Ask a Catholic


andypg
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks.

So when you say that the Bishops replaced the Apostles, do you believe that they had/have the same authority as the New Testament Apostles? What's the difference, if any, between Apostles and Bishops?

Yes, the Bishops received the same authority from the Apostles themselves, through the laying on of hands, which continues to this day. You can look at 1 Tim 4:14 as one example of authority being conferred from Paul to Timothy.

If you study the early Church fathers, you will notice how important their disciplesip lineage is to them, in order to show where their authority derives. One example by St. Irenaeus at the end of the 2nd century states:

"that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul...which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority-that is, the faithful everywhere inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by faithful men everywhere".

St. Irenaeus then went on to give the history of the papacy up until his own time:

"The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes...To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius now, in the twelth place from the Apostles, holds the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth".

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)

Jesus himself promised that he would be with us always and that the Holy Spirit will guide us:

"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-the Spirit of truth" Jn. 14:16.

"All this I have spoken to you while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" Jn 14:25-26.

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age". Matt 28:19-20.

"So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone". Eph 2:19-20.

"For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable". Rom 11:29.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KountC,

As an outsider, could you tell me about the sacraments? Specifically, what are they? Is there any sort of division or hierarchy among them (some being more important than others - dominical and such)? Is there a "natural" or desired order for them? Should I be asking something else here?

I'll answer for KountC and he can add to it when he gets back on here.

Sacrament in Catholic parlance are specific ordinances in one's life in which the power and grace of God is made manifest to His children.

There are 7 Sacraments recognized by the Catholic Church:

1.) Baptism

2.) Reconciliation

3.) Holy Eucharist

4.) Confirmation

5.) Holy Matrimony

6.) Holy Orders

7.) Anointing of the Sick

A Catholic in the normal circumstance can only avail of 6 because Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are mutually exclusive. All of these Sacraments are of equal importance in the life of a Catholic.

The Sacraments don't need to be received in this specific order (this is the order I received it - I received the first 4) but some sacraments by its nature require other sacraments first.

Baptism, for example, has to be the very first Sacrament. This is one's acceptance and commitment to accept Jesus Christ as one's Savior and to commit to following a Christian life. Most Catholics are baptized as infants or toddlers. In this case, the parents/guardians and godparents accept and commit to raising and teaching the child to follow a Christian life. Through this Sacrament all others are possible.

Reconciliation is one's act to turn away from sin and reconcile with God. Because of the nature of this Sacrament, one needs to be at the age of reason (around 8 years old or 3rd grade in Catholic School regardless of age) to be able to receive this Sacrament. One must, by his own choice, recognize the sin, confess the sin, and be penitent.

Holy Eucharist is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as a physical sign of His Atonement. Because of the nature of this sacrament, one must be at the age of reason to receive this Sacrament. And because one must be clean to partake of this Sacrament, then one must have gone through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Confirmation is when one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost and is a deeper commitment to the Christian life. Those baptized as infants must now take on their commitments separate from their parents/godparents therefore it also requires the age of reason. Some people get confirmed before they partake of the Holy Eucharist or even Reconciliation. Although, if going to a Catholic School, Confirmation is given after 3rd grade so it occurs after.

Holy Matrimony requires Baptism, Reconciliation, and Holy Eucharist as the Eucharist is given to the married couple during the ordinance of Matrimony.

Holy Orders requires the first 4. This is where one gets ordained as a priest or a nun.

Anointing of the Sick is also called Last Rites. It's basically a blessing to prepare one's self spiritually, mentally, and physically for the after life.

This should at least have scratched the surface a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Bishops received the same authority from the Apostles themselves, through the laying on of hands, which continues to this day. You can look at 1 Tim 4:14 as one example of authority being conferred from Paul to Timothy.

Can you please point out specifically where the Apostles gave their own apostolic authority to bishops? To be clear, I'm not referring to the Apostles giving bishops and others authority to do what they are called to do. I'm referring to the Apostles giving their own authority to bishops. Basically, where specifically did Bishops replace Apostles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll answer for KountC and he can add to it when he gets back on here.

Sacrament in Catholic parlance are specific ordinances in one's life in which the power and grace of God is made manifest to His children.

There are 7 Sacraments recognized by the Catholic Church:

1.) Baptism

2.) Reconciliation

3.) Holy Eucharist

4.) Confirmation

5.) Holy Matrimony

6.) Holy Orders

7.) Anointing of the Sick

A Catholic in the normal circumstance can only avail of 6 because Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders are mutually exclusive. All of these Sacraments are of equal importance in the life of a Catholic.

The Sacraments don't need to be received in this specific order (this is the order I received it - I received the first 4) but some sacraments by its nature require other sacraments first.

Baptism, for example, has to be the very first Sacrament. This is one's acceptance and commitment to accept Jesus Christ as one's Savior and to commit to following a Christian life. Most Catholics are baptized as infants or toddlers. In this case, the parents/guardians and godparents accept and commit to raising and teaching the child to follow a Christian life. Through this Sacrament all others are possible.

Reconciliation is one's act to turn away from sin and reconcile with God. Because of the nature of this Sacrament, one needs to be at the age of reason (around 8 years old or 3rd grade in Catholic School regardless of age) to be able to receive this Sacrament. One must, by his own choice, recognize the sin, confess the sin, and be penitent.

Holy Eucharist is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as a physical sign of His Atonement. Because of the nature of this sacrament, one must be at the age of reason to receive this Sacrament. And because one must be clean to partake of this Sacrament, then one must have gone through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Confirmation is when one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost and is a deeper commitment to the Christian life. Those baptized as infants must now take on their commitments separate from their parents/godparents therefore it also requires the age of reason. Some people get confirmed before they partake of the Holy Eucharist or even Reconciliation. Although, if going to a Catholic School, Confirmation is given after 3rd grade so it occurs after.

Holy Matrimony requires Baptism, Reconciliation, and Holy Eucharist as the Eucharist is given to the married couple during the ordinance of Matrimony.

Holy Orders requires the first 4. This is where one gets ordained as a priest or a nun.

Anointing of the Sick is also called Last Rites. It's basically a blessing to prepare one's self spiritually, mentally, and physically for the after life.

This should at least have scratched the surface a bit.

I'm sorry to have ignored , you all on this sacrement question. Its that I've been loaded down with homework. ITs 230 am now, I have to study at night, when there is no noise. I'll join you guys this weekend, or maybe later this week

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you please point out specifically where the Apostles gave their own apostolic authority to bishops? To be clear, I'm not referring to the Apostles giving bishops and others authority to do what they are called to do. I'm referring to the Apostles giving their own authority to bishops. Basically, where specifically did Bishops replace Apostles?

Scripture Catholic - APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION

Here ya go :) This site includes scriptures and excerts from the writings of the early church fathers pertaining to apostolic succession, it should answer your questions in this regards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scripture Catholic - APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION

Here ya go :) This site includes scriptures and excerts from the writings of the early church fathers pertaining to apostolic succession, it should answer your questions in this regards.

Thank you, but it would be helpful if, as I asked, you could just point out to me "specifically" (instead of just giving me a long page, most of which seems to not be relevant to my question, and which Latter-day Saints wouldn't disagree with) where the apostles conferred apostolic authority to the bishops, or, in other words, the bishops replaced apostles (this is distinct from the apostles giving bishops authority. The question is, where did they give them their own apostolic authority). A cursory look at that page does not point that out to me, but perhaps I missed it, which is why a specific reference would be helpful. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, but it would be helpful if, as I asked, you could just point out to me "specifically" (instead of just giving me a long page, most of which seems to not be relevant to my question, and which Latter-day Saints wouldn't disagree with) where the apostles conferred apostolic authority to the bishops, or, in other words, the bishops replaced apostles (this is distinct from the apostles giving bishops authority. The question is, where did they give them their own apostolic authority). A cursory look at that page does not point that out to me, but perhaps I missed it, which is why a specific reference would be helpful. Thank you.

Lol! I think I know what you're trying to get at now. You want to know if each Apostle made another man a new Apostle in his stead, right? Because in your church, you have 12 Apostles "like anciently", is that it? :P

Actually, I think you'll find my link quite relevant to this topic, that is authority being handed down, what you're not finding is a structure in which authority is limited to only 12 men, as Apostles, until Jesus returns.

Does your church not consider St. Paul an Apostle? Paul refers to himself as an Apostle, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our savior and of Christ Jesus our hope" 1 Tim 1; and "For I am the least of the apostles, not fit be called an apostle, because I persectued the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been ineffective" 1 Cor 15:9-10.

Through the laying of hands (ordination) Paul gives to Timothy the authority to teach and tells him to be prudent in his decisions as to who confer this gift on. "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of presbyters laid their hands upon you" 1 Tim 4:14; "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins. Keep yourself pure" 1 Tim 5:22.

Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of Lords, He is our High Priest and Head of the Church (Eph 1:20-22; Eph 5:23; Col 1:18; Col 2:20; 1 Pet 2:7).

The Apostles form the next highest level of priestly authority in the Church. "Jesus said to them, "Amen, I say to you that you who have followed me, in the new age, when the Son of Man is seated on his throne of glory, will yourselves sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Matt 19:28. There are only 12 thrones, and these have been given to the 12 Apostles, they themselves, can not be replaced, they are the twelve Apostles. Their authority to teach and minister can be passed on, and has been.

Men such as Mark, Luke, Silas, Timothy, and Titus assisted the Apostles in the role of preaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments. In the NT, these men are referred to by one of two Greek words. The first is episcopos, which in English is piscop or biscop, from which our term Bishop is derived. The second Greek word is presbyteros, meaning "elder". In English, this word was prester, through which we eventually derived the word Priest.

St. Paul instructs Titus, his appointed Bishop of Crete, to also appoint presbyters to minister and preach. "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you" Titus 1:5.

And in this way, every Priest and every Bishop can trace their authority directly back to one of the 12 Apostles. Nowhere in scripture, OR tradition, does it imply that the Church has to directly replace the Apostles as new Apostles as they die. And no, Acts 1:15-26 doesn't count. Judas had to be replaced so that there are 12 Apostles for 12 thrones.

Jesus' instructions to his followers were to "Go and into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned" Mark 16:15. Pretty sure, he didn't mean, always have men called apostles to replace you as apostles (but no more than 12) otherwise baptisms won't be good until 1830 and therefore no one can be saved until I finally tell Smith to teach baptism for the dead...

"In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world". Jn 16:15

I hope this helps a little more, your church has a different structure than ours and insists on having 12 men as apostles. Only Peter was set apart from the Apostles as the steward of Christs Church here on earth, and as such, the chair of Peter, the stewardship of the Church, is handed down in the Papacy.

Peace of God be with you friend :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol! I think I know what you're trying to get at now. You want to know if each Apostle made another man a new Apostle in his stead, right? Because in your church, you have 12 Apostles "like anciently", is that it? :P

No, not necessarily. ;) Lets see if I can articulate what I'm getting at:

For LDS, we look at the New Testament Church and see that it was led by Apostles. Catholics claim, correct me if I am wrong, that Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles. My question is, where, specifically, did the Apostles appoint the Bishops as their successors? Presumably this means that Bishops have the same authority as the Apostles (again correct me if I'm wrong)? When did this specifically occur? I'm just looking for evidence for the assertion that Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles.

Yes, we do consider Paul to have been an Apostle. You may know that our Church actually has more than twelve Apostles, though we do have a Council, or Quorum, of Twelve Apostles. The First Presidency is also regarded as having three Apostles, so we recognize Apostles outside of "the Twelve". We don't limit authority to twelve men.

Yes, Titus as Bishop had authority given to him to do what he was called to do. But he wasn't an Apostle.

Yes, Timothy was given authority, however the issue is whether he was given the authority of an Apostle. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful: correct me if I'm wrong, but in Catholicism, a priest is ordained by a bishop, right? Therefore, the priest receives his authority and ordination from the bishop, but the priest does not have the authority of a bishop, and cannot therefore function as a bishop. He isn't a bishop, he is a priest. Similarly, my point is that yes, Timothy received his authority from an Apostle, but that didn't make him an Apostle, nor is it an example of Bishops being Successors of the Apostles. I'm looking for a specific reference for where the Apostles appointed Bishops to take their place.

Nowhere in scripture, OR tradition, does it imply that the Church has to directly replace the Apostles as new Apostles as they die. And no, Acts 1:15-26 doesn't count. Judas had to be replaced so that there are 12 Apostles for 12 thrones.

Interestingly, you refute your first sentence by the second. Yes, Acts 1:15-26 does indeed demonstrate that Apostles are replaced by other Apostles, not Bishops. Indeed, the very website you offered (the Scripture Catholic website) cites Acts 1:15-26 as evidence of authority being transferred, and as an example of apostolic succession (it says "the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority."). For Latter-day Saints, we agree that Acts 1:15-26 is an example of apostolic succession, however, it is clearly an example of an apostle being succeeded by....another apostle. So yes, we would use that verse as evidence as well, but I believe it is clear on what it is teaching.

So again, thanks for your comments, but I still have not seen specific evidence given for what I am asking: where did the Apostles appoint Bishops to take their place, as their successors? Giving authority to bishops is not what I'm talking about (our bishops are also given authority, but they are not Apostles).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps some may find this Catholic/LDS debate interesting:

Who Holds the Keys?

In it, Barry Bickmore articulates the point I maybe am not making as well:

Some have espoused the idea that the apostles were just twelve men whom Christ ordained for a specific mission - and were thus no longer needed after the Church was established in the world. However, it is admitted by some prominent Christian scholars that the apostles "did not live to see the Church fully organized and at work,"30 and the New Testament record is quite clear that when vacancies occurred in the Twelve they were promptly filled. Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas, who betrayed Jesus (Acts 1:23-26), and Paul also said he had later been "called to be an apostle." (1 Corinthians 1:1) Barnabas was called an apostle along with Paul by the writer of the Acts (probably Luke), (Acts 14:14) and apparently Jesus' brother James had become an apostle, for Paul reported to the Galatians that on a trip to Jerusalem, "other apostles {besides Peter} saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:19)31 Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus near the end of the second century, reported the tradition that Philip had become "one of the twelve apostles."32 Indeed, there may have even been others. Paul told the Romans to "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (Romans 16:7) Many noted Christian scholars "... are inclined to think... that Andronicus and Junia... are of the number of the apostles, rather than 'considered in the eyes of the apostles.'"33

On the other hand, the authors of a recent popular defense of the papacy, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, are so bold as to speak of "the office of Apostle, later called bishop."34 They base this assertion primarily on the text of Acts 1:20, where the text of Psalm 109:8 ("and his bishoprick let another take") is quoted with reference to the fallen Apostle Judas. Now, I don't object to calling Apostles "bishops" or "overseers" any more than I object to John calling himself an "elder" (Greek presbyteros, see 2 John 1), or Peter calling Jesus the "Bishop of {our} souls." (1 Peter 2:25) Clearly the office of Apostle comprehends all lesser offices and titles. (In fact, even elders were sometimes loosely called "bishops" or "overseers" - see Acts 20:28.) But if all Apostles are "bishops", does that mean all bishops are Apostles? I think not. Furthermore, the New Testament clearly mentions "bishops" who were local pastors contemporary with the Apostles, who are never connected or placed on the same level with the Apostles. (See 1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:7) Finally, Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 A.D.) could not have been more clear about the issue when he said, "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant."

In one section Steve appeals to the principle of succession, but who were the successors of the Apostles? Other Apostles! Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, James the Lord's brother, Philip, and probably others all received this succession, as I already pointed out. When the Church was in the process of shutting down for business, that succession was ended, but when the Church re-opened the Apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to ordain them. The question is not whether there is a succession in Apostolic authority, but who and when.

In my opening statement I argued against the Roman Catholic claim that the Apostles passed on their office and authority to the bishops by showing that they ordained bishops during their lifetimes who were merely local Church officers. I also quoted Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 110 AD) saying he was not an Apostle. What evidence does Steve offer for his version of the story? He refers to Clement of Rome (ca. 96 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch, whom he claims wrote about the succession of bishops. What exactly did they say?

I am not aware that Ignatius said anything about the bishops being successors of the Apostles. In my opening statement I quoted and referenced several passages where he exhorted various Christian communities to follow their bishops instead of rebelling against them, but as I said before, he never equated the bishops with the apostles. In fact, in one passage he said, "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria {i.e. his own church at Antioch}, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it...."7 This fits very nicely with the LDS theory that the Church was in the process of shutting down at the time, and the true "succession" was about to end, especially when one remembers that Ignatius insisted that "Apart from {the bishops, deacons, and presbyters}, there is no Church."8

Clement actually did talk about a succession of bishops: "Our apostles also knew... there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate.... For this reason... they appointed those [ministers]... and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry."9 Once again, Clement was condemning the Corinthians for kicking out their righteous bishop and elders! However, I don't have any problem admitting that there was a succession of bishops who held the true Priesthood authority after the Apostles started dying off. The questions to be answered are whether the bishops inherited the prerogatives of the Apostles (and Clement never said a thing about that) and whether this succession was to continue indefinitely. "

Hope that helps to flesh out my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no moderator, but it seems to me that this forum is for the discussion of non-LDS Christian churches and teachings, rather than to try to establish one as right and another as wrong. If I'm wrong, I will just keep quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no moderator, but it seems to me that this forum is for the discussion of non-LDS Christian churches and teachings, rather than to try to establish one as right and another as wrong. If I'm wrong, I will just keep quiet.

You are right. This is not a debate thread. It's an Ask A Catholic thread... Which is what Jason is doing. I actually have the same question too. I've been through 15 years of Catholic Schools but it never occurred to me that I never learned nor bothered to ask how the Apostolic Succession got conferred to the Bishop of Rome. Yes, I know the history of how the bishop of Rome became the Pope and assumed authority for the whole Church. But it never occurred to me that somewhere between Peter and Linus the head of the church transformed from Apostle to Bishop and more specifically the Roman bishop. Why bishop? And why Rome?

That there are only 12 Apostles is not the reason because we all know Paul got ordained an Apostle and so did Mathias.

A Catholic would know the answer... And I realized several years after graduating from Catholic School that I never knew what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no moderator, but it seems to me that this forum is for the discussion of non-LDS Christian churches and teachings, rather than to try to establish one as right and another as wrong. If I'm wrong, I will just keep quiet.

Thank you Vort, this forum is for questions to non-LDS, and a question was asked that I am trying to answer :)

Jason, it seems to me that you have already made up your mind to not accept any answer I may propose. You are trying to make an argument to prove a point, that doesn't really exist in such a way as you think it does. In such a case, nothing I say will be able to satisfy your question, but I will try one more time anyway :)

Can one of the 12 Apostles replace Jesus? Can one of them be the one mediator between God and man? No, none of them can. It is Jesus' name that has been raised above every name, not one of the Apostles. Can other men become one of the 12 Apostles so that they can all take turns sitting on a throne and judging the tribes of Israel? No. Other men can indeed refer to themselves as Apostles, but the 12 themselves can no longer be replaced as you're trying to allude to. Jesus gave the Apostles authority to teach in His name the same truths that were given to Jesus. They were given the authority to baptize and make disciples of ALL nations. Jesus received His teachings from the Father, and gave them authority to do the same so that the Gospel could be preached throughout all the nations and to all peoples.

"Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. I pray not ony for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me." Jn 17:17-21.

"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." Jn 20:21.

How can the Gospel of truth be preached throughout the nations, and persons baptized for salvation, if Jesus did not provide the means for His authority to be passed on? Why send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect, if it would only be for a short while? If that is the case, then Jesus is surely the unprepared man in His own parable:

"Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion? Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say 'This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.'" Luke 14:28-30.

I said you couldn't use Acts 1 precisely b/c what you're trying to argue. Judas had to be replaced b/c after he betrayed Jesus, there were only 11 Apostles left, and yet there are 12 thrones for 12 Apostles to judge the 12 tribes of Israel. See where I'm going with this yet? The Apostles needed another man, with specific requirements, to replace Judas, so that once again, they could be THE 12 Apostles. According to these requirements, this man had to be a man "who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22). Obviously, throughout time, no one could fulfill all these requirements, certaintly not Joseph Smith or any of your current or past apostles could claim to have been with Jesus from beginning to end and witness his resurrection. You misinterpreted my meaning of why not to use this scripture. Authority was indeed passed on, I am in full agreement with that, I am certaintly not arguing against it.

Just as in your church, there is a heirarchy in ours as well. The Pope now, was once just a Priest, who became a Bishop, who became a Cardinal, and then became the Pope. Just as in your church, this heirarchy promotes order. A Priest is in charge of a Parish, and his immediate superior is the Bishop, who oversees a Diocese which is compirsed of many Parishes in the geographical location. Archbishops oversee a larger geographical area with Bishops under him, and so forth. A Priest does not have the same authority as a Bishop b/c a Priest can not make decisions for the entire Diocese, that's the Bishops job. But a Priest can make decisions for his Parish as the head of the Parish council. I believe your church is similar as to how decisions are made. The bishop of your ward is not the one to make decisions of the teaching materials taught on Sundays, your materials come from SLC from others who have the authority to make those teaching materials for all the LDS churches throughout the world, correct? Same as a sealer in your temple, it can not just be any person who happens to be in the room, they have to have the authority to seal. So you can say you have the Melchizedek priesthood, same as your apostles and prophet, but you can not claim to have the same authority for the whole church, as your prophet and apostles do.

So where specifically can I point you to authority being passed down? Written testimonies of the early church fathers, they document which Apostle their authority originally came from. Ordination. Come to an Ordination service and see for yourself how authority is passed down in the Catholic Church (I realize you were once Catholic, but have you been to an Ordination service?). You won't see fireworks shooting out of the Bishops fingers, or hear angels singing the Gloria, but you will see the humility, love, and joy of men offering their lives to God in His service. And we know these things to be true b/c of all the gifts of miracles performed, and healings, and excorcisms of demonic spirits, and so many other amazing gifts bestowed from the Holy Spirit, these past 2000 years. To this day.

"Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God", "For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption through which we cry, "Abba, Father!"", "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength". 1 Cor.4:1; Rom 8:14-15; 1 Cor 1:25.

Peace my friend :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right. This is not a debate thread. It's an Ask A Catholic thread... Which is what Jason is doing. I actually have the same question too. I've been through 15 years of Catholic Schools but it never occurred to me that I never learned nor bothered to ask how the Apostolic Succession got conferred to the Bishop of Rome. Yes, I know the history of how the bishop of Rome became the Pope and assumed authority for the whole Church. But it never occurred to me that somewhere between Peter and Linus the head of the church transformed from Apostle to Bishop and more specifically the Roman bishop. Why bishop? And why Rome?

That there are only 12 Apostles is not the reason because we all know Paul got ordained an Apostle and so did Mathias.

A Catholic would know the answer... And I realized several years after graduating from Catholic School that I never knew what it is.

Anatess, I agree, most Catholics are completely unaware of WHY we believe what we believe. I am a cradle Catholic, went to RE, received my sacramanets, and so forth, and considered myself Catholic, but I was never taught, nor did I ever bother to study, WHY I believed what I did. It wasn't until my senior year of highschool that I was put to the test by my mormon boyfriend. I had discussions with missionaries and everything! Hahaha, went to services with him, and firesides too :) He asked me questions about my beliefs that I had never thought of before, and made accusations that I had never heard before either. I was extremely confused and upset too. I began to study and talk with my Priest and he gave me plenty of books and resources and never once seemed confused or upset, as I was. Throughout that year I was able to slowly learn about my own faith and what I learned made me fall deeply in love with Christ and his promises, and I saw the beauty of the Chruch through all the warts. My soul was set on fire with love and joy, the beauty of his imperfect, yet gloriously loved Church, was more beautiful than I could have ever imagined. I have had some amazing experiences with God since then, so beautiful and rich in love that I have no good words to describe them, it is beyond me how he could love this silly girl some times, but I know He does :)

As far as the authority of the Pope, he simply has the same authority to teach and baptize, but he has been made the steward of Gods Church here on earth while we await with joy the second coming of Christ. As Jesus gave Peter the keys (made him his steward, or representative), so those who become Pope receive the same honor as being the steward. That of course, does not make him perfect, God knows how aweful some of the Popes have been! I have an excellent book on Papal history, describes all the good, the bad and the ugly (by John W. O'Malley if you're interested). Also, a book I can recommend for you to read as an answer your question of "why Rome?" is "The Eternal City" by Dr. Taylor R. Marshall. Excellent book, very insightful and yet easy to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason, it seems to me that you have already made up your mind to not accept any answer I may propose. You are trying to make an argument to prove a point, that doesn't really exist in such a way as you think it does. In such a case, nothing I say will be able to satisfy your question, but I will try one more time anyway :)

Thanks faith4, I appreciate the time and effort. My mind isn't necessarily made up on the matter, though I am familiar with the arguments on both sides. My issue is merely that I just don't see where it is shown that the Apostles appointed Bishops as their successors, to put the matter simply. I do see that they gave Bishops authority in the references you and others have given, however I don't see these references as showing that they gave them all the authority they (the Apostles) had, making them their Successors, or taking their place at the head of the Church.

There are numerous references to an apostasy throughout the Bible, though that's for another thread ;).

I used Acts 1 because the Scripture Catholic site you linked to also used it in support of the Catholic position. To me, it supports the LDS position more since it's of an Apostle succeeding another Apostle. That's the only reason why I used it, since it is repeatedly used in Catholic apologetics on apostolic succession (as well as LDS for that matter).

Yes, I have attended one Catholic "ordination service", and have watched a few on Youtube. I've attended various liturgies, both Latin and Eastern, over the years. I'm glad that you know that it is true, just as how I know that the Church of Jesus Christ has been restored, based on the various miracles that have occurred, as well as a few I have personally experienced (I assume people of various other faiths and religions have similar reasons for their own faiths). If I didn't have those experiences, I would not remain LDS, for various reasons.

I'm not looking for evidences of authority being passed down. I'm looking for evidence that the Apostles passed on their office and their authority as Apostles, to Bishops, so that Bishops took over their place.

Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts and time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to get that one. I have his "The Crucified Rabbi", it was a great read.

I have that one as well, it's the first book in a 3 part series, I really like his writing style.

Thank you for your questions, and allowing me a chance to answer :) Lol, I know I can't fully answer your question, w/o asking you to compromise your faith, and that's not my intention. Though I have to wonder what your intent was in grilling me about authority...j/k :P

One of my best friends is a devout mormon, and we openly discuss our faith w/each other and ask questions all the time. We have had some friendly debates over the years, but it has never affected our friendship negatively. In an odd kinda way, our questions help to strengthen each other in our respective faiths, and together we're very devout, her as a mormon & myself as a Catholic. Lol, I have done this before! And yes, we've gone over the great apostasy, indeed another thread!

Christs peace and blessings to you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not looking for evidences of authority being passed down. I'm looking for evidence that the Apostles passed on their office and their authority as Apostles, to Bishops, so that Bishops took over their place.

Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts and time. :)

Jason, I went and read through all the Catechism on the matter and went through some sources online and talked to some friends from school and the Priest and everything we all came up says the same things that faith4 already provided here.

The concensus is that the history between Peter and Linus... and really all through the next 300 years is very sparse. Therefore, the authority of the bishop of Rome to lead the Church in the same authority as Peter is a matter of faith in the same manner that we hold the authority of Brigham Young to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith's death.

Sorry, man. That's really the best answer there is unless somebody else here has more info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have that one as well, it's the first book in a 3 part series, I really like his writing style.

Thank you for your questions, and allowing me a chance to answer :) Lol, I know I can't fully answer your question, w/o asking you to compromise your faith, and that's not my intention. Though I have to wonder what your intent was in grilling me about authority...j/k :P

Essentially, in full disclosure, as someone that pondered returning to Catholicism, the issue of authority is of course important for both Catholics and LDS. To keep it simple, after looking at both sides (I have a very extensive library with Catholic, Orthodox, LDS, Jewish, academic, etc books), I found, for me, the LDS position to be more compelling. This is one issue that I'd like to understand (i.e. the relationship between Apostles and Bishops).

Thanks again, and welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason, I went and read through all the Catechism on the matter and went through some sources online and talked to some friends from school and the Priest and everything we all came up says the same things that faith4 already provided here.

The concensus is that the history between Peter and Linus... and really all through the next 300 years is very sparse. Therefore, the authority of the bishop of Rome to lead the Church in the same authority as Peter is a matter of faith in the same manner that we hold the authority of Brigham Young to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith's death.

Sorry, man. That's really the best answer there is unless somebody else here has more info.

Well, geez, just when I thought I was done with this one! I have to correct you here Anatess. The authority is not a matter of faith in the same manner that you point to w/BY and the LDS Church. Not everything is found in sacred scripture, which is why we also have authority through sacred tradition. Obviously, there was not a bible, or official canon of the bible until the 4th century, and even when that was made, most people didn't buy a bible b/c they couldn't read, and/or couldn't afford to have a book made for them. Not to mention the Apostles were well into spreading the Gospel and ministering before the Gospels and Epistles were even written! Just as in the OT, tradition was continued in an oral fashion and taught in person. The early church fathers were disciples and followers of the Apostles and learned directly from them.

In turn, they taught their followers and ordained the worthiest members who wished to teach and minister. This has continued w/very little change in doctrine for 2000 years (I anticipate your disagreement w/my last sentence).

In the year 155ad, St. Justin wrote a letter to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius describing the Christian liturgy (Mass). Since both of you are former Catholics, you will recognize how similar his description is to how we celebrate Mass today:

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves...and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: "Amen." When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those are absent"

That is tradition, and that was in 155. Furthermore, there is the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, dated possibly from the mid-end of the 1st century, not sure, that's still up in the air w/historians) which also gives instructions for the liturgy.

Joseph Smith and the rest of your prophets can not actually claim the same authority through tradition b/c they were not there to learn directly from the Apostles. If the OT Israelites could orally transmit their teachings, laws and practices, I'm pretty sure God made sure the Apostles and their follower and their follower etc. could do it too.

Peace friend!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason, I went and read through all the Catechism on the matter and went through some sources online and talked to some friends from school and the Priest and everything we all came up says the same things that faith4 already provided here.

The concensus is that the history between Peter and Linus... and really all through the next 300 years is very sparse. Therefore, the authority of the bishop of Rome to lead the Church in the same authority as Peter is a matter of faith in the same manner that we hold the authority of Brigham Young to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith's death.

Sorry, man. That's really the best answer there is unless somebody else here has more info.

Seems so.

One book that provides an interesting perspective on the matter is "From Apostles to Bishops-The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church" by Francis A. Sullivan, SJ. I believe Hugh Nibley's "Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity" cites this book for some of its arguments. In Father Sullivan's book, he essentially concludes that the belief that the Bishops took the place of the Apostles is one that is a faith based conclusion (which he naturally accepts), and that the apostles shared parts of their authority with others. He concludes that the development of the episcopacy was a Spirit-driven process, and that it is not historically supportable that the Bishops directly succeeded the Apostles (since, as I've been trying to find evidence for, we can't see that the Apostles appointed the Bishops as their own successors).

Here are some excerpts, then I'll leave it at that. I highly recommend this book for those interested in this topic, or interested in understanding the issue I'm trying to understand (it's available on Kindle):

"To speak of 'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles' suggests that Christ ordained the apostles as bishops, and then the apostles in turn ordained a bishop for each of the churches they founded, so that by the time the apostles died, each Christian church was being led by a bishop as successor to an apostle. There are serious problems with such a theory of the link between apostles and bishops."

"The first problem has to do with the notion that Christ ordained the apostles as bishops. On the one hand, it is no doubt true that the mandate Christ gave to the apostles included the threefold office of teaching, ruling, and sanctifying, which Vatican II described as conferred by episcopal consecration (LG 21). However the correctness of describing the apostles themselves as 'bishops' is another question. A 'bishop' is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it at all likely, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop."

"One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as 'an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.' Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do...one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles 'by divine institution'".

"As was also noted in the first chapter, most Christian scholars from both sides of this divide agree that the threefold structure of ministry, with one bishop along with a number of presbyters and deacons in each local church, does not appear in the New Testament."

"I am in substantial agreement with the consensus of modern scholars that the historical episcopate was not already present in the New Testament church, but a development that took place in the course of the second century, from the earlier collegial to the later monepiscopal leadership of the local churches."

"No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as a bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession.

The answer I find most probable is based on the New Testament evidence that the apostles shared their mandate with both their missionary coworkers and with the leaders in the local churches and that when the apostles died both of these groups carried on their ministry. The Pastoral Letters witness to how the coworkers continued to exercise oversight over various churches, and Luke's account of Paul's farewell address to the presbyters of Ephesus shows that presbyters continued to exercise leadership in local churches after Paul's departure. There were therefore two lines of apostolic succession in the postapostolic church, each perpetuating the mandate given to the apostles by Christ.

I think it most likely that a development along both lines of apostolic succession gave rise the monepiscopate during the second century."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

"I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike" Matt 11:25.

Jesus asks us to be like children, to completely trust in His divine Will and Providence. Do you have children? I do, I have 4 :) My children trust my husband and myself to care and provide for them. When we teach them not to do something that could be harmful to them, they don't demand exhaustive formal explanations and scrutinize our decisions looking into every detail to make sure I'm truly teaching them something correct, they TRUST me. We are told that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these, who have childlike faith and trust in God's Word. So when I say to them "No, peas do not go up your nose", or "we don't eat crayons", they listen (well, most of the time!), because as their mother, I have the privilege and authority to teach them how to grow into responsible adults. This is true faith, this is love, and God IS love and Love never fails.

We have *plenty* of evidence of authority being passed down through ordination, teaching and ministering. There is an abundance of writings of the early church fathers witnessing to their faith in Christ. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands of martyrs who joyfully gave up their lives for their love of God and the Gospel. You are asking for more and more evidence, putting God to the test. I apologize now, but your above quote is nitpicking to the point of absolute ridiculousness, I mean, really? I read it and see words wrapped around words which cause more confusion, rather than illuminating Gods divine love, power, mercy and justice, and calls into question the very omnipotence of God by denying Him his role as our Father who takes care of us. I see human "wisdom" attempting to manipulate Gods wisdom to fit their own ideas, "they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand" Matt 13:13.

When Jesus says "take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light" Matt 11:29-30, I believe him, and indeed, I have found the simplicity of His love very light. This love has made it easy for me to carry my cross daily and remain steadfast in faith.

And when he says, "Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him." Matt 7:9-11, I believe him that God is loving and merciful to us, His children, and would not promise us the bread of life and the salvific waters of baptism, only to then take it all away for several hundred years.

"If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?" Matt 6:30.

Peace and blessings friend!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, geez, just when I thought I was done with this one! I have to correct you here Anatess. The authority is not a matter of faith in the same manner that you point to w/BY and the LDS Church. Not everything is found in sacred scripture, which is why we also have authority through sacred tradition. Obviously, there was not a bible, or official canon of the bible until the 4th century, and even when that was made, most people didn't buy a bible b/c they couldn't read, and/or couldn't afford to have a book made for them. Not to mention the Apostles were well into spreading the Gospel and ministering before the Gospels and Epistles were even written! Just as in the OT, tradition was continued in an oral fashion and taught in person. The early church fathers were disciples and followers of the Apostles and learned directly from them.

In turn, they taught their followers and ordained the worthiest members who wished to teach and minister. This has continued w/very little change in doctrine for 2000 years (I anticipate your disagreement w/my last sentence).

In the year 155ad, St. Justin wrote a letter to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius describing the Christian liturgy (Mass). Since both of you are former Catholics, you will recognize how similar his description is to how we celebrate Mass today:

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits. When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things. Then we all rise together and offer prayers for ourselves...and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation. When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss. Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren. He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks that we have been judged worthy of these gifts. When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: "Amen." When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those are absent"

That is tradition, and that was in 155. Furthermore, there is the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, dated possibly from the mid-end of the 1st century, not sure, that's still up in the air w/historians) which also gives instructions for the liturgy.

Joseph Smith and the rest of your prophets can not actually claim the same authority through tradition b/c they were not there to learn directly from the Apostles. If the OT Israelites could orally transmit their teachings, laws and practices, I'm pretty sure God made sure the Apostles and their follower and their follower etc. could do it too.

Peace friend!

Faith4... I don't think you understand what Jason and I are asking. Sacred Tradition nor the Didache - including what you wrote above - does not show a line of continuity between the authority of Peter to lead the entire church to Pope Linus or any of the Popes succeeding.

There is no question on whether bishops are ordained with the power and authority of the Holy Ghost to perform the liturgy and lead their own diocese. The question is whether they have the Apostolic authority to lead the entire church. Apostolic authority is completely different from Bishop authority. This is clearly shown in the time of the Apostles where the Catholics base their ordination of bishops - there were Apostles and there were bishops and bishops were not Apostles. The Apostles ordained Apostles (there are more than just the original 12 Apostles) and they ordained bishops. The Apostles led the entire church while the bishops led their own regions with the Apostle Paul sending out letters left and right to correct bishops who are veering to apostasy. So, it is clear that Apostles and Bishops do not hold the same authority. There are Catholic ordination rites specific to each authority and each ordination rite can only be performed by a priest of specific authority. A priest, for example, can't ordain another person to the priesthood, it requires the authority of the bishop. But a priest can perform the liturgy and minister and teach. And there is nowhere in Catholicism where a bishop ordained an Apostle. So, in Catholicism, there are specific authorities granted through ordination to specific priesthood callings. So, how did bishops receive Apostolic authority?

The history of this authority is what we are asking. We are digging for any material - Sacred Tradition included - where Peter or any of the surviving Apostles gave through the rite of ordination or laying of hands to Pope Linus and/or any of his successors - or any of the bishops who ordained Pope Linus and/or any of his successors - the Apostolic Authority to lead the entire Church and not just to perform the liturgy or lead their specific diocese. Because, through scriptures, that authority is only held by Apostles and I can't find any material where Apostlic authority was handed down to bishops and not Apostles. And no believing Catholic will argue that Pope Linus was an Apostle.

So, even with your post above, I still contend, that the Apostolic Authority handed to Pope Linus and any of the succeeding Popes to lead the entire church and speak ex cathedra for the entire church is a matter of faith.

By the way, this would not have been enough reason for me to become LDS. There is completely nothing wrong with matters of faith. Because, if I would have made this conclusion in Catholic School, it wouldn't have changed anything for me.

This, for me, is simply learning something new everyday....

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems so.

One book that provides an interesting perspective on the matter is "From Apostles to Bishops-The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church" by Francis A. Sullivan, SJ.

Thanks for the excerpts! My friend who is a priest was the one who told me it is a matter of faith and cited this book for me to read!

I guess I need to go find that book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Anatess :) I understand what you're asking, I am not a theologian, lol, I do the best I can to explain my faith and I can see you and Jason do too. Peace and blessings to you both :)

And to you too!

Faith is completely an individual journey, isn't it? It's really super difficult to explain. I am super grateful to Our Father that I grew up Catholic. I learned and grew so much and built a hard rock foundation of principles that I have followed my entire life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share