Apostolic succession and the eyewitness requirement

[Angainor]

jimmy:

That verse does not make it a requirement that all successors must be eyewitnesses though.

Maybe not conclusively, but it is the only example of a direct successor being chosen that I know of. I do not find it insignificant that they required an eyewitness.

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Maybe not conclusively, but it is the only example of a direct successor being chosen that I know of. I do not find it insignificant that they required an eyewitness.

They selected from the best they had. To say that they made it a requirement is your “tradition of men.” It is not in the text.

 

[NotWorthy]

Angainor:

Sure, they appointed new bishops, but did the new bishops also get “authority” handed down? Did Peter’s keys get handed down to a non-eyewitness? Did the power to “bind and loose” get handed down to non-eyewitnesses?

You have to look to Isaiah to see the office that Peter was given. The power to open and shut was given to a prime minister in ancient Israel while the king was away. All the power of the king resided in the prime minister (I’ll have to look up the term given to him, but it means “Father”. Sound Familiar?).

Take a look at Matthew where Jesus gave the keys to Simon. Only after He establishes Simon as his successor does He reveal for the first time to the apostles that He is going to die. Jesus was not prepared to be sacrificed until he had a successor to help build His church. To imply that there was no succession after Simon-Peter’s death is to imply that there was no leader necessary after Simon-Peter’s death. If you look at the hurdles the Church still needed to face seems to cry out for the need of a leader to guide her.

NotWorthy

 

[Angainor]

NotWorthy:

To imply that there was no succession after Simon-Peter’s death is to imply that there was no leader necessary after Simon-Peter’s death.

I’m protestant. Of course I would imply that.

 

[NotWorthy]

Angainor:

I’m protestant. Of course I would imply that (there was no leader necessary after Simon-Peter’s death).

So we didn’t need anyone to defend against the various heresies that sprang up? Gnosticism was only one of many. And many of these heresies, could potentially have destroyed the early church. Read the writings of St. Ignatius and Justin Martyr, not to mention St. Irenaeus and you’ll see that the fact that the church did survive is nothing short of miraculous!

God Bless,

NotWorthy

 

[Angainor]

NotWorthy:

So we didn’t need anyone to defend against the various heresies that sprang up? Gnosticism was only one of many. And many of these heresies, could potentially have destroyed the early church. Read the writings of St. Ignatius and Justin Martyr, not to mention St. Irenaeus and you’ll see that the fact that the church did survive is nothing short of miraculous!

Truth is authority. When you have truth on your side you yourself don’t need to possess authority.Stand firm then, with the*** belt of truth*** around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Ephesians 6:14-16

 

[NotWorthy]

Angainor:

Truth is authority. When you have truth on your side you yourself don’t need to possess authority.Stand firm then, with the*** belt of truth*** around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Ephesians 6:14-16

Good point! So, did these three, Ignatius, Justin, and Ireneaus stand firm with the*** belt of truth*** around their waists?

NotWorthy

 

[Angainor]

NotWorthy:

Good point! So, did these three, Ignatius, Justin, and Ireneaus stand firm with the*** belt of truth*** around their waists?

Being non-Catholic, my knowledge of post New Testament personalities is extremely weak, but from what little I have read about them:

Yes, I would say that for the most part they were champions of truth, as much as anyone can be expected to be.

 

[banjo]

“For,” said Peter, "It is written in the book of Psalms, "‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, “‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the **
men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus as taken up from us.** For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” - Acts 1:21-22

“…men who have been with us the whole time…” Is a little more than being able to pass on an oral account.

One of the primary duties of the apostles was to connect the era of Christ’s lifetime and the era of the Church; for the purpose of continuity. That was one reason for choosing someone who had been with them from the ‘beginning,’ i.e., from Christ’s baptism to his ascension. The apostles were to be the patriarchs of the new Israel, therefore, they had to be twelve in number. Since neither Matthias nor Justus is ever mentioned again in the NT, it may be concluded the main or only reason for replacing Judas was to make the number of apostles twelve.

 

[Todd_Easton]

How do we know that the authority to bind and loose was passed on from the Apostles?

I think a review of Acts 15:1 - 16:4 will show that when the issue of circumcision of Gentile converts was raised, not only did the Apostles meet in council but also the presbyters (bishops) of the Church. And their binding decisions, “for observance” (Acts 16:4), were attributed not only to the Holy Spirit and the Apostles but to the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, and the presbyters (bishops) of the Church.

From this example, it seems pretty clear that the first presbyters (bishops) of the Church shared in the Apostle’s authority of binding and loosing.

Did this authority of binding and loosing cease then with the death of the presbyters ordained by the Apostles? Probably not, as indicated in Paul’s instructions in his letters to Timothy and Titus, who were not themselves Apostles, concerning the ordaination of other presbyters (bishops).

 

[NotWorthy]

Angainor:

Being non-Catholic, my knowledge of post New Testament personalities is extremely weak, but from what little I have read about them:

Yes, I would say that for the most part they were champions of truth, as much as anyone can be expected to be.

I understand your point. It is said that to study the Early Church is to study the Catholic Church of today. St. Ignatius is a perfect example. He wrote seven epistles while on his way to be crucified by the Roman Emperor, a trial he did not shirk. Here’s a brief summary of his letters. The parantheses are who he wrote the epistles to. You can learn more from these letters at newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said (“The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius”, in “Historical Sketches”, I, London, 1890) that “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles”. Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase “Catholic Church”, used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters’ of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.

God Bless,

NotWorthy

 

[jimmy]

Angainor:

Truth is authority. When you have truth on your side you yourself don’t need to possess authority.Stand firm then, with the*** belt of truth*** around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Ephesians 6:14-16

Who has truth on their side? Is it the Catholics or the protestants. Is it the Arians or the Trinitarians?

Paul said that the Church was “the pillar and ground of Truth”. There was something solid there he was talking about.

 

[Angainor]

jimmy:

Paul said that the Church was “the pillar and ground of Truth”. There was something solid there he was talking about.

Hello, Could you give me some context? Where did Paul say that?