The Bible is clear that you are to confess your sins to one another.

James 5:16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."

But whom do we confess to? Luckily, the Bible tells us that Jesus passed on the power to forgive sins to his Apostles.

John 20:21-23 "Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.""

When confronted with the question "Doesn't this mean just the apostles can forgive sins?" First I ask, what sense would it make for Jesus to only have the apostles forgive sins?

Second, the Church Fathers often appealed to Apostolic Succession when confronted with heretics over doctrine. It was very important for them to be able to trace themselves directly back to one of the Apostles through their lines of teachers, and today Bishops can trace back directly to the apostles as well, passing along the authority Jesus gave to the apostles.

I agree that we should confess our sins to one another.

I also agree that it was not meant just for the apostles.

Now where you lose me is where you get the idea that only the RC church gets to decide who is in this position and who is not. I don't see the caveat in the scripture.

As far as the Apostolic succession and the early church fathers, it was important not because of some authority supposedly given to them that could only be passed down in some sort of successive line, but because the origin of what they were saying was so important.

check



and mate

/thread

I wouldn't want to be a Catholic here you get nailed by all sides.

The RC Church only decides this because the RCC has direct line from the apostles, who were given authority from Jesus, who passed this authority on to the bishops.

We can see the heirarchy of the Church being formed even as Paul writes. 1 Timothy 3 mentions bishops (the greek word literally means overseers) and deacons. These men were in charge of the church. The bishops oversaw the sacraments, the Eucharist and baptism, and the deacons were helpers, like today.

Early Christian church was divided much like Rome, into provinces. Each province had a bishop who resided at the largest city, the seat., The Church of the bishop was the cathedral. This is all happening in 100AD or earlier.

I will post writings of the Church fathers as I am currently studying them. Having never read them before, I am amazed again and again at how much the early Church resembles the current RC church, much more than any other church.

But you haven't shown that this means anything. You also haven't shown that corruption within the "succession" doesn't destroy the line, which is extremely important knowing the RC history.

There is a drastic difference between what you see in the NT and the early church father writings and the RC church. There was a mild form of structure that was necessary, but they did not claim this power like the pharisees and the RC church did/does.

Again, you are taking a loose outline of a structure and extrapolating it out into the power claim of the RC church. It is just not justified.

By cathedral you do realize that it was some dudes house, right? The early Church was divided into something like provinces according to who started the church or churches (which were communities not buildings). But again, this had to do not with this weird idea of power that that RC church holds onto. But because times where very different.

People at that time had little to no education. The deacons jobs were to study the scripture and to teach. Being that they had the most knowledge and spent their lives trying to find the most Godly path, they were the ones people went to.

They were there to help the people of that area. Not make up arbitrary rules and tell people to follow or go to hell.

I have read a lot of the early Church fathers, and either you reading only from about Augustine on, or you are only reading what you want to read. The early church was the antithesis of the RC church. This government system with it's self entitlement did not come around until Constantine. Stare reading about what happened to the church once Constantine got involved and you will see how and why the RC church looks like it does.

I don't mean to be a dick, but the RC institution is in my eyes everything that is wrong with christianity, so you will have to excuse me if I am a little kurt in my writings.

militant theists itt!

You should be more direct, Jib.

lol, sorry. I have kinda an unhealthy chip on my shoulder about the RC church.

Doesn't everybody? Kiddie rapists aren't looked upon too fondly in most parts of the world.

You hate what you wrongly believe to be the Church. No Christian who knows what the Church is hates the Church, as she is Christ's bride. But because of corrupt people in the Church, corrupt people even including the Pope in some cases, the whole may seem corrupted. But it itself is not - it was promised by Christ that it would prevail against the gates of hell. So I do not hate those who hate the Church, as I myself once did, but I pity them for they are blinded by sinners. Sorry if this offends.

In any case, here's some writings of Cyprian (208-258) "On the Unity of the Church." If I'm not mistaken, this is in response to the schism at Carthage - there was another self-proclaimed bishop in opposition to him, performing baptisms and Eucharist unlawfully (as only those true bishops can lawfully perform the sacraments)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

4. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4

8. "Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it— the garment of the Lord— the Church of Christ?"

Finally,

12. Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect of the Lord having said, "Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20 Corrupters and false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the substance of one section.

This is just one Church Father, I will post a couple more later (preferably from earlier than 250 as I know some like Pletho believes the Church was corrupted at some point). Jib, if you could point me to Church fathers who seem anti-Catholic to you I'd much appreciate it.

Do you think only the RCC has Apostolic succession?

I don't take offense, as you are unjustifiably equating the RC institution with the "Bride of Christ" or the Church, which is the community of believers. So I do have issues with the RC institution, but that has nothing to do with the true Church, as the two have little to nothing in common.

The RC institution lost its' way a long time ago. The went down the same path as the Pharisees.

I find the bolded to be particularly ironic as this is exactly what the RC institution has done. They are the corruptors and false interpreters, thus need to be pushed aside away from the true Bride of Christ.

I am sure they can trace people back, just as the Orthodox Church can. My point is that Apostolic succession is worthless and carries 0 weight. Or if it ever had any meaning, was broke a long time ago. If a corrupt Church appoints corrupt people, then they hold no spiritual power.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think you base your opinion on the RCC too much. Many Orthodox Churches have been pretty clean throughout the ages.

But yes, Apostolic succession stops when the group/denomination corrupts, and the succeeder is corrupted.

So the new question is about the corruption of apostolic succession.

The sacraments are still valid no matter if the priest is an saint, an axe-murderer, or a baby rapist. The sacraments are a gift from God and it is not the sins/holiness of the priest that provides for the Church in the sacraments, it is God Himself.

Likewise, apostolic succession is carried throughout the ages.

All men are sinners - what sort of sin warrants a person 'corrupt' and thus cuts off apostolic succession? Does God say 'Oh, that is a level 2 class sin, so you still have apostolic succession, but you have a level 4 class sin, so it is cut off?'

+ a bajillion. Apostolic succession means nothing, and holds no relevance to the Christian Church.

The Church Fathers disagree with you. I'll side with them.

The Roman Catholic Church fathers? Sorry, but no. The RCC is a man-made institution that has harnessed an unnecessary yoke on the necks of its followers. The Father of the Church is God, and all authority has been given to Christ. Not the Pope, Bishop, or Priest. Authority to baptize, preach, and administer communion is given to all believers.

What happened to my post?

Are you really this dumb? There was no RCC before the 11th century. In the 11th century the RCC and the EOC broke. Before that, there were just Christian church fathers, particularly before the Council of Chalcedon, then it was all 1 church. And not only the Church Fathers from the Patriarchate of Rome said they valued Apostolic Succession.

You can reply w/o personal insults.

What the 'Church Fathers' thought is irrelevant. They were men, and I am not under their authority. I am under the authority of Christ. The is no authority given to Apostolic Succession in scripture.

I have news for you. The Apostles were men too. Do you say that what they thought is irrelevant too?

Typical Protestant, ignoring all the Early Church Fathers and make up a whole new theology for yourself.

And there is plenty of evidence for Apostolic Succession in scriptures and in other important texts. Why do you think the Apostles appointed others to succeed them? Do you think the authority of the church ended with the death and resurrection of Christ? Or with the martyrdom of the Apostles? Or with the deaths of the 72 disciples?

Do you think you have more knowledge of scripture than people that were far more close to Christ and the apostles? Do you think you know way better how to correctly interpret texts?

I wish you well, God bless you. Excuse me for my foul word.

Typical Catholic, making up rules that have no authority in scripture.

See, I can do it too.

Apostles followed Christ, and the appointed others to be leaders as needed within their growing churches. Paul specifically warned against following 'Apostles' or other men, only Christ. Use the reference to Apollos.

Just because my pastor can't trace his spiritual genealogy back to Christ does not mean God doesn't have him in a position of authority for his congregation.