Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The myth of apostolic succession in Roman Catholic doctrine
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- ABSTRACT: The Roman Catholic Church claims theological authority because, so it says, its bishops are the successors of the apostles. Critical to this pretense is the notion of the episcopate as a closed circle: a person can only become a bishop by being made such by an apostle or by another bishop. This means that every bishop should in principle be able to trace his consecration back by means of other bishops to an apostle. In this video, I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources and is sooner a later invention. The evidence actually suggests that no present-day bishops could ever trace their consecration back by means of other bishops to an apostle, and thus that they do not enjoy apostolic succession of the sort they imagine.
Dr. Steven Nemes has a BA in Philosophy from Arizona State University with a minor in Religious Studies (2013), and an MDiv and PhD in Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary (2016, 2021). The author of a number of articles, chapters, and books on diverse subjects in theology and philosophy, he teaches Latin at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy in Phoenix, Arizona.
The irony in the whole thing is that all the sources go more against protestantism than the apostolic churches (EO, OO, RC).
1 Clement makes it clear that the λειτουργία can be performed only by the bishop.
As Bernard points out: When the office of a presbyter is spoken of in the Epistle, the word used is the general term τόπος. This is
significant only because of the careful avoidance of the term λειτουργία, which is applied all through to the service of worship. performed by the ἐπίσκοπος or his precursors (in Clement's view) under the Old Covenant." (BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS IN THE EPISTLE OF ST. CLEMENT OF ROME.)
This λειτουργία, as a "peculiar service" that is performed only by the bishop is clearly shown in 1 Clement 40.5, and also this is highlighted as a "minsitry" in 1 Clement 44 for example.
The 3-fold ministry is explicitly there in 1 Clement 40:
For his own peculiar services (λειτουργίαι - leitourgiai) are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place (προστέτακται - prostetaktai) is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations (διακονίαι - diakoniai) devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen."
In 41.1 it says: "Let each one of us, brethren, be well pleasing to God in his *own rank* and have a good conscience, not transgressing the appointed rules of his ministration, with all reverence."
The only reason why Clement 42.5 mentions the bishops and deacons only is because of the prophecy in LXX Is. 60.17. In the old covenant, there was no bishop, but high priest and no deacon, but Levite. So bishops and Levites are new offices of which Isaiah prophecies. It doesn´t make sense to mention the priests - presbyters, since these existed also in the old covenant, so there is no prophecy of this category in LXX Isaiah. As G. Edmundson says: "The presbyters ordained by the Apostles from city to city were to a certain extent the Christian counterparts of the Jewish presbyters (The Church in Rome in the First Century, p. 185)". So the only office that remained from the old covenant is are the priests - presbyters, that is why it is exempt from Isaiah´s prophecy. Edmundson also rightly points out that "From these instructions two facts seem to come out clearly: that while all episcopi were presbyters, only a limited number of the presbyters were episcopi." (p. 183).
T. Benjamin, Christian hope and liturgical order in 1 clement 40-44, page 304 says:
"Futhermore, Clement´s rather free quotation of Isaiah 60:17 in 42.5 explicitly links the offices of bishops and deacons to the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament. In Clement´s view, ordered Christian ministry is a continuation of what he sees in the Old Testament."
So in the OT there was: 1. high priest, 2. priests, 3. Levites, and in the new covenant church there is: 1. bishop, 2. priests, 3. deacons.
Compare with Jerome: In fact as if to tell us that the traditions handed down by the apostles were taken by them from the old testament, bishops, presbyters and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple. (Jerome, letter 146)
Or the Apostolic Constitutions: For these [the bishops] are your high priests, as the presbyters are your priests, and your present deacons instead of your Levites. (Apostolic Constitutions, II.4)
Further, Clement draws a parallel from the OT, which confirms the bishops being distinct from the presbyters as Bernard points out:
"The motive of their action was jealousy of the peculiar prerogative as to the conduct of worship attaching to the episcopal
office, just as the motive of Dathan and Abiram was jealousy of Aaron's family. But exactly as Dathan's sedition was in
fact a rebellion against the authority of Moses and the elders (Num. xvi. 13), so this revolt at Corinth was a revolt against the authority of the presbyters. Only those who could appoint to the episcopate had the right to depose from it; and for other members of the Church to assume to themselves the power of deposition was an invasion of the presbyteral office. ... I maintain, then, that the whole tenor of Clement's argument no less than his careful choice of words compels us to recognize a fundamental distinction between the ἐπίσκοποι and the πρεσβύτεροι at Corinth in the year 95 A.D.
... But that the ἐπίσκοποι as ministers of worship are quite distinct from the πρεσβύτεροι or ministers of rule, the argument of Clement's Epistle seems almost necessarily to require. Otherwise his long-drawn parallel between the rebellion of Dathan and the rebellion at Corinth is without point. "
Benjamin also argues that Clement makes "positive comparison of the ordered ministry of the Christian Church to the clearly hierarchical Aaronic priesthood." (Christian hope and liturgical order in 1 clement 40-44, In: Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift : neue Folge der Revue internationale de théologie, 98 (2008), p. 304)
Another scholar, Brakke says: "Regardless of one´s position concerning the nature and historicity of Clement´s depiction of the apostolic succession in this chapter, it is beyond doubt that he hold that according to the will of God there should be an order in the church which includes different offices." (O.M. Bakke, Concord and Peace: A Rhetorical Analysis of the First Letter of Clement With an Emphasis on the Language of Unity and Sedition, p. 260)
Also Ignatius makes it very clear that "Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. ONLY that EUCHARIST which is under the authority of the BISHOP " (Ign. Smyr. 8:1-2). This sounds very similar to Clement, who claims that only under the Bishop can the leitourgia be performed.
Ignatius in a nutshell: one bishop assisted by the presbytery and the deacons" (Ad Phil. 4), and "the bishop presides in the place of God while the presbyters function as the council of the Apostles" (Ad Magn. 6.1). The presbyters are subject to the bishop (Ad Ephes. 4.1, 3; Trall. 12.2); and are delegated by the bishop for the functions of celebrating the Eucharist, baptizing, and holding an agape (Smyrn. 8.1, 2). Or as elsewhere Ignatius says: "without the bishop you should do nothing" (Ep. Smyr).
Ignatius also confirms that Polycarp was a bishop of Smyrna:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: wishes abundance of happiness" (Ep. to Polycarp)
Now you say that Irenaeus is making up things, but actually Irenaeus knew Polycarp in person, as he says:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. (Adv. Haer., III.3.4.)
So if Polycarp was a bishop of whole Smyrna and Irenaeus knew him in person, I think its reasonable to say Irenaeus knows what he is talking about.
Now regarding the claim only bishops can ordain bishops. The mistake you do is that you conflate "appoint" with "consecrate" a someone to the bishopric. From the testimonies of Jerome we know for example in Alexandria or Rome, it wasn´t the bishop who "appointed" or chose someone to the bishopric, but at the same time Jerome says only the Bishop has the authority and power to consecrate, or make someone a bishop. So none of the material you presented actually refutes this idea, because you conflate "appoint" and "consecrate". Second when you read the apostolic fathers it is quite clear, especially from Ignatius, that none other can make someone a bishop, other than a bishop. Only the bishop has the power to perform the λειτουργία and as Ignatius says, you cannot do nothing without the bishop, e.g. perform worship, eucharist, not even baptism. Why on earth should one think that anyone can make someone a bishop, if you cannot even do the above mentioned without a bishop? So while you argue from silence, because the materials do not explicitly say that only a bishop can make someone a bishop, we can deduce from looking at all the material that the only reasonable conclusion is that a bishop can have this authority. And the bishop can have this authority only because it was transmitted ultimately from the apostles.
So ironically, I would say that infant church, in the 1st, 2nd century would absolutely reject protestantism. Since you don´t have a bishop, or a validly ordained bishop, you cannot even claim to be a church, shall I use Ignatius´s words. Peace!
@@davidszaraz4605
Thank you for your comment.
1. The question of whether bishops and presbyters are the same persons in 1 Clement is irrelevant to what I am arguing in this video.
2. Jerome is a much later source than any of the sources I mention and is not as reliable an indicator for what the practice was from earliest times.
@@drstevennemes 1. Nevertheless you mentioned they are the same. And its not irrelevant because only the Bishop has the authority to perform all things I mentioned. If only the Bishop has this authority then others cannot simply consecrate someone to be a bishop.
2. Jerome was mentioned maginaly. You did not reply to my argument.
@@davidszaraz4605
It’s not easy for me to respond in detail now because my son is awake and I have to take care of him during the day. Perhaps I will do a response stream later today to address your comment in greater detail. Your comment is substantial; I don't mean to dismiss it or brush it aside. I will just say the following things for now:
1. There can be a distinction between “presbyter” and “bishop” without a three-fold hierarchy of the sort that exists in RC, EO, etc. See Alister Stewart, _The Original Bishops_ for an explanation. In his proposal, at least in many places, each congregation had a bishop, and the bishops within a city who gathered together to decide things for their churches were called presbyters. In this case, each presbyter is a bishop, but the bishop is not above the presbyter. The idea of the monarchical bishop only arose later in time, when the presbyters chose one from among their number to be a leader.
2. I think your sources overinterpret 1 Clement. I can't prove that now; I'll have to address it at greater length later. In brief, I think they import more of the OT context into his own context than he needs for his arguments to work.
3. Your argument is circular because it assumes the very Catholic categories that are in question here. From the fact that only the bishop can normally offer the Eucharist, it doesn't follow that no one can be made a bishop except by another bishop. Consider how from the fact that only a husband may have sex with his wife, it doesn’t follow that no one can be made a husband except by another husband. Or from the fact that no one can access a club's funds except the club treasurer, it doesn't follow that no one can be made treasurer except by another treasurer. You are assuming that the bishop has some qualitatively unique and superior role for which he is specially sacramentally endowed. That is precisely the matter in question. If that were the case, 1 Clement and all these other sources could just easily say, as you did: _No one is a bishop except by another bishop._ But they never say that.
@@drstevennemes 1., 2. I read that book and I have no clue what are you refering to. Stewart's maine argument was that a Bishop was more a leader of household churches. But he still acknowledges the distinction of Bishop and Presbyter in authority. The Bishop certainly has more authority, Ignnatius, whom you completely ignore explicitly tells you that the presbyter is subject to the Bishop, he even gives several parallels.
3. False comparison. You conflate categories. Yes whoever can have an intimate relationship with the wife, because not only the husband is capable of it. The presbyters however are not capable of doing anything without the bishop. Only the Bishop guarantees and makes possible everything Clement and Ignatius tell you. If a anyone can become a bishop without a bishop then the necessity of having a bishop becomes irrelevant. The authority the bishop has, is due to the transference of this authority not because he was simply "elected" or appointed. This is a divine power - the sacraments, the leiturgia.
Sorry but you gave false comparisons and you conflate categories. And you also did nit distinguish "to appoint" and "to consecrate".
@@drstevennemes "If that were the case, 1 Clement and all these other sources could just easily say, as you did: No one is a bishop except by another bishop. But they never say that."
Sorry Dr. Nemes, but this is ridiculous. Many answers can be given to this question of yours, such as, maybe because it was obvious to everybody that only bishops can consecrate others to the bishopric. I could (or atheists can) raise many such questions in relation to many things either in the Bible or in extrabiblical sources. This is a rhetoric question and based on silence.
I'm gonna be brief, because YT hates when I write a novel, haha. If you read enough theological points from early doctors of the Church, the CCC, or even Sacred Scripture: you will see that the Church IS the authority, by and through the Apostolic Succession.
This isn't rocket science, seriously: God is the God of truth and order; God is love. God came to us as a humiliating human, all man (and All God, because God can do anything; he is the master of all things; nothing is hard for God), born of the perfect and unblemished womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. God then gave His apostles the means to live out the actions of the early Church by giving them the witness and presence and powers of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. When Pentecost happened, the Church officially began.
If God's will, Christianity and all of Christendom, is real: then Apostolic Succession is *_necessary_* for the Church to endure.
Thankfully, what the Church teaches IS truth, because God made it AT PENTECOST. Why would Christ's servants lie, and Christ Himself deceive? Why would Christ's Church NOT need Apostolic succession, since the Holy Spirit needs to be succeeded through the apostolic line? Then how, pray tell, do we have someone outside the Church who cannot bear witness to the miraculous nature of the living Church? The answer, you can't: apostolic succession MUST exist for Christianity to continue to thrive and live on earth!
So in brief: outside the Church, there are no true witnesses in the Spirit, unless they are those who are called to become a living witness through conversion and adherence to the Church. The Church is alive and moved by the Holy Spirit THROUGH the Pope, who is ordained and given to us to uphold Apostolic Succession. The reason this is necessary is to fulfill the scripture that Jesus states to St. Peter the first ordinated Pope BY THE LORD MADE FLESH HIMSELF (I am paraphrasing, but will provide the passage in Matthew): "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church...and the kingdom of Hell will not prevail against it...I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven...whatever is loosened on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever may be bound on earth shall be bound in heaven." (Mt. 16:17). If Apostolic succession is a myth and a lie, then Christianity is a lie then, because Christ made the promise to St. Peter that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (being the Church). So you see, if Apostolic succession is a lie and a myth, then Christianity has no more touch of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles at Pentecost. Then they were told to go and baptize (in the Trinitarian Formula) all nations (when Our Lord breathed on them in Matthew).
Despite all of this, God bless you, Dr. Steven. God bless you 10 fold. I'll be praying for you!
Thank you for your comment.
This view is such illogical nonsense it is hardly worth refuting. Transubstantiation, celibacy for Priests, women leadership, contraception - all doctrines that someone just thought would a good idea at the time, mainly for reasons of power and control and spreading this further. A bad doctrine can just as easily be added and claimed to be from "authority of the church" - but men a weak and inconsistent
Apostolic succession is only necessary for the church to endure if you think of the church as a bureaucratic structure like the RCC, if you use it as it is used in scripture, the body of believers, you do not need succession.
The verse you reference in Matthew does not show Peter being made the pope. Peter calls himself simply an elder, he does not act like the pope when he could have, Jesus does not treat him any differently. That verse when put in context does not clearly reference Peter as the rock, which is why the RCC tends to remove it from it's context, and the fact that the majority of the early church fathers interpreted that verse very differently.
I pray that you put your faith in Christ, and not the pope, an organization, or your own works.
K. So records don't go that far back but the Tradition does, as evidence by numerous very early writings and (weaker) Church oral histories. Why would we assume there was a break in behavior? More protestant selective scholarship and desperate reaching for a great apostasy or some such nonsense to justify abandoning the Churches, disappointing.
Thank you for your comment.
I think you are mistaken that “the Tradition” goes back further than the records. The idea of “apostolic succession” goes back very far. One finds it in Irenaeus. But the idea that this has anything to do with episcopal consecration does _not_ go back very far. That idea is not in Irenaeus, nor in Tertullian, etc., as I show in this video.
There’s a channel called useful charts its run by a jewish man. He did a deep dive on this subject and he was shocked at how well the apostolic succession holds up historically. It goes back as far as written records go! I think his video completely refutes this one….. this is just another example of selective protestant historical study. Jimmy Akin destroyed Dr. Nemes in their debate on Peter as the rock…..its clear his bias prevents him from seeing anything true from the Catholic Church.
Thank you for your comment.
Do you have anything to say in response to the arguments in the video?
@@drstevennemes Yes, that they are all debunked. Apostolic succession is recorded and Protestantism is a scam that arouse in the middle ages.
@@drstevennemes 2000 years of records and history and you think a CZcams video is the first time someone challenges the Catholic Church? The lack of succession has shown how quickly protestants create new churches to appease their endless interpretations of scripture.
@@dan_m7774
Thank you for your comment.
The Catholic church is not the same today as it was five hundred years ago, nor five hundred before that, nor five hundred before that, nor four hundred before that. It also changes. It just denies that it’s doing so.
@@drstevennemes Clearly that is your opinion, and nothing is exactly the same as 2000 years ago. The united states looks nothing like it did 200 years ago. Yet it would be illogical to Claim it does not have a linage.
this is absolute nonsense
And it was too long so I didn't watch much of it.
But frankly he should just listen to Brother Su-win So - that'll sort him out.
Thank you for your comment.
"My church is the one truest true church." - says every church throughout the history of the Church
That's cool, whatever guys,
I'm just an adopted street orphan, chilling at my Lord's table enjoying some bread.
Thanks for the extensive! You make some interesting and valid points.
How do we square this with many church fathers who talked about apostolic secession being a thing?
Pope St Clement, St Hegesippus, St Irenaeus of lyons and Tertullian, all write about it before the year 200ad plus others after 200ad also wrote about apostolic secession
For example St Irenaeus said "It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times"
@@A-ARonYeager
Thank you for your comment.
I talk about this in the video. Did you watch it?
@@drstevennemes i only made it about 10 minutes in, I had to help my wife with something and decided to comment to see if this was addressed. I do plan on watching it in full
"Believe me! I got it from an apostle" - is just a claim.
@A-ARonYeager
That's not apostolic succession. Irenaeus and Tertullian basically tried to demonstrate that the heretics did not have any real lineage going back to the apostles.
Irenaeus himself goes overboard as he was prone to do and made a fictional list.
The only myth is the rejection of apostolic succession created by Protestants, 🤣
Thank you for your comment.
You are making a strawman argument against the Protestant viewpoint. First, protestants are christians that saw errors in the Roman Catholic church and wanted to go back to the real teachings from Jesus and the apostles. When not all wanted to go back to the source, some christians had to reform (as it is written that hell will never take power over the church (which consist of the believers) of God). Protestants was the believers that stayed true to God and so that saying indeed was true. Protestants also have a direct line to the apostles, as we only protested against people turning away from the bible. Or are you arguing that when writing to the seven (7) churches in Revelation 1:11 that they where all called the Roman Catholic church? No, we know they weren't, as the RCC was formed later.
Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter (a human that repented), and on this rock (People who turn to Christ) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
First note that it is not Peter that builds the church. It is Jesus that builds the church.
Colossians 1:18 And he (Jesus) is the head of the body (christians), the church (christians are in other words what make the church); he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
1 Corinthians 12:12-13 Just as a body, though one, has many parts (many congregations and people), but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body (all christians are one body, whether we are Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants etc)-whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.Ephesians 2:18.22 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.(Not by going through priests, as we ourselves are the priests) Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone (So not the pope, and nowhere does it say Jesus needed an earthly leader, which the Catholics try to say. Peter was a human and it is on us human believers that Jesus builds his church). In him (Jesus) the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
John 6:43-45 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. (Who will draw and teach us? God Himself).
1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (grasped into Israel, it doesn't mean to form a Papal state), God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.Revelation 1:6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests (Speaking of Christians) to serve his God and Father.-to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
All the best to you fellow brother in Christ. We might be different congregations, but that is good, so if one stumble, the others can correct, but we are all one body in Christ!
@@JamesAsp Protestants are false teachers that pulled 7 books out of the Bible, that were there 600 years prior to Jesus Christ walking the earth.
You can spin your narrative all you want, I’m not swallowing it.
YOU BELIEVE A MYTH! A myth that has to deal with the fact that in order for Protestants to be right, God failed to protect His Church and His scripture for hundreds of years, before Martin Luther. Which basically means, He couldn’t actually be God.
So, either you are right and God isn’t God or you are wrong and Catholicism is the one true faith, but there is no situation where God remains God and Protestants are right.
@@JamesAspProtestants are material herectics. Ephesians 4 destroys Protestantism. God one has one body. One spouse. You can’t even agree on thjngs like baptism. Again Protestantism is not the fullness of the truth at all. Faith alone is also heresy.
Hebrews 6:1-3 presents insight into the doctrine of apostolic succession: Therefore, let us leave the elementary doctrines of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of [1] repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, with [2] instruction about ablutions [i.e., baptisms], [3] the laying on of hands, [4] the resurrection of the dead, and [5] eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
-Your takes on 1 Clement as well as the Didache, overemphasize no reference to direct bishop-bishop
apostolic succession, this is not evidence.
-"who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men", if not the apostles, could these
other 'reputable men' not be bishops themselves appointed by the apostles? Why read non-bishops into the text?
It seems clear that the letter's intention is to hold Corinth accountable for removing their leaders. It does
this by reiterating an established principal of authority, church leadership flows from
previous church leadership.
-Your opinion on the permanent offices and how they are 'dumb' considering your understanding
of their anticipation of Christ's return, is nothing but that, an opinion. You are reading first-hand,
their decision to make the offices permanent and yet are bringing in your own understanding of what they
believed at the time. At the very least cite your sources for that belief.
-In the Didache, if the word Χειροτονήσατε is to be taken as appoint/vote, a question is raised as to what that appointment
means in context. Is the appointment an ordination by the laying-on of hands? See Acts 6:1-6 which appears
to be a congregational election but is completed by Apostolic ordination. The Didache is directed to the
congregation, why would one expect details on ordination, when that pertains to bishops?
-As for Irenaeus, you say that 'the responsibility of the bishop is that of passing on the apostles' teaching
and nothing more'. Where does the 'nothing more' come from?
-Irenaeus don't explicitly say that any bishop
had to be capable of tracing his consecration back to the apostles, but doesn't Against heresies 3.3.2-4 mainly
rely on the naming of a lineage to appeal to authority? Additionally, Valentinus claimed to have been taught
and given secret teachings by Theudas (supposed disciple of Paul). Your 'easy argument' wouldn't have worked
at the time when other sects claimed succession, which is why Irenaeus also emphasizes an agreement
on churchs' teachings in addition to the purely historical argument.
-Doubting Irenaeus can list the succession of bishops in all the churches is fine, but you at least
have to consider the time at which this is written. The communication between churches and the resources needed to
do so would be considerable.
-I am unsure as to your point on Prescription against the Heretics 32. "Let them produce the original records...in
such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor
some one of the apostles or of apostolic men', how is this not implying that all the bishops are ordained
in succession if the first is ordained themselves? How is this not demanding a lineage of consecrated bishops?
-Overall, your bar for accepting apostolic succession is unreasonably high. It seems to me the only way to
satisfy your criteria would be a source detailing all the lineages with explicit detail on how said bishops were ordained.
Thank you for your comment.
1. It is the Roman Catholic Church which claims that its bishops can trace their consecrations back to an apostle by means of other bishops. I am pointing out that (1) there is no evidence for this, and (2) there is some considerable evidence to the contrary.
2. There is no reason to think "reputable men" in 1 Clement means other bishops. Clement could have just said that if he wanted to. What Clement says came from the apostles is that there should be a bishop and he should serve for life. He does not say that bishops can only be made bishops by other bishops.
3. Clement is not “first-hand” witness of apostolic tradition. He is relaying a tradition about the apostles which is of doubtful truth. There is no reason to set up a permanent ecclesial hierarchy if you think the world is ending soon.
4. Acts is a second-century text of spurious historical value. In any case, there is no evidence in any text, Acts included, that a bishop _must_ be consecrated by an apostle or by another bishop.
5. I shouldn’t say “nothing more,” since presumably the bishop was the one who presided over the eucharistic celebration.
6. Irenaeus believes that it is possible to name all the persons who have ever been bishops in the churches, and that these persons never taught anything like what the heretics teach. It is a generally weak argument, as I mention in my video. He does _not_ make an argument about episcopal consecrations, however.
7. If the communication between churches in Irenaeus’s time was poor, there’s even less reason to believe what he says about the unified teaching of the apostolic churches.
8. Tertullian is referring to the first bishop of the hypothetical heretics’ church, who would have been put in place by an apostle or some friend of the apostles. He does not say that each bishop in the line has to have been consecrated by another bishop.
9. I do not think I am setting the bar too high. The Roman Catholic Church says that its bishops can trace their consecration back to apostles. I am pointing out that there’s no reason to believe that and some reason to disbelieve it.
It seems to me he's simply asking for evidence equal to the strength of the claim. The bar is high because the claim is incredibly strong.
I'm an atheist, though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
@@factandsuspicionpodcast2727 not at all, he’s claiming apostolic succession is a myth. Showing a (supposed) lack of Catholic/Orthodox evidence for apostolic succession would still not be enough for him to prove his own claim and the title of the video. Again, lack of evidence is not evidence.
@@luisayala7577l ain’t gonna lie you are just made, I really don’t see how you touched his arguments.
@@internautaoriginal9951 I'm not gonna lie either, i am pretty mad. Dude comes out with a clickbait title and massive claim, then proceeds to take 2 hours of just 'these guys 1900 years ago heavily imply but don't explicitly say so and so, so all of it is bs'. Might reply to his comment later but its basically more of the same, he's positioning himself as showing the catholic/orthodox claim isn't bulletproof (when its a stronger claim then pretty much most religious claims by any religion), and in reality he's the one making the claim that it's a myth, which takes much more to prove than just saying there isn't an exhaustive 1900 year record for it.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 67 par 5 (200-270 ad)
For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained.
Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18.
The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on.
Peter’s confession is the rock.
Each believer's personal transformation has to begin with their own personal confession of faith in Christ.
@Gospel_of_Job _3.16 wrong!!!!! Name change in Hebrew life meant your status has chance dude. Jesus spoke Aramaic. When he first saw him he called him cephas which means rock in Aramaic. Matthew 16 is going back to Isaiah 22. In the old davidic kingdom the king had a royal steward. When he went away he had the power just like the king. That’s what Jesus appointing to peter. His royal steward on earth. John 21 15-17 we see this. Tend my sheep. Tend in Greek the verb means to shepherd. Peter was only one who Jesus prayed for and to strengthen his brothers. Protestantts can’t beat around the bush in Matthew 16. This was shown early in acts with peter. Peter finished his ministry in rome and this is where successors come from. All the early christians acknowledged this.
The overarching matter is personal transformation by the Holy Spirit (being born again of the Spirit). This personal transformation leads to full submission to God through Christ (not my will but Your will be done).
Personal transformation is not the result of joining any organization on earth. It is a result of responding to the revelation of God's gift of His Son (John 3:16).
In Matthew 16:18 Christ says on this rock He will build, and that requires a foundational truth. The truth that God revealed to Peter is the foundational truth.
Therefore, Peter's confession is the foundational truth. And this confession is shown multiple times by the NEW believers of the Christ of the New Covenant church.
Also, In the New Testament it says that Satan, the chief priests, and others who murdered Christ did not want to accept this truth.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Disciples confessed:
Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Samaritans confessed:
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
centurion confessed:
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
John the Baptist confessed:
John 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
Nathaniel confessed:
John 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Martha confessed
John 11:27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
Ethiopian eunuch confessed:
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Saul confessed:
Acts 9:20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Finally, new believers who confess have accepted the God’s gift of His Son the Christ, must continue to accept the truth that the Holy Spirit is revealing to them. Thereby building on the truth.
Isaiah 28:9-10 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Mark 4:24-25 NLT Then he added, “Pay close attention to what you hear. The closer you listen, the more understanding you will be given[a]-and you will receive even more. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them.”
As you accept the new truth of the HS then you become transformed.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Hallelujah, By the power of Christ may we all be free from the Santanic bondage of cult mentality.
Peter's confession is the rock.
The overarching matter is personal transformation by the Holy Spirit (being born again of the Spirit).
Personal transformation (being born again) is not the result of joining any organization on earth.
It is a result of responding to the revelation of God's gift of His Son (John 3:16). In Matthew 16:18 Christ says on this rock He will build His congregation, and that requires a foundational truth.
The truth that God revealed to Peter IS the foundational truth.
Therefore, Peter's confession is the foundational truth of personal transformation.
The foundational truth of who Jesus is: The Son of God. The Christ of God. The GIFT of God.
Therefore, Peter's confession is the foundational truth. And this confession is shown multiple times by the NEW believers of the Christ of the New Covenant church.
Also, In the New Testament it says that Satan, the chief priests, and others who murdered Christ did not want to accept this truth.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Disciples confessed:
Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Samaritans confessed:
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
centurion confessed:
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
John the Baptist confessed:
John 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
Nathaniel confessed: John 1:49
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Martha confessed
John 11:27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
Ethiopian eunuch confessed: Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Saul confessed: Acts 9:20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Finally, new believers who confess have accepted the God’s gift of His Son the Christ, must continue to accept the truth that the Holy Spirit is revealing to them. Thereby building on the truth.
Isaiah 28:9-10 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Mark 4:24-25 NLT Then he added, “Pay close attention to what you hear. The closer you listen, the more understanding you will be given[a]-and you will receive even more. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them.”
As you accept the new truth of the Holy Spirit then you become transformed by the Holy Spirit.
This personal transformation leads to full submission to God through Christ (not my will but Your will be done).
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Hallelujah, By the power of Christ may we all be free from the Satanic bondage of cult mentality.
Peter's confession is the rock.
The overarching matter is personal transformation by the Holy Spirit (being born again of the Spirit).
Personal transformation (being born again) is not the result of joining any organization on earth.
It is a result of responding to the revelation of God's gift of His Son (John 3:16). In Matthew 16:18 Christ says on this rock He will build His congregation, and that requires a foundational truth.
The truth that God revealed to Peter IS the foundational truth of personal transformation.
Therefore, Peter's confession is the foundational truth of Christ's congregation.
The foundational truth of who Jesus is: The Son of God. The Christ of God. The GIFT of God.
Therefore, Peter's confession is the foundational truth. And this confession is shown multiple times by the NEW believers of the Christ of the New Covenant church.
Also, In the New Testament it says that Satan, the chief priests, and others who murdered Christ did not want to accept this truth.
1John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
Disciples confessed:
Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
Samaritans confessed:
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
centurion confessed:
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
John the Baptist confessed:
John 1:34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”
Nathaniel confessed: John 1:49
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”
Martha confessed
John 11:27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
Ethiopian eunuch confessed: Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Saul confessed: Acts 9:20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Finally, new believers who confess have accepted the God’s gift of His Son the Christ, must continue to accept the truth that the Holy Spirit is revealing to them. Thereby building on the truth and being transformed.
Isaiah 28:9-10 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Mark 4:24-25 NLT Then he added, “Pay close attention to what you hear. The closer you listen, the more understanding you will be given[a]-and you will receive even more. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them.”
As you accept the new truth of the Holy Spirit then you become transformed by the Holy Spirit.
This personal transformation leads to full submission to God through Christ (not my will but Your will be done).
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Origen on Prayer ch 18 (185-254 ad)
So, too, the apostles, and those who have become like apostles, being priests according to the Great High Priest and having received knowledge of the service of God, know under the Spirit’s teaching for which sins, and when, and how they ought to offer sacrifices, and recognize for which they ought not to do so
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 30 par 5 (200-270 ad)
However, what you also have yourself declared in so important a matter, is satisfactory to us, that the peace of the Church must first be maintained; then, that an assembly for counsel being gathered together, with bishops, presbyters, deacons, and confessors, as well as with the laity who stand fast, we should deal with the case of the lapsed
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Trallians ch 7 [50-117 AD]
"He that is within the sanctuary is pure; but he that is outside the sanctuary is not pure. In other words, anyone who acts without the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons does not have a clear conscience"
I'm glad someone is talking about this nonsense. All the people complaining on here probably think the Gospels were written by the appostles.
Do you have any evidence to refute the claim?
@@michaelspeyrer1264 yes, the utter lack of evidence for it.
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Magnesians ch 2 [50-117 AD]
"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ"
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 67 par 2 (200-270 ad)
On which account it is fitting, that with full diligence and sincere investigation those should be chosen for God's priesthood whom it is manifest God will hear.
Polycarp “our faith is built upon the foundation laid by the apostles. I myself was taught by John, the beloved disciple of our Lord. This unbroken chain is what we call apostolic succession.”
That's not a real quote, though
@@StudentDad-mc3pu they have to lie, sadly, because the truth is against them
So who's Polycarp's successors?
@@Anastasis1.4 Do you think Church writings ended with Polycarp? Provide the writings of people stating the church ended.
@@dan_m7774 who is Polycarp's "successors"?
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 14 par 2 (200-270 ad)
I wrote letters in which I recalled by my advice, as much as possible, the martyrs and confessors to the Lord's commands. To the presbyters and deacons also was not wanting the vigour of the priesthood; so that some, too little mindful of discipline, and hasty, with a rash precipitation, who had already begun to communicate with the lapsed, were restrained by my interposition.
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Trallians ch 2 [50-117 AD]
"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore-and such is your practice that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in him. It is necessary also that the deacons, the dispensers of the mysteries [sacraments] of Jesus Christ, be in every way pleasing to all men. For they are not the deacons of food and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They must therefore guard against blame as against fire"
St. Peter declared, in Acts 1:15-22:
In those days Peter stood up . . . and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas. . . . For it is written in the book of Psalms, “Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it”; and “His office let another take.”
The Roman Catholic church is NOT the Church established by Christ through His Apostles. That would be the Orthodox Church. Rome is in error, and Protestants even more so.
When you are describing early documents as 'catholic', do you mean they are simply universal - from the one Church, or Roman Catholic? I suspect you're intending to use the latter description as your video is addressing Roman Catholicism, but its not clear. You also mentioned Orthodox & Anglican(!) in your intro, so this further muddies the waters.
There was no such thing as Roman Catholic in the early Church.
Apostolic Succession is first established as a model by Moses - (Numbers 27, Deuteronomy 34) and then by the Lord Himself (Luke 9, etc.).
It is also clearly taught by the early Church Fathers, as many others have pointed out.
I'm not here to respond to your direct claims against Rome - as I have said I would agree they are in error...but you seem to make a broader claim that Apostolic Succession is neither Biblical or taught by the Fathers & early Church, which would also be an error.
I'm glad you end by admitting you could be wrong. Its a brave claim to make, and there is an abundance of material to refute it.
Perhaps you'd be better off stating you don't agree with it, and here are my reasons instead?
So basically God, thru salvation history, used 1 man, be it prophet to pagan kings, all sinful, some atrociously horrible, womanisers, murderers to do His will after He came down from Heaven, died an excruciating death, leave all He wants to say and teach to a BOOK where everyone can read it and interpret it for themselves and that's it? God is perfect, everything He does is perfect, because it is perfect, He does the same thing again and again, Where in salvation history did God used a book/writing and let his people decide for themselves? Chapter and verse please. The Catholic Church can show you where there are successions from Issac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, David, Solomon to the prophets. So unless you use your own 'sola scriptura' principles to show where did God leave merely a book/writing and proof where it is allowed to just read and interpret it yourself to be saved, you are merely being egoistic and non scriptural.
(Clement of Alexandria The Stromata Book VI ch 13 [150-215 AD]
"Even here in the Church the gradations of bishops, presbyters, and deacons happen to be imitations, in my opinion, of the angelic glory and of that arrangement which, the scriptures say, awaits those who have followed in the footsteps of the apostles and who have lived in complete righteousness according to the gospel"
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality...Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III Ch 2.2 [120-180 AD]
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality...Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III, ch 3.1 [120-180 AD]
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about"
Here is what was written how to determine the Church Christ established, as the churches the handing down of Authority. This the same process used in the legal Court system today.
"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let
them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due
succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first
bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer
and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men."
-- Tertullian, 3rd century A.D.
Being “sent” by an apostle or by someone sent by an apostle is just as necessary if one is going to be an official representative of Jesus in the Church after the apostles as it was for the apostles themselves to be sent by Jesus.
But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent (Romans 10:14-15)?
The Greek word for “sent” here is apostalosin. There’s that word again! What does it mean? It means that, for St. Paul, unless you are sent with apostolic authority, you have no authority in the Church. You speak in your own name, rather than the name of Jesus Christ.
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Magnesians ch 6 [50-117 AD]
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God, and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me, entrusted with the business of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father from the beginning and is at last made manifest"
The apostles never said do not appoint successors because Christ is returning you will not need them. You are making a wild assumption not supported with any documents. I bet it is simply based on your misunderstanding from Paul.
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
And remember, Paul is not just talking about “teachers” such as a Sunday school teacher. First and second Timothy are both pastoral epistles that focus on the pastoral ministry of the ordained.
Titus 1:5 is another example: ”This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.”
Muslims claim Christianity is false as well from the lack of original documents and unknown authors of scripture.
This reasoning is the same as doubting Apostolic Succession. There is no outcry documented in scripture indicating a major change. You would see something like the reformation or an Angelican birth.
Clement of Alexandria The Paedagogus Book III [150-215 AD]
"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere"
Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III, ch 3.1 [120-180 AD]
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about"
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Magnesians ch 13 [50-117 AD]
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit"
Bless your heart.
Thanks. Same to you.
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Trallians ch 3 [50-117 AD]
"In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do respect him"
According to Scripture, the apostles ordained others to succeed them in their ministry. And this is more than implied to continue in the Church perennially.
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18:15-18).
Hippolytus Appendix can 37 [170-236 AD]
As often as a bishop takes of the sacred mysteries, let the deacons and presbyters be gathered together, clothed in white robes, brilliant in the view of all the people; and in like manner with a reader.
Peter of Alexandria Fragments 1 (260-311ad)
Since I have found out that Meletius acts in no way for the common good,--for neither is he contented with the letter of the most holy bishops and martyrs,--but, invading my parish, hath assumed so much to himself as to endeavour to separate from my authority the priests, and those who had been entrusted with visiting the needy; and, giving proof of his desire for pre-eminence, has ordained in the prison several unto himself; now, take ye heed to this, and hold no communion with him
Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III Ch 2.2 [120-180 AD]
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 68 par 4 (200-270 ad)
Christ, who says to the apostles, and thereby to all chief rulers, who by vicarious ordination succeed to the apostles: "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that heareth me, heareth Him that sent me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and Him that sent me." (lk 10:16)
Athanasius Letter 49 par 4 (296-373 ad)
For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?
Could you debate Trent Horn on this or have a friendly conversation?
@@pauldotto5130
Thank you for your comment.
I don’t want do any debates. Trent is free to respond to my video if he finds it worthwhile, but I am not inclined to have a discussion with him about it at present.
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyraeans ch 8 [50-117 AD]
See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Clement of Rome Recognitions book 6 ch 15 (27-97 ad)
and baptized them; and celebrating the Eucharist with them, he appointed, as bishop over them, Maro, who had entertained him in his house, and who was now perfect in all things; and with him he ordained twelve presbyters and deacons at the same time. He also instituted the order of widows, and arranged all the services of the Church; and charged them all to obey Maro their bishop in all things that he should command them
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 2 par 1 (200-270 ad)
We have been informed by Crementius the sub-deacon, who came to us from you, that the blessed father Cyprian has for a certain reason withdrawn; "in doing which he acted quite rightly, because he is a person of eminence, and because a conflict is impending," which God has allowed in the world, for the sake of cooperating with His servants in their struggle against the adversary
Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 6 (265-340ad)
But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter.
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality...Teachings of the Apostles Syriac
They too, again, at their deaths committed and delivered to their disciples after them whatsoever they had received from the apostles; also what James had written from Jerusalem, and Simon from the city of Rome, and John from Ephesus, and Mark from Alexandria the Great, and Andrew from Phrygia, and Luke from Macedonia, and Judas Thomas from India: that the epistles of an apostle might be received and read in the churches that were in every place, just as the achievements of their Acts, which Luke wrote
Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles par 6
The Priest says this secret prayer in the sanctuary:- O Lord God Omnipotent, Thine is the Holy Catholic Church, inasmuch as Thou, through the great passion of Thy Christ, didst buy the sheep of Thy pasture; and from the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is indeed of one nature with Thy glorious divinity, are granted the degrees of the true priestly ordination;
Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 6 ch 18 (265-340ad)
Greece on account of a pressing necessity in connection with ecclesiastical affairs, and went through Palestine, and was ordained as presbyter in Caesarea by the bishops of that country.
Irenaeus of Lyons Book 4 ch 8.3 (120-180 ad)
And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality..Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book IV ch26.2 [120-180 AD]
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth"
Interesting challenge. The RCC won't like this if you are successful! I would suggest, look into rabbinic teaching practices and compare them to the early church. Perhaps the early church functioned in more of a Jewish style teacher apprentice model than a consecration model. It might give you more to study/research.
Thank you for comment. I will have to look into that.
LOL 2000 years of records and history and you think a CZcams video is the first time someone challenges the Catholic Church? The lack of succession has shown how quickly protestants create new churches to appease their endless interpretations of scripture.
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and *apostolic* Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Thank you for your comment.
St. Paul had a special interest in Timothy because he had ordained him personally to the priesthood (probably to the bishopric). Notice again the language Paul uses in reminding young Timothy of the ongoing challenge of his office: “Rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6).
Paul told Timothy, “What 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.
Modern biblical scholars don't think Paul wrote the letters to Timothy
@@kevinkelly2162 Biblical Scholars do not agree among each other, and have been proven wrong in the past. All they offer is some opinion, thousands of years removed
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 54 par 14 (200-270 ad)
After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.
Clement of Rome Recognitions book 10 ch 68 (27-97 ad)
Laodicea, Peter ordered the people to meet on the following day; and having ordained one of those who followed him as bishop over them, and others as presbyters, and having baptized multitudes, and restored to health all who were troubled with sicknesses or demons
Eusebius of Caesarea Life of Constantine book 1 ch 32 (265-340 ad)
Moreover, he made the priests of God his counselors, and deemed it incumbent on him to honor the God who had appeared to him with all devotion
Hippolytus Appendix Cannons of Hyppolytus 31 (170-236 ad)
31. That a deacon may dispense the Eucharist to the people with permission of a bishop or presbyter.
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality..Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses book 3 ch 3.4 [120-180 AD]
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles -- that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly,
Aphrahat Demonstrations 8 Of the Resurrection of the Dead par 8 (280-367 ad)
Then Moses wished by his priestly power to absolve Reuben from his transgression and sin, in that he had lain with Bilhah, his father's concubine; that when his brethren should rise, he might not be cut off from their number.
Got to love a video starting out with the guy indicating he may not know what he is talking about. But spend an hour listening to me telling you the same old arguments protestants have used in the last 500 years. Common sense points to no teaching succession, the fruit is endless denominations creating new teachings.
Thank you for your comment.
You’ve commented before this. Are you only now starting to watch the video?
@@drstevennemes Your intro you basically indicate you are not prepared to discuss the topic
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality...Irenaeus of Lyons Adversus Haereses Book III, ch 3.2 [120-180 AD]
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul-that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition"
Cyprian of Carthage epistle 74 par 16 (200-270 ad)
But what is the greatness of his error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one Church which was once based by Christ upon the rock, may be perceived from this, that Christ said to Peter alone, "Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again, in the Gospel, when Christ breathed on the apostles alone, saying, remitted unto them, and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained." Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. But the enemies of the one Catholic Church in which we are, and the adversaries of us who have succeeded the apostles, asserting for themselves, in opposition to us, unlawful priesthoods, and setting up profane altars, what else are they than Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, profane with a like wickedness, and about to suffer the same punishments which they did, as well as those who agree with them, just as their partners and abettors perished with a like death to theirs?
Teachings of the Apostles Syriac
And by ordination to the priesthood, which the apostles themselves had received from our Lord, did their Gospel wing its way rapidly into the four quarters of the world.
Cyprian of Carthage Epistle 75 par 3 [200-270 AD]
3. Wherefore, since the Church alone has the living water, and the power of baptizing and cleansing man, he who says that any one can be baptized and sanctified by Novatian must first show and teach that Novatian is in the Church or presides over the Church. For the Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honour of the priesthood, the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way.
Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Philadelphians ch 7 [50-117 AD]
"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: 'Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.' Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, 'Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father'" (Letter to the Philadelphians
You are accepting is a development, also we don’t know if this letter is legit
@@internautaoriginal9951 If the letter is not legit, when and who made the claim?
Teachings of the Apostles Syriac
They too, again, at their deaths committed and delivered to their disciples after them whatsoever they had received from the apostles; also what James had written from Jerusalem, and Simon from the city of Rome, and John from Ephesus, and Mark from Alexandria the Great, and Andrew from Phrygia, and Luke from Macedonia, and Judas Thomas from India: that the epistles of an apostle might be received and read in the churches that were in every place, just as the achievements of their Acts, which Luke wrote
I truly believe that no matter what Protestants do, they cannot stop the conversions to the Catholic faith. Mary said my Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. This is Mary the mother of God saying this. Whether you believe this or not it will happen. Once that triumph happens, there will only be one true Catholic church. The lies and deception of Protestantism cannot stop this.
Thank you for your comment.
@@drstevennemes Just straight talk. If Protestants are wrong, you are missing to eat the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist for the rest of your life. If Protestants are right, Catholics won't really be missing anything significant. Pls. just ponder upon this. You are missing a lot and you might even hinder hundred or thousands more people in receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Pls. study the early church fathers.
Irenaues in 180 cites the apostolic succession in contrasistinctuon to the gnostics secret tradition. It is clear that the church relied on apostolic succession to secure the true teachings of Christ. Protestants just cant accept that because... we know why...
@@MrProsat
Thank you for your comment.
I address Irenaeus in the video. I would recommend that you watch it and get an idea of what my argument actually is.
We don't even have the teachings of Christmas accurately recorded in the Gospels
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The Gospel are narratives, not necessarily 21st century-style historical reports. What we have is the inspired Word of God teaching us what we need to know about Jesus and His incarnation.
@@drstevennemes fair enough
@@MrProsat Ok. So not necessarily accurate reports of Jesus' teaching. I can go with that.
If that’s the case why then does every branch of Christianity with Apostolic foundation have the same model?
Thank you for your comment.
I do not accept that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. have an apostolic foundation. At best we can say that they claim to have one, but so did other groups.
Hippolytus Appendix Cannons of Hyppolytus 28-29 (170-236 ad)
Canon Twenty-eighth. That none of the believers should taste anything, but after he has taken the sacred mysteries, especially in the days of fasting. [+] Canon Twenty-ninth. Of the keeping of oblations which are laid upon the altar,--that nothing fall into the sacred chalice, and that nothing fall from the priests, nor from the boys when they take communion; that an evil spirit rule them not, and that no one speak in the protection, except in prayer; and when the oblations of the people cease, let psalms be read with all attention, even to the signal of the bell; and of the sign of the cross, and the casting of the dust of the altar into the pool.
You believe that 1 Clement is making up the permanence of the offices because the Apostles thought Jesus was coming back soon?
I’m not sure I quite understand fully how it’s mythological. Could you elaborate?
I wouldn’t want to argue that 1st Clement made something up based on eschatological presuppositions of the time.
I’m interested in your thinking here.
Thank you for your comment.
Here is my thinking.
If the apostles thought that the end of the world were coming soon, i.e. within their own lifetimes, they would not have a reason to establish a permanent episcopal order in their churches. There is no need to set up a complex governmental system with rules of succession on the sinking Titanic, so to speak.
I also think there are good reasons for believing that the apostles did not regularly consult with one another or keep in touch with one another as they went about preaching. I may present my reasons for thinking this in another video sometime next week.
Of course, I'm open to being convinced otherwise. These are simply my reasons for thinking thus right now.
@@drstevennemeshe was pointing out that Clement says the apostles were told by our Lord that they needed to establish the ministry because after they departed there would be strife on account of it, hence, in Clement's view, the apostles were not expecting Christ to return in their lifetime but were told by him the ministry they established would carry on after their death
This is nonsense, you simply read the first 12 minutes, your video description indicates there is no Apostolic Succession in the early church, then the very first point you make is there is Apostolic Succession in the early church. I can not even trust you can keep your own thoughts straight.
@@dan_m7774
I think rather that you have misunderstood what I’m trying to do in this video, even though I explain myself very clearly. You might try watching it again in a better state of mind.
@@drstevennemes Would you present such a video to your peers? I think you are presenting material designed to ignorant protestants. Many educated Protestants actually become Catholic or Orthodox as the more they study Christianity, they come to realize a preacher centered church is nothing like the early church. Most Catholics and Orthodox will see you start off with a false premise on the Apostles state of mind, then dismiss documents based of false negatives. Like they should of write something they didn't.
They are writing to an audience that already has an understanding of the Church and its function. What you fail to do is provide writings making your claims. The lack of your understanding of God always setting up a teaching authority is seen everywhere in scripture. The very seat of Moses existing till the time of Christ is extremely less documented in scripture than the Seat of Peter. Yet Christ confirmed it.
Heresy is what you get when you do not have true teaching authority, correcting it comes from a teaching authority.
Okay here’s the question: Did the Apostles govern the Church after Christ’s Ascension? Did God leave the Church with no governors after the last Apostle died? Why did the Apostles ordain bishops when they established churches if it wasn’t to continue on leading the Church?
We Catholics can trace our bishops back to the Apostles. By whose authority did the so called reformers start their own churches?
We follow the successors of the Apostles. Protestants follow the successors of Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. The idea that we don’t need any authority to interpret the Bible is why the Protestants became divided within the lifetime of Luther.
Now there are 30k denominations. And there will be more next week.
Thank you for your comment.
No, the apostles did not govern the church after Christ’s ascension. As I mention in this video on a few occasions, I think it is very unlikely that the apostles consulted with one another throughout the course of their lives. They probably each minded their own business.
As I argue in this video at great length, the Roman Catholic Church cannot trace their bishops back to the apostles.
The apostles did not think the Lord was going to return in their lifetime.
He even admit that this is not his experties. Better to study in vatican library so it might bring more light and become an expert on this subject.
Thank you for your comment.
You raise a good point. The fact that we see instances where bishops, priests, and deacons may have been selected by bishops, apostles, or apostles' delegates is evidence that these are ways that bishops were selected -- not evidence that these are the ONLY ways to select people for ordained ministry.
Succession may be sufficient to confirm one's ordination/office, but it is not necessary. The claim of Rome and the various Orthodox is that it is merely necessary (and not even sufficient, since they hold that one can be stripped of his ordained office). It seems that the principle that only bishops can ordain/consecrate is largely just a gradual, human development, akin to so many other traditions that have accrued over the centuries.
Have you read the ancient historian Eusebius?
He records the first 4 popes
Thank you for your comment.
Hey man, I’m new here. I just wanted to say I’m appreciating your videos!
Thank you! I’m glad!
Common Dr Steven W
Glad you made this video!
@@pinkmoon9450 I’m glad you enjoyed it!
We read in scripture the apostles choosing a successor Matthias to Replace Judas. We have writings from the Church Fathers .....
Clement of Rome First Epistle ch (44 27-97 ad)
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.
@@dan_m7774
Thank you for your comment.
I address 1 Clement in the video. Did you watch it?
@@drstevennemes Which video have you watched that dispels your arguments.
What new argument are you making that has not been presented in the last 500 years?
@@dan_m7774
I don’t know of any videos that dispel my arguments, nor have I heard other people say what I’ve been saying. I could be wrong. I invite anyone to prove me wrong, if I am.
@@drstevennemes It seems to me you have failed to actually engage this conversation honestly as there are plenty of people that have discussions on this topic. You instead want to make a lot of assertions knowing most people are not going to spend 3x the time to prove you wrong. What is your best argument,that you think no one has ever heard before? Other wise it simply makes sense to post other videos to refute a same old argument video
@@drstevennemes The early church Fathers prove you wrong
This video is in vain, every single bishop is recorded from Peter until now, much like every president or king. Apostolic succession is real and easily verifiable
@@stuntman083
Thank you for your comment.
Do you have anything to say about the actual argument I put forth in it?
@drstevennemes and waste an hour of my day? You should've made your point quicker. My comment is based off your title
Irenaeus refuted Gnosticism with apostolic succession. It’s legit
@@bansheebrethren797
Thank you for your comment.
Did you watch the video at all?
Irenaeus had a habit of making up fables to refute Gnostics. He always went overboard. He made up a fake list of Roman bishops starting with Linus. This has been a problem for honest Catholics, since the apostles and their delegates appointed multiple bishops over each congregation, and there is no evidence that Linus was ever even one of the bishops in Rome.
Tertullian keeps it more simple, but Irenaeus has a bad habit of making up "pious" fiction.
Irenaeus, "refutes" the heretics who claim Jesus' ministry was a about a year and goes overboard again by saying Jesus was actually closer to 50 than 30.
Instead of just stating there are four Gospels handed down, he goes overboard again with a bizarre story on why there are only four Gospels. Irenaeus is pretty much the prime source for the list of Roman bishops. And even he did not have apostolic succession in mind. All he tried to convey was that they have an unbroken chain of transmission from the time of the apostles.
You should this Book. Many Catholic prophecies are about to take place worldwide. AFTER THE WARNING TO 2038 book and website help to understand severe events in 2024.
Thank you for your comment.
why don't you debate with catholic apologists like patrick madrid
@@ferdipac8377
Thank you for your comment.
There are two reasons. First, I generally do not respect apologists of any kind, especially not Roman Catholic ones. Second, I am not good at debating.
Anyone is free to respond to my arguments by making a video of his own.
@@drstevennemes In other words, your doctorate is a load of crapola.
@@georgepierson4920
Thank you for your comment.
My time getting my doctorate was spent learning how to do research, gain sufficient expertise in a certain field that I could in principle teach anyone about it, craft arguments in defense of my position, and critically engage with the ideas of others. It was spent learning how to change my mind if the evidence pointed contrary to my position, and to not say more than the evidence allows me to say. My thesis was passed with distinction by three of the most important living contemporary living theologians. I didn’t spend any time learning how to score points under time constraints in a quasi-athletic contest by coming up with bullshit that sounds good before an audience that doesn’t know half as much as I do. I don’t have that skill, and don’t particularly care to develop it. I actually am willing to consider arguments and change my mind about anything. I am not professionally, religiously, and socially committed to maintaining the opinions that I share on this platform. Apologists are not open to changing their mind at all, but only to trying to look better than their opponents in a debate for the sake of the audience which already agrees with them. They want to make converts, and they’re not open to changing their mind themselves. I don’t want to spend time talking to a person like that.
@@drstevennemes And therefore, the very notion that you could be completely wrong about denying apostolic succession scares you too much. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. The fact that you have problems with any apologists because they are not open to changing their minds as well despite the fact that you are doing exactly what you expect them to do is hypocritical. The Catholic Church can defend its position on Apostolic Succession and you cannot defend yours. You would have to condemn the Apostles for replacing Judas Iscariot.
@@georgepierson4920
I just spent an hour in this video arguing that the Roman Catholic Church’s claim to be in succession from the apostles is both groundless and contradicted by the evidence. Do you have a response to the argument?
Just about all of RCC 'theology' is a myth because it can't be found in the Bible, such as salvation by baptism and works, praying the Rosary, the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary and her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, assumption, being a co-redemptrix and mediatrix, as well as petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession (there were only 12 Apostles as seen in the book of Revelation), the ordinances of the Church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition with Scripture, which the Bible warns about the danger of following those non-apostolic traditions. Other than that, it is a great example of what fallen men can come up with to keep the sheeple in line.
I'm not Catholic, but will probably become one. The things you people say literally make no sense. The Bible isn't found in The Bible, you understand that right? There literally was not a thing called "The New Testament", it didn't exist. They had a bunch of letters and books that they maintained, along with instruction and tradition that they passed down. In light of SEVERAL books etc that were wrong being accepted by many in the Church (aka heresys) they canonized legitimate books into what is now called "The New Testament" of The Bible, 400 years later. All doctrine that you believe, the Trinity, The eternality of Christ, the Bible itself, it's preservation from generation after generation of heretics, only exists because of the authority of The Catholic Church. There literally was no Bible. It was all done by MEN, specifically a bunch of bishops and Popes of The Catholic Church. God used Protestants for literally nothing. You not understanding words like "co mediatrix" or anything else does not take away from Catholic theology.
@@godfreydebouillon8807
Re: The Bible
Both the Old (OT) and the entire New Testament (NT) could be reconstructed from the writings of the early Church Fathers such as Clement of Rome, who wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth in AD 95 that contained numerous OT Scriptures as well as the writings of the Apostles Jesus had hand-picked, that were considered as sacred Scripture.
The OT Scriptures were completed by 400 BC+-. The Jews recognized God's messengers and accepted their writings as inspired by Him, and by AD 250, there was nearly universal agreement on the Canon of Hebrew Scripture.
The New Testament Timeline (AD)
James - 40-46
1 Thessalonians - 50-52
2 Thessalonians - 51-53
Galatians - 53-56
1 + 2 Corinthians - 56-57
Romans and 1 Peter - 57-58
Philippians - 59
Matthew - 35-60
Titus, Philemon, Mark - 61
Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy - 61-63
Hebrews - 61-63
2 Peter, 2 Timothy, Luke, Jude - 58-67
Acts - 58-67
John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John - 63-80
Revelation - 89-95
The NT Scriptures were compiled into one book in AD 144 by Marcion of Sinope (AD 85-160), the son of the Bishop of Pontus. Paul considered the writings of Luke to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27).
- AD 95 - Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight NT books.
- AD 108 - Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, acknowledged 15 books.
- AD 115 - Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books.
- AD 170-235 - Hippolytus recognized 22 books.
- AD 130-202 - Irenaeus quoted from 24 books of the NT over 1,800 times.
- AD 150 - Justin Martyr wrote a letter known as his first Apology to the Roman Emperor in which he described what happened during a typical Sunday church service. He wrote that the Scriptures of the OT (the writings of the Prophets) and the writings of the NT were read out loud, and then a message (discourse) was preached, songs were sung, and people prayed together. Then, an offering was made, part of which was used to help those who were sick, as well as widows and orphans, and all those that were in need (First Apology, 67).
- AD 185-254 - Origen Adamantius, a theologian and scholar, made over 18,000 references to the books in the NT.
Jesus, the person who started Christianity by proclaimg Himself to be the Creator of all things. He accepted the full authority of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-18). He said the religious leaders were in error because they did not know the Scriptures nor the power of God and constantly criticized and rebuked them for corrupting the basis of truth by equating their traditions with God's Word and making ineffectual (Matthew 22:29; Mark 7:13). The Scribes of the New Testament undertood that all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation and that no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit and that it can only be understood correctly through the uncorrupted illumination of the Holy Spirit, who bears witness to it (See John 14:16-17,26; 1 John 5:6; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21 - also Proverbs 1:23).
Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27 ESV). He used the words "It is written (Gk: 'graphó') whenever He declared the will of God (Matthew 21:14;26:234; Mark 7:65,11:17; Luke 2:23,19:46; John 8:17,12:14). The phrase means to be exclusively transcribed and not hearsay. The Bible says His Word is absolutely sufficient in itself (Psalm 119:160). Jesus prayed for every future Born-Again Christian in His high holy prayer: "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth" (John 17:17 ESV - also Psalm 119:142).
The focus of all Scripture in the Bible alone is ultimately on Jesus. The writers of the New Testament constantly appealed to the Scriptures alone as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not actual Biblical teaching (Matthew 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19; Acts 17:11).
The Bible is breathed out by God in written form and is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:15-16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). Jesus said, "the Scripture cannot be broken," and in His very last commandment in the book of Revelation, warned not to add to nor take away from His Word (John 10:35; Revelation 22:18-19). To appeal to a tradition or the esoteric ramblings of a fallen human being as the divine authority is unsupported in God's Word.
"Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me." (John 14:23-24 ESV)
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matthew 24:35 ESV)
In other words, you're ignorant of the Catholic Church and you have no problem with being so.
Wrong
Thank you for your comment.
Heresy is the result of lacking apostolic succession, which is corrected evidently by apostolic succession having only one teaching.
Heresy is departing from the teachings of the apostles of Christ. As the RCC clearly has done.
@@Anastasis1.4 The church has authority of the Apostles
@@dan_m7774 you know what is circular reasoning?
@@Anastasis1.4 Sola scriptura is circular. Scripture says what I think it does, and when I read it, I am confirmed. Scripture points to the teaching authority of the Church.
Who are you to proclaim the " myth of apostolic succession in Roman Catholic Doctrine? After two thousand years you come with your " new doctrine.You arre a poor guy! Go and study and believe in Jesus Christ.
Thank you for your comment.
I am just some guy.
Go and learn from either the Orthodox church or the Roman Catholics regarding the Apostolic succession. The Lord Jesus Christ guaranteed that "the gates of Hades will not prevail over the Church."
So are you calling Yah the Redeemer a liar?
Thank you for your comment.
The argument...I will argue that this notion of apostolic succession is nowhere to be found in the earliest sources
Reality... Clement of Rome First Epistle ch (44 27-97 ad)
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.
Thank you for your comment.
I address 1 Clement in the video. If you would watch the video carefully first and then comment, I would very much appreciate it.
@@drstevennemes You have not provided a reason to take you seriously.
@@drstevennemes You are wasting my time by just endless reading of documents, that is pointless. Provide proof of a new arguement