When did it all go wrong?

I don't disagree with that either. I'm just saying the mode is one of appointment to which one is ordained and that mode is by selection rather than voting. And if you are and adherent to Apostolic succession where successorship is an appointment by an Apostle for ordination that by changing the means in which one is chosen to a democratic system ultimately questions how you view apostolic succession. And if indeed you've changed the definition of it.

Or look at it this way. Hand in Hand with apostolic succession is the deposit of faith. Thus an apostle will say I chose this person to be my successor because I believe that not only does have the integrity for the position but having been taught by me I know he will be faithful to the consitent teaching of the deposit of faith. To a mode that is chosen is popular chosen by the majority or the purpose of possibly being able to faithfully spread the deposit. And if so how pure then is the deposit? Big questions.

 

What you are failing to understand is that Catholic bishops are "selected" for ordination.

From the group of ordained bishops one is then voted to be the bishop of Rome.

BTW how is voting not selection? It is selection by the majority.

Who would you have select the replacement for the bishop of Rome?

What one person would do the selection?

And I am officially tired of having to repeat this - so I'm out. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I know you are tired of this discussion and I'm very familiar with the catholic system. And I know the canidates are from bishops who are appointed by the previous pope and not from their bishops before them which is another problem. But historically the appointment or selection came from the previous bishop not a voting body of bishops.

 

So when a bishop died unexpectly - the office ceased?

Or did bishops make successor selections years in advance of their death?

Or are you just kind of guessing?

 

All selections should occur before a bishops death. If what you said occured then in effect apostolic successionism would have ended practically speaking.

Now what happened in those instances is the body of official with in that community elected the next Bishop. But now the local election promoted a bishop to his position but then a body of bishops outside that locality would then either support that promotion or go against it. And often there was much fighting about it. And many men got exiled for it. When this occurred eventually the Roman Emperor (after constantine) was consulted about it. And a Bishop would be chosen and often another sent into exile.

However practically speaking actual successionism ended. At this point. Just saying he the next guy in a line of guys margenalize Apostolic Succession because at some point someone is put in that position apart from the previous successor.

BTW I'm not guessing. Its just history. And I'm reading the Catholic Code of Canon laws right now for more info.

 

We need to remember the difference between bishops and apostles. The apostles appointed the first bishops, who appointed other bishops and elders. However, there is only one instance of apostles appointing another apostle. In Acts 1 we see the eleven, under the leadership of Peter, select two men for filling the office of Judas. Then we see prayer over these men, lots being cast, and the ultimate selection of Matthias under the leadership of the Holy Spirit. After these apostles all died, this office ceased to exist on earth.

 

True - but Apostolic succession is not about Apostles succeeding Apostles.

It is about being able to trace one's ordination back through other's who were ordained - much like a family tree.

Funny story - the other Baptist church in our town decided that they wanted to have an ordained pastor. So the deacons got together one Sunday and ordained him. Even though none of the deacons were ordained the church was very happy that their pastor was.

That is an example of no Apostolic succession.

 

Exactly. That is what I had meant to communicate but apparently didn't do it as well as this.

 

And in an essense isn't this what voting who succedes the previous bishop? Note since 1054 there is not unanimity among bishops. And the Catholic Bishops are all a subset of the bishop of Rome? This their appointment acts much like this baptist church you are talking about.

 

With the exception that the Catholic bishops were all (supposedly) ordained by others who themselves were ordained by others who were ordained....

 

Brakets say everything. Yet follow down through the ages and see what exactly happened.

 

I realize you have been banned down, but you seemed to be arguing with points I didn't make--I didn't deny episcopal succession from the apostles; just that one can't use Ignatius' epistles to support Rome's view of the papacy. In fact none of your other quotes support Rome's peculiar views either--I could show you dozens of other quotes from the ECFs which deny universal Roman supremacy (let alone anything that approaches papal infallibility), including others from Cyprian.

But since you've been banned, you probably aren't reading this anyway.

 

I know I was away from this site for some years, but what in the world is up with all these BANNINGS? Should we all be careful what we say?

There used to be Catholics, and Orthodox on this board, and lots of other denoms, aren't they still here or allowed to be here? A lot of those folks knew the Bible and it was challenging hearing a different perspective. Are we all so insecure that we can't listen to the other side?!

 

Some of them had gotten really ridiculous and were actively trying to prosyletize. I believe a few of them were also resurfacing under new accounts. It was like a serious rash a few years ago. So it got to the point that they had to begin cracking down on it.

 

...there's a distinct line between "proselytization" and defending one's faith...

For a Roman Catholic to be accused of "proselytization", he/she per the legal definition of the word, would've been guilty of attempting to convert people to another opinion...an example would be this...a Catholic stating that the only way a Baptist can be truly saved is through the Holy Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, without which one cannot be saved...my example is nothing more than a sales pitch for the benefits of Roman Catholicism = "proselytization"...

I don't recall any of the one's banned ever truly using this tactic...this portion of the BB is "Other Christian Denominations"...an area where other non-baptist gather and discuss/debate the different beliefs of "Other Christian Denominations"...

 

They were coming pretty close to that at times (and you had come in toward the end of it).