Replies

[HD:] Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession.

You should read the Bible every once in a while, Harley.

James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:9

Perhaps you should have clarified which Bible you meant, and in what context. Here's what mine says IN context:

Gal. 2: 6-9 : 6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (emphasis added)

It seems pretty clear to me that the James, Peter and John in verse 9 are the same people Paul is talking about in verse 6, wouldn't you agree? Is Paul not being CRYSTAL clear that he got his authority in the exact same way that Peter got his? If you interpret verse 9 to be a laying on of hands, then the entire passage is complete gibberish and meaningless. Your version also does not include the bolded part. The Apostles recognized the grace that Paul had, they did not grant it.

I agree that in the case of St. Paul the Church had to do something extraordinary: to recognize grace given St. Paul through private revelation that he had. If Harley meant that S.t Paul was not consecrated through apostolic succession in the same way, say, Timothy was consecrated, then of course he was right. However, the passage in Galatians states that St. Paul was admitted into the fellowship of Apostles at some point. Whether or not that act can be called consecration is a semantical matter, as it was not to be repeated another time.

I am sure Harley recognized "You should read the Bible once in a while" as a common teasing that the Catholics are hearing all the time. Was my tease justified here? In his 5,629 Harley wrote:

Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession. He was appointed by God and this was verified by Ananias in a vision. Now at the very least, if there were an Apostolic succession as you suppose, and Peter was the head of the Church, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have revealed Paul to Peter instead of Ananias, who wasn’t even an apostle? Instead the scriptures states that Ananias was a “disciple”-not even a church leader. And it was Ananias who laid hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. It was after visiting with Ananias that Paul “immediately when out and preached”. My, my. He didn’t even get blessed by the first Pope.

As you can see Harley had claimed that Paul was not in any way blessed by St. Peter, and he confused healing by Ananias with a consecration to episcopate. My reaction was to the entire above quoted paragraph, but to conserve space I only quoted a short segment of it in my response.

Your version also does not include the bolded part.

Sure it does, I just checked. It is in the original. The only difference is that both King James and Douay place the "grace" clause in the beginning of the sentence, as is in the original.