When did it all go wrong?

[Thinkingstuff]

Apostolic succession isn't about appointment - it's about ordination.

Also there doesn't seem to be much in Scripture about setting up boards to do a new pastor search and to interview new pastors for a church either - but that's the way that it is generally done.

I don't disagree with that either. I'm just saying the mode is one of appointment to which one is ordained and that mode is by selection rather than voting. And if you are and adherent to Apostolic succession where successorship is an appointment by an Apostle for ordination that by changing the means in which one is chosen to a democratic system ultimately questions how you view apostolic succession. And if indeed you've changed the definition of it.

Or look at it this way. Hand in Hand with apostolic succession is the deposit of faith. Thus an apostle will say I chose this person to be my successor because I believe that not only does have the integrity for the position but having been taught by me I know he will be faithful to the consitent teaching of the deposit of faith. To a mode that is chosen is popular chosen by the majority or the purpose of possibly being able to faithfully spread the deposit. And if so how pure then is the deposit? Big questions.

 

[targus]

I don't disagree with that either. I'm just saying the mode is one of appointment to which one is ordained and that mode is by selection rather than voting.

What you are failing to understand is that Catholic bishops are "selected" for ordination.

From the group of ordained bishops one is then voted to be the bishop of Rome.

BTW how is voting not selection? It is selection by the majority.

Who would you have select the replacement for the bishop of Rome?

What one person would do the selection?

And I am officially tired of having to repeat this - so I'm out. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What you are failing to understand is that Catholic bishops are "selected" for ordination.

From the group of ordained bishops one is then voted to be the bishop of Rome.

BTW how is voting not selection? It is selection by the majority.

Who would you have select the replacement for the bishop of Rome?

What one person would do the selection?

And I am officially tired of having to repeat this - so I'm out. :smilewinkgrin:

I know you are tired of this discussion and I'm very familiar with the catholic system. And I know the canidates are from bishops who are appointed by the previous pope and not from their bishops before them which is another problem. But historically the appointment or selection came from the previous bishop not a voting body of bishops.

 

[targus]

I know you are tired of this discussion and I'm very familiar with the catholic system. And I know the canidates are from bishops who are appointed by the previous pope and not from their bishops before them which is another problem. But historically the appointment or selection came from the previous bishop not a voting body of bishops.

So when a bishop died unexpectly - the office ceased?

Or did bishops make successor selections years in advance of their death?

Or are you just kind of guessing?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So when a bishop died unexpectly - the office ceased?

Or did bishops make successor selections years in advance of their death?

Or are you just kind of guessing?

All selections should occur before a bishops death. If what you said occured then in effect apostolic successionism would have ended practically speaking.

Now what happened in those instances is the body of official with in that community elected the next Bishop. But now the local election promoted a bishop to his position but then a body of bishops outside that locality would then either support that promotion or go against it. And often there was much fighting about it. And many men got exiled for it. When this occurred eventually the Roman Emperor (after constantine) was consulted about it. And a Bishop would be chosen and often another sent into exile.

However practically speaking actual successionism ended. At this point. Just saying he the next guy in a line of guys margenalize Apostolic Succession because at some point someone is put in that position apart from the previous successor.

BTW I'm not guessing. Its just history. And I'm reading the Catholic Code of Canon laws right now for more info.

 

[Zenas]

We need to remember the difference between bishops and apostles. The apostles appointed the first bishops, who appointed other bishops and elders. However, there is only one instance of apostles appointing another apostle. In Acts 1 we see the eleven, under the leadership of Peter, select two men for filling the office of Judas. Then we see prayer over these men, lots being cast, and the ultimate selection of Matthias under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. After these apostles all died, this office ceased to exist on earth.

 

[targus]

We need to remember the difference between bishops and apostles. The apostles appointed the first bishops, who appointed other bishops and elders. However, there is only one instance of apostles appointing another apostle. In Acts 1 we see the eleven, under the leadership of Peter, select two men for filling the office of Judas. Then we see prayer over these men, lots being cast, and the ultimate selection of Matthias under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. After these apostles all died, this office ceased to exist on earth.

True - but Apostolic succession is not about Apostles succeeding Apostles.

It is about being able to trace one's ordination back through other's who were ordained - much like a family tree.

Funny story - the other Baptist church in our town decided that they wanted to have an ordained pastor. So the deacons got together one Sunday and ordained him. Even though none of the deacons were ordained the church was very happy that their pastor was.

That is an example of no Apostolic succession.

 

[Zenas]

True - but Apostolic succession is not about Apostles succeeding Apostles.

It is about being able to trace one's ordination back through other's who were ordained - much like a family tree.

Exactly. That is what I had meant to communicate but apparently didn't do it as well as this.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

True - but Apostolic succession is not about Apostles succeeding Apostles.

It is about being able to trace one's ordination back through other's who were ordained - much like a family tree.

Funny story - the other Baptist church in our town decided that they wanted to have an ordained pastor. So the deacons got together one Sunday and ordained him. Even though none of the deacons were ordained the church was very happy that their pastor was.

That is an example of no Apostolic succession.

And in an essense isn't this what voting who succedes the previous bishop? Note since 1054 there is not unanimity among bishops. And the Catholic Bishops are all a subset of the bishop of Rome? This their appointment acts much like this baptist church you are talking about.

 

[targus]

And in an essense isn't this what voting who succedes the previous bishop? Note since 1054 there is not unanimity among bishops. And the Catholic Bishops are all a subset of the bishop of Rome? This their appointment acts much like this baptist church you are talking about.

With the exception that the Catholic bishops were all (supposedly) ordained by others who themselves were ordained by others who were ordained....

 

[Thinkingstuff]

With the exception that the Catholic bishops were all (supposedly) ordained by others who themselves were ordained by others who were ordained....

Brakets say everything. Yet follow down through the ages and see what exactly happened.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Brother, this letter is authentic and official.

I did not state, "whereever Peter is, there is the Catholic Church". I clearly stated, " wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - As stated in the letter I provided.

The letter in question, was, "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans".

The certain part of the letter was, talking about "let nothing be done without the bishops".

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

If you do not believe the website, it references it's source.

"Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight"

Feel free to check it brother.


Although, you did state, "Notice Ignatius said nothing about having to follow Peter's successor (in Rome)" - What is true my friend, Ignatius did not say anything about it, but I can reference other early Christians.

Irenaeus:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian:
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth:
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

May the blessings of Jesus Christ be upon.

I realize you have been banned down, but you seemed to be arguing with points I didn't make--I didn't deny episcopal succession from the apostles; just that one can't use Ignatius' epistles to support Rome's view of the papacy. In fact none of your other quotes support Rome's peculiar views either--I could show you dozens of other quotes from the ECFs which deny universal Roman supremacy (let alone anything that approaches papal infallibility), including others from Cyprian.

But since you've been banned, you probably aren't reading this anyway.

 

[chadman]

I realize you have been banned down, but you seemed to be arguing with points I didn't make--I didn't deny episcopal succession from the apostles; just that one can't use Ignatius' epistles to support Rome's view of the papacy. In fact none of your other quotes support Rome's peculiar views either--I could show you dozens of other quotes from the ECFs which deny universal Roman supremacy (let alone anything that approaches papal infallibility), including others from Cyprian.

But since you've been banned, you probably aren't reading this anyway.

I know I was away from this site for some years, but what in the world is up with all these BANNINGS? Should we all be careful what we say?

There used to be Catholics, and Orthodox on this board, and lots of other denoms, aren't they still here or allowed to be here? A lot of those folks knew the Bible and it was challenging hearing a different perspective. Are we all so insecure that we can't listen to the other side?!

 

[Eric B]

Some of them had gotten really ridiculous and were actively trying to prosyletize. I believe a few of them were also resurfacing under new accounts. It was like a serious rash a few years ago. So it got to the point that they had to begin cracking down on it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

...there's a distinct line between "proselytization" and defending one's faith...

For a Roman Catholic to be accused of "proselytization", he/she per the legal definition of the word, would've been guilty of attempting to convert people to another opinion...an example would be this...a Catholic stating that the only way a Baptist can be truly saved is through the Holy Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, without which one cannot be saved...my example is nothing more than a sales pitch for the benefits of Roman Catholicism = "proselytization"...

I don't recall any of the one's banned ever truly using this tactic...this portion of the BB is "Other Christian Denominations"...an area where other non-baptist gather and discuss/debate the different beliefs of "Other Christian Denominations"...

 

[Eric B]

They were coming pretty close to that at times (and you had come in toward the end of it).