Apostolic succession in da bible

[junostarlighter]

hey everyone,

i was wondering where in the new testament does is speak about apostolic succession. in the thread ‘matt 28,’ i got into a debate with a non-den. pastor who claims that nowhere in sacred scripture and anywhere up until the sixth century (i’m not quite sure what he’s referring to by the sixth century. was there a council that formally defined something? if there was, where, when, and what did they formally decide) did anyone say anything about apostolic succession. i am already going to give him some quotes from the early church fathers, but i was wondering if i could have any additional help. i am only a college student and not much of a theologian, but when someone decides to knock my faith, i feel its my job as a catholic to correct their misunderstandings in the way Jesus would want it done. I’m new at this apologetics thing. please, help and direct me in anyway you think you can.

peace and goodness

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Well we can take a look at Acts 1:15-26 where the Apostles select a replacement for Judas; rather the Holy Spirit does the choosing.
Then of course there are various other references to the “laying on of hands” and “sending out” of the 7 Deacons, then Paul and Barnabas, then Paul to Apollos and gang (19:1-7).

In regards to “no apostolic succession until the 6th cent.,” we need look no further than 1 Clement, written anywhere from A.D. 70-100, where the Bishop of Rome writes to the Church in Corinth, whose members had kicked out their presbyters and picked some other folks. He aint happy.
Ch.44: Similarly, our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title “Bishop.” In their full foreknowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of, and they went on to add an instruction that if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office.

 

[thistle]

junostarlighter:

hey everyone,

i was wondering where in the new testament does is speak about apostolic succession. in the thread ‘matt 28,’ i got into a debate with a non-den. pastor who claims that nowhere in sacred scripture and anywhere up until the sixth century (i’m not quite sure what he’s referring to by the sixth century. was there a council that formally defined something? if there was, where, when, and what did they formally decide) did anyone say anything about apostolic succession. i am already going to give him some quotes from the early church fathers, but i was wondering if i could have any additional help. i am only a college student and not much of a theologian, but when someone decides to knock my faith, i feel its my job as a catholic to correct their misunderstandings in the way Jesus would want it done. I’m new at this apologetics thing. please, help and direct me in anyway you think you can.

peace and goodness

See scripture catholic website:

www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, the Bible states it (from the earlier posting):

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

				  					Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his  					"bishopric") is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to  					have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by  					all. God never said, "I'll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years,  					but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own."

Yes, the Early Church felt it was necessary:
“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God].” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:33:8 (A.D. 180).

Notworthy

 

[Todd_Easton]

St. Paul words to Timothy seem to support the idea of apostolic succession:
1You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

1The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. 2Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, (1 Timothy 3:1-2)

22Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure. (1 Timothy 5:22)

 

[BlestOne]

whowantsumadebo:

Well we can take a look at Acts 1:15-26 where the Apostles select a replacement for Judas; rather the Holy Spirit does the choosing.
Then of course there are various other references to the “laying on of hands” and “sending out” of the 7 Deacons, then Paul and Barnabas, then Paul to Apollos and gang (19:1-7).

In regards to “no apostolic succession until the 6th cent.,” we need look no further than 1 Clement, written anywhere from A.D. 70-100, where the Bishop of Rome writes to the Church in Corinth, whose members had kicked out their presbyters and picked some other folks. He aint happy.
Ch.44: Similarly, our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title “Bishop.” In their full foreknowledge of this, therefore, they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of, and they went on to add an instruction that if these should fall asleep, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office.

Ummm…Just to clarify
In the OT we repeatedly see that “lots are cast” to actually leave a decision to the Holy Spirit…well actually to allow the HS to work through them. So, when Peter calls for a replacement of Judas (to have 12 apostles) they determine that Matthias and John have been followers since Jesus was baptized and remained with them through his death and resurrection. So, they determined that there were two that were qualified but only 1 was needed. Why not both? Because they represent the 12 tribes. So when they cast lots…this meant voting after prayerful consideration and asking the HS to choose. This is like the college of Cardinals in a way also. Men (College of Cardinals) vote after prayerful consideration and asking the HS to work through them.
The laying on of hands was very important…this signifies that they are giving full authority of the office to this person as well as the Holy Spirit. This is why they were so specific about this in scripture. It was about confering the HS and the authority to do the job of the office.
The 7 deacons show us how the church is supposed to grow…remember that the apostles originally preached the good news to Jews in Jerusalem first…this was the first part or a 3 part fulfilment, next when they were being persecuted, they fled from there and the apostles stayed in Jerusalem. They would leave Jerusalem to see how things were going and assist in the evangalization of the surrounding areas. So it was the deacons that went to the outlying areas to preach the good news, and the apostles went when needed or to see if they needed help.

As for the apostolic progression…yep, just because it wasn’t written and included in the Bible doesn’t mean it wasn’t followed…historically apostolic traditon is proven.

Very good answer whowantsumadebo!