If apostolic succession is true in the Catholic Church then...

[AdHoc]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:13 PM, Roymond said:

The Roman empire has nothing to do with apostolic succession.  That doctrine comes from much earlier and was held by the church both inside and outside of the Roman Empire.  The matter is muddled because in the West the pope took over the mantle of the emperor when the western empire collapsed, so church authority and state power got mingled and mixed up.

On this basis, the split between the East and the West wasn't valid:  a delegation of representatives of the pope had no authority to excommunicate anyone.  It could be argued that bishops can only be excommunicated by the assembly of bishops and not by any local church, but that delegation wasn't the assembly of bishops, it was just a few men picked by the pope who got angry and decided to make an excommunication in the name of a pope who at that point was already dead.

In fact there's a definite strain of early history where bishops could only be excommunicated by an assembly of bishops from that region, so apparently they had the same understanding you describe above.  [How that changed is another story.]

The idea of apostolic succession wasn't about making new "Apostles", though, and it wasn't about having power over people, it was about trying to pin down who was the true church in a period where almost every other month a new teacher popped up with ideas that came from trying to use pagan ideas for theology and thus new heresies got invented, indeed enough of them and attractive enough that the true Christians were feeling swamped by false teachers. It was a really crazy and stressful time in church history, as heresy seemed poised to win over orthodoxy. For the most part those false teachers weren't bishops, which meant that the bishops could mostly be counted on to try to preserve the true faith, and that preservation was thus entrusted to the bishops.  Apostolic succession was no guarantee that a bishop would remain orthodox, but since most false teachers weren't bishops it was a way to exclude those false teachers (and the bishops would have to police their own peers). 

This is an argument against the Mormons, but not against the idea of apostolic succession -- apostolic succession only means that clergy stand in a line of faithful men whose foundation is the Apostles; not even the pope claims to be an apostle (he claims many things that can be criticized, but that isn't one).

This is what apostolic succession is about!  Just as Paul picked Timothy, and also picked leading elders in the various churches, every bishop was expected to pick other faithful men and pass on the faith.  Apostolic succession isn't abut anyone being an Apostle, it's about being bishops who are faithful to the Apostles.

Though as I noted in another post, Rome managed to ruin even that by violating the tradition that new bishops got picked by the clergy and people of the churches, not by a single bishop acting like a king over the churches.

I agree with your history and what Rome did. But Rome is an imposter. What we want to be able to show is scripture for our belief. I find no scripture that gives any man the power to give another the OFFICE of Apostle. To "send" a man for any duty is well within the authority of the Assembly. But to give a man the OFFICE ???

"Paul, an Apostle BY THE WILL OF GOD ... "

"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, ... ."

 

[AdHoc]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:31 PM, Roymond said:

Interesting -- where did you find this?  The ancient church recorded that "Nicolaitans" indicated followers of a certain "Nicolas" who led the church astray in a number of ways, in which case if you translated it you'd say "followers of Nicolas".

It's Mormons who say the church needs apostles, not the RCC.  Apostolic succession isn't about making new Apostles, it's about making new bishops who are (supposed to be) faithful to the Apostles.  To be the true church a church has to be apostolic, teaching what the apostles taught; any church that is not apostolic is not faithfully Christian.

In fact your last two lines describe what Apostolic succession is supposed to be about (especially since "pastor" is what a bishop is supposed to be).

Exactly! The RCC, and most organizations, right down to your Local Calvary Chapel, do NOT want this word explained. They're all involved in it. If we can explain "Nico-demus" shall we have trouble with Nico-LAITY".

Is not the word "Bishop" not found in scripture. Is it not correctly "Overseer". Ancient and modern religion have one thing in common - make us a king out of some man! Let not the congregation follow their HEAD - the Man Jesus. Israel is a perfect example. They have the Law and they have God, but the cry is; "Let us make us a king like the NATIONS!"

An Overseer is bound to SERVICE - the overriding principle of God when it comes to the gifted ones. A "Bishop" grants authority to rule. God made the highest instance Christ. the Assembly must seek HIS will.

[Alive]

5 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

Exactly! The RCC, and most organizations, right down to your Local Calvary Chapel, do NOT want this word explained. They're all involved in it. If we can explain "Nico-demus" shall we have trouble with Nico-LAITY".

Is not the word "Bishop" not found in scripture. Is it not correctly "Overseer". Ancient and modern religion have one thing in common - make us a king out of some man! Let not the congregation follow their HEAD - the Man Jesus. Israel is a perfect example. They have the Law and they have God, but the cry is; "Let us make us a king like the NATIONS!"

An Overseer is bound to SERVICE - the overriding principle of God when it comes to the gifted ones. A "Bishop" grants authority to rule. God made the highest instance Christ. the Assembly must seek HIS will.

You had me until the last paragraph. Grants authority?

[AdHoc]

2 minutes ago, Alive said:

You had me until the last paragraph. Grants authority?

My bad. The designation "Overseer" implies a man running around seeing that sheep do not fall over a cliff. "Bishop" in modern  connotation is a man who rules with a rod. I'm not saying that we do not have authority in he OFFICE of Overseer, but the rendering in the English Bibles go for "Bishop" when the nearest correct word is Overseer.

Would you agree if I gave a general example. A "Bishop" will summon the wayward Christian and exercise authority over him. The Overseer will come to the wayward Christian and try to restore him.

[Alive]

4 minutes ago, AdHoc said:

My bad. The designation "Overseer" implies a man running around seeing that sheep do not fall over a cliff. "Bishop" in modern  connotation is a man who rules with a rod. I'm not saying that we do not have authority in he OFFICE of Overseer, but the rendering in the English Bibles go for "Bishop" when the nearest correct word is Overseer.

Would you agree if I gave a general example. A "Bishop" will summon the wayward Christian and exercise authority over him. The Overseer will come to the wayward Christian and try to restore him.

Yes, as long as that action is directed by and blessed by the Head, rather than the position. As well, there must be accountibility and that comes from the corporate body.

This is difficult in the context of an organization…these things are meant to be relevant in the context of an organic local expression.

IME…according to what I believe, I have learned.

[Roymond]

3 hours ago, AdHoc said:

I agree with your history and what Rome did. But Rome is an imposter. What we want to be able to show is scripture for our belief. I find no scripture that gives any man the power to give another the OFFICE of Apostle. To "send" a man for any duty is well within the authority of the Assembly. But to give a man the OFFICE ???

"Paul, an Apostle BY THE WILL OF GOD ... "

"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, ... ."

 

You won't find that because that's not what Apostolic Succession is about!  It's like trying to find Aristotle's 'four elements' in the Periodic Table -- you can't locate what isn't there.

[farouk]

13 minutes ago, Roymond said:

You won't find that because that's not what Apostolic Succession is about!  It's like trying to find Aristotle's 'four elements' in the Periodic Table -- you can't locate what isn't there.

Ephesians 1 says the the Lord Jesus is given to be 'head over all things to the church which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all'.......

[Roymond]

5 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Exactly! The RCC, and most organizations, right down to your Local Calvary Chapel, do NOT want this word explained. They're all involved in it. If we can explain "Nico-demus" shall we have trouble with Nico-LAITY".

There wasn't a Roman Catholic Church when those early Christians wrote down why the Nicolaitans got that name.  Yes, it can have to do with destruction, but the simplest reading of the name is "Nicolas' people" or "Nicolas' followers".

5 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Is not the word "Bishop" not found in scripture. Is it not correctly "Overseer".

The Greek is ἐπίσκοπος (eh-PIH-sko-pos), which was just transliterated into Latin.  After Rome fell and the regional languages began to emerge, it slowly changed to "ebiskopos" and then to"ebiskop", which shifted more by softening the'k' and dropping the initial 'e', making the word "bishop", which we use today.

In other words, "bishop" comes from the scriptures; it wasn't invented.

So your 'overseer' = bishop.

5 hours ago, AdHoc said:

Ancient and modern religion have one thing in common - make us a king out of some man! Let not the congregation follow their HEAD - the Man Jesus. Israel is a perfect example. They have the Law and they have God, but the cry is; "Let us make us a king like the NATIONS!"

An Overseer is bound to SERVICE - the overriding principle of God when it comes to the gifted ones. A "Bishop" grants authority to rule. God made the highest instance Christ. the Assembly must seek HIS will.

Wow.  I bet you never got to know any actual bishops.  Sure, some are like that, but the two I've known (1 Lutheran, 1 Roman Catholic) were exactly what the word ἐπίσκοπος meant.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Roymond
left out a step in the progression

[Roymond]

4 hours ago, AdHoc said:

My bad. The designation "Overseer" implies a man running around seeing that sheep do not fall over a cliff. "Bishop" in modern  connotation is a man who rules with a rod. I'm not saying that we do not have authority in he OFFICE of Overseer, but the rendering in the English Bibles go for "Bishop" when the nearest correct word is Overseer.

Would you agree if I gave a general example. A "Bishop" will summon the wayward Christian and exercise authority over him. The Overseer will come to the wayward Christian and try to restore him.

Again, I suspect you've never actually known any bishops.

[Roymond]

1 hour ago, farouk said:

Ephesians 1 says the the Lord Jesus is given to be 'head over all things to the church which is His body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all'.......

The same one who write that also spoke of bishops in the church.

If that verse is against having bishops, it's against pastors and elders and deacons, too.