so that the Office of Apostle was filled.
All believers are “sent”, but only 12 Apostles hold the Office and will sit on the Throne and are called the foundation of the Church.
Here’s what you wrote:
“Please show where “the teaching” included the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.”
I posted a link to that teaching. You’ll just have to live with it.
No, you didn't. Paul was talking about what THEY the apostles taught. In no way did the link you posted show that the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
you wrote: “Please show where “the teaching” included the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it.”
I posted a link to that teaching. http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html
Deny it all you want, but there it is.
You need to dig deeper - Peter DID not replace Judas - Matthew did.
“You need to dig deeper - Peter DID not replace Judas - Matthew did.”
I don’t think we are using the word “replace” in the same way.
I will rephrase. Peter and tha apostles went through the process of filling the Office Judas abandoned. It resulted in the choice of a twelfth Apostle.
I think we are using the word replace in 2 different ways - the original 11 cast lots to fill Judas’s place. Thus, we are on the same page with this. LOL
Since sola scriptura is no where taught in scripture it is self-refuting.
Really?
This from a person who accepts that since Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind; then Mary could have bveen; too?
Catholicism has NO problem with taking something written in the Bible and trying to APPLY it elsewhere.
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.