Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Against Rome's Apostolic Succession Argument by Bullinger (Part 1)
Beggars All ^ | Dec 29,2013 | - James Swan

Posted on 02/16/2015 12:14:36 PM PST by RnMomof7

Sunday, December 29, 2013

Against Rome's Apostolic Succession Argument by Bullinger (Part 1)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) was a Swiss Reformer and author of a popular writing entitled The Decades. This particular writing was influential in England, highly esteemed and used as a textbook of sorts for training English clergy. Included in The Decades is a section entitled Of The Holy Catholic Church, and included therein is Bullinger's refutation of Rome's apostolic succession argument (that Rome is the true church because of an historical succession of church authority that began with Peter). Here is the first part of Bullinger's argument:

Second, the succession of doctors or pastors of the Church does not prove anything of itself without the Word of God. The champions and defenders of the papistical church boast that they have a most certain mark of the apostolic Church, that is, in the continual succession of bishops which derives from Peter by Clement the First, and so to Clement the Seventh, and to Paul the Third who died recently, and so continuing to Julius the Third, who has only just been created pope. Moreover they add that all those members are cut off which separate themselves from that church in which alone that apostolic succession is found. And we do not deny that the right succession of pastors was of great weight in the primitive Church. For those who were then called pastors were pastors indeed, and executed the office of pastors. But what kind of pastors those have been for some time who out of the rabble of cardinals,

mitred bishops and sophisters have been called pastors of the church of Rome, only those are ignorant who are altogether without understanding. The prophet Zechariah heard these words spoken to him by the Lord: "Take to thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd; for lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not look for the thing that is lost, nor seek the tender lambs, nor heal that that is hurt, nor.feed that that standeth up: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their hoofs in pieces. Woe be to the idol shepherd that forsaketh the flock," etc. Therefore by their continual succession of bishops who do not teach the Word of God sincerely or execute the office and duty of pastors, these men do not prove any more than if they were to set before the eyes of the world a company, of idols. For who dare deny that many, indeed the majority of bishops of Rome since Gregory the Great were idols and wolves and devourers like those described by the prophet Zechariah? I ask then, what can the continual succession,cf such false pastors prove? indeed, did not the later ones fill almost the whole Church with the traditions of men, and partly oppress the Church of God, and partly persecute it? In the ancient church of the Israelites there was a continual order of succession of bishops, without any interruption from Aaron to Urias, who lived under Ahaz, and to other wicked high priests who also fell away from the Word of God: to the traditions of men, and indeed to idolatry. But for all that, that succession did not prove the idolatrous high-priests, with the church which adhered to them, to be the true high-priests of God and the true Church of God. For the true prophets of God, the sound and catholic fathers, who preached the Word of God alone apart from and indeed clean against all the traditions of men, were not able to reckon up any succession of priests to whom they themselves succeeded. Yet in spite of that, they were most excellent lights, and worthy members of the Church of God, and those who believed their doctrine were neither schismatics nor heretics, but even to this day are acknowledged to be the true Church of Christ. When Christ our Lord, the blessed Son of God, taught here on earth and gathered together his Church, the succession of high_priests ranged itself with his adversaries: but that did not mean that they were the rulers of the true Church of God, and Christ of the heretical church. The apostles of our Lord could not

allege for themselves and their doctrine an unbroken succession of high-priests: for they were ordained by the Lord, who was also himself created of God the High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, outside the succession of the order of Levi. Yet the Church which was gathered by them is acknowledged by all to be the true and holy Church. The apostles themselves would not allow any to be counted their true followers and successors but those who walked uprightly in the doctrine and way of Christ: for the saying of Paul is notable. and manifest: "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ." And though he speaks these words to all the faithful, and not only to the ministers of God's Word, yet he would have the latter his followers like all other Christians, that is to say, every man in his vocation and calling. The same apostle, speaking at Miletum to the bishops of Asia, says amongst other things: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Moreover, of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw disciples after them." It is from the apostolic Church itself, indeed from the company or assembly of apostolic bishops and pastors, that Paul the apostle fetches out the wolves and devourers of the Church. But do you not think that these could have alleged the apostolic succession for themselves and their most corrupt cause, that is, that, they were descended from apostolic pastors? But since forsaking the truth they have fallen from the faith and doctrine of the apostles, their derivation and apostolic succession does not in any way help them. Therefore we conclude that of itself the continual succession of bishops does not prove anything, but on the contrary that succession which lacks the purity of evangelical and apostolic doctrine is not valid.

Source: Library of Christian Classics Vol. XXIV: Zwingli and Bullinger (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953), pp. 309-311



TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant
KEYWORDS: apostles; catholicism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: jobim

Why so hateful in your reply?

You must be referring to Martin Luther. I’m not a Lutheran nor a Protestant. Your comment missed the mark. I’m a believer in and follower of Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, and Him alone.


21 posted on 02/16/2015 1:13:18 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

This is all academic to me. I couldn’t care less about some phony priest with a funny hat who tells us he’s penniless and celibate when he lives in unparalleled luxury among a battalion of homosexuals in red dresses. The idea is ludicrous.


22 posted on 02/16/2015 1:16:33 PM PST by Dr. Thorne ("Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads." - Luke 21:28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
The devil from the hot place comes first to my mind. Your turn.

Mine too. (Thought you were referring to another group of zealots.) But, that wicked one is not in Hell...yet. That one is here, walking among us, very much interferring in men's affairs and out to rob God of every soul of man that rightfully belongs to our Creator and not the devil.
23 posted on 02/16/2015 1:17:25 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi; RnMomof7
2 John 1:9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Christians? Christian means one follows the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Would you please show where they taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe that to be part of His "church"?

24 posted on 02/16/2015 1:20:52 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
Here is our common enemy:

The devil probably really likes it when we stop talking about this guy and start picking on each other.

25 posted on 02/16/2015 1:26:40 PM PST by Slyfox (I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jobim
>>Since Luther, these attempts to undermine the TRUE HISTORICAL RECORD have never stopped.<<

True historical record? Not even the Catholic Church can prove that Linus was even a Bishop.

"Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34). [McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34.]

McBrien was a Catholic priest and Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. Information on him can be found here. He was also the general editor of the Encyclopedia of Catholicism.

That's just a tiny beginning to the proofs that Catholics have made up the "succession of popes".

26 posted on 02/16/2015 1:29:07 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

Yes, all you have to do to see that there are “bigger fish to fry” is to look at those recent pictures of the poor Christians beheaded by radical jihadists. The biggest reason for the Crusades was the lack of Christian unity against this kind of cruelty (East vs West). It is happening again. Where will you be when they once again try to extinguish Jerusalem? We had better all hang together or be beheaded separately, if we are all not run out of town first by our own domestic nemesis-the ubiquitous secular culture. It is wise to know who your real enemies are. Hint: they are not anyone who professes love of Christ.


27 posted on 02/16/2015 1:29:51 PM PST by NotTallTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Disagree. That person can do nothing at all unless Almighty God allows him to.

This war that’s been raging goes much deeper than political inclinations and political office-holders. Our common enemy has been hiding in plain view, though, except for the deceptive wool that’s been pulled over many people’s sight.


28 posted on 02/16/2015 1:33:46 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Christians? Christian means one follows the teaching of Christ and His apostles. Would you please show where they taught the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe that to be part of His "church"?

Would you please show where Christ and His Apostles taught "the Bible alone as the sole or ultimate rule of faith?"

This principle cuts both ways, if you want to be intellectually honest.

Luther's tradition doesn't show up until 14 centuries after Christ.

The Assumption can be traced back at least to the fifth century in writing. Additionally, there are no relics of Mary, which would have been prized possessions in the early Church.

There is also biblical evidence supporting Mary's Assumption.

We know from Luke that Jesus has inherited the throne of David, and from Revelation that he holds the "key of David." Jesus is the King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, the Kingdom of God, or Christ's Church.

In the ancient Davidic kingdom, the mother of the king, the "Gebirah" or "Queen Mother" held a position greater than that of the wives of the king. The Bible records her sitting on a throne at the right hand of the king.

Mary, as Jesus' mother, is the Queen Mother of the eternal, redeemed Davidic kingdom. She is the Queen of Heaven, as seen in Revelation.

The Case for the Assumption of Mary

29 posted on 02/16/2015 1:44:24 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox; Resettozero
No I really don't see the problem other than people unwilling to look at our REAL common enemy. Do you know who that is?

If one surveys all of the Catholic threads on FR, you'd be hard pressed to believe it's anyone but ignorant Protestants!

30 posted on 02/16/2015 1:56:09 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
"There were bigger “fish to fry” during the Inquisition too.."

Sounds like you need a reparation payment! Feel free to write your own check.


31 posted on 02/16/2015 1:57:42 PM PST by Wyrd bið ful aræd ("We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned" -- The Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
"If one surveys all of the Catholic threads on FR, you'd be hard pressed to believe it's anyone but ignorant Protestants!"

Substantiate your assertion.

32 posted on 02/16/2015 1:58:30 PM PST by Wyrd bið ful aræd ("We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned" -- The Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jobim
>>You can trace it - you really can! An unbroken line of succession!<<

Snicker

The Catholic Church can't even prove Linus was even a Bishop. They took is name from a list of three names listed as friends of Paul mentioned only ONCE in scripture and not in any secular or other writings.

The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century. [Schatz, Klaus (1996). Papal Primacy. Liturgical Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780814655221.]

The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria [Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Book VII, chapter 7.7]

The title was from the early 3rd century a general term used to refer to all bishops. ["Pope", Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2005]

Oooops. What's this "unbroken line" nonsense?

33 posted on 02/16/2015 2:00:06 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd

On behalf of the Christians who were martyred during those epochs, the Lord rebuke you.


34 posted on 02/16/2015 2:01:37 PM PST by Resettozero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
>>The best progress Christianity has had is when honest individuals recognize what they have in common and build from that.<<

Well you should love this pope working to bring all religions together in a "get along" prayer fest and one world religion. And how about that statement by the Catholic Church that you and the Muslims serve the same god!

35 posted on 02/16/2015 2:03:54 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wyrd bið ful aræd
Substantiate your assertion.

FR keyword = Catholic
FR topic = Catholic

36 posted on 02/16/2015 2:07:05 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi
You’d think there were bigger fish to fry...like the head chopping satanic death cult knocking on our door - not your Christian brethren (yes, Christian).

Do you think it wise to take the time to comment on these Protestant-Catholic threads when there are bigger fish to fry? Isn't there another bigger fish to fry thread that needs your attention? You could just go ahead and start the thread that you think should have been started instead of this one.

37 posted on 02/16/2015 2:07:36 PM PST by CommerceComet (Ignore the GOP-e. Cruz to victory in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Resettozero
"On behalf of the Christians who were martyred during those epochs, the Lord rebuke you."

Rebukes me, through you? God's own spokesman are you? And here I was thinking you guys didn't approve of popes.

Oh, and did you want a check as well?

38 posted on 02/16/2015 2:08:55 PM PST by Wyrd bið ful aræd ("We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned" -- The Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
>>Would you please show where Christ and His Apostles taught "the Bible alone as the sole or ultimate rule of faith?"<<

Galatians 1:9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God's curse!

"It should be noted that though many might write concerning Catholic truth, there is this difference that those who wrote the canonical Scripture, the Evangelists and Apostles, and the like, so constantly assert it that they leave no room for doubt. That is what he means when he says 'we know his witness is true.' Galatians 1:9, "If anyone preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be anathema!" The reason is that only canonical Scripture is a measure of faith. Others however so wrote of the truth that they should not be believed save insofar as they say true things." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John 21) [(Romae: Marietti E ditori Ltd., 1952) n. 2656, p. 488.]

In Latin: "Cuius ratio est, quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei."

Go figure! Sola Scriptura way before Luther! And in comments made on Galatians 1:9 no less!

39 posted on 02/16/2015 2:11:52 PM PST by CynicalBear (For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Anybody could have punched in the keyword "Catholic." Doing so does not in the slightest provide proof that Catholic posters view Protestants as more problematic than Muslims.

If you are prosecuting a murder case and the defending lawyer asks for the murder weapon, you can't toss him a Mossberg catalog.

Specifics Alex, specifics.

40 posted on 02/16/2015 2:13:16 PM PST by Wyrd bið ful aræd ("We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned" -- The Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson