On Apostolic Succession
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- My website: www.jordanbcooper.com
Patreon: / justandsinner
In this video, I address the question of apostolic succession, and views related to that in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Lutheran traditions. I also discuss how the early Christians approached the topic.
I know the sound is low on this and some of the other videos which come from my podcast from earlier this month (January 2019). I didn't do an audio check prior to recording (which I always do) and for whatever reason, the volume was very low. I raised the volume as high as I could on my video editing software, and this is as loud as I could get it. I apologize for the quietness on the videos coming from this particular podcast. I will be much more careful checking my audio in the future.
Jordan Cooper No complaints. Just thought you’d want the feedback. Not a big deal.
I hope you are able to re upload this so I can hear it. Unfortunately for me, even with my volume turned all the way up, it is not possible to catch what you are saying well.
I got it cranked up to 100 volume it's still low volume
Acts2:38 Baptism In Jesus Name The Roman Catholic Church Validated Acts2:38 Until The Council of Nicea The Roman Catholic Church Admitted To Changing The Baptism Formula Mathew 28:19 Why Would They Do That?????? 😀
About priest's sacramental power Ignatius of Antioch (wrote in 107-110 AD) says: Letter to Smyrnaeans: chapter 8: "Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it". This is before Irenaeus.
It would be nice to see a more fleshed out video dealing with this issue. If the true Church existed in 787 (disregarding the Oriental Orthodox and Nestorians for Christological reasons) - and the Church is the pillar of the truth against which the ports of Hades will not prevail, which CA VII also indicates - why cannot Lutheranism preach the gospel and administer the sacraments (including eucharist, ordination, penance, and confirmation) in the way it was done in the parts of this "undivided church" where this (existing by necessity) was done according to CA VII ("Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.")? By not seeking back to the latest pre-reformation practice - wherever it is to be found, East or West - where the Gospel was rightly taught and the sacraments rightly administered, it seems to me that confessional Lutheranism commits heresy (i.e. schism, Galatians 5:20) by not seeking a logical reunion with one of the two continuously existing historical churches not in more or less obvious Christological error.
@@vilorwaa If Confessional Lutherans do not seek reunion for reasons like pride, or because of the length of the separation, then one could see your claim of committing sin by not wishing to reunite.
However, if Confessional Lutherans are not seeking reunion because that which they would reunite is in heresy, then not only are the Lutherans not committing a sin, they are protecting Christ’s Church by preventing those heresies to infiltrate through reunion.
With this being the case, Lutherans stated exactly which heresies needed to be exorcised from Rome before reunion could occur 500 years ago. Logic would then point one to the conclusion that those heresies pointed to by the Lutherans are in fact still in the Roman church.
Hey Dr. Cooper! I’m a recent Catholic convert, but I love watching your videos because you are extremely intelligent and present the Lutheran stance very clearly and concisely. I have a question about this: If the Sacramental office is not passed on in some way through the Spirit, then how DOES it work? For example, if at my dinner table I attempted to consecrate the bread, that would obviously not be valid, so how is Sacramental authority preserved? Thank you so much, keep up the great content!!
Lutherans agree with St. Jerome, the Didache, and the Pastoral Epistles on the unity of the office of presbyter-bishop. We believe that pastors should be chosen by the congregational laity and deacons, ratified by surrounding pastors and overseers, and all parties should be included in the liturgy of ordination.
Here's a better explanation.
www.pseudepigraph.us/2012/11/27/why-the-apostolic-succession-debate-matters-by-rev-heath-r-curtis/
@@Mygoalwogel but where do the "congregational laity and deacons" get the authority to do this, if not by succession? Can I create my own congregation?
@@Seethi_C that my friend is the right question!
@@Seethi_C sure. Go to seminary. You would need to join a Lutheran synod.
My understanding is that the words of Jesus at the last supper prayed over the bread and wine are what consecrates them. Jesus is doing the consecrating. It's not the office or status of the one praying. But I'm still learning about this so my understanding could be wrong.
Jerome said that the offices of the bishop and the pastor were basically the same for the first 200 years in the alexandrian church. The line between bishops and pastors were made later. So every pastor could ordain another pastor. Arent lutheran pastors in apostolic succession as Jerome understands it?
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent." -- Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
Piepkorn participated in “Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue” - which yielded some surprising conclusions (see Volume IV on Eucharist and Ministry). One of the Roman participants (Fr. George Tavard) concluded that presbyterial successions are a matter of history, and said:
I would be prepared to go further, and to admit that episcopal succession is not absolutely required for valid ordination…. The main problem, in our ecumenical context, does not lie in evaluating historical lines of succession, but in appreciating the catholicity of Protestantism today.
Fellow participant Fr. Harry McSorley concluded, after a thorough study of the Council of Trent:
We can say without qualification that there is nothing whatever in the Tridentine doctrine on sacrament of order concerning the reality of the eucharist celebrated by Christians of the Reformation churches. Catholic theologians who have maintained that there is no sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in Protestant churches because Protestant ministers are radically incapable of consecrating the eucharist are incorrect if they think this opinion is necessitated by the teaching of Trent.
Great content, as always Pr. Cooper. I truly appreciate you taking the time to tackle topics like these. What books do recommend to read more on this topic of apostolic succession? Also, any books on the history of the papacy that you would recommend? God's Peace!
My Child,
You may not know me, but I know everything about you.
Psalm 139:1
I know when you sit down and when you rise up.
Psalm 139:2
I am familiar with all your ways.
Psalm 139:3
Even the very hairs on your head are numbered.
Matthew 10:29-31
For you were made in my image.
Genesis 1:27
In me you live and move and have your being.
Acts 17:28
For you are my offspring.
Acts 17:28
I knew you even before you were conceived.
Jeremiah 1:4-5
I chose you when I planned creation.
Ephesians 1:11-12
You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in my book.
Psalm 139:15-16
I determined the exact time of your birth and where you would live.
Acts 17:26
You are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Psalm 139:14
I knit you together in your mother's womb.
Psalm 139:13
And brought you forth on the day you were born.
Psalm 71:6
I have been misrepresented by those who don't know me.
John 8:41-44
I am not distant and angry, but am the complete expression of love.
1 John 4:16
And it is my desire to lavish my love on you.
1 John 3:1
Simply because you are my child and I am your Father.
1 John 3:1
I offer you more than your earthly father ever could.
Matthew 7:11
For I am the perfect father.
Matthew 5:48
Every good gift that you receive comes from my hand.
James 1:17
For I am your provider and I meet all your needs.
Matthew 6:31-33
My plan for your future has always been filled with hope.
Jeremiah 29:11
Because I love you with an everlasting love.
Jeremiah 31:3
My thoughts toward you are countless as the sand on the seashore.
Psalm 139:17-18
And I rejoice over you with singing.
Zephaniah 3:17
I will never stop doing good to you.
Jeremiah 32:40
For you are my treasured possession.
Exodus 19:5
I desire to establish you with all my heart and all my soul.
Jeremiah 32:41
And I want to show you great and marvelous things.
Jeremiah 33:3
If you seek me with all your heart, you will find me.
Deuteronomy 4:29
Delight in me and I will give you the desires of your heart.
Psalm 37:4
For it is I who gave you those desires.
Philippians 2:13
I am able to do more for you than you could possibly imagine.
Ephesians 3:20
For I am your greatest encourager.
2 Thessalonians 2:16-17
I am also the Father who comforts you in all your troubles.
2 Corinthians 1:3-4
When you are brokenhearted, I am close to you.
Psalm 34:18
As a shepherd carries a lamb, I have carried you close to my heart.
Isaiah 40:11
One day I will wipe away every tear from your eyes.
Revelation 21:3-4
And I'll take away all the pain you have suffered on this earth.
Revelation 21:3-4
I am your Father, and I love you even as I love my son, Jesus.
John 17:23
For in Jesus, my love for you is revealed.
John 17:26
He is the exact representation of my being.
Hebrews 1:3
He came to demonstrate that I am for you, not against you.
Romans 8:31
And to tell you that I am not counting your sins.
2 Corinthians 5:18-19
Jesus died so that you and I could be reconciled.
2 Corinthians 5:18-19
His death was the ultimate expression of my love for you.
1 John 4:10
I gave up everything I loved that I might gain your love.
Romans 8:31-32
If you receive the gift of my son Jesus, you receive me.
1 John 2:23
And nothing will ever separate you from my love again.
Romans 8:38-39
Come home and I'll throw the biggest party heaven has ever seen.
Luke 15:7
I have always been Father, and will always be Father.
Ephesians 3:14-15
My question is…Will you be my child?
John 1:12-13
I am waiting for you.
Luke 15:11-32
Love, Your Dad.
Almighty God
In approximately AD 96, during the pontificate of Clement of Rome (the fourth Pope), a schism arose in the Church of Corinth. In response, Clement wrote a stern letter addressing the issue. He acknowledged his delay in addressing the dispute due to Roman persecution then went on to condemn the Corinthian schism as "execrable and godless". Asserting the voice of the Holy Spirit through him, Clement commanded obedience to his directives under penalty of transgression thereby illustrating the authority of the apostolic successors.
This episode highlights the emerging recognition of Rome's authority in resolving Church disputes. Corinth's appeal to Clement, the successor of Peter, rather than to the Apostle John in Ephesus who was physically much closer to Corinth, indicates Rome's growing prominence in the Church hierarchy by the end of the first century.
Peter had arrived in Rome sometime before being martyred there in AD 63-64, and Clement clearly exercised the authority of the early papacy by AD 96. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the "migration" to Rome occurred sometime in this 30-year window.
Clement of Rome (cf. Phil 4:3)
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Irenaeus of Lyons
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21].
I would like to read church history to know who became next leader of church after apostle Peter , and the first bishops appointed by the apostles at different places and succession after 1st century? Where could i read it i'm also a catholic
@@comrade398 Irenaeus of Lyons
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).
“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****
❤️ 💜 ♥️ Repent!
Christians of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Moravian, and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that "a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession."[6] Each of these groups does not necessarily consider consecration of the other groups as valid.[7]
Sedevacantism, Assyrian etc.
Jesus said "he who is not against us is for us"
So how would you explain the early and all ecumenical counsels if you claim no formal magesterium ever formed when all of the ecumenical counsels supported that?
Seems like you’re picking and choosing.
its interesting hearing this view and comparing it with the view of baptismal regeneration. I guess ordination is different than the sacrament of baptism obviously, but it seems logical to me to see the pattern of baptism being both necessary for salvation (or rather, indicating/triggering/causing salvation) while the laying on of hands is divorced from ordination
What about 2.Tim.1,6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands? Do you think its just a sign? He says "the gift of god" is in him, "by putting on" his hands.
Well, I certainly believe in the importance of ordination which includes the laying on of hands.
Hi, can I get the name of the painting in the thumbnail?
I would like to read church history to know who became next leader of church after apostle Peter , and the first bishops appointed by the apostles at different places and succession after 1st century? Where could i read it i'm also a catholic
Great video. Can you boost the audio please? Thanks.
I know the sound is low on this and some of the other videos which come from my podcast from earlier this month (January 2019). I didn't do an audio check prior to recording (which I always do) and for whatever reason, the volume was very low. I raised the volume as high as I could on my video editing software, and this is as loud as I could get it. I apologize for the quietness on the videos coming from this particular podcast. I will be much more careful checking my audio in the future.
@@DrJordanBCooper using a compressor is how you can get it louder. Levels are important but the compressor is key.
Why do Catholics say that Eastern orthodoxy offers valid sacraments but the Church of England does not?
Political reasons, when the declaration was made the CoE was solid, and so if they acknowledged them as valid, Roman Catholics in the UK would simply become Anglican . This fear was directly stated by the pope as being a reason motivating his decision. The actual document they have justifying it is ridiculous, and if its logic was followed, most modern Catholic orders would also be invalid
My position is that of the sainted Fr. Dr. Arthur Carl Piepkorn. Apostolic Succession as in a conferring of the office of ministry from one ordained presbyter to another is necessary, but with the caviot held by Fr. Mark Braden of Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church in Detroit: that ordination has taken various forms, but what has always been consistent is the presence of the word spoken and some physical element to signify the passing on of the priesthood.
An issue I'd like to spend some more time discussing.
It’s a spurious argument that the laying on of hands wasn’t always regarded as the material cause of ordination.
The Pastoral epistles address the laying-on of hands (with prayer/by prophecy) as the means by which the “grace” of the ministry is received.
The Council of Nicea declared “absolute ordinations” (in modern terms: ordination without call) to be an “empty imposition of hands”, which implies as its complement that there is such a thing as an “efficacious imposition of hands.”
Article 13 of the Apology of the AC concedes ordination to a Sacramental status, including within that the laying on of hands, as a Sacrament.
Even Piepkorn, as you invoked above states that the laying on of hands is the material of ordination in the Lutheran Church in his paper on Ministry and Holy Ordination (The Church, Selected Writing of A. C. P.)
When is the LCMS finally going to practice Apostolic Succession? If was led by a German bishop during immigration to America. The ELCA is not the only Lutheran body in America that has returned to episcopal practice.
@@aaroncarlson1162 St. Jerome proved by the Scriptures that bishops and presbyters are exactly the same. So actually, Lutherans are in apostolic succession.
www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm
@@Mygoalwogel Did you miss the reservation "excepting ordination" in "For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter?"?
(If so, so did I, but I was guided to the sentence in question by the following passage dealing with the question: www.nb.no/nbsok/nb/4c00351dcd7e78444cd2607d605f8939?index=2#305 (easily accessible to Scandinavian-speaking Lutherans and non-Lutherans (he deals with the question in greater detail), and Google Translate translates it satisfactorily (I just corrected the worst mistakes):
""By a quite considerable misunderstanding one has
believed to be able to invoke the Church Father the Holy
Hieronymus' Authority for the Benefit of the Idea of a
indifferent Unity of the original ecclesiastical Office.
You grab a straw to maintain this idea. It is of great practical importance for
Protestantism. If it is true, then the Interruption of
the Episcopal Succession at the Reformation has no bearing
on the Legitimacy of the Office; we can help
us with the Priestly (Presbyteral) Succession, as in
each case is not broken. By the way, probably most
Protestants tend to ignore the Bequest of the Succession
interpretation in any sense. - As for St. Hieronymus, he probably
speaks of a substantial unity of the Episcopal and the Priestly Functions.
But in one of his letters 1) [1: Ep. 146.], he expressly stated that the Court of First Instance
ordain Priests alone belong to the Bishop. Probably has
he wrote the famous words: "What does the Bishop do,
which the priest does not do? "But he adds:
"With the exception of the ordination of priests". And
this is an Addition of crucial importance here.").)
David Bercot's conclusion about Apostolic Succession was that, in many lists, it turned into a history of pastors who presided over specific churches or cities. Do you have any thoughts about this?
It is also interesting that Paul does not appear to give a pedigree for his Succession, apart from meeting Christ on the road.
Miracle Max well like all of the apostles, Paul received an immediate call from Jesus. He didn’t need to receive succession from another because he was made to be the first of his line.
David Bercot doesn't have much credibility.
Is it possible that the LCMS would ever restore apostolic succession from the Nordic Lutherans with Succession? Just wondering if they could ever have succession, liturgical form, and intent of making priests to the extent that Rome would publicly deem LCMS sacraments valid.
4:20 Would you agree to two things:
a) while changing Sabbath to Sunday is reflected in a hinting way in Acts, the change itself is not in any NT Book, and not in any OT book either?
b) even so, sanctifying Sunday is obliging on us, up to Doomsday?
Bc if you do, how are you _not_ defending tradition as infallible outside the purely theoretic framework of sola scriptura?
@ _"The Bible's Letter to the Hebrews specifically rules out this possibility."_
Only if you suppose the sacrifice of the Mass to be _another_ sacrifice and not the same as that of Calvary.
We actually consider it the same.
Two Masses are not two separate sacrifices, they are the sacrifice of Calvary made present in two times and locations often outside Palestine and often after AD 33.
@ _"Sola Scriptura as found in the New Testament,"_
Sola Scriptura is specifically ruled out by the New Testament and nowhere found in it.
For good wishes, same to you. I am not an Inquisitor.
Hans-Georg Lundahl Sola Scriptura doesn’t deny tradition, it just denies counter biblical teachings, so Sola Scriptura doesn’t conflict with the changing of sabbath
@@hglundahlActs 17:10-12.
Hebrews 6
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
The question there might be, is that laying on of hands ordination, or confirmation?
@@MyName42 In church history, it's both. Blessings.
What about Acts 1? Did Matthias have the ability to forgive sins (John 20:23)? What about when they had 10 apostles, 1 bishop, and 1 empty bishopric? What about 9 apostles, 2 bishops, and ....
Yes, he did, as did the Bishops who succeeded them
Hello, I grew up a Lutheran but I have recently converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Could you do a video on Sola Scriptura? This is one reason I left Lutheranism because Sola Scriptura just doesn’t make since Biblically or historically to me. Especially in light of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and St. Irenaeus. God bless!
Yes, I have been planning on doing some on that topic. Thanks for the suggestion!
Jordan Cooper awesome thank you for the videos, and God bless!
You should look up the 3 volume book set edited by David King. Biblical and historical.
bro you're barking up the wrong tree, this guy is no friend to Catholics....
Do you think 2 Thessalonians 2:15 applies to dogmas developed over centuries or just the oral traditions at that time?
Mr. Cooper, what you said about Irenaeus never mentioning Rome is false.
"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 (Against Heresies, 3:3:2). [emphasis mine]
I said that Ignatius did not mention the bishop of Rome. Not sure if that is what you are referring to.
I believe there was a modification/rewriting of history by Eusibius under Constantine (a time of no separation between church vs state). He is not a reliable source and corrupt. This includes modifications to the writings of Irenaeus. Studied history exhaustively with discernment, and come to this conclusion.
7:14 It can be added, some consider Apostles were never Baptised either.
Therefore, that the laying of hands was not how they received orders doesn't mean it is not strictly necessary after them.
The character is there for three sacraments : Baptism, Confirmation and Deaconal or Sacerdotal Ordination / Episcopal Consecration.
That this is not explicitly treated of in Bible or very early Church Fathers doesn't change that that is tradition.
7:40 You are also confusing "call" with character.
A man can be called to priesthood, but as long as not ordained, he cannot be living that call.
The call is God's preference for your life, the ordination gives power to transsubstantiate, offer sacrifice of Mass, absolve.
4:54 _"aren't talking about sacramental authority"_
Why would they when it is for one thing clear from the Bible (words of institution say "do this" to the twelve, John 20:21-23 promises the same body the power of forgiving or withholding forgiveness on God's behalf, St Paul to St Titus or more probably St Timothy says to recall the power given through his laying on of hands), and for another thing dangerous to reveal in an as yet Pagan world?
Gustav Wasa knew very well what a bishop and a non-bishop could do, so he forced one elderly Catholic bishop to lay hands on Laurentius Petri. This doesn't mean Laurentius Petri handed on the apostolic succession, has to do with verifiable intention.
5:15 _"the way it develops later"_
For reasons stated. And I object very strongly to "develops later" terminology, you pronounce it as if it were later a novum.
5:30 _"it comes out of this idea of"_
Ideas a and b are both stated in NT Bible books.
In Fathers, idea a is stated earlier than idea b.
Of the options:
1) Fathers had reason to mention a before they had reason to mention b
2) Fathers forgot b was in the Bible books and developed b independently from a, even if it logically doesn't follow
which one makes more sense in a Church given the promise "every day" in Matthew 28:20?
what im confused about is that lutherans do have bishops in Europe. all the Scandinavian countries with their state lutheran churches have bishops. why the reticence on the ELCA and other conservative lutheran denoms in America to ordain bishops?
Scandinavian Lutherans are basically apostate. The ELCA is not conservative.
Most conservative Lutheran groups in the US have their roots in German Lutherans, which did not have bishops
Audio very low.
I know the sound is low on this and some of the other videos which come from my podcast from earlier this month (January 2019). I didn't do an audio check prior to recording (which I always do) and for whatever reason, the volume was very low. I raised the volume as high as I could on my video editing software, and this is as loud as I could get it. I apologize for the quietness on the videos coming from this particular podcast. I will be much more careful checking my audio in the future.
I think I'll break off watching here, since subtitles are automatic and clearly garbled, and resume the refutation when I have a computer with headphones and sound. Feel free to answer before that happens, should you have occasion.
If there is such a thing as "apostolic succession," which one of Jesus' apostles handed down the teaching that...
1, the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up a single "One Incomprehensible"?
2. unmarried priests are bound to celibacy?
3. statues can be worshiped?
4. meat cannot be eaten on Fridays or during Lent?
5. Jesus' birthday can be celebrated on December 25th?
6. Mary can be worshiped?
7. the Godhead is triune?
8. the prayers of the Rosary can be recited?
9. Mary was immaculately conceived?
10. the holy spirit is a person?
Are you a JW?
@@ThedisciplemikeThe topic at hand involves apostolic succession. So, if apostolic succession is true, which one of Jesus' apostles handed down the teaching that...
1, the Father, Son, and holy spirit make up a single "One Incomprehensible"?
2. unmarried priests are bound to celibacy?
3. statues can be worshiped?
4. meat cannot be eaten on Fridays or during Lent?
5. Jesus' birthday can be celebrated on December 25th?
6. Mary can be worshiped?
7. the Godhead is triune?
8. the prayers of the Rosary can be recited?
9. Mary was immaculately conceived?
10. the holy spirit is a person?
Feel free to answer at least one of the questions, okay?
@@cbooth151 I can answer all of them. They all are commonly misunderstood mistakes lay people who have left the Church make. But it would be helpful to know your background first. Are you Muslim? JW? Mormon? Or are you just one of those who believes he can just open up the Bible and start interpreting it for himself?
@@Thedisciplemike HILARIOUS!! For a person who claims he can answer all of my questions, you didn't even answer a single one!! So, let me pick a question for you. If there is such a thing as "apostolic succession," which one of Jesus' apostles handed down the teaching that statues can be worshiped?
@@cbooth151 did you not read what I said? I will answer you. I just want to know how honest you are. Prove to me your honesty and answer my really simple question first. Then I will be glad to answer all of your points.
I almost can't listen to what you are speaking. Audio is too much low on this video.
I know the sound is low on this and some of the other videos which come from my podcast from earlier this month (January 2019). I didn't do an audio check prior to recording (which I always do) and for whatever reason, the volume was very low. I raised the volume as high as I could on my video editing software, and this is as loud as I could get it. I apologize for the quietness on the videos coming from this particular podcast. I will be much more careful checking my audio in the future.
the apostles weren't baptized, either, were they?
1 Corinthians 12:13
For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
Nothing to do with apostolic succession be its about the holy Spirit that hovered over the waters of the earth. God is Spirit and those who are preordanied to life worship him in Spirit and truth. The manna from heaven feed the whole community of people's who came out of Egypt.
After watching alot of your videos I have noticed that your main argument for not believing in something is "i do not see that [in]...".
If it is to be found in history (historical proof) and is also lived out by (for example) the orthodox church, why should I agree with you for "not seeing it"?
It seems to me that you do see it. You constantly quote a text, father etc, where it is to be found and then just deny it. Could it be that you just don't want to agree?
I think he is suppressing the truth which is being revealed to him. Its clear as day
He's just too polite to sling mud.
*Exsurge Domine*
*Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520*
In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor we can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith. Some of these errors *we have decided to include in the present document; their substance is as follows:*
19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the *remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.*
bookofconcord.org/exsurge-domine.php
*An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517.*
The text reads: _"By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, _*_I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."_*
academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Indulgence
*Pope Benedict IX and simony:*
“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he simoniacally succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)
“Then on May 1 Benedict *sold his papal office* to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” ( *New Catholic Encyclopedia,* vol. II, page 275)
Quoted from: answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html?m=1
Jesus and Paul founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. Jesus, Stephen, the eunuch, and Mark founded the Oriental Orthodox Church. Thaddeus, Bartholomew and Thomas founded the Church of the East. Each one claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Orthodox Church sold indulgences just like Catholics: orthochristian.com/7185.html
Orthodox Compline prayer to Mary: "On the terrible day of judgment, deliver me from eternal punishment and make me an heir of your Son's glory,"
weedon.blogspot.com/2009/08/thoughts-on-compline-prayer.html?m=0
During liturgy, Orthodox priests sometimes take communion without communing anyone in the congregation: orthodoxcityhermit.com/2016/08/09/often-receive-holy-communion/
I live in Taiwan. There is one English speaking Orthodox parish in Taipei, established in 2001. That's it. The only Taiwanese who have taken any interest are English speaking evangelicals. The Orthodox are so bad at the Great Commission because they only care about chronological uniformity, and ignore "disciples of all nations." Their church only understands half of the definition of the word catholic.
@@Mygoalwogel I do not see how in any way, chape or form this even comes close to damage the succession of the apostles? Nothing here even tries to damage it.
There is a comment on indulgences. Ok? They don't remove sins, we dont claim that. Unless a part of that indulgences is confession. But then again, it's the confession and not the indulgences.
Selling the papacy is stupid. No one says anything else. But it's about simony (selling and buying holy things) and not the succession.
The rest doesn't even try. If you wanna make a swing at the church itself, go nuts. But why comment that here? UA-cam has a worthless chat function.
@@krillejonasson I'm aware that today the papists claim that Indulgences never forgave sins. Historical documents say otherwise. If papists think their sophistry debunks history, they continue in those sins unrepentant.
*An indulgence granted by authority of the Pope by Johann Tetzel in 1517.*
The text reads: _"By the authority of all the saints, and in mercy towards you, _*_I absolve you from all sins and misdeeds and remit all punishments for ten days."_*
academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Indulgence
Peter insists that his ordinations are not for sale. Simon Magus believed ordinations are for sale. Your church affirms Benedict IX, who bought and sold the Apostolic succession. So your church agrees with Simon Magus, not with Peter.
I don't know why this is so hard for RCs to understand. First of all, the Scripture as the Norma Normans means that it is the final say of authority, not the fathers, who were fallible and could err.
Next, why do Romans Catholics concede many points that the fathers agree on? We can all play this game and cherry pick stuff from the ancient church to fit our system. Saying something is plainly a 'historical proof' isn't a point to make, also ignoring the context of the Early Church's history is just not honest.
You have more love for the fathers and the church than the Scriptures, which is the problem and sole reason you will never actually understand Lutheran points.
Who sent the Apostles? Jesus Christ did, Matthew 28:18-20.
Who sent the Reformers? They sent themselves to preach whichever Jesus they happen to believe.
Questions for Protestants:
1. Given that Protestants read the same Bible, why does each protestant denomination, sect and cult hold differing beliefs and doctrines, while each claims to have guidance from the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture?
2. What provides you the confidence to believe that your particular protestant denomination, sect or cult possesses the faith taught by Christ?
3. Why does a protestant from another protestant denomination, sect or cult believe as firmly as you do that his particular protestant denomination, sect or cult possesses the faith taught by Christ?
4. Given that every Protestant reads the same Bible and holds it as the sole authority in matters of faith, why are there 10,000 unique protestant denominations and sects each with their own set of doctrines and differing interpretations of the Bible?
5. Since all protestants read from the same Bible, yet arrive at differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Biblical texts, how can the Bible be the sole foundation and arbiter of Christian faith?
6. Would not Christ have known of the present confused state within Protestantism and provided His Church a recognizable mechanism with the authority to adjudicate as to what one ought to believe?
7. Since the Bible states that one must be sent to preach and teach, who gave your preacher or pastor the prerogative to preach and teach the faith in your congregation?
8. What magisterial and ministerial authority does the entity which delegated to your preacher or pastor the authority to teach and preach the faith have to delegate such authority to your preacher or pastor?
Apostolic Succession: ua-cam.com/video/e11YHJ4_eVs/v-deo.html
You mean like Vatican 1 vs Vatican 2 ?
You mean like SSPX vs Sede vs Rad Trads vs NO…….You should apply those same questions to the RCC and those divisions as well🤷🏻♂️….Your own Pope, who V1 says IS the visible church, IS infallible, and what he says IS a part of the universal ordinary magisterium and those statements according to V1 must be accepted….. and you have NO authority to question them. Even His ecumenical acceptance of other non Christian religions. By the way, I think all of your questions are valid, and should be addressed…. By All.
@@stevethompson2391 there might be divisions of certain ideas, but they are united in communion and submission to the authority of the single Church
Copy and pasting stuff isn't an argument and everything you've said has been throurougly debunked and addressed
@@awake3083 Just who are you addressing?
@@Thedisciplemike Are you the Disciplemike who used to go to the Zell Challenge?
Lutheran Churches have women Bishops not Catholic
Lutheran Churches have women Bishops, not Catholic bishops?
Yo
So anyone can ordain? Therefore, my grandmother could ordain because she felt the All-Holy Spirt compelled her to do so! How does one sign up?
God confirms His Word not catholic church doctrine. " Apostolic succession " is such false doctrine. Beware the leaven of the catholic church.
Ah, your video on apostolic succession (AS), Jordan. Not a good video, but that aside. Do you know the meaning of AS, Jordan? Do you see what AS signifies? If not, be open and ask God...!
"The writings of the Apostle do not agree entirely with the hierarchy which is now in the Church, because they were written at the very beginning. He even calls Timothy, whom he himself made a presbyter, the bishop, because first presbyters were being called bishops becuase when a bishop passed away, a presbyter succeeded him. In Egypt, presbyters even do confirm if the bishop is absent."
Ambrosiaster commenting on Ephesians 4:11-12
No such thing. 12 only. Apostles today are missionaries.
The Lutheran have no succession
The scriptures and the conditions that we live under in this present day prove that there was truly an apostasy from the divine church. Amos, along with many of the great prophets of the Old Testament foresaw this apostasy when he said, there would be a “famine over the land, and not a famine of bread or a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. (Amos 8:11) Isaiah foresaw that the Church of Jesus would break the EVERLASTING COVENANT, (Isaiah 24:5) established by Christ. (Hebrew 13:20) The Law of Moses was never referred to as the everlasting covenant, so it had to be Christ’s Church. Micah saw the day when the sun would go over the prophets; there would be no more visions,
inspirations, or guidance from on high - and then gave the reassuring hope that “in the last days” God’s church would be set up “in the tops of the mountains.” And in reference to mountain tops, there are better than a dozen scriptures that tell us that the church would be established in the mountain tops, and the Mormons are the only church today which have their headquarters in the mountain tops. By these scriptures alone we prove who we are. (Micah 3:5-7, 11, and Micah 4:1-3). Daniel foresaw a kingdom “which would never be destroyed, nor given to another people”, yet Christ’s kingdom was “given to another people”, (Matthew 21:43), and later destroyed and taken from the earth. There were two causes of Apostasy, internal and external. The external came at the death of the Lord’s chosen twelve Apostles. Foxe, in his Book of Martyrs, records the fate of his chosen group, and we have added other leaders along with the Apostles. Here are copies of this list; you may keep it. The dash by the name means that they were referred to in the Bible as Apostles.
Apostles
1. -Judas Iscariot 2. -James the Great, brother of John 3. -Thomas (doubting) 4. -Philip 5. -Bartholomew 6. -Simon Peter 7. -Matthew, called Levi, son of Alphaeus 8. -James the less, son of Alphaeus 9. -Paul 10. -Mathias 11. -Thaddeus, brother of James 12. -Barrabas 13. Timothy 14. Luke 15. -Barnabus 16. Mark 17. -Simon (Zelotes) 18. -Andrew, brother of Peter 19. -John the beloved, brother of James 20. Matthew 21. -James, brother of Jesus 22. Judas, brother of Jesus 23. Philip, the evangelist
• Judas, Silas, Agabus; Acts 11:27; 15:32; 21:10;
Now that list contains 17 Apostles, which are also prophets, and the people who received their authority from the apostles. These points out apostolic succession and an end to it by force, not choice. You will notice that Timothy, whom the Catholics claim sometimes as the one who gave them their authority, was not an apostle, and died without passing his authority to anyone. With the death of the Apostles and other noted leaders, who were the foundation of the church, the church began its great collapse. However, this was not accomplished until internal Apostasy had begun. Paul fearing this, said, “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also, of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:29-30) He told the saints in Thessalonica that before Christ’s second coming, there must come a falling away first and the man of sin had to be revealed. (Catholic Bible states, word “Apostasy” means complete falling away). Many scriptures pointed to the time of this destruction. (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3, Acts 3:20-21, 2 Timothy 3:1-7, 2 Peter 3:3) In 1 Timothy 4:1-3 he taught that a sign of the Apostate Church would be that of “forbidding to marry” and “commanding to abstain from meats” and they were doctrines like these that Paul said are “of the devils”. The internal collapse of the Church came through three channels:
1. The corrupting of the simple principles of the gospel by the admission of the so called philosophic systems of the times. 2. Unauthorized additions to the ceremonies of the Church, and the introduction of vital changes in essential ordinances. 3. Unauthorized changes in Church organization and government.
It was in the councils where these “divers and strange” doctrines were often born. Hence our “incomprehensibles” of God. The Lord’s Supper, the trinity, and pomp ceremony of the church. It meant the salvation of the Virgin Mary, who was to have been taken to heaven by God with no scriptural warranty. The adoration of the blessed virgin was quite the contrary to Christ’s way of thinking towards his mother. (Compare Luke 11:27-28) We have a concept of her continuous virginity opposed to Matthew 1:25. We have a Papal claim of “Infallibility”, 1800 years after the supposed first Pope of Rome. All of these things were vital in causing the complete destruction of all that was good, simple, and pure. We have blasphemous statements concerning “forgiveness of sins” and the salvation of mortal men to exalted positions. We have fantastic claims, unscriptural and blasphemous, such as was given by Pope Paul VI, New York Times, Thursday, Sept. 26, 1962, where he states, “Jesus charged the Apostle Peter with being the “cornerstone”, the solid and stable foundation of the entire human-divine edifice that Jesus wanted to build and that he called the church.” In answer to your questions, (Matthew 28:19-20)
was not only a promise given to the church, but as verse 16 points out, ONLY TO THE APOSTLES. Ephesians 3:21 has no reference to the Church of Jesus Christ in ancient times, because that church referred to there, was in a “world without end.” This world has an end. (Matthew 28:19-20) In answer to the rock of Matthew 16:15-17, it couldn’t have been Peter because the gates of hell prevailed against him, (Matthew 16:23), after Christ’s announcement, and it couldn’t have been his confession (Protestant belief) because the gates of hell prevailed against it. (Matthew 26:69-75) Besides, the way the grammar of the Bible puts it, it refers to the rock as the way Peter received the truth, (by revelation) hence the rock is revelation. Therefore, there’s a need for prophets and apostles. In answer to Hebrews 12:28, Paul probably had reference to the Kingdom of Heaven, because the kingdom of the earth could be moved, (Matthew 21:43). As for Hebrews 13:5, it was an identical promise given to Joshua which merely points out that the Lord will be with “all them that obey him.” That the church was to be restored is verified in Acts 3:19-21, Matthew 17:11-13, Revelations 14:6-7, and countless other places. If Clement were the Pope in 96 A.D. like what the Catholic tradition informs us, WHY DID NOT HE, INSTEAD OF JOHN, RECEIVE THE REVELATION ON THE ISLE OF PATMOS? Why was not he nor the Church of Rome recognized? Why are the scriptures completely void of any “transfer of any authority” when the Apostles were to guide us into “all truth” and “unity”? Why haven’t the signs followed, (Mark 16:17-18) nor the power followed? (Matthew 10:8) Did it get lost in the transfer? Where is he called as a prophet or apostle? Why cheap and meaningless imitations of ordinances, (1Corinthians 11:2), and “divers and strange doctrines”, (Hebrews 13:9), like the Virgin Mary, the Triune God, Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Line of the Papacy, history and corruption of the Papacy, no revelation; yet Papal infallibility, (and that not until Pope Pius XI). Where do the Protestants have a leg to stand on? If they claim the Church of Rome fell, (as did the Church of England in her “Homily against Peril of Idolatry” in the Book of Homilies), then they cannot be true, because Christ taught that a live branch cannot grow off a dead tree. (Matthew 7:18) If they can dare claim that it still had the truth, they should have recognized its ordinances. It was Roger Williams, considered to be the founder of the Baptist Church, that stated on page 503 of Picturesque America, that there was “no regularly constituted Church of Christ on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance, nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the great head of the church, for whose coming, I am seeking.” We bear you solemn testimony that there has been a RESTORATION of all things, that there are living apostles and prophets as we have established here today, and the Church is here upon the earth in its fullness in these latter days.
You’re literally disagreeing with all of the early church fathers on so many points.
All of them?
Even an ordinary Catholic can understand the Apostolic Succession. Are you really a doctor?
Even an ordinary priest can buy and sell the Apostolic succession of Peter's see for a large sum of money. Even an ordinary medieval guy could buy absolution from the Apostolic succession for a small sum. Are you really sure you understand the Apostolic succession?
He understands it, he just disagrees with your church