Apostolic Succession in the Bible | Tim Staples | Catholic Answers Live
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2021
- All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles. So where does the Bible talk about the beginning of this apostolic succession? Tim Staples gives the answer on Catholic Answers Live.
DONATE: give.catholic.com/castudios
SUBSCRIBE: / catholiccom
WEBSITE: www.catholic.com
Tim Staples is a Senior Apologist here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of Christian televangelists. Soon after, Tim joined the Marine Corps.
During his four-year tour, he became involved in ministry with various Assemblies of God communities. Immediately after his tour of duty, Tim enrolled in Jimmy Swaggart Bible College and became a youth minister in an Assembly of God community. During his final year in the Marines, however, Tim met a Marine who really knew his faith and challenged Tim to study Catholicism from Catholic and historical sources. That encounter sparked a two-year search for the truth. Tim was determined to prove Catholicism wrong, but he ended up studying his way to the last place he thought he would ever end up: the Catholic Church!
He converted to Catholicism in 1988 and spent the following six years in formation for the priesthood, earning a degree in philosophy from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, Pennsylvania. He then studied theology on a graduate level at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, for two years. Realizing that his calling was not to the priesthood, Tim left the seminary in 1994 and has been working in Catholic apologetics and evangelization ever since.
If you are interested in booking Tim Staples for an upcoming event, please contact Catholic Answers at (619) 387-7200 x323 or www.catholic.com/speakers/tim....
Apostolic Succession in the Bible
Irenaeus listing the first 12 Popes is one great piece of evidence
hello sir.
can I get the letter where he wrote that?
@@lukasg9031 Hello Lukas. It's in Against Heresies Book III, Chapter 3
@Potato I'm seeing it was written close to year 180 AD
@@JJ-cw3nf it seems to start with clement. Y?
@@isaacdominguez474 No truth in any of their claims at all!
Dang! Tim, every time I listen to Tim, it’s always a jaw breaker.
He's awesome.
The main flaw in this line of reasoning is that it assumes The Twelve = Apostle = Bishop (as we understand Bishop today). We know that there were other Apostles than the Twelve. Paul is clearly one and he names others, and they weren't necessarily eye witnesses of Jesus (though Paul was), so the office of Apostle is clearly a different office than the Twelve. You could say all the Twelve were all Apostles but not all Apostles were the Twelve. We know that the term "episkope" appears in the NT and means overseer, but we don't know just when it took on the meaning of "head of a local church" in a different and formal way from "presbyteros" prior to Ignatius of Antioch. We know that presbyters were appointed by apostles and that "succession" is well established by the time Clement writes to Corinth in the last years of the first century. So the case for "succession" of leaders is much stronger than the case for "succession from the Twelve." So does "apostolic" mean of the Twelve or of "Apostles"? Unfortunately, it's not quite as simple as it's laid out in this video. Any catholic with a real interest in the issue should read Raymond Brown's book "Priest and Bishop"
It seems to me the Catholic Church is taking it upon themselves to appoint people to positions they have no authority to appoint people to.
I’m curious, who are the other apostles that Paul mentions?
@calebrobinson7277 apostolic succession was a must to differentiate from heretics like Protestants. All the early church believed in apostolic succession. It’s in the bible don’t know what the heck you talking about.
@@calebrobinson7277
YOU: It seems to me the Catholic Church is taking it upon themselves to appoint people to positions they have no authority to appoint people to.
ME: You seem to forget, Jesus gave the Apostles authority, and that authority was passed on to others, since eventually the Twelve were going to die. Without authority, who confirms how Scripture is to be understood for successive generations? Every single person can't form their own doctrines and teachings by reading the Bible by themselves. But funny, that's exactly what some so-called Christians tell me all the time.
Many thanks to Catholic Answers! My go-to source for apologetics.
Hello
I think the problem is not people going around saying “I don’t want to follow apostolic tradition!”
Nobody does that
The problem people have is that they don’t think Catholic tradition lines up with apostolic tradition
Obviously a lot of people didn’t or you wouldn’t have hundreds of years of ecumenical councils
For example, there’s no evidence of asking the dead for intercession until 300AD, so people are going to question that and disagree with the practice
Claiming unbroken succession doesn’t mean there’s no hesitation of teachings
the Pharisees, who might claim unbroken succession to Moses, yet we know Jesus rebuked their false traditions
The over 70,000 False, Man Made, Reformed, Heretical, Protestant, Religions and Churches that started 1,520 years later after Our Lord Jesus Christ founded HIS, One and Only Catholic Church in 33A., ARE the ones farthest away from ANY, Apostolic Succession/Tradition. It was a practice in the Old Testament to pray; FOR THE DEAD; (A humble request for the soul to rest in peace) But Martin Luther, your Father of Protestantism who took one of the 7 books of the Bible and the reason PROTESTANTS DO NOT know. 2Maccabees 12:45 for the forgiveness of their NON DEADLY SINS; 1Jn.5:16-17 and their Happy repose. This is NOT NECROMANCY as PROTESTANTS falsely claim when they say Catholics; Pray TO THE DEAD; Necromancy, (ASKING FOR INFORMATION) is a mortal sin strictly prohibited by the Catholic Church.
'to the great church, the oldest and best known of all, founded and established in Rome by the glorious apostles Peter and Paul ... All other churches ought to be in agreement with this church because of her more powerful authority ... for in her is preserved the tradition which comes from the apostles. -St Iraneus (c180)
Couldn't be the church that Christ established. The misconception lies in Matthew 16v18...and I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock, I will built my church...." see Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heartfelt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. If the Catholic Church suspends you, or excommunicates you, it would make you hopeless, because you are bound by them. No religion can take what I have from me. I am a free man. I love the Lord Jesus Christ because he rescued me and changed my life, his Spirit gave me hope, His word gave me direction. I don’t care who it is, if what they say does does not align with the scriptures I do not accept.
@@wesleysimelane3423 Tell Iraneus, not me! :)
It's all about education, one way or the other.
@@wesleysimelane3423 But that is your erroneous and fallible interpretation. Of course everyone knows that Jesus is referring to Peter, and not to Peter's confession. You have no authority to interpret scripture.
@@bengoolie5197 Who has authority to inteprete scripture? The catholic church? HA! The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states and I quote: "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone." CCC par. 85. This IS NOT what the Bible teaches, for it tells every believer to study so they can handle the word of truth accurately. Look up 2 Timothy 2:15.
I always found it amazing that the so-called first pope of the Roman Catholic church was a Sabbath observing, Temple worshipping, pork abstaining JEW who was married and according to the Bible had a mother - in - law so he must have had a wife. Simply amazing. Also amazing that most of the practices of the Vatican go completely contrary to what Peter was all about.
I am using Tim Staples' book "Behold your Mother-Defense of Marian Doctrines" for my Mariology class. It's a wonderful book. I highly recommend it.
Apostolic pure and simple.
Deo Gratias.
God created order in which there is a structure in order. As the original sin resulted in disorder in the natural world as the Devil and his demons pervert God's order in the natural world as we are called to serve God there is order which is why God given us His Law. When we choose to serve ourselves instead of God we are engaging in disorder. As there is the Commandment You Shall Honor Your Father and Mother is having respect for authority which is part of order as you respect the authority of God. Therefore our Lord being the leader of the Apostles who He chosen by handing over the keys to St. Peter our Lord gave him His authority to succeed Him as the leader of the Apostles. As for the Apostles themselves each became the leader of their own particular churches. It couldn't end there because without leadership there is no order which is why there is and always had been a succession.
Good stuff, but I think more needs to be said about Timothy and Titus being successors of Paul in Ephesus and Crete and Paul acknowledging and commanding them to use full teaching authority over the faithful, granted to them by the laying on of hands. This is all in Scripture. Judas being replaced is good and important as apostolic replacement, but Timothy and Titus embody true apostolic succession as bishops with full teaching authority.
teaching authority =/= divine authority
the authority to preach what is in the gospel =/= the authority to decide what is truth
@@InitialPC Did the apostles have authority from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit or not?
"authority to decide what is truth" STRAW MAN! No one is claiming any man chooses/decides what truth is. These dumb caricatures are frustrating and only show ignorance.
@@InitialPC Are you going to answer my question?? Did the apostles have authority from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit or not? Hard to get a straight answer from non-Catholics sometimes....
Do you understand what "straw man fallacy" means? It means you are accusing your opponent of holding a position that he DOES NOT hold. Catholicism does NOT teach that popes/bishops "decide/choose" the truth, as if it were a matter of will. The truth is already present in Scripture and Tradition. Choose your words more carefully.
"isnt the entirety of catholicism that we understand the bible through the interpretations of the successor of peter?"
Again, this is ignorance showing. Pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read what it has to say about Divine Revelation, Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, Pope, Bishops, Councils, etc. Why should Catholics in YT comments have to do all the work for you?
The papacy has the ability to protect the Church from error. It's a negative ability, not a positive ability. The notion that Catholic interpretations of Scripture ONLY come from successors of Peter is laughably false.
"exactly what authority did jesus give to peter that he did not give to the other apostles?"
Read Mt 16:18-19, Lk 22:31-32, and Jn 21:15-17 (and the first 15 chapters of Acts and esp ch 15) and then try to tell me Jesus didn't give Peter an authority, mission, role, etc. that the others did not have. Do those verses not speak for themselves? Or have your young man-made traditions made it hard for you to perceive their significance as the early Church recognized historically?
Even many Protestant scholars admit the special role of Peter as the leader of the 12. There is no ground to be gained by you here.
@@tonyl3762 why are you so fucking hostile? all im trying to do is understand how catholicism works and the only thing you want to do is act like an asshole
if you represent the average catholic than I know everything I need to know
@@deleteduser1892 yeah lets just ignore the dozen greek codices that predate the compilation of the bible by the catholic church
My friend you have a glaring oversight, in acts one when mathias is appointed as the replacement for Judas there are 2 key points 1. the successor had to have been witness of the baptism of John through the resurrection of Christ and 2. the successor was not chosen directly but the apostles drew lots. Ergo, acts states that there is qualifying criteria to be a successor and It also states the methodology used for choosing that person.
Your glaring oversight is that when we speak of Apostolic Succession, it doesn't mean that we are adding to the original Twelve, in other words, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, etc., it means that our line of bishops can be traced back to the original Church that Jesus founded.
@@jzak5723 I guess then my question is, why does the Catholic Church claim a unique pedigree of Apostolic Succession when the same claims can be made by many denominations. Your apologists use Matthias as there prototype but non of your Bishops meet the criteria.
@@adam7402
Catholic's would only care about others making the same claim to Apostolic Succession if they had a solid case for it, but they don't, so we don't worry about it. Every church would like to be able to trace their lineage back to the Twelve, unfortunately only ONE qualifies.
If what you mean by "criteria" is that none of the bishops walked with Jesus, I think that's obvious that none would qualify. However, the Twelve were unique, and were not meant to be replaced over and over, like the Mormons do I believe. But for us, Apostolic Succession is simply a line of bishops extending back to the Apostles, not a replacement for them.
@@jzak5723The Catholic Church recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Assyrian Church of the East as having valid apostolic succession. Additionally, certain Old Catholic churches and certain Anglican churches are also recognized under certain conditions.
All the way back to the Bishop of Jerusalem ❤✝️🛐
I like Tim Staples and his answer. God bless you and stay safe Gary Pickering •.
Nope! Just like when they elect a new pope, the puff of smoke is just that! SMOKE!
Men, political motivated and power hungry, elect your new leader, not God.
@@ericleming1734 you too
Gracias! What a great teaching in short time 🙏🏻📿
Así mismo
Something I'd like to say before anything else, I do believe that the position of the Catholic Pope CAN be traced back to Peter, and that Jesus did give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter.
This is what I am having a hard time believe and what I'm not seeing any evidence for:
That the authority given to Peter and that the office of the Pope come hand in hand, where is the evidence that it was the position Peter held that granted him his authority?
Catholics keep citing letters in which early Christians considered the Pope to be the successor of Peter, but they don't say in these letters that they consider the Pope to have the same authority as Peter. They don't even describe what they mean by "successor" whatsoever, only that Peter has successors.
Where are the sources that say Peter's successors not only inherited his authority to teach, but also the keys to the Kingdom?
Without such sources its just a matter of "I say so".
For me it was Irenaeus -Against Heresies - Book 3 - Chapter 3 - Section 2. You should be able to find that free online and it’d be better to do that then to just read it off some CZcams comment.
I suppose there are counter arguments to it but none of the ones I’ve heard have ever felt convincing.
(It doesn’t say exactly what you’re asking for but it does have a pretty solid affirmation of Rome’s pastorship over the rest of the Church)
@@reeldisconnect2590 "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. *For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church,* on
account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved
continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
I will admit this is the most solid evidence I've seen regarding the authority of the pope, specifically the part I highlighted.
The thing I have an issue with is the same problem I had before, this quote is talking about the successors of Peter PRESERVING the traditions of the church, not establishing new ones.
What this tells me is that the early church considered the authority Peter had was unique to himself and not something that was extended to his successors.
@@InitialPC but Irenaeus’ reasoning is the Roman Church’s “pre-eminent authority” even though Simon had been dead at his time of writing for over a hundred years. It seems like something that really does stick with Rome as passed down.
The first example of Apostolic Succession is replacing Judas (bishopric) with Matthias. Remember that the Church was an OFFICIAL sect within Judaism. If you read Acts 1 and you are familiar with Halakhah Law you will immediately notice that the Church is a legal entity WITHIN Judaism. There are 3 requirements which are met.
Notice that there are 120 members in this synagogue. Why is this important? It is the exact number of persons in the Halakhah regulations to form a full fledged synagogue. Next according to Halakhah regulations there must be a "beit din" (Hebrew court) formed. We see that there is a beit din and it draws lots and Matthias a disciple is chosen to take over Judas bishopric (episkopen). So two of the three requirements are met.
The third requirement is that there must be a nasi (prince/temporal) and ab ( father/spiritual) appointed. Curiously Peter is filling both these positions in this beit din. Why?
In 190 BC the Kohan Gadol (high priest office) fell into apostasy and beit din gadol cast a vote of no confidence splitting the two offices of the kohan gadol into the "nasi" and the "ab" within the beit din gadol. However, in this new beit din which is actually a beit din gadol (70 disciples) Christ has placed His confidence in Peter by presenting him the Keys to the temple and bringing the two offices back together the way it originally was. The pope has both temporal and spiritual powers. Peter is the prince of the apostles and the pope (Pope meaning papa - meaning father) as you see even today the pope is both nasi and the ab in Catholicism.
I don't doubt that the traditional successors of Peter are in fact his successors, what I doubt is that merely being his successor grants you the divine authority given to Peter.
Inheriting an office =/= inheriting divine authority
@@InitialPC The Pope has divine authority the same way Moses did. Moses sat in the Seat of Moses that Jesus referred to. The Pope sits in the Seat of Peter. Rashi/Jewish sage writes a commentary on the priestly role of the steward/vizier of the Davidic Kingdoms. The Keys are the keys of the Temple and Authority. When the Davidic kings were away the steward/vizier was in charge and he wore the keys the King gave him so the citizens knew who he was. The steward is given the sash/robes/keys to the temple because the role is also a priestly role. The keys were then passed onto a successor when that steward died/removed. (Isaiah 22 v15-25)
The Apostles knew exactly what had occurred when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Jesus presents the keys to Peter (Pope/ab) and appoints him/his successors as His royal steward to care for HIs flock until His return. All the apostles were given special gifts but only Peter was given the Keys.
First book of Kings lists all the Kings and the royal steward/vizier is always listed next to the King because in the absence of the King he was in charge of the Kingdom. Christ also renames Peter (the only Apostle renamed) as Abraham and Jacob were renamed by God in preparation for their specific role in salvation history.
Jesus, Son of David rebuilt the kingdom as per 2SamCh7 - He is the King, His mother is Gebirah, Peter/successor Popes are His royal stewards/viziers and the Hebrew court/beit-din is the Magisterium (council of bishops).
Catholicism is not a new religion, it is the legitimate continuation of ancient Temple Judaism (not Rabbinic Judaism). Catholics do not throw out what God has revealed prior and continues to hold that all that is revealed is a single continuous revelation culminating in the Catholic Faith.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker Ok that's not an answer.
I'm not asking if Peter has successors I'm asking how you know his successors have the same authority he does.
If Moses and King David also had divine authority and lineages than who is the successor to Moses today? doesn't this mean Herod who killed a bunch of infants had the same divine authority David had as his successor?
You're making a lot of analogies and parallels but none of that is evidence.
@@InitialPC The short answer is because we possess documented and unbroken ordination going right back to Jesus. It started with Jesus the Head of the Church ordaining Peter and choosing him as His al-bayith giving him the Keys to Authority and Governance. Jesus Son of David is reinstating the Davidic Kingdom as per SamCh2 - He is King, His mother is Gebirah, the pope is his al-bayith. Peter's successor have the same authority because the ordination (laying on of hands) has been documented unbroken from Peter to the current Pope. Every bishop in the Catholic Church was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained by someone who was ordained Peter who was ordained by Jesus.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker so basically youre just going to repeat the same thing over and over again...
I know he says it is is air tight, but I'm struggling to understand how there can be a succession when it seems that the criteria in Acts was that he was an eyewitness...
It seems like they’re stretching the use of the prophecy in psalms 69:25 that’s quoted in acts 1:20 to suit their own ideas.
The reason Paul could be called an apostle is because as he said “Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” 1 Corinthians 15:8
It seems that the apostles are still apostles to us today through their writings, through their witness of Jesus, and through the doctrines given to them by the Holy Spirit.
Apostolic succession does not seem to be scriptural, why do the apostles in the bible and only the apostles have the ability to impart spiritual gifts?
“Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money,”
Acts 8:14-18 NKJV
It does not seem to me that any of these men who are bishops have this ability, and if they do, why aren’t they laying their hands on the new followers of Christ who have been baptised in the name of our lord Jesus?
Could it perhaps be because apostleship was only an office for these men who saw the risen Christ? I think so.
Paul himself seems to suggest spiritual gifts will cease.
1 Corinthians 13:10-13
“But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
many say that this is referring to Jesus, but I genuinely believe it is referring to the full revelation and perfect word of God as Jesus said
““I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.”
John 16:12-15 NKJV
How can Paul say that we prophesy in part when Jesus said the spirit will guide the apostles into ALL truth?
Because as Paul said, when that which is perfect had come, that which is in part will be done away.
So we no longer have the spiritual gifts because the apostles have been guided into all truth and they wrote it down for us to follow as acts 2:42 says
“And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.”
Acts 2:42 NKJV
They followed the apostles doctrine and they did not have the New Testament scriptures then, which is why it seems the spiritual gifts were necessary in the early church, to prop the church up and prove that they were from God.
And now we have the fullness of knowledge and doctrine given to the apostles we do not need them, and apostleship of the witnesses of the risen Christ still are relevant to us today.
And it seems the Catholic Church is raising men up to positions not authorised by God for them to be doing so.
The pope is prime example of this fact.
@calebrobonson7277 are you that naive? It’s in the Bible!!!! Read acts? Deacons bishops priests. Those are in Greek the words. Paul laid his hands on timothy and titus. Read timothy 2:2. Read Romans 10 14:15. All the church fathers were unamious about apostolic succession including the apostolic fathers clement of rome and Ignatius of Antioch. You’re a Protestant lol.
Great job Tim as always!
What a great guy.
He can be a “great guy” as you put it and still be wrong. Tim has debated Steve Gregg on Steve’s radio show, it’s a good listen.
I have found one of the best ways to judge whether someone is right or wrong is to listen to a debate. Of course it goes without saying both must be knowledgeable in their views as opposed to just having a view.
If you were to give a listen (with an open Bible at hand) I doubt you will come away with any view other than Tim is wrong.
I am a Catholic coming back to Jesus really open to seeking fellowship in my local Catholic Church and am seriously researching whether the Churches claims of Apostolic succession is a genuine reason to gird all the objections to the Catholic Church and rejoin the flock.
To some extent it’s a very legalistic argument rather than an apologetic one, but I’m still open to it.
What I can’t get around at this stage is the hubris from most Catholic commentators and apologists. And not that I’m seeking a perfect church to join, but I can’t overcome the facts that most of my conscious 55yrs on this earth dealing with the Church, parish priests, brothers, bishops, monseniors (sic), deacons, and lay staff and teachers - the overwhelming attributes of these people have been selfishness, arrogance, brutality, secretive, lovers of world and life, doing very little to ignite or illuminate scripture and a love of Jesus and mostly just intent on fulfilling their role in a completed self centred way dolling our ritual and incomprehensible theology.
And I am disturbed by how much the base theologies, catechism, or principles of faith have changed from Vatican 1 through to they latest revisions of catechism and the published works for articles of faith esp around adherence to scripture. Now I’m not fool hardy enough to head down the sola scriptura path, but the lie at least must be a primacy, a simple primacy of scripture.
Anyway, I cannot see for the life of me how apostolic succession trumps simple things like a vigorous defence of the belief in say Gen1….. in fact the entire book is predicated perfectly on even just Gen1:1
Ok, I got a little sidetracked there. Main points are
1. Does apostolic succession mean what we should ignore theological gymnastics by the Church
2. How can we ignore the complete abrogation of the principles of the early church fathers but the Roman Catholic Church authority for at least the last 1200years heightened by the poor example it has set in the 20th and 21st centuries
Hi there. I would recommend finding a solid Bible Church that teaches and preaches God’s Word. I have been built up so much in my life by preaching and teaching. I am not Catholic, but simply consider myself a Christian. I love Jesus. I had to learn not to trust fallible man, but the perfect spotless Lamb. I have been researching Catholicism a lot and I am not convinced that it is in fact correct in many of it’s teachings. I have placed my faith in God and the Scriptures. May the Holy Spirit enlighten our eyes to truth.
Let me help you clear your mind on this claim of apostolic succession. The book of ACTS gives requirements for apostles. The most important of which is that the selected or chosen apostle should have seen the risen Christ. Seen him after the crucifixion and before he returned to heaven. This is critical in establishing succession. Scripture also tells us that the last to see the risen Christ, was the Apostle Paul. So if you abide by scripture there can not be any apostolic succession. Because the apostolic age ended when the last apostle John passed. In addition the church has absolutely no proof that Peter was a pope. The book of Luke gives an account of a strife amongst the apostles. The strife that included Peter. What was this strife about? The apostles were contending as to who should be the greatest among them. Wait, I thought Peter was the pope? If he was, didn't the other apostles know? Why, if he was the pope didn't he settle the issue? And did Jesus stand up and defend "his" pope? Jesus did no such thing. Besides, Jesus had already said who he thought was the greatest. That was none other than the one who was to "prepare the way of the Lord." Matthew 11:11 says. "Verily, I say unto you, of them born of women, there has not risen a GREATER than John The Baptist." Finally, why would Peter even be involved in this strife if he was the pope?
One last thing about the lie of the church that Peter is the rock In Matthew 16. Here are two scriptures that say otherwise. Not the scriptures that most protestants use to disprove that Peter was the rock. These are in the Old Testament. The first one is in 1 Samuel 2:2, "there is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there ANY ROCK like our God." Then there is Isaiah 44:8, "Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago? You are my witnesses-is there any other God? No! There is NO OTHER ROCK- not one!" So a couple questions. So are these scriptures before the new testament? Namely Matthew 16 ?So how can the church blasphemously say Peter is the rock some thousands of years later? So believe what God says or believe what Rome says. Hope that clears a couple of things for you
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14****
• Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope.
------------------
- Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”.
- In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism.
- If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly.
****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
------------------
****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy.
****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder.
------------------
- I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome.
Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8****
💜 ♥️ ❤💜
@@redbird9000 but, this is all YOUR interpretation of scripture. I get that and ins some respects I say power up in your love of Jesus, BUT we have to realise that we are the subjects.
Busy whose authority and interpretation of scripture do you form your Christian world view
The fact we have thousands of non Catholic Christian denominations who disagree of virtually everything doesn’t inform ‘truth’ . Whose truth
I hear what your saying and your references are heart felt, but each of them isn’t explicit and requires interpretation
It defies all that we know about human systems to suggest that Jesus entrusted the ‘kernels of truth’ (my parenthesis) to all and sundry. It needed an authoritative structure.
The Catholic Church has always been that structure, and there have been no substantiated critiques of its enriching of the faith
Sola Scriptura is making an idol of scripture scripture. Scripture is simply a divine codification of the truths and blessings Jesus brought to us
@@eddiej9733 That’s the typical Catholic response. “That’s just your interpretation”.
What’s in black and white does not need interpretation. When Jesus said one of you is the devil, that didn’t need interpretation.
A child of God is led by God. God is truth, not contradictions and lies.
In *1 Timothy 4:3,* Paul said forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons. That does not need my personal interpretations.
*1 Timothy 4:3* They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Repent!!!! ♥️ ❤️ 💜
Some Protestant churches do believe in Apostolic Succession. Catholics aren't all alone in that. Apostolic Succession isn't a sect or a cult. It doesn't require disciples or a discipleship. It doesn't require a following or followers or a fan club.
And yet only the Catholic Church can actually demonstrate that succession of offices and doctrines.
Leave it to Tim Staples _alone_ for an adequate defense of such a crucial and pivotal doctrine
“And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” ****Revelation 21:14****
• Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ****Revelations 21:14**** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope.
------------------
- Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. The Catholic National, a Catholic organ published this quote in July 1895.
- Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that *Matthew 16:18* alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation.
- If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight.
- In ****Galatians 2:11-21**** we can see Paul putting Peter in check for treating the Gentiles differently based upon their state of circumcision and Peter’s fear of criticism.
- If ****Matthew 16:18**** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly.
****1 Corinthians 10:4**** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
------------------
****Matthew 16:18**** The Catholic Church says that tradition holds that Peter is the first pope and the rock, and that this scripture is proclaiming the Papacy.
****1 Corinthians 3:11**** / ****1 Corinthians 10:4**** The word of God says that Christ is the spiritual Rock. A Rock for the wise builder.
------------------
- I’m choosing to go with the Word of God, not the traditions of men. There is no evidence that Peter ever even went to Rome.
Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ****1 Peter 2:4-8****
💜 💜 💜
YOU: • Peter was no different than the others. We can see here in ***Revelations 21:14*** that Peter was still an apostle, not a pope. John saw a vision of the New Jerusalem, so if Peter was a pope, John would have said I saw the foundation of the city walls in layers of 11 apostles and the one pope.
ME: I don't intend to be rude, but you must be joking with that kind of reasoning.
YOU:
- Eamon Duffy, an Irish historian, said, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and “from all indications, there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles”. The Catholic National, a Catholic organ published this quote in July 1895.
- Eamon Duffy was a Catholic Historian and he basically refutes that Matthew 16:18 alludes to or supports papal authority. He said it without any confusion that the New Testament scriptures do not support the papacy. Therefore Peter was not singled out. When Christ said, “upon this Rock, I build my church”…. to say that he was proclaiming a papacy through a lineage of Peter is speculation.
ME: LOL, Eamon Duffy is a self professed cradle CATHOLIC, therefore he MUST believe in the Papacy to be a Catholic. If he doesn't think Matt. 16:18 supports the papacy beginning with Peter, then where in the Bible does he think it came from!!!
YOU: - If that were true, there would be other scriptures to cross-reference the theory of Pontification. Paul would have had to check in with Peter if Peter was the Pope. Instead, Paul went to see Ananias to receive his sight.
ME: He did what Jesus told him to do, that's why. Jesus didn't tell him to go to Peter. But Paul did go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter specifically later on.
YOU:
If ***Matthew 16:18*** was Peter’s proclamation of pontification, that leaves a huge issue. The biggest problem of all is that if Peter is the rock, then the scripture wouldn’t say that Christ is the rock. That’s a contradiction. We can’t build our faith on contradictions. The Rock is spiritual, not earthly.
***1 Corinthians 10:4*** - and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
ME: BUT, the Bible does say in Matt. 16:18 that Peter is "ROCK".
YOU: Christ is the Rock, Peter is a stone, and we are all stones. ***1 Peter 2:4-8***
ME: Nope, the translation of Peter's name (which Jesus gave him in Aramaic - Kephas)
means ROCK. Even the Greek word "petros" means ROCK. A stone and a rock are just two different ways of referring to the same thing. Sorry.
Jesus is the cornerstone. See, even Jesus is called a stone here, not corner rock. Sorry.
@@jzak5723 Catholicism is twisted truth and Catholics have no problem worshipping in Christ in a church that teaches doctrine that are antithetical to him. I understand that. But there are no scriptures outside of the gospels that show Peter exercising authority over the other apostles.
Willfully following the pope and lies is departing from Christ.
1 Timothy 4:1
Don't think your Catholic Bishops have been witnesses to the resurrection (Acts 1:22)
Where does bible say they must?
@@johnyang1420 Acts 1:22, scripture that I referenced
@@thomasnorton2679
Acts 1:22 talks about the standard that Peter put for somebody to take the twelfth spot of the office of apostle, it doesn’t talk about the office of the episcopal itself. To say that Acts 1:22 is the standard for someone to have authority as a bishop is a reach and a non sequitor. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that bishops are apostles, rather, she claims they’re the successors of apostles.
The existence of a historical list of churches preacher doesn’t prove any or all of them held the office or powers of an apostle. Tertullian and Iraneaus never said the church leaders had the office of authority of apostle. If I could trace my genealogy back to President Abe Lincoln that wouldn’t prove I am a president; nor would it make me a president. If I claim there was a succession/transfer of the office of president down my genealogy, I better have good proof for it, and not merely that I am a distant ancestor of Abe. Don’t bother telling me there is a difference here. It is merely an analogy to demonstrate that lists of solid connections to a historical power figure doesn’t prove aspects of that super-person will transferred down through history. You need to prove it and not merely claim it.
Tertullian and Iraneaus both said that anyone who claims to have another scripture of God must prove it by passing several tests. The first test is they must prove their writing came from an apostle by first producing a line of history going back to an apostle. The historical list must an unbroken line (succession) of church preachers going back to an apostle. A historical list also isn’t sufficient to prove scriptural authorship, but it is a necessary first step. Iraneaus gives a historical list of bishops/preachers of the church of Rome and mentioned other churches and their leaders.
In Acts 1, Peter referred to Ps109:8 which is about replacing an evil leader. That doesn’t apply to replacing other apostles after they die. It is a crime against reason to jump to any wider conclusion. Peter did this replacement before the filling of the Holy Spirit. We’ll never know if Peter did the right thing until we enter eternity. Whatever different people believe of this piece of history, there is no solid, reasonable evidence that an apostolic succession was ever done. Where there are so many questions and no direct statement or example of any kind of replacement of the 12 good apostles, we must be humble, careful, and not jump to conclusions.
There is confusion over the term “bishop.” New Testament meaning of the Greek word “episkope, episkopos” means leader, elder, preacher, bishop, minister, overseer, one who watches over and cares for, supervisor. It was later that bishop was used to mean a minister who had responsibility over several churches in a region. Layers of authority were added/invented at some early churches.
Also, Ester's cousin Mordecai took the place of Naman when Namen was hanged by the King for plotting against Ester's people. Mordecai became the "right hand man" of the "King".
He held the keys to the Kingdom and held the high office as Steward and would run the Kingdom when the King traveled, whether for battle, or something else.
No no no,
Oh no don't give him ideas to use at our Bible discussion
I find it interesting that Mr. Staples points to Acts. 1-20 as a reason for Apostolic Succession. It appears to me that this is the first example where the Apostles directly disobeyed Jesus after His ascension and I point to Act. 1-4-5 where Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem and "wait for the promise of the Father"; the Holy Spirit. They did not wait and took it upon themselves to have a "church" meeting and move on their own. I believe that all of us as believers in the true and living God are responsible to spread the Good News.
"the Apostles directly disobeyed Jesus...and took it upon themselves to have a "church" meeting and move on their own" LOL. Why even believe the New Testament then? Why would God work miracles through His supposedly "disobedient" apostles?? Talk about a kooky fringe theory with absolutely no basis.
@@tonyl3762 Greetings to you. If you will indulge me for a moment, let me explain. Jesus had departed this earth and told His disciples to wait in Jerusalem for “the promise” because the Holy Spirit would visit them in a few days and that they would receive power and be His witness. The main thing was to wait. But instead of waiting they had a meeting to elect another. Now, if Jesus appeared to you today and told you to stay home on Tuesday because He was going to send you His Holy Spirit wouldn’t you think that there might be something of significance in store for you? The disciples couldn’t just wait around. They felt a need to do something. They decide to add someone to the group… by ROLLING DICE, mind you… instead of waiting. I’m not talking about some vague promise that someday the Holy Spirit would come. Jesus promised them, in a few days. They chose Barsabas, a man who we hear nothing of in the New Testament. Not a thing. Great job choosing a replacement. Perhaps the Holy Spirit would have told them about Saul/Paul who Jesus would chose for them. That’s what I mean by disobedience. I have more examples if you’d like. God bless.
@@gomezjkv This is not the best use of time, but I'll indulge you.
You're criticizing the apostles as "disobedient" for restoring their number to 12 while waiting for the Holy Spirit in Jerusalem? And for casting lots? Why on earth are you doing this? Are you really saying they should have done absolutely nothing until the Holy Spirit came? Remained completely motionless? Think of nothing?
Just because God says wait somewhere, doesn't mean one can't do anything else while waiting there. That's just absurd.
Peter appeals to the Word of God in explaining why another needed to take Judas place. He is also the leader of the Church, in the absence of Jesus; he has the keys to the kingdom and thus full authority to replace Judas whenever he chooses. Jesus is restoring the fullness of Israel when choosing the Twelve, which represent all 12 tribes of Israel. Peter completes that restoration by initiating Judas' replacement. Were you aware of all that?
You criticism of the lots/dice only shows your ignorance of Jewish history and culture. First of all, it wasn't completely random since they narrowed it down to 2 choices based on Peter's criteria and their judgement. The casting of lots was merely a way to allow God to choose among the two. Next, casting lots was a perfectly legitimate way to divine God's will (see Lev 16:7-10, Prov 16:33). Are you not familiar with Urim and Thurim? Casting lots was also a way to assign ritual duties to Levitical priests in the Temple (1 Chron 24:31). Were you aware of all that?
Actually, they chose Matthias, one who according to Peter is "one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us" and "a witness to his resurrection." When you can't even name the correct successor to Judas, I can't help but wonder how closely and carefully you are reading the Scripture.
Why would they choose Paul/Saul the soon-to-be Christian-killer at the time? He also did not fit the criteria laid out by Peter (quoted above).
Frankly, such a pointless criticism is a waste of time and energy. Surely there are better things to do and think about.
@@tonyl3762 Touche! You are correct about Matthias. That's what I get for trying to quote from memory. But, my point is the same. We do not hear anything about "Matthias" (thank you for your correction) outside of Act. 1. Jesus does not instruct them to add one more to the fold. Act 1:20 reads, "... may another take his place". I understand that there is great significance to the number twelve but, in my opinion, they were acting on their own, being led by the flesh and not by the spirit. They had not yet received the Holy Spirit, according to Act. 1. Which seems contrary to John 20:22, but that's a different discussion.
I guess my point is that it appears to me that the apostles did not have a full understanding of the New Covenant and what we read about them in the scriptures is how they struggled with understanding. the idea that apostolic succession as something handed down from Peter and the other apostles has more to do with transmitting the faith and not about maintaining a religious institution.
I agree that the apostles were Jewish men who had spent their lives living by Jewish traditions and, as with any religion, it's not easy to walk away from to embrace what Jesus came to give them. The Levitical priests did not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit dwelling within them.
Who do you think will be the names of the Twelve Apostles referred to in Rev. 21:14? Will it be the eleven and Judas... the eleven and Matthias or the eleven and Paul?
As far as the office of Apostle, I believe Paul fulfilled that role and is the twelfth. Even Paul did not agree with with what the other apostles were teaching. At least, that is what I see in his letter to the Galatians.
I appreciate your response to my comment. You have given me more to consider. God bless.
@@gomezjkv Paul criticized Peter's hypocritical actions, not his teachings. Earlier in the same letter, Paul says he went to Jerusalem to ensure that his teaching was in line with the pillars of the Church: "Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem.... I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain." They were united in their fellowship and teaching, though clearly Peter is the superior. Paul stays with Cephas/Peter for 15 days.
You said that the bishops of the Catholic Church can trace their succession back to one of the apostles but I have read that is not true: I have read that 98% of catholic bishops cannot trace their ordination past the reformation.
Would you address that?
If you read in the book of Acts you will see that the bible debunks apostolic succession. There are three requirements for an apostle. The most important of which is that the apostle had to have seen the risen Christ. Scripture further says that the last to see the risen Christ was the apostle Paul. As such, there could be no more apostles, not in the catholic church or any church for that matter. So the church can claim all the succession it wants, it is not biblical. But if course we know the church is good at many false claims. One of the main ones is the assumption of mary.
So it's either believe what scripture says or believe these catholic propagandists.
Straw man. Educate yourself before attacking. The Catholic Church does NOT claim to have apostles, only successors to the apostles in the office of bishop, which IS absolutely biblical. Timothy and Titus in particular are examples of bishops who are successors to the apostle Paul and who have full teaching authority over their churches because of the laying on of hands. Can you or your pastor trace back their authority through the laying on of hands all the way back to Peter, Paul, John, etc.?
@@tonyl3762 educate yourself! Before you go any further please show me where Jesus, being Jewish, of a Jewish mother, with Jewish apostles founded a ROMAN catholic church. Show me where the foundation of the Roman catholic church is scriptural. Your church has taken it upon itself to "adopt" the apostles and Mary. Some of you even claim Jesus was catholic. There is not one shred of evidence that anyone in scripture was a roman catholic. Neither Jesus or peter ever said anything or taught roman catholic doctrines, dogmas or traditions. So how can you have a church without legitimate apostles, other than the church just claiming them as their own. If you read Peter's epistles, he actually contradicts catholic doctrines in some cases.
If you read Luke 22 it totally destroys the idea or myth that peter was a pope. That account tells of a "strife" amongst the apostles. This strife also involved the supposed first pope, peter. What was this strife about? They were contending as to who should be the greatest among them. Whaaaat? I thought peter was the pope? If peter was the pope, why didn't the "pope" settle the issue? Didn't the other apostles know peter was the pope? Better yet hadn't Jesus appointed him as pope? How did Jesus react to this strife? Did Jesus stand up and defend "his pope" or the papacy? Jesus did no such thing. I wonder why? The simple answer is that Jesus never made peter the pope. The other reason is that Jesus had earlier said who he thought was the greatest. You see in Matthew 11 Jesus said this. "Verily I say unto you, of them born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist". So apparently no one, not even peter or Jesus had any idea peter was the pope. Peter never calls himself the pope. He refers to himself as a servant, an apostle of Christ, a fellow elder and just a man. The latter of which he did to Cornelius. Do you recall that encounter? Cornelius fell to floor in front of peter, i imagine to pay homage. How did "the pope" react? He actually rejected the gestures of Cornelius. As he helped him up he said "get up i am a man just like you". Hardly the words or actions of a pope, don't you think?
So there is not one shred of evidence that any of the "actors" the church claims as theirs and on which they founded their Roman catholic church, were ever roman Catholics. The RCC has been founded on sand, a false foundation. They aren't or ever were catholic. Just because the church claims they are. Everything in scripture says they were Jewish. They did everything according to their Jewish faith and tradition. Including Mary. Ever wonder why Mary never baptized Jesus as an infant? Ever wonder why she offered a sin sacrifice for herself? It surely wasn't because she was catholic. How about peter? Any account of peter ever presiding over a mass. Or saying pray to Mary or the rosary? Peter said pray to god because "his ears are open to the prayers of the righteous". Peter also said it is "Jesus who brings us to God". How about Jesus? Did he ever say pray to Mary? Didn't Jesus say pray to the Father in Matthew 6? Did Jesus ever say the way to him was through his mother? Absolutely not. Jesus said "I am the way". I must have missed the part where he said Mary.
So show me how you can have a church without legitimate apostles and Mary?
@@rbnmnt3341 Like many Protestants, you have trouble staying on topic. You can't help launching into a tirade of other topics, can you? Are you even going to address what I said about apostolic succession and Timothy and Titus?
Again, you need to educate yourself about early Church history, post-New Testament. The earliest primary sources all agree PETER went to Rome and was martyred there (along with Paul). No one has EVER claimed Jesus went to Rome or founded a Roman church. Jesus founded a Catholic/Universal Church that started in Judea and spread through the whole world. He founded His Church on Peter, who AS A MATTER OF HISTORY, left authoritative successors in Rome. The Catholic Church includes many rites, of which the Roman/Latin rite in only one.
*If you don't know who Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus are, then you are not educated enough about what the apostles actually taught and left Christ's Church with.* Pick up Rod Bennett's _Four Witnesses_ and you will be well on your way to being able to understand Catholic claims MUCH better.
*You will also discover that these earliest martyrs, Church leaders, and successors of the apostles did NOT interpret the Bible like you do but rather in a very Catholic way. Why should anyone accept your interpretations of Scripture or those of your pastor over the interpretations of those taught and ordained by the apostles??*
Peter wrote his first epistle to an entire region of churches from "Babylon," which is commonly accepted as a code word for Rome. He wrote his 2nd epistle to the entire Church. Writing letters to the whole Church from Rome...sounds papal, no? What in his letters supposedly contradicts Catholic doctrines?
Do you think Peter would have been a good leader if he had thrown his title and authority around like Jesus said not to do in Lk 22 and Mt 20?
Read Luke 22 (and Mt 20) again. Jesus does not deny any hierarchy or leader among the 12. He merely says that the leader, the greatest, among them must be the servant of all of them. And then who does Jesus say will serve the other 11??
"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
Again, in Jn 21:15-17, Jesus entrusts His whole flock to Peter specifically. Haven't even mentioned Mt 16 yet.
But this was supposed to be a discussion about apostolic succession.... You would do yourself and everyone a favor if you could stick to one topic at a time rather than jumping around all over the place, as is too commonly done. But I've humored you on a few topics.
@@tonyl3762 most theologians/ historians agree that there is no record of peter ever being in Rome. Like most things in catholicism, that is nothing but a fabrication.
I will address apostolic succession. There is no such thing, petiod. First of all why do Catholics refer to the church as "one holy APOSTOLIC church"? Your church does not claim bishop succession, it says apostolic succession. As I said, there is no such thing. The biggest reason is there is no such thing as a pope in scripture. Then in the book of Acts there are requirements for apostles. The most important of which is that the chosen apostle must have seen the risen Christ. Scripture tells us that the last apostle to see the risen Christ was the apostle Paul. So biblically speaking the apostolic age ended with Paul. Get it? No apostolic succession according to the bible. It can't be any clearer.
Now I need you to explain to me how the Roman catholic church was founded on Mary and apostles that aren't even catholic? Show me where Jesus or peter ever taught any roman catholic doctrines/dogmas. That would be very telling if you could provide such information. No Mary, no apostles means no church. As I said previously, just because the church claims them, doesn't make them catholic. Scripture and their acts and how they lived says otherwise. Saying they are catholic is the biggest catholic lie there is. So regardless of how you and Rome twist Matthew 16, catholicism does not exist in scripture. Christ being Jewish, of a Jewish mother, with Jewish apostles DID NOT FOUND A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. For that matter the papacy does not exist. It is a self appointed, self exalting mythical position that does not exist in scripture.
"no record of peter ever being in Rome"
Then why do 2nd century theologians/historians like Ignatius of Antioch, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian mention Peter being at Rome?
Why won't you answer my questions about Timothy and Titus? Are they not bishops who are successors to the apostle Paul and who have full teaching authority over their churches because of the laying on of hands? Shall I quote from Paul's letters to them to show you?
Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the apostles recorded as passing there apostolic authority. The church does not need Apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And is exactly what God has provided. It His word. ( Eph 1:13 , Col 1:5,2 Tim 2:15;4:2) In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic is never found in Scripture. It is the scriptures that teachings are to be compared to (Acts 17:10-12) Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.
Lol, Acts1 is what was taken out of context for this ridiculous doctrine of apostolic succession? No, not anything that it has to do proohecy. They didn’t need a replacement for Judas because an “office” ir was because they had to have 12 apostle that correlates with the 12 tribes of Israel and ultimately in Revelation where both sets of twelves names would be memorialized in the foundation and gates of Heaven. It was never about creating a succession system. The 12 apostles are the foundation, their teachings are the foundation, and to which Paul stressed this many times in his letter to Paul. They wanted people who could teach, not hold an office.
but who is the first who molested the altar boy..????
Sins of Christians? Nothing new…..nonChristisns sin too
I assume you reject Peter and Paul for their sins?
@@tonyl3762 This is a good point. I've been looking for a response to the things that have made the news and stories people at the church helped cover things up. I spent many years away in a different religion and now I'm coming back. I'm studying and wanting to make correct choice. This topic has made me wonder in the past if they are doing something wrong to lead to that or how should I understand this? Im learning about this and also Orthodox currently. I would like to have this concern addressed for me.
@@filthymouthschoolboymakesi1236
Satan infiltrated the church with his sick men. Major victory for him. But the Catholic Church addressed this across the boards years ago and the incidence of abuse has been drastically reduced. No so in Protestant churches.
@@bridgefin Thanks for the response. I'm probably going to be catholic. The clergy are flesh and blood humans who can make mistakes and there are problems elsewhere that don't get attention, as you've mentioned. Strict punishments certainly need to be there. I appreciate the reply.
I like Tim staples but I feel like he expounds on the scripture too much. It feels too much like hes piecing together several sections of scripture and his own words are the glue.
Ah, that's what any good Biblical student would do.
You say apostolic succession is in the Bible? Then, tell me, which one of Jesus' 11 faithful apostles handed down the teaching that...
1. Mary should be worshiped?
2. Peter was the first pope?
3. the Godhead is triune and that the persons of the Godhead are co-equal in glory and co-eternal in majesty?
4. purgatory is real?
5. a certain worship may be offered to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, or even the statue or picture of a saint?
6. Jesus' birthday should be celebrated on the same day as the pagan Roman Saturnalia?
7. Mary should be prayed to?
8. Mary was immaculately conceived?
9. Peter was the first pope?
10. priests can disregard Jesus' instruction not to call any man 'Father'?
11. meat cannot be eaten on Fridays or during Lent?
12. Mary is a co-redemptrix?
13. Mary is the mother of God?
14. babies must be baptized?
15. the pope is infallible?
16. unmarried priests must remain celibate?
Let's face it, there is no such thing as apostolic succession. Many Catholics teachings are fabricated by the apostate Catholic Church.
We do not worship Mary.
Do you not believe in the Trinity?
Bro try reading theology at least a little bit before you come at us with these elementary arguments lol
@@jonphinguyen If you can't be an adult and answer a question, go back to your finger paintings, okay?
@@cbooth151 I answered one . But you didn't answer my question.
Good points you make here. However, my biggest concern is the Gospel. What is the Gospel. I don't think the Catholic Church has a proper understanding of what the "Good News" is. Without a proper understanding of the Gospel, it really doesn't matter what else you teach. God bless.
This is a False teaching. RC Idol worship religion is not Christianity.
Cannot find anywhere in scripture where Peter had supreme authority over other apostles. The "rock" nonsense claimed by Catholics as Peter being the foundation of the church is just plain word gymnastics, a stretch of the imagination. Nothing clear and plain in the Bible about apostolic succession. The word "Catholic" is nowhere in my Bible.
The Apostle Paul rebuked Peter for his error, leading others astray, in Galations 2: 11-14. Nothing more special about Peter than other apostles.
2Timothy 3:15-17 makes it clear that scripture is the guide that believers and the church should follow. No word stretching here. This verse proves scripture is the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice, not apostolic succession or infallible pope. No word stretching here.
Mormons, Catholics, Jehova Witnesses, Church of Christ, Heaven's Gate, People's Temple (Jim Jones and the Kool Aid Kids), Moonies, Seven Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostal, and dozens more churches claim to be the true church, with apostolic succession prevalent In many, stretching the scriptures to support their own proof.
Who are we to believe to be the true church? In Matthew 24: 35, Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved Jesus correct, as the same scriptures that Jesus read from in the Temple 2000 years ago is the same as we read from today. Nothing in the Bible has been contaminated over the centuries. His words are still pure and true.
Certainly cannot say that for the Catholic Church. Look at the scandals and crimes committed by the true church over the centuries. If Jesus took a whip to the money changers, what would He do to the true church if He walked in the doors today.
Catholics do not believe in scripture alone, but have no problems cherry picking scripture to "prop up" their own ideology. Everyone knows the true church interprets and decides which verses are true. When scripture proves them wrong, they use church tradition to over ride those scriptures. Nice setup.
Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.
Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.
Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.
Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.
Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.
Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
I’m sure your Pastor Bob Jim can claim it’s Peter he is taking authority from.
@@versenelol5083 Can you show me in the Bible where Peter handed those keys to the Catholic Church? Can you show me in the Bible where Peter is in anyway connected to the Catholic Church?
The Jehova Witness, Church of Christ, Seven Day Adventist, Mormon Church and 46 other churches claim they are the true church, many claiming apostolic succession tied to Peter. Which one is in error? Only one is telling the truth.
@@barbwire7449 Study Church history, and you will see that they repeatedly refer to the Bishop of Rome because *early Christians did not want to be divided into sects, which is exactly what Protestants are.*
Or better yet, ask yourself if the Catholic Church, the oldest institution, cannot claim Peter’s keys, how did these younger churches even get to claim Peter’s keys? Were they even in 300AD or were they formed in 1800s? Did these younger churches compile the Bible, in which year? *Because the Catholic Church did.*
Did Jesus Christ found the Evangelical Church or was it Pastor Bob Jim?
@@versenelol5083 there are denominations today only because of corruption in the church, selling of indulgences, corrupting the word of God by saying only corrupt priests can interpret the Bible. That is the reason for denominations.
@@barbwire7449 Corrupt priests don’t interpret bibles. There is a single, unbroken interpretation of the bible by the Catholic clergy for 2000 years, and all priests are adhering to it. Only Protestant pastors interpret the bible in 10,000 different ways.
So what if the clergy is corrupt? Does not every institution have the chance to be corrupt? Are you saying Catholics are more prone to be corrupt than Protestants, ie Protestants are superior in morality? Get a grip of supremacy complex. All clerics and pastors are on the same footing, and you just emphasize the other side because of personal bias and prejudice.
Less than 2 minutes in and his thinking is already flawed. He doesn't define church authority but assumes that it is a centralized structure that mirrors satan's plan. That's an odd and unbiblical assumption to say the least. If his assumption were true, Jesus would have just needed to write one letter to the "church" in Revelation. He really thinks he knows more than Jesus about the church? Typical catholic approach.