What is Apostolic Succession? w/ Dr. Andrew Swafford
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2020
- This video was taken from Pints with Aquinas episode #218: • What does the Bible sa...
What, exactly, is Apostolic Succession? Do today's bishops really have the same authority as the original apostles did? Matt and Andrew discuss in this short video.
SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.onelink.me/Q25Y/80833e8
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Website - mattfradd.com - Розваги
Great information. Good work Matt
It is agreed that Peter and the apostles were given authority and the guidance to teach the truth. Their authority and teaching continues today. But, from a Protestant perspective, this authority and teaching is not through an unbroken lineage of succession, but through their teaching contained in the Scripture. In other words, Protestant believe in apostolic succession, but believe that this succession is a succession in teaching, not necessarily person.
However, Protestants should recognize that a succession in person is a necessary part of the succession in teaching (this is why we still practice ordination). It is not a guarantee of the proper succession and must be continually tested by a foundational source (Scripture).
Interesting comment man, but can I ask about where can Mary’s dogmas be supported in scripture?
@@abishekprakash3936 Not sure what that has to do with apostolic succession but my answer to your question is that there is no scriptural basis for saying Mary was born without original sin, or that she was assumed into heaven bodily and there is definitely no scriptural justification for calling her co-redemptrix. However there is no problem with calling her theotokos. Some of the Reformers did subscribe to her perpetual virginity but most although not all contemporary Protestants don’t subscribe to it. I don’t agree with it but Indon’t consider it damnable heresy.
@@paulsmallwood1484 the most balanced answer. Thank you.
@@abishekprakash3936Martin Luther and John Calvin believed Mary to be the Theotokos.
@@abishekprakash3936where in the Bible does it say that something must come from the Bible?
In 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul instructs Timothy to entrust what he has learned from Paul to trustworthy men who will, in turn, be able to teach others. One of the key teachings from Paul to Timothy is this very process of entrusting reliable individuals with Paul’s message.
If this sounds like an infinite loop, it is intentionally so; the principle of apostolic succession was designed to be an ongoing, continuous process.
Those who pull apostolic succession out of the "air" of Jewish tradition saying that they (the Sanhedrin) had the authority to forgive sins, but they were ready to stone Jesus for forgiving sins when they believed "God alone can forgive sins". The context is forgiving a sin other than one that is against you. Jesus taught us all to pray "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us". There is no scripture that tells men to forgive any other sin other than those who sin against us. God sees the sins of those who sin against His children and occasionally, give them justice and wrath. So, it is just as likely this is the meaning Jesus is giving when he said "If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Can you turn up the volume up please, barely audible.
I missed an answer here.
Also, the literacy answer defense against Sola Scriptura is a bad one.
If bishops arem't the same as Apostles, then what about St. Peter and the pope?
They are the successors of the apostles
Saint Peter is the New Testament household
New Testament household
Mathew 16:18
18And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Old Testament household
Isaiah 22:20-22
20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
Household Peter
Luke 12
41And Peter said, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even unto all? 42And the Lord said, Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall set over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?
King JESUS
Revelation 17
14These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called and chosen and faithful.
Saint Pete Simeon is the leader of the Catholic Church
Acts 15
2And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
6And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter. 7And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
12And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath rehearsed how first God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
The theory behind apostolic succession is that God's authority, to be meaningful and effective, must be embodied in men today who have the same kind of authority. But if you will read carefully the following passage, you will see that this is not true at all.
In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul-who was not physically present in Corinth-wrote to them to tell them what to do with respect to a discipline case. He said (in 5:4-5): "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." So you see, Paul did not pass on his authority to another man so that he could be there in Corinth. No, Paul said, in effect, if you will do what I as an apostle now instruct you to do then I will be with you in spirit, and you will also have the power of our Lord Jesus with you, to deliver that man to Satan, etc.
So, to put it simply, the Reformers realized that there was no need for apostolic successors. No, the need was simply to have the apostles themselves with us through their inspired and inerrant teaching. And that is what we have in the New Testament.
The apostles never wrote anything that ever has needed or ever will need correction because they were inspired by God. Surely a person of average intelligence should be able to see that this has never been true of other men in history, no matter how strongly they may have believed themselves to be apostolic successors!
Acts 1:21-22 makes apostolic succession impossible
Roman Catholic scholar Richard P. McBrien concedes, “from the New Testament record alone, we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter through subsequent bishops of Rome” (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: Completely Revised& Updated, [HarperCollins, 1994], p. 753).
I feel like you think that Apostolic Succession means that it is claimed their successors become Apostles when it just means that we can trust those entrusted to lead the Church, the bishops, and can trace them from our current bishops back to the Apostles.
And, from the New Testament alone we can't posit that line but I don't think Catholics would even say that from the New Testament alone we could do such a thing, bud.
@@Psalm34rws A bishop is not an apostle.
1- Peter never claimed to be the supreme leader of the entire church.
2- The apostles never claimed he was the supreme leader of the church.
3- The papacy (supreme bishop leader of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
@@Psalm34rws 1- the bishop is not a successor to an apostle:
A "bishop" is a residential pastor who presides in a stable manner over the church in a city and its environs. The apostles were missionaries and founders of churches; there is no evidence, nor is it likely at all, that any one of them ever took up permanent residence in a particular church as its bishop (Catholic scholar -Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 14).
2-if Peter was the head of the church he would have said something about and the others apostles would have concurred. The fact that he didn't nor did the apostles shows he was not the supreme head of the church. No apostle was.
Jesus was restoring Peter to ministry in John 21:15-17. It was not about making him the supreme leader of the church.
3- If its not recorded in the Scriptures then its not biblical nor apostolic.
@@Psalm34rws Bishops were not apostles. 2 different offices and functions.
The authority comes from the Word of God since it alone is the ultimate authority. It is to the Word of God that a bishop is accountable to.
No bishop in the NT is seen doing sacraments. The bishop is one who oversees the church. He is to be married with children. See I Timothy 3
James was the one who made the final decision for the church in Acts 15:19. Not Peter.
@@Psalm34rws Is it not true that the Bible alone is the inspired-inerrant Word of God? See 2 Timothy 3:16
Since this is true then how can something else be greater or equal in authority than the Scriptures? What man or church is said to be inspired-inerrant? What man or church has greater authority than the Scriptures?
If Peter was the supreme head of the church he would have made the decision for the church because that is what a supreme leader does. The fact he did not proves he was not the supreme leader of the church.
The RCC forbids catholic married men from being bishops because they are married. That is in disobedience to the Scriptures.
How are we to know that the successions are legitimate, since there is little if any talk and historical lineage of miracles for each successor?
In other words, is it reasonable for us to assume (for example) that every Pope was the true successor of Peter if that Pope did not work any obvious miracles?
Show me your faith and I will show you my works - John.
in Christ, Andrew
Good point. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture anyway. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic concepts of the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are likewise man-made and not found in Scripture.
@@robcampbell3118 I'm not sure about the man made comment, but I continually come back to the question of undeniable miracles or signs; since they accompanied Peter and many of the apostles. And that includes Stephen who was a successor of sorts to Paul. His miracles were never specifically identified in the Book of Acts, but it did say that he worked several.
Apostles are a very unique type of believer with attributes that believers, disciples, priests, and even bishops do not always possess with the Lord. And one way to distinguish them now, since none of us lived with Christ and have seen Him resurrected, is by miracles. Others include mass conversions and often tremendous persecution. All of which were found together in the infant church with the original apostles. But what about today or since then within the hierarchy?
In Christ, Andrew
Miracles aren't necessary to see a line of succession between bishops, the works that St. James talks about are not miracles but good deeds, consider what he wrote just before in his epistle.
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.Indeed someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
James 2:15-18 NABRE
This line of succession is necessary, St. Irenaeus points out, because otherwise anyone can say their interpretation of Scripture and what they believe is true but those who have been passed down the faith since the Apostles can call on this to witness their correct views. Otherwise it would be impossible to even know what Scripture is if we don't know what the Apostles taught.
@@Ezekiel336-16What you say about the apostles is true but I made the man-made comment because apostolic succession is nowhere proscribed in the Bible. An important point because the RCC use it as it's main claim to be the true church.
@@Psalm34rws You don't need to provide 25 versus. One each for apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition will do. Thanks in advance...
There is a massive flaw here. The apostles had no authority to teach anything not in the spirit of that which was taught by Jesus, which means they can't "wish for infinite wishes" any more than they can declare themselves gods.
They were capable of making rulings, but they couldn't just bestow their authority on students unless given explicit permission from Christ.
Furthermore, the temple may have been luxurious, but to build such a structure as a Christian would be a Judaizing heresy. He may have taught at the temple, but he was there to overturn injustice. Our Lord and Saviour fed the 5,000 on an an open field on a hill, not in a gold plated Cathedral.
The Apostles have no Authority to teach? Preach me brother.
So, was it wrong for God to command and instruct how to build the beautiful temples of the Old Testament? Don't mistake beaty and sin. Was it the beauty of the temple that Christ overthrew or the sin the people who occupied it? God deserves beautiful worship spaces.
So many seething below. Apostolic succession is a thing regardless if you hate the Catholic Church. Even protestant churches had a focus on it.
I just see some that don't believe in it. It's a lofty claim. It's also quite convenient to discredit whoever the RCC deems to not have it, to claim their consecration of the Eucharist is invalid, or that they can't have a valid priesthood or properly ordain a pastor. It is God who ordains and consecrates the host anyway.
1st
Delusions of grandeur is a common trait among psychopaths, just saying. The real apostles were humble teachers and believers in Jesus, not people with delusions of grandeur.
What is Apostolic Succession? A lie of the leaders of the catholic organization.
So what about protestants who believe in Apostolic succession? And don't forget the Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox!
A Catholic myth.
So what about protestants who believe in Apostolic succession? And don't forget the Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and Oriental Orthodox!
@@matthewodonnell6495 it doesn't matter what THEY believe. Not only on apostolic succession but anything. The more religions that believe in succession does not somehow make it a true doctrine. It simply means they are wrong. Protestants too. A false doctrine is a false doctrine. That is why there has to be ONE standard. That standard has to be the bible. Whether you accept that is each person's or religion's problem. That is exactly why this and other problems exist. Churches say they believe in. The bible but have other writings, not infallible or God inspired that religions make binding on the followers. In most cases because those added teachings are not found in scripture.
@@rbnmnt3341 My main point is your claiming it’s solely a Catholic myth and I’m point out that the majority of Christian’s on Earth also believe in it. So what denomination are you?
@@matthewodonnell6495 a majority? I doubt it. Maybe those you mentioned. Do you know what majority DOESN'T? I heard a homily by a priest, I don't recall his name. I will diligently try to find it. But this is what he said. 70 % of Catholic's and 25% of priests do not believe in the real presence. Not my numbers, his. And there are several vids floating around the internet that says that 50 MILLION Catholics have left the faith. So there are 50 million more heretics floating around? So the more important static is how many Catholics DON'T believe in the eucharist. So by church rules or whatever, 70% of Catholic's should be accursed and excommunicated from the church right? Or is that just fear mongering and intimidation. Now THAT is a majority. Your own DEVOUT Catholics don't believe in that hocus pocus. By the way, you didn't answer any of my questions. Or will you reflect like all Catholics do?