ECT Apostolic Succession

[john w]

If they do that, we'll have to call the man on 'em.

Had I listened to you, Mayor, I would have called the man, to fix my microwave oven,and he would have charged me $160, although I could pick up a new one from my friend, Miss "Microwave" Lesch, for $120. And she would have thrown in some free sawdust, to line the microwave. You beat everything, Mayor.

 

[Danoh]

All I strive for is 'as delivered'... nothing more and nothing less.

Check the receipt's stated address; that pizza you may have concluded was the one you expected may have been meant for the people next door :chuckle:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

^ Two heretics: What a horse race, but no horse sense.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Had I listened to you, Mayor, I would have called the man, to fix my microwave oven,and he would have charged me $160, although I could pick up a new one from my friend, Miss "Microwave" Lesch, for $120. And she would have thrown in some free sawdust, to line the microwave. You beat everything, Mayor.

You high flutin' Dallas folks sure pay high prices for your microwaves.
You can get a refurbished one down at Emmitt's for $7.99.

And it comes with an extry power cord so you won't have to call the man if the first one goes "to the bad".

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Five pages of mostly gobbldeygook and nobody could refute this:

Apostolic Succession
source link

EXCERPT:

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41)........(SNIP)

Read the Early Christian quotes here: LINK

 

[Wick Stick]

Five pages of mostly gobbldeygook and nobody could refute this:
linger:

Refute it? When one come across a rotting corpse, they don't debate it. They just bury it.

 

[God's Truth]

Refute it? When one come across a rotting corpse, they don't debate it. They just bury it.

OH wow, now I love that!

 

[Catholic Crusader]

OH wow, now I love that!

I guess I waited too long to respond

 

[Sherman]

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."


The yard ape got loose.

These are the kind of posts that get you attention of the undesirable kind. You need to tone down the namecalling.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

These are the kind of posts that get you attention of the undesirable kind. You need to tone down the namecalling.

That was a month & a half old. I had forgotten about it. I have deleted it.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Topic:

Apostolic Succession
source link

EXCERPT:

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41)........(SNIP)

Read the Early Christian quotes here: LINK

 

[Red Wave Rising]

Apostolic Succession
source link

EXCERPT:

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41)........(SNIP)

Read the Early Christian quotes here: LINK

Apostolic Succession was always recognized by the early church.

 

[Right Divider]

Apostolic Succession was always recognized by the early church.

Appeal to tradition. Fallacious argument.

 

[Idolater]

Appeal to tradition. Fallacious argument.

That's not an argument nor is it a fallacy, it's just factual; a true proposition.

 

[Right Divider]

That's not an argument nor is it a fallacy, it's just factual; a true proposition.

You are wrong. It was a fallacious argument based on the appeal to tradition.
You cannot support apostolic succession from the scripture. It's just not there
Judas Iscariot was replaced for obvious and scriptural reasons.
James was NOT replaced.
It's just that simple

Your RCC doctrine is FALSE and you should run from it like the plague.

You are NOT Israel and neither is your "church".

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's not an argument

When your argument consists of only a fallacy, then all one needs to do is call out the fallacy.

nor is it a fallacy,

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it's just factual; a true proposition.

And they were wrong for doing so.

 

[Idolater]

You are wrong. It was a fallacious argument based on the appeal to tradition.
You cannot support apostolic succession from the scripture. It's just not there

It absolutely is there. Paul consecrated bishops and then instructed them how to consecrate new bishops themselves, and instructed them to instruct new bishops, to consecrate new bishops too. That's right in Scripture.

Keep in mind that Apostolic succession is defined right in the OP in the third sentence: " Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles." That's all it is, and that is why " Apostolic Succession was always recognized by the early church" is not an argument or a fallacy, but just a fact of history, just like Christ's Resurrection is a fact of history.

Judas Iscariot was replaced for obvious and scriptural reasons.
James was NOT replaced.
It's just that simple

Your RCC doctrine is FALSE and you should run from it like the plague.

So, you're talking about Apostolic 'replacement' not succession. Nobody's talking about Apostolic replacement, nobody believes in that ---- well: except for some 'charismatic' Protestant traditions. In fact Protestants are the only Christians who believe in anything like Apostolic replacement. Certainly no Catholics and no Orthodox.

Bishops don't replace the Apostles but they do hold the office that all the Apostles instituted; Paul wrote 1st & 2nd Timothy and Titus to two men that he had consecrated as bishops himself.

The teaching authority in the Church is first and foremost Christ, and then He gave His authority to the Apostles, so they are the final word on every matter; bishops don't have the authority to overrule anything which is Apostolic.

You are NOT Israel and neither is your "church".

Shrug.

 

[Idolater]

When your argument consists of only a fallacy, then all one needs to do is call out the fallacy.

Of course. That's just not what happened.

Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And they were wrong for doing so.

As I said to RD above, Apostolic succession is not Apostolic replacement, and the Church was obeying the Apostle Paul's own written scriptures in continuing to celebrate this sacrament (Holy Orders).

 

[Right Divider]

Shrug.

Bishops are not apostles.

The RCC has led you astray.

 

[Right Divider]

Of course. That's just not what happened.

As I said to RD above, Apostolic succession is not Apostolic replacement, and the Church was obeying the Apostle Paul's own written scriptures in continuing to celebrate this sacrament (Holy Orders).

Paul was not one of the twelve apostles that will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul was that other different apostle.

Your understanding of scripture is fogged by your adherence to the false RCC doctrines.