Can you prove it?

[Strong in Him]

The apostles were not better, holier, or more special than others; why act as if they were?

No, they weren't.
But this thread is - partly - about Apostolic succession.
The only thing that I really know about this is that some Bishops are said to be "in" it, and some "out" of it, which seems to affect the clergy in some way.
For example, Anglican clergy are ordained by Bishops, who were ordained by Bishops, who were ordained by Bishops - presumably going all the way back to the Apostles, but no one has really explained.
Methodist clergy aren't. John Wesley was an Anglican vicar and "properly" ordained, but the HE ordained people as Ministers. Ever since then, Ministers (in the UK Methodist church anyway) are ordained, once a year, at conference. We don't have Bishops.
So, when it comes to union with the Anglican church, they don't appear to accept our Ministers as validly ordained. They might be allowed to preach in an Anglican church, but I'm almost certain they would not be allowed to take a service of Holy Communion.
I'm fairly sure that an Anglican Vicar would not be able to celebrate a Catholic Mass - they probably wouldn't even be allowed to receive it.

The way that people talk about Apostolic succession seems to indicate that unless a member of the clergy is in the line of it, their ministry isn't valid, in some way.
I'm asking why that should be.
We've already established that the Apostles - although they had a great privilege, calling and authority - were no more holy or special than anyone else. They were just men through whom God worked.
So why is Apostolic succession so important?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The only thing that I really know about this is that some Bishops are said to be "in" it, and some "out" of it, which seems to affect the clergy in some way.

Every bishop in the Catholic Church participates in Apostolic Succession.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Some say that "The Great Commission" is addressed to Christians living today, in fact many say it and say also it was addressed to Christian in every age. The same goes for the Sermon on the mount. And for a great many of Jesus' sayings and lessons which were addressed to the apostles, or the disciples, or the Jews of his time, or the crowds of his time. Can you prove it? Why ought anyone take that perspective? And what about "apostolic succession", will you arguments justify or destroy belief in apostolic succession?

At minimum, some aspects of what you're asking can simply be address by applying good exegetical practices to the Scriptures. Again, I'm only talking about the minimum, not the 'maximum' dogma that each denomination has articulated about the meaning and addressment of the contents of the Scriptures.

 

[Strong in Him]

Every bishop in the Catholic Church participates in Apostolic Succession.

That's what I thought.
But why is it important? And, as I asked; it what way is it succession?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's what I thought.
But why is it important? And, as I asked; it what way is it succession?

It is important because continuity in the line of teaching handed down by Christ Jesus is important.

 

[Strong in Him]

It is important because continuity in the line of teaching handed down by Christ Jesus is important.

??
It's written in the Gospels for all to see and read. What do you mean by "continuity in the line of teaching"?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

??
It's written in the Gospels for all to see and read. What do you mean by "continuity in the line of teaching"?

That is a mistaken view; some of what Jesus did is recorded in the New Testament, much more is not recorded but it is remembered in Apostolic Tradition.

John 21:25 There is much else besides that Jesus did; if all of it were put in writing, I do not think the world itself would contain the books which would have to be written.​

 

[HTacianas]

What's this mean?

Acts 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came down on all those who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers[a] who had come with Peter were astounded because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speaking in other languages and declaring the greatness of God.

Then Peter responded, 47 “Can anyone withhold water and prevent these people from being baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

It means that an apostle stood with them speaking and the Holy Spirit descended on them. Then after they were baptized. Now read the account of Philip the deacon and the men of Samaria. You'll see a distinct difference.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

If you can’t say, then there’s no point. You’ll just keep moving the goalposts.

Giving up before you start is a defeatist approach.

 

[AlightSeeker]

I love the authority of God's word. Like David who loved the word. Like the greatest and wisest in the kingdom being those who keep his words. They get the spirit of truth and the teacher and God loves them and he and Jesus dwells with them. Jesus manifests himself in them. It's a lamp for the eyes and feet. It's full of wonderful things. Some people sit in church but don't keep his words while some don't sit in church but walk in his word. In my opinion

 

[Strong in Him]

That is a mistaken view; some of what Jesus did is recorded in the New Testament, much more is not recorded but it is remembered in Apostolic Tradition.

John 21:25 There is much else besides that Jesus did; if all of it were put in writing, I do not think the world itself would contain the books which would have to be written.​

Oh, yes; I forgot about the Catholic approach: rely on Scripture for doctrine, but if there is a Catholic doctrine/belief that isn't Scriptural then just quote John 21:25. That should cover it.

If you read it though, it says "there are many other things that Jesus DID", not "said."

 

[Strong in Him]

Giving up before you start is a defeatist approach.

Or, a way of saving time and preserving sanity.
What's the point of discussion when one side claims that they have extra knowledge not revealed in Scripture? That a doctrine was imparted, in John 21:25, and is under the cover of Apostolic tradition?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh, yes; I forgot about the Catholic approach: rely on Scripture for doctrine, but if there is a Catholic doctrine/belief that isn't Scriptural then just quote John 21:25. That should cover it.

If you read it though, it says "there are many other things that Jesus DID", not "said."

seems to me that saying is a thing that Jesus did a lot.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Or, a way of saving time and preserving sanity.
What's the point of discussion when one side claims that they have extra knowledge not revealed in Scripture? That a doctrine was imparted, in John 21:25, and is under the cover of Apostolic tradition?

It helps to keep me sane. You should give it a go.

 

[Strong in Him]

It helps to keep me sane. You should give it a go.

I'm perfectly sane already, thanks; don't be rude.

 

[Strong in Him]

seems to me that saying is a thing that Jesus did a lot.

So half your doctrines are based on supposition?
Comment: "That's not Scriptural"
Answer: "yes, it's covered by John 21:25" (i.e Jesus said it but it wasn't written down.)
Comment: "that verse talks about things that Jesus did."
Answer: "it seems that speaking is doing."

Think I'll stick with Scripture and not putting words into Jesus' mouth, thanks.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I'm perfectly sane already, thanks; don't be rude.

How quickly you pretend to be offended right after you do your best to offend me.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

So half your doctrines are based on supposition?
Comment: "That's not Scriptural"
Answer: "yes, it's covered by John 21:25" (i.e Jesus said it but it wasn't written down.)
Comment: "that verse talks about things that Jesus did."
Answer: "it seems that speaking is doing."

Think I'll stick with Scripture and not putting words into Jesus' mouth, thanks.

I wish you would stick with scripture without the biased commentary that your opinion presents.

But if you want to do what you just did then fine. I shall stop responding to such messages.

 

[Strong in Him]

I wish you would stick with scripture without the biased commentary that your opinion presents.

I do stick with Scripture.
But I've noticed that if you present a doctrine and I say "that's not Scriptural", your response is "John 21:25 - it's apostolic tradition."

And that's not an insult, it's a fact.

 

[ozso]

Oh, yes; I forgot about the Catholic approach: rely on Scripture for doctrine, but if there is a Catholic doctrine/belief that isn't Scriptural then just quote John 21:25. That should cover it.

If you read it though, it says "there are many other things that Jesus DID", not "said."

That seems quite clear unless of course a certain doctrine/dogma needs the passage to say something it really doesn't. And when there's a doctrine/dogma that rests upon only one verse, and the preferred meaning of it has to be read into it (eisegesis) it comes off as quite weak.