ECT Apostolic Succession

[Catholic Crusader]

Apostolic Succession
source link

EXCERPT:

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41)........(SNIP)

Read the Early Christian quotes here: LINK

 

[Catholic Crusader]

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What evidence do you have that Peter was the singular and first Bishop in Rome? Para-biblical sources indicate there were multiple cooperating Bishops in the earliest days of the Roman locality.

 

[Nihilo]

heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

. . .

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field"

 

[God's Truth]

The Bible forbids favoritism over the Apostles.

Read these scriptures, you will see that Paul even mentions Peter, otherwise known as Simon/Cephas and says not to say I follow Simon/Peter as if it means something special.


1 Corinthians 1:11-12 My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 3:1Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?

5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

1 Corinthians 3:18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness“; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

 

[HisServant]

Apostolic succession became a necessary claim by Rome to try and provide itself some legitimacy in making their brand of Christianity the religion of the Empire.

Eusebius lied when it came to his list of successors, simply because NO ONE CARED about it until Rome had need of it.

One would have to ask why after 3 centuries it became important?... it did because Rome needed to be the center of its new religion and could not tolerate any other claimants.

Anyhow, Jesus' sheep know his voice... and the RCC does not speak in that voice.

 

[DAN P]

Apostolic Succession
source link

EXCERPT:

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41)........(SNIP)

Read the Early Christian quotes here: LINK

Hi and as usual , THE RCC surrogates , never to their homework !!

I can not find the Greek word for SUCCESSION and I did find in DUET, the Heb words for SUCCEEDED and SUCCEED !!

In the OT God appointed all PROFHETS and in the Gopsels The Holy Spirit appoointed all the Apostles and they all had to qualify by Acts 1:21-22 , and the Holy Spirit picked , Acts 1:24-26 and Paul was pick by Christ as recorded in Gal 1:15 , but the Catholic Crusader will never believe what the Holy Spirit has written BUT wkill believe TIMMY !!

DAN P

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

What is the succession of the apostle of the Gentiles?

 

[Danoh]

What is the succession of the apostle of the Gentiles?

Richard Jordan :chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Richard Jordan :chuckle:

I like it. :up:
Wish I could still pick up his tv program.

 

[Danoh]

I like it. :up:
Wish I could still pick up his tv program.

Their assembly's services are aired live on their assembly's website.

Their tv program Forgotten Truths, can be found on youtube.

They are also on the radio all over the country.

They also have perhaps the best, clearest Evanglism Training I have ever seen.

Careful though; they tend to make 1 Cor. 15:1-4 the core issue :chuckle:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Their assembly's services are aired live on their assembly's website.

Their tv program Forgotten Truths, can be found on youtube.

They are also on the radio all over the country.

They also have perhaps the best, clearest Evanglism Training I have ever seen.

Careful though; they tend to make 1 Cor. 15:1-4 the core issue :chuckle:

I lost access to World Harvest TV when I switched providers.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

What evidence do you have that Peter was the singular and first Bishop in Rome?...........

Read: CLICK HERE

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Hi and as usual , THE RCC surrogates , never to their homework !!........

....and as usual you write like your drunk.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Read: CLICK HERE

This is very inferential in nature. As vital and fundamental as apostolic succession (and the Papacy) is for Catholic tradition, I'd hope there is better evidence than such speculative deduction and extrapolation in the manner criticized of Protestants by Catholics.

And even that doesn't point to Papal authority rather than the Roman See being of greater honor rather than authority (as espoused by the Easterns, to which Rome is in Schism; for they were first called Christians at Antioch, which was in the East).

Is there any real historical evidence from the pre-Nicene period? I've read every Patristic writing extant, and I haven't seen any. I've also read Josephus and Eusebius for historical correlation. I don't find anything conclusive or substantive, and I've searched without bias as much as is humanly possible.

It certainly seems to be much more belated and retrospective from later post-Constantinople post-Chalcedon dates. I don't see anything but vague inference to the contrary.

Anything else available?

 

[DAN P]

Richard Jordan :chuckle:

Hi and why him , is kit because you are also KJ-ONLY ??

DAN P

 

[DAN P]

....and as usual you write like your drunk.

Hi and you are saying that you can never answer my post as I make more SENSE when I an=n DRUNK than when you are SOBER ?

DAN P

 

[DAN P]

Richard Jordan :chuckle:

Hi and you are KIDDING , RIGHT ??

dan p

 

[Danoh]

Hi and you are KIDDING , RIGHT ??

dan p

Not if it gets a rise out of you :chuckle:

 

[Catholic Crusader]

What evidence do you have that Peter was the singular and first Bishop in Rome?...........

Read: CLICK HERE

........Anything else available?

Peter, His Bones, and His Earliest Successors
Karl Keating - November 23, 2015 - SOURCE LINK

QUOTE:
The ancient Liber Pontificalis (Book of Pontiffs) gives brief lives of the first 108 holders of the see of Rome. Only recently has this important work been translated into English, allowing those of us whose Latin is less than fluent to browse at will.

The fourth pope listed is Clement, known to history as Clement of Rome and the author of an epistle, addressed to the Corinthians, that is used by Catholic apologists to show the early exercise of papal authority. It seems that the Corinthians had called on Clement to settle a dispute. (The poor Corinthians were still troubled, long decades after Paul had tried to straighten them out—apparently with insufficient success.) The last surviving apostle, John, lived much closer to them and would have been the logical adjudicator, but they didn’t write to him. They wrote to the successor of the chief apostle, and Pope Clement replied in tones of authority.

The Liber Pontificalis gives only twenty lines about Clement, including the curious note that “on St. Peter’s instruction he undertook the pontificate for governing the Church, as the cathedra had been handed down and entrusted to him by Jesus Christ. . . . Hence Linus and Cletus are recorded before him because they were ordained bishops to provide the sacerdotal ministry by the prince of apostles himself.”

For clarification of this peculiar passage, I flipped back a page to the life of Peter. “He ordained two bishops, Linus and Cletus, to be present in Rome to provide the entire sacerdotal ministry for the people and for visitors.” Today we would call Linus and Cletus auxiliary bishops. They seem to have been given most of the sacramental duties, while Peter oversaw the Church as a whole. “Peter himself was free to pray and preach, to teach the people” (suggesting perhaps that the sacramental duties of a bishop tended to limit his leisure for prayer and for homiletics?).

Then comes a curious point: in addition to praying, preaching, and teaching, Peter seems to have been noted for his public debates. “He held many debates with Simon Magus, both before the Emperor Nero and before the people, because Simon was using magical tricks and deceptions to scatter those whom Peter had gathered into Christ’s faith. When their disputes had lasted a long time, Simon was struck down by God’s will.”

Nero, later the first great persecutor of the Church, thus knew Simon Magus and Peter and amused himself by watching the magician joust with the fisherman from Galilee. But Nero’s champion “was struck down by God’s will.” Did this embitter Nero against the Christians? We aren’t told, but it is a fair surmise. Recall that Pharaoh’s opinion of the Israelites was not improved when he saw his priests bested by Moses.

The next sentence of the life of the first pope records that Peter “consecrated St. Clement as bishop and entrusted the cathedra and the whole management of the Church to him, saying: ‘As the power of government, that of binding and loosing, was handed to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I entrust it to you; ordain those who are to deal with various cases and execute the Church’s affairs; do not be caught up in the cares of the world but ensure you are completely free for prayer and preaching to the people.’ After making this arrangement he was crowned with martyrdom along with Paul in the thirty-eighth year after the Lord suffered.”

Do not misinterpret what is going on here. No pope can make another man his successor; the most he can do is make him a bishop, which is what Peter did to Linus, Cletus, and Clement. It is unclear what force should be given to the clause “after making this arrangement,” but I take it to mean that Clement was consecrated not long before Peter’s death.

He appears to have been Peter’s recommendation for pope, but that choice could not be made until the papal see fell vacant and thus would be made by the living, not by Peter. Since Linus and Cletus had been ordained some years earlier to assist Peter in the administration of the see of Rome, and since each had paid his dues, so to speak, it must have seemed proper to the clergy of Rome to allow each in turn to serve as chief bishop of the imperial capital.

Thus Linus became the second pope, holding the see for eleven years, and Cletus the third, holding it for twelve. Next came Peter’s personal favorite, Clement, who was pope for nine years. The Liber Pontificalis closes its lives of Linus and Cletus by noting that each was buried “close to St. Peter’s body on the Vatican [Hill].” Unexpectedly, Clement, Peter’s favorite, died in Rome but ended up being buried in Greece.

Peter was buried, as we all know, on Vatican Hill. At the time of his death, that hill—which is not counted among Rome’s seven distinguishing hills, which are all on the other side of the Tiber—was outside the city limits and consisted chiefly of a cemetery. It was a rural area of no consequence. Early on, after the legalization of Christianity, a church was erected over the place Peter was interred. That church gave way, over the centuries, to multiple enlargements, the present basilica being completed in the seventeenth century.

It was only a lifetime ago that scientific proof of Peter’s burial was obtained. In the 1940s Pope Pius XII authorized excavations beneath the high altar. The digging disclosed a necropolis (city of the dead). Today one can take a tour of the Scavi (Italian for excavations; see photo), provided one prudently makes a reservation months in advance.

The necropolis is like a tiny town, with narrow streets bordered by brick buildings, but the “buildings” are mausoleums. The archaeologists discovered, directly under the high altar, a small memorial to Peter. It must have been erected shortly after his death, while the memory of the burial spot was still fresh. Neighboring his memorial are burial niches, the facings of which are inscribed with graffiti that say things like “buried near Peter.”

When the memorial was opened, it was discovered to be—empty. Where were Peter’s bones? Had then fallen away into dust? It turns out they, or what little remained of them because they largely had disintegrated, were nearby, having apparently been removed (hidden away, actually) during an early persecution to forestall the authorities unearthing Peter's bones and destroying them.

This story of the excavations underneath St. Peter’s Basilica are not part of the Liber Pontificalis, of course, but they are a fitting cap to the story told in that ancient book.