apostolic succession revisited

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t try to defend your own theological speculations.

Also, there are a great many authors out there who have defended the papacy well, but apparently linking to them is not something you are interested in. So it looks like all these things are just your ideas. Maybe they are your theological novelties.

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy
By John Salza
books.google.com/books?id=EvQJ_i7J4CEC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=peter+eliakim&source=bl&ots=0T4I-fN8Dc&sig=IZNtZIlXeC2BvodtC974UrDPw7I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NuTfVIiEFsafgwS7n4OQAg&ved=0CGQQ6AEwDg#v=onepage&q=peter%20eliakim&f=false

That link will take you directly to Salza’s discussion of Eliakim and Peter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t try to defend your own theological speculations.

Also, there are a great many authors out there who have defended the papacy well, but apparently linking to them is not something you are interested in. So it looks like all these things are just your ideas. Maybe they are your theological novelties.

The Petrine Fact, Part 8: Peter and the Keys
by SDG
jimmyakin.com/2009/10/the-petrine-fact-part-8.html

The second half of this blog post on Jimmy Akin’s site goes into the subject in great detail.

 

[Mystophilus]

If Apostolic Succession is the way Jesus intended it, which is what I believe, and what I believe is shown clearly in the scriptures, then I think that it is something that we should hold in high regard.

I understand the belief; I just do not share it.

how does this quote have anything to do with not needing Apostolic Succession? Seems you are easily tossing aside something so precious as an infallible undefiled faith to guide the church, and at the same time saying that you do not consider Apostolic Succession to be necessary. How confident are you then, of you having received the whole truth of faith handed down to you?

The value of Mt 3:9 here is that it demonstrates the lack of necessity of a genealogical progression: John tells the Jews not to rely upon such a thing, because God can insert someone else into that line, something which happened very shortly thereafter with the arrival of the Christians. The same God can manage the same thing with a line of bishops.

In regard to your other question, I do not believe in the possibility, let alone the actuality, of “an infallible, undefiled faith”, nor in the necessity of having “the whole truth of the faith handed down”, hence the whole “frankly just not bothered” response. This might be a type of faith which is difficult to understand, coming from your perspective, but I thought it worth mentioning in regard to your OP so that you might understand some of the range of views on this topic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t try to defend your own theological speculations.

Also, there are a great many authors out there who have defended the papacy well, but apparently linking to them is not something you are interested in. So it looks like all these things are just your ideas. Maybe they are your theological novelties.

The One-Minute Apologist
By Dave Armstrong
books.google.com/books?id=PROgAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=dave+armstrong+peter+keys+eliakim&source=bl&ots=mFuxBinO_l&sig=_Xq9Nj91og8qhUqLI7Ns0Qix3uc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4effVOmXFIKXgwSUtoS4DQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dave%20armstrong%20peter%20keys%20eliakim&f=false

The link will take you to page 36 of Dave’s book where he explains the connection between Peter and Eliakim.

Are these three examples sufficient evidence that I am not defending my own “theological speculations” or “novelties”?

 

[JMM1957]

The value of Mt 3:9 here is that it demonstrates the lack of necessity of a genealogical progression: John tells the Jews not to rely upon such a thing, because God can insert someone else into that line, something which happened very shortly thereafter with the arrival of the Christians. The same God can manage the same thing with a line of bishops.

Yes, I agree, but these Christians cannot do it on their own either, the Holy Spirit must guide them. This is exactly what Christ intended.

 

[Abu]

Tomyris #40
I suspect your reasoning here is circular. The Catholic Church SAYS there is AS. There is AS. Why? Because of AS.

No; such a suspicion is a cop out. What we need are facts, and circularity is never a factor in Catholic teaching.

Apostolic Succession can only be achieved through the Apostles and the reality is clear.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The Apostles left bishops as their successors with “their own position of teaching authority.” [St Irenaeus, *Adv haeres. 3,3,1 See CCC # 77].

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Validly ordained bishops, as successors of the apostles, hand on the apostolic line. [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, #20].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

 

[Tomyris]

The One-Minute Apologist
By Dave Armstrong
books.google.com/books?id=PROgAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=dave+armstrong+peter+keys+eliakim&source=bl&ots=mFuxBinO_l&sig=_Xq9Nj91og8qhUqLI7Ns0Qix3uc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4effVOmXFIKXgwSUtoS4DQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dave%20armstrong%20peter%20keys%20eliakim&f=false

The link will take you to page 36 of Dave’s book where he explains the connection between Peter and Eliakim.

Are these three examples sufficient evidence that I am not defending my own “theological speculations” or “novelties”?

Ok, you are defending someone else’s, on the theory that if enough people say something then it must be true.

You seem to waste a lot of time on this when it isn’t really Catholic teaching, and representing it as something that Catholics should believe. You admitted it’s not in the Catechism, which means it’s not what you should really be dealing with. Unless you define Catholicism as being what ever you say it is. Lots of Catholics seem to do that, so I guess that is where you are at.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, you are defending someone else’s, on the theory that if enough people say something then it must be true.

You seem to waste a lot of time on this when it isn’t really Catholic teaching, and representing it as something that Catholics should believe. You admitted it’s not in the Catechism, which means it’s not what you should really be dealing with. Unless you define Catholicism as being what ever you say it is. Lots of Catholics seem to do that, so I guess that is where you are at.

Yeah…lot’s of Protestants have said it, and they have been saying it since at least the 18th century which is the earliest Protestant reference that I have found so far.

But you have ignored the fact that these PROTESTANTS also see the connection between Peter and Eliakim as a result of Jesus’ referencing of the keys - symbols of the office of the Royal Steward.

So, it’s not a Catholic thing so much as it is a Christian thing that I’m defending and that should be believed.

Jesus didn’t promise the keys to Peter and use the language of Isaiah without reason.

 

[Tomyris]

No; such a suspicion is a cop out. What we need are facts, and circularity is never a factor in Catholic teaching.

Well, here is a fine example.

Apostolic Succession can only be achieved through the Apostles and the reality is clear.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12).

If I recall correctly James spoke last, not Peter. Nobody called him the Supreme Leader. Most of this is eisegetical.

Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

You are reading more into this than is there.

The Apostles left bishops as their successors with “their own position of teaching authority.” [St Irenaeus, *Adv haeres

. 3,3,1 See CCC # 77].He would say that. It does not make it true. If it is true, can you name them? Did they all?

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Actually if you look at the epistle, Clement is not mentioned. It is from the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth. No Bishop at Rome is mentioned. No ‘fatherly concern’ to a ‘child church’. The quote you supplied is a valid translation, but note the disobedience concerns the words spoken not to the church at Rome and not to a bishop with universal jurisdiction. It was later generations that said Clement wrote it, but that is not the internal evidence. Later generation supplied a Pope where there clearly was none.

Validly ordained bishops, as successors of the apostles, hand on the apostolic line. [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium

, #20]. Quite Catholic.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Over strong objections from other bishops, if I recall correctly.

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Because he was greedy for power?

Why don’t you bring up Cyprian’s attitude towards Pope Steven?

Or the objections the Orthodox made when the Pope told them he had universal jurisdiction, not just primacy, and they split?

Or when the disciples complained that others were not following them, Jesus said it was ok?

Or how Peter was rebuked when he attempted to pastor John in the last paragraphs of John’s Gospel?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, you are defending someone else’s, on the theory that if enough people say something then it must be true.

You seem to waste a lot of time on this when it isn’t really Catholic teaching, and representing it as something that Catholics should believe. You admitted it’s not in the Catechism, which means it’s not what you should really be dealing with. Unless you define Catholicism as being what ever you say it is. Lots of Catholics seem to do that, so I guess that is where you are at.

Pope Benedict makes the connection here:

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20120629_pallio.html

John Paul said this (this is a Google translation from the Italian):

1. The evangelist Matthew records another metaphor that Jesus uses to explain to Simon Peter - and the other apostles - what does it do to him : " I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven " ( Mt 16 , 19 ) . Here too we immediately note that , according to biblical tradition , is the Messiah who has the keys of the kingdom . The Apocalypse , in fact , taking expressions of the prophet Isaiah , presents Christ as " the Holy One , the true , He who has the key of David ; when he opens , no one shall shut , and when he closes , no one opens " (Rev. 3-7 ) . The text of Isaiah (Is 22 , 22 ) , which concerns a certain Eliakim , is seen as a prophetic expression of the Messianic era , in which the "key " is used to open or close not the house of David ( as a building or as dynasty ) , but the " kingdom of heaven " : this new , transcendent reality proclaimed and brought by Jesus . in fact, Jesus is the one who , according to the Letter to the Hebrews , with his sacrifice " has entered the heavenly sanctuary " ( Heb 9 , 24 ) : it has the keys and opens the door . These keys Jesus gives her to Peter , who then receives power over the kingdom , the power would be exercised in the name of Christ , as his butler and head of the Church , home collecting believers in Christ , God’s children .

w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/audiences/1992/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_19921125.html

 

[Tomyris]

Yeah…lot’s of Protestants have said it, and they have been saying it since at least the 18th century which is the earliest Protestant reference that I have found so far.

But you have ignored the fact that these PROTESTANTS also see the connection between Peter and Eliakim as a result of Jesus’ referencing of the keys - symbols of the office of the Royal Steward.

So, it’s not a Catholic thing so much as it is a Christian thing that I’m defending and that should be believed.

Jesus didn’t promise the keys to Peter and use the language of Isaiah without reason.

I ignore nothing here. I have little time, too little to try to debate on everything. Silence is not agreement.

Jesus didn’t do things without reason, but that does not mean that your understanding is correct. For you as a Catholic, the farther you move from the Catechism in asserting what is and what is not Catholic,the greater your peril.

We don’t know everything, yet we can speculate. But we should not assert that our speculations are true - rather we should be clear when we are doing what. Otherwise we can get into some wild interpretations. Have you read Augustine on the psalms? He does some marvelous mathematical computations involving the numbers and their meanings. Today we don’t use allegorical interpretation as he did, when it was all the rage, for good reason.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I recall correctly James spoke last, not Peter. Nobody called him the Supreme Leader.

Because he was only the Bishop of Jerusalem and not the universal head of the Church.

Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem

Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.

Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.” Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).

Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).

Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:

“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”

It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).

Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*

*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)​

In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:

Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:

“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)

James addresses them, also:

“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)

Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.

 

[Tomyris]

Pope Benedict makes the connection here:
…

So does this raise it to the level of the Catechism? I don’t know.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I ignore nothing here. I have little time, too little to try to debate on everything. Silence is not agreement.

Jesus didn’t do things without reason, but that does not mean that your understanding is correct. For you as a Catholic, the farther you move from the Catechism in asserting what is and what is not Catholic,the greater your peril.

We don’t know everything, yet we can speculate. But we should not assert that our speculations are true - rather we should be clear when we are doing what. Otherwise we can get into some wild interpretations. Have you read Augustine on the psalms? He does some marvelous mathematical computations involving the numbers and their meanings. Today we don’t use allegorical interpretation as he did, when it was all the rage, for good reason.

Augustine? The Psalms? Don’t deflect the discussion.

I have now pointed out that several competent Catholic authors and two popes as well as many Protestant scholars and commentaries have referenced Isaiah 22 in connection with Mt. 16:18-19.

Will you continue to assert that this is simply one of my own theological novelties?

Or, humbled, will you begin to listen to what others who apparently know more than you have to say on the subject?

Your choice.

 

[Tomyris]

Because he was only the Bishop of Jerusalem and not the universal head of the Church…

Eisegesis. Bonocore read into it what he wanted it to say. And I was, of course, stating that no one was calling Peter supreme ruler.

It’s interesting that in Acts you start with Peter in Jerusalem, you end with Paul in Rome, one the apostle to the Jews, the other the apostle to the Gentiles. No universal anything for either. But Paul certainly comes closer to it, as there are many more Gentiles than Jews.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So does this raise it to the level of the Catechism? I don’t know.

Allow me a suggestion: tie your writings back to the Catholic Catechism with references - in other words, defend what the Catholic Church teaches. Don’t try to defend your own theological speculations.

Also, there are a great many authors out there who have defended the papacy well, but apparently linking to them is not something you are interested in. So it looks like all these things are just your ideas. Maybe they are your theological novelties.

Do Popes John Paul II and Benedict qualify as “authors who have defended the papacy well”?

If so, I have now linked to such authors as you requested.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eisegesis.

Prove it.

Show us your exegesis.

 

[Tomyris]

Augustine? The Psalms? Don’t deflect the discussion.

I wasn’t. I was making a relevant point.

I have now pointed out that several competent Catholic authors and two popes as well as many Protestant scholars and commentaries have referenced Isaiah 22 in connection with Mt. 16:18-19.

Will you continue to assert that this is simply one of my own theological novelties?

I already said that apparently you are sharing it with others.

Or, humbled, will you begin to listen to what others who apparently know more than you have to say on the subject?

Your choice.

YOU talk about humility? That’s rich. Jon is to eat shoes, Protestants only serve softballs, etc., etc. And that is just the recent stuff. How great you are is a constant theme with you. I note again your problem with arrogance. I’ve read your posts for a long time and you do not come across as having any understanding of humility. Contempt for Protestants, yes. Spiritual pride? Yes. But humility? No. Della and PR are wondrously humble people. Jon is. But you?

I do listen to what others say. Everyone else knows more about a lot of things than I do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I wasn’t. I was making a relevant point.I already said that apparently you are sharing it with others.

YOU talk about humility? That’s rich. Jon is to eat shoes, Protestants only serve softballs, etc., etc. And that is just the recent stuff.

I did ask Jon to keep pitching softballs in jest, but he and I have a cordial relationship, and I know that he would take that in fun.

Could you please cite the post in which I said anything about Jon eating shoes?

How great you are is a constant theme with you.

Could you please cite an example or two of my claims to greatness? Apparently, they are common enough that you should be able to find them quickly.

I note again your problem with arrogance. I’ve read your posts for a long time and you do not come across as having any understanding of humility. Contempt for Protestants, yes.

I have little regard for Protestantism which I view as a heresy, but my only beef with individual Protestants would be that directed toward folks who saunter into this forum expecting to quote a few verses and show us how unbiblical we are.

Spiritual pride? Yes.

Could you please cite an example or two of my displays of spiritual pride?

But humility? No. Della and PR are wondrously humble people. Jon is. But you?

I make no claims to being humble…at least when I know that I can back up my posts with facts, but this is not spiritual pride…this is confidence.

I do listen to what others say. Everyone else knows more about a lot of things than I do.

We have this in common.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Did you write that royal steward silliness too?

Now that I have documented the basis for and pedigree of the Royal Steward “silliness”, would you mind explaining why you decided to pick a fight with me about this tonight?

What gives, dude?