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

Beggars All ^ | Dec 29,2013 | - James Swan

[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

[boatbums]

No, no really. I've about given up on the "my religion is better than your religion" game. It's stupid and time is too short. I say to hell with it.

Does that mean you won't be participating anymore on Catholic-posted threads doing that, either? (i.e.; A Protestant Historian Discovers the Catholic Church – Conversion Story of A. David Anders, Ph.D. )?

[boatbums]

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.

I don't know what year the book was written. Henry VIII would certainly have been a major proponent if he were alive to read it. What Henry did was tantamount to declaring himself pope in his country. Not going to spend the time.

You ought to take the time when you make unfounded assertions on a thread. Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death (January, 1547). You should know that Henry was NOT a proponent of Luther or the European Reformation. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation:

The English Reformation was a series of events in 16th century England by which the Church of England broke away from the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

These events were, in part, associated with the wider process of the European Protestant Reformation, a religious and political movement that affected the practice of Christianity across most of Europe during this period. Many factors contributed to the process: the decline of feudalism and the rise of nationalism, the rise of the common law, the invention of the printing press and increased circulation of the Bible, the transmission of new knowledge and ideas among scholars, the upper and middle classes and readers in general. However, the various phases of the English Reformation, which also covered Wales and Ireland, were largely driven by changes in government policy, to which public opinion gradually accommodated itself.

Based on Henry VIII's desire for an annulment of his marriage (first requested of Pope Clement VII in 1527), the English Reformation was at the outset more of a political affair than a theological dispute. The reality of political differences between Rome and England allowed growing theological disputes to come to the fore.[1] Until the break with Rome, it was the Pope and general councils of the Church that decided doctrine. Church law was governed by the code of canon law with final jurisdiction in Rome. Church taxes were paid straight to Rome, and the Pope had the final word in the appointment of bishops.

The break with Rome was effected by a series of acts of Parliament passed between 1532 and 1534, among them the 1534 Act of Supremacy which declared that Henry was the "Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England".[2] (This title was renounced by Mary I in 1553 in the process of restoring papal jurisdiction; when Elizabeth I reasserted the royal supremacy in 1559 her title was Supreme Governor.)[2] Final authority in doctrinal and legal disputes now rested with the monarch, and the papacy was deprived of revenue and the final say on the appointment of bishops.

The theology and liturgy of the Church of England became markedly Protestant during the reign of Henry's son Edward VI largely along lines laid down by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Under Mary, the whole process was reversed and the Church of England was again placed under papal jurisdiction. Soon after, Elizabeth reintroduced the Protestant faith but in a more moderate manner. The structure and theology of the church was a matter of fierce dispute for generations.

The violent aspect of these disputes, manifested in the English Civil Wars, ended when the last Catholic monarch, James II, was deposed, and Parliament asked William and Mary to rule jointly in conjunction with the English Bill of Rights in (the "Glorious Revolution") in 1688, from which emerged a church polity with an established church and a number of non-conformist churches whose members at first suffered various civil disabilities but which were removed over time. The legacy of the past Catholic Establishment remained an issue for some time, and still exists today. A substantial minority remained Roman Catholic in England, and in an effort to disestablish it from British systems, their church organisation remained illegal until the 19th century.

[boatbums]

And, let's not forget that Solomon's mom was Bathsheba...you know, the adulterous wife that had an affair with King David, got pregnant, and after her husband was sent into battle for a sure death, married the king. Are RCs sure they want Mary compared to her?

[Mark17]

I look forward to the day I meet Mary in heaven. I've always wondered if she knew who Jesus really was before the resurrection. I'm inclined to believe she thought He was a prophet, maybe the Messiah, but I doubt she had any idea He was God in man.

My opinion is, you're correct, but I am not 100% sure. There is no doubt Jesus' half brothers did not believe in Him, according to John 7, but I think they became believers later. Better late than never.

[boatbums]

We're gettin’ ice/sleet here! Temp right now is 28 and there's about an inch of ice/snow on the surfaces. Will get down to 7 on Wednesday with snow showers predicted. It's been a relatively mild winter here in NC so far. Guess we're due! I'm with you MamaB, I'm looking forward to Spring - it's my favorite season here.

[boatbums]

Good info to keep for reference. Thanks. Funny how these threads quickly divert to arguments about Mary no matter how they start out.

[Mark17]

Christian brethren can’t multitask???

I was an air traffic controller. I had to multitask, just to survive my 8 hour shift. 😄😄😃😊

[Grateful2God]

"You should know that Henry was NOT a proponent of Luther or the European Reformation."

Never said he was.

[Grateful2God]

Good reads from: Famous Trials by Douglas O. Linder (2015)
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY
(UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW

Leviticus & The King's Great Matter

Acts of Parliament
Scroll to the bottom: the two Acts of Succession and The Treasons Act are to be found there.

The Oath

[Grateful2God]

From Britannica.com:

(Excerpt) Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex
Written by Sir Geoffrey R. Elton
Last Updated 8-11-2013

Thomas Cromwell, earl of Essex, (born c. 1485, Putney, near London—died July 28, 1540, probably London), principal adviser (1532–40) to England’s Henry VIII, chiefly responsible for establishing the Reformation in England, for the dissolution of the monasteries, and for strengthening the royal administration...
...Cromwell, whose forthright and clear-sighted temper was less well suited to the conduct of foreign affairs than was Henry VIII’s skillful opportunism, involved himself in projects of a Lutheran alliance distasteful to the King who wished to stand on Catholic orthodoxy.

[Carpe Cerevisi]

How about starting a thread on your personal reflections on douchebaggery and I’ll be sure to leave a comment for you.

[CynicalBear]

So they condemned the Gnostics then embrassed one of their beliefs!! How Catholic of them!

[MamaB]

It is 17 here. Even my house is ready for spring. Stay warm.

[stonehouse01]

Bullinger is full of Bull and has no authority. His opinion is certianly not more worthy of more merit than for example, St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Even a cursory reading of the still extent letters of St. Ignatius, Third Bishop of Antioch (A.D. 110) reveal that the Roman Church and the Greek orthodox Church have retained the true nature of the Apostolic Church.

St. Ignatius presents a clear view in his letters of the catholic, hierarchical and monarchical structure of the very earliest Church: (quote)

“Where the Bishop is, let there the people be, as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church”.

Ignatius commented extensively on the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Don’t heed the errors of the later protestant revisionists of history; read St. Ignatius 7 letters firsthand.

[CommerceComet]

How about starting a thread on your personal reflections on douchebaggery and I’ll be sure to leave a comment for you.

I would but the self-appointed thread monitors would complain that there are bigger fish to fry.

[roamer_1]

You can trace it - you really can!

No, you really can't.

[wmfights]

My opinion is, you're correct, but I am not 100% sure.

Thank you.

There is no doubt Jesus' half brothers did not believe in Him, according to John 7, but I think they became believers later. Better late than never.

I agree with you.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that none of them really knew who HE was. I believe all a Christian has to do is read Scripture and apply God given commonsense to see this truth. Unfortunately so many people let others dictate what they may believe that when heresy starts it becomes an orthodoxy fairly quickly for these people.

You can see how ridiculous this Maryolatry is just by looking up "Sabbatine Privilege".

[boatbums]

Bullinger is full of Bull and has no authority. His opinion is certianly not more worthy of more merit than for example, St. Ignatius of Antioch:

What gives Ignatius more authority than Bullinger? Are you aware that the so-called letters of Ignatius of Antioch are considered forgeries by many? See The Ignatian Forgeries. There is adequate evidence that what some believe are genuine letters from Ignatius are really forgeries written at least a century or later after his lifetime. From the link above:

We take the view that all of Ignatius' writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius' writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops) , deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints. At this point in history, congregations were still autonomous and independent, but we also see the seeds of development for the Papal system, where one man rules over all churches world wide which first occurred in 606 AD.

Shouldn't we ALL be under the authority of Scripture rather than individuals no matter how far back they supposedly go?