However, I wasn’t aware of any schism at the 2nd Council of Niceae. And of course, the Church is not a democracy anyway. Even if what you say is true, Jesus made Peter head of His Church. Additionally, by the time of the 2nd council of Niceae in the 8th century there were hundreds of bishops, each valid and all succeeding from the Apostles. It would not have been a matter of which particular “apostolic patriarchy” they succeeded from when it came to their position on a matter. Still, can you please provide a reference to what you are claiming? I’d be interested in checking it out and learning some more. Thanks for any help! God bless!

The only thing I would point out, however, is that there were 12 Apostles in the original Church. Peter was one. When the schism of the 2nd Council of Niceae occurred, the Roman Church left all other eleven apostolic patriarchies. So I would suggest that, having the majority of the Church leaders, the Orthodox Churches have greater authority than Rome.

Check out here for much of what the early Christians (many of them students of the apostles) believed and practiced.

And this is an overall good read if you are interested in a Catholic perspective on the Church.

God bless ya!

Yes, we are part of the church…but not necessarily the Catholic church.

I do believe some Catholics are Christians. I do believe some Baptists are Christians. I do believe some Episcopalians are Christians. But there are plenty of self-proclaimed Catholics, Baptists and Episcopalians who have not been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. So to make the claim “So the answer to the question is a resounding yes. And not only are Catholics Christians, they were the first Christians.” is somewhat over realized.

Peter, Paul, James, John, Luke and the others writers of the New Testament never found their identity in a church of any sort – they only found their identity in Jesus, because He alone is the only one worthy of our boast.

The Church is not defined by customs or abuses of a certain time period. The fact that the Church has had sinners in it (for instance, who abused indulgences) is not an anomaly of any one time period. Jesus gave authority in His Church to humans – imperfect ones. The rationale you are using to identify the Church is flawed.

I thankyou for this article and helping me to realise my catholic faith is just as good as any other christian demoniation. After hearing those who have something against the Catholic church i began to doubt myself. You helped me realise there is no doubt. So thank you. And may God help those who are unable to see past their closed minds.

God Bless.

Those are good questions, but I think there are lots of reasons why we need apostolic succession and why Jesus and the apostles set it up that way. Here are a few quick ones off the top of my head:

1) That’s how Jesus set it up. He started a Church – not a book – and gave authority to its leaders to forgive sins, bind on earth and heaven, preach the gospel…to be sent as “the Father sent Him”. The apostles commissioned new leaders and instructed them (all in scripture) to hold to these traditions (the ones by letter and by oral tradition). And they told these leaders to continue to pass this authority down.

2) If Jesus had thought all we needed was a book (with no authority especially commissioned by Him and given special guidance from the Holy Spirit to interpret it) then it seems reasonable that he would have just given us that book. But he didn’t. And nowhere does he instruct the apostles to do so. And nowhere does the Bible claim He has done so. Instead, He gave us a Church led by members with apostolic succession and authority.

3) Nowhere in the bible is the idea supported that the authority of the Church is only useful or that it “runs out” after some list of apostolic letters are canonized (354).

4) If the Church had the authority to define the canon of the Bible (this book that you believe contains the entirety of the Christian religion), why would it suddenly lose that authority once it canonized the bible?

5) If you think there was division and confusion in the early Church…what do you make of today? There are thousands more divisions than there ever was in the early Church. A book by itself does not establish unity. In fact, it is the belief that all we need is the bible (sola scriptura) and no authoritative Church that has led to the biggest splintering of Christianity in all of our history (these past 400-500 hundred years since the reformation). If we needed this central unifying figure and protector of apostolic teaching in the first years of Christianity…then we need it more than ever now. The more Christians have denied the central authority commissioned by Jesus (Apostolic succession), the more divided we’ve become…not unified. That’s a fact.

The list goes on and on. But finally, I think you have a misunderstanding of what the Pope does. He can’t do anything that is not in total agreement with what the Church has always taught. And simply calling him an interpreter leads to even bigger misunderstandings.

John Calvin and Martin Luther came along and took up beliefs that were not consistent with what the Church had always taught. You can’t find their teachings in the early Christian life or historical Christianity. They took it upon themselves to come up with their own interpretations of scripture without the context of apostolic teaching.

The Pope does nothing of the sort. So comparing these people is like comparing apples to oranges. The pope has been ordained the authoritative leader of Jesus’ Church. Through the laying on of hands and the apostolic authority passed down directly and personally from Jesus to the apostles and to the present day. He is in communion with that same Church and all of the Bishops who were similarly ordained and given authority passed down from the apostles directly and personally. Everything the Pope teaches is in accordance and agreement with the totality of apostolic authority, Tradition and scripture. He is working directly within the commissioned organization that Jesus Christ himself founded and started. His predecessor was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Jesus Christ himself. He claims no right to change Church dogma or to interpret it any differently than it has always been interpreted when it pertains to faith and morals.

Sorry to get so long here. I hope that helps give you a little bit more of the Catholic perspective on it. I’m very glad that you commented and shared your thoughts.

The bottom line is that Jesus started a Church with real leaders. A Church with a real, human leadership (Peter and the apostles) and gave them authority. The Church Jesus started had an official leadership. A head of that leadership (not a token holy man). And they passed down that authority to others and told those that received it to continue passing it down (2 Tim. 2:2). That’s Jesus’ Church.

More reading on Apostolic Succession here if interested.

God bless you.

This blog post defines Christianity strictly according to apostolic succession. I ask, why is it so important that you have the ability to point to some man today who stands in line with Peter? Early in church history, when heretics were as common as orthodox believers and all claimed super-special, super-secret knowledge of Christ, it most definitely proved useful. It proved that the message being preached was “apostle-approved”.

But ever since the canon of Scripture was discovered at Nicea in 354, apostolic succession should have become obsolete. It existed to safeguard the “apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42), and it served its purpose. Now we have that teaching collected and leatherbound. So why is it still so crucial? What’s the use of the thing? So you see my point. The Christian religion consists solely in the content of its teachings as found in the Bible. Not content plus a token holy man.

Does he interpret the Bible? But why should Benedict be a better interpreter than John Calvin or Martin Luther?

The other extremely problematic thing with mjackson’s case is that when the book of Revelation warns against adding unto the prophecy of “this book”…it could only be referring to the book of Revelation…as it was not a part of any biblical canon at the time that it was written. So – if anything – if we take this passage as mjackson is interpreting it…it would be “not of God” to believe anything that isn’t explicitly written in solely the book of Revelation. Which is certainly not a Christian belief.

All of this demonstrates a point of view that ignores the historical context of the bible, how it came together by the Authority of the Church, and is a good example of how a belief in the “bible alone” (a belief that is itself something that has been “added” outside of the bible…only in the past few hundred years in fact) ultimately falls short.

Many prayers for you mjackson.

How about John 5, 39-40….Christ’s own words encouraging all to seek revelation BEYOND the scriptures.

I have many Baptist friends. But I fear for anyone who condemns others based how they interpret scripture.