Apostolic Succession

[Awful_Things]

From a conversation I’m having with a Protestant:

For the sake of length I will not continue on through the other historical examples you provide. I think it should suffice to say that I make a reasonable claim to doubt the historical case for the apostolic authority of the Pope. I would argue that the Bishopric of Rome actually became a political office over time, rather than a spiritual one, as some of the bishops (like Victor) began jockeying to gain improper authority over other churches. Countless examples such as the three Bishops of Rome deposed by Emperor Henry III and appointment of Clement II in 1047 or the Avignon Papacy only serve to further this suspicion in me. It really wasn’t until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 that the Pope was able to firmly consolidate his power. This seriously calls into doubt the historical argument that the Bishop of Rome stands in the unbroken line of apostolic authority over the Church. I respectfully propose to you that the Roman Church claims authority not backed up by Scripture or by history.

Thoughts?

 

[Nita]

I would argue that the Bishopric of Rome actually became a political office over time, rather than a spiritual one, as some of the bishops (like Victor) began jockeying to gain improper authority over other churches. Countless examples such as the three Bishops of Rome deposed by Emperor Henry III and appointment of Clement II in 1047 or the Avignon Papacy only serve to further this suspicion in me.

The particular procedure for appointing successors to the papacy has varied over the 2000 year history of the Church. However, the legitimacy of succession does not depend on a single procedure, but rather the one accepted as valid at the time.

Regarding the times when there was more than one claimant to the papacy, check out the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org (Think there were two times that this occurred.)

The Catholic Church does not hide the scandals that have arisen over the years. Reminds me of the history recorded in Scripture in that sense - which also records the scandals in the OT.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The particular procedure for appointing successors to the papacy has varied over the 2000 year history of the Church. However, the legitimacy of succession does not depend on a single procedure, but rather the one accepted as valid at the time.

That is correct. And may I point out that this Protestant is further along than some, it sounds like, in that he/she believes there was a Papacy from 33 - 1047 apparently?

 

[Awful_Things]

That is correct. And may I point out that this Protestant is further along than some, it sounds like, in that he/she believes there was a Papacy from 33 - 1047 apparently?

No, he believes that Peter had primacy, but that it was not transferable to any successor. He is citing these examples as a base for his suspision that the papacy is really just an invention for political gain.

The conversation is very, very detailed and involved. I’ve already answer this most recent e-mail, but wanted to post this to compare my response to what some of you might say. It seems we are thinking along the same lines, for the most part.

 

[NotWorthy]

For the sake of length I will not continue on through the other historical examples you provide. I think it should suffice to say that I make a reasonable claim to doubt the historical case for the apostolic authority of the Pope. I would argue that the Bishopric of Rome actually became a political office over time, rather than a spiritual one, as some of the bishops (like Victor) began jockeying to gain improper authority over other churches.

So, when Popes exert their authority that Catholics claim the Jesus has given to the Pope specifically from Scripture, it’s relegated to “jockeying to gain improper authority over other churches”?

Hmm… Looking at Pope St. Victor, the wealth of protests he received for excommunicating the entire Eastern Church completely lacked any claim to his having the authority to do it. The protests, instead, questioned his wisdom in ex-communicating; not the authority.

And he might want to look at Pope St. Clement in the 1st century who also “jockeyed to gain improper authority over” the Church in Corinth.

Countless examples such as the three Bishops of Rome deposed by Emperor Henry III and appointment of Clement II in 1047 or the Avignon Papacy only serve to further this suspicion in me.

What this proves is that the Papacy still utilizes fallible people. I’m not sure of the “countless examples, though”. Their may be more like a handful of examples, which is remarkable since the Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old!

It really wasn’t until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 that the Pope was able to firmly consolidate his power.

Your friend may want to check his facts with his Christian friends. I’ve heard Pope St. Gregory is the one that consolidated this power. But, in any event, the need for a Pope only comes about as issues become harder to resolve. In an ideal Church, there is no need for a Pope. But Jesus clearly taught that there would be disputes and evil-doers in the Church (the parable of the weeds).

This seriously calls into doubt the historical argument that the Bishop of Rome stands in the unbroken line of apostolic authority over the Church. I respectfully propose to you that the Roman Church claims authority not backed up by Scripture or by history.

Matthew 16 (cross-referenced with Isaiah 22), John 21, Acts 1-15, and scattered throughout the Gospels. How much Scriptural blinders do you need to ignore the Scriptural basis for the Papacy?!?

The Historical proof is just as clear, beginning with Peter.