Apostolic Succession

[guanophore]

I would also add to believe the list the Catholic Church maintains of apostolic succession, one must hold to the faith there was/is never a need for Christ to reform His Church in order to keep the gates from prevailing,

No, CMatt. This is just a calumny against the Catholic Church.

The maintenance of aposotlic succession has nothing to do with Jesus’ reform of His One Church.

Men are always in need of reform, and unlike yourself, Catholics believe that the powerful Jesus written about in the book of Revelation chastizing and correcting His Church has been alive, well, and on task for 2000 years.

His Reform is directed toward the hearts and behavior of persons who have departed from the faith. He has no need to reform the doctrine that was once for all delivered to the Saints.

Furthermore, He will keep His promise not to leave us orphaned, and will continue to guide the Church into “all Truth” until the end of the age, just as He promised.

that the Popes or broader list of apostolic successors maintained by the Catholic Church have never strayed, bearing the good fruits we shall know them by,

This is also a useless strawman, CMatt. The Catholic Church has never claimed that there were not wolves among the sheep. The presence of wolves among the sheep does not nullify the gifts of God. The gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.

Unfortunately, in your theory, the frailties of man are stronger than the power of God, so if a man should fall short, somehow it nullifies the gift and call of God.

Such a position cannot be supported scripturally.

and that they have continued to this day to be Vicars of Christ and true apostolic successors. So it’s not as much a list written as it is faith.

Once again you seem intent upon discrediting history, claiming that it does not say what really happened, and that what really happened is only a matter of “faith”, not facts.

Just like the neo Nazis claim that the holocaust did not really happen.

The successors of the Apostles hold an office. Not all the successors have been as holy as they should. However, their lack of personal holiness does not nullify the office they occupied.

Judas was an Apostle, and he held the office just like all the rest, even though Jesus called him a “devil”. He was chosen by God, and when he vacated his office, another was selected by God to take his place. His faithlessness did not nullify the office.

But nevertheless in consideration of the Apostle Paul’s words, I am not going to continue this argument with you over doubtful points. Again God bless and peace.

You are right that it is pointless to put up strawmen and argue points that the Catholic Church does not hold. Good for you!

 

[guanophore]

I was not referring to how many people “claim” to be Pope. I was referring to how many Popes where voted in by the same enclave of Cardinals during the exact same time in history. At one time in history there were 3 legitimate (not Anti) Popes - and the Cardinals needed to come back and get 2 over them to resign. Later, 2 became Anti-Popes when they did not resign the position at the request of the Cardinals - one going as far as being excommunicated.

The point is that through history there have been some “squirly” moments in the creation of Popes that I believe broke the ability to call it succession.

I see your point, but your conclusion is erroneous. The office of Apostle vacated by Judas was vacant for a time. When Matthias succeeded to it, it was a valid succession, regardless of how long the office had been empty. If several candidates had filled it then vacated it, it woudl still be a valid office. Rome tried to cut the head off the Church in every major city, and the bishops of Rome were executed as quickly as they could identify and find them.

 

[guanophore]

I understand you say the doctrine was out of its historical line. But why needed sooner? Simple. Jesus supposedly built His Church upon the primacy of the one Peter and each single successor bishop of Rome if we listen to the Roman faith.

No, CMatt, you are misrepresenting the Catholic faith again. The Catholic Church produced the NT, so there is nothing in it that contradicts the faith of the church.

As we can see from those scriptures, your statement is false:

Eph 2:19-22
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. 21 In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

The Catholic Church has always taught that the foundation of the Church is the apostles and prophets - all those in unity with the Aposltes.

Every Apostle had valid successors, and these spread all over the world. There is a valid line of Peter’s successors to the Bishopric in Antioch that is older than the line in Rome. One has to wonder why you constantly bring such lies against Catholicism.

But you say most historians agree there was not a single bishop of Rome till well into the 2nd century. Christ died in something like 33 AD. So in that case the whole idea of the single bishop of Rome being the earthly head would not it would seem be what God put in place when He built His Church. Or else why would He not have made certain of a single bishop of Rome from the get go? Not a century and half later.

The Church has always been led by a college of overseers, beginning with the Apostolic college that we see in the book of Acts. Historical records are clear that both Peter and Paul labored in Rome to build up the foundation of the Church there, and there were no doubt, as SyCarl argued on the other thread, many elders in that community, as well as others.

None of this changes the special and unique Gifts that Jesus gave particularly to Peter to feed and care for the flock. When Peter was near to martyrdom, he passed these responsibilities on to his successor in Rome, and this has continued to the present day.

If Peter had been martryd in Antioch, then that would have been the final See of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Yet if it is correct as Contarini says that “according to the majority of modern historians, there probably was not a single bishop of Rome until about half-way through the second century”, then there was not a single leading shepherd.

This is another falsehood, CMatt. Peter was given his unique gifts and ministry while the 12 were still all together in Judea. His primacy and calling was not changed by the fact that all the Apostles had a calling and a ministry. They remained together in Jerusalem to await the HS, and all of them retained their valid ministry and gifts. Being in the company of one another did not invalidate their ministry.

The Petrine gifts are active and valid no matter how many other bishops, priests, or apostles are present.

Contarini also mentioned what he described as “the later Roman Catholic way of thinking”. That sounds to me as if thinking was evolving and being formed as time went on.

Indeed, our thinking does evolve and form as time goes on. However, this development in our understanding does not alter the once for all deposit of faith that was given to the Church.

 

[Contarini]

I understand you say the doctrine was out of its historical line. But why needed sooner? Simple. Jesus supposedly built His Church upon the primacy of the one Peter and each single successor bishop of Rome if we listen to the Roman faith. But you say most historians agree there was not a single bishop of Rome till well into the 2nd century. Christ died in something like 33 AD. So in that case the whole idea of the single bishop of Rome being the earthly head would not it would seem be what God put in place when He built His Church. Or else why would He not have made certain of a single bishop of Rome from the get go? Not a century and half later.

I think you are wrong in what the core Catholic claim is, but of course I may be wrong. I believe strongly in the Petrine ministry of the bishops of Rome. To me it does not seem necessary that this ministry be only exercised by one person at a time, though obviously in many ways it’s convenient if that’s true. And it’s always possible that even when there were several leaders, one of them was exercising the Petrine ministry (so, for instance, even if Hermas is right that Clement was simply the “corresponding secretary” of the Roman church, that function might still be seen as the key element of the Petrine ministry as exercised at that place and time, while other Roman presbyters concerned themselves more with the governing of the local community at Rome).

 

[jlhargus]

You claimed there were not three Popes at one time - just anti-popes. Unlike other times when there were anti-popes, this situation was very unique. All three Popes had legitimate claims to the chair of Peter - at the same time in history. What I think you fail to consider is that, once elected by an authoritative conclave of Cardinals, a Pope cannot be forced to resign. In this case, it was the 3rd Pope elected to came out with the backing of the Cardinals - while at a later time the first Pope resigned his position, and the second was excommunicated for a bogus claim - obviously since he would not resign. No doubt the first Pope was given the same ultimatum. Therefore, three Popes were in existence at one time all possessing the same legitimacy.

I suppose your point would be well taken if it came about that the first Pope elected maintained his office…then it could be said that the other two were illegitimate since there already was a Pope. However, that was not the case. The third Pope elected was the only Pope that retained his position.

JL: Long story short there was only one VALID and legitiment pope at any given time there was never three ligitiment popes at the same time. One had to be ligit and the others had to be anti-popes. Your own link agrees.

 

[Contarini]

You claimed there were not three Popes at one time - just anti-popes. Unlike other times when there were anti-popes, this situation was very unique. All three Popes had legitimate claims to the chair of Peter

How do you evaluate “legitimacy”? Isn’t it a bit weird for you to be making that judgment?

There are coherent criteria by which Catholics can argue that the other two Popes were not legitimate. And that’s all they need to defeat your argument. You simply have no right to tell them, “Sorry, but I judge the other two Popes to have been equally legitimate.” That’s pretty rude and presumptuous.

Also, some of those other cases may not have been as clear-cut as you think.

What I think you fail to consider is that, once elected by an authoritative conclave of Cardinals

And what is your argument showing that Clement VII and Alexander V were elected by an authoritative conclave? How do you determine what an “authoritative” conclave is?

a Pope cannot be forced to resign.

Says who? That was far from a settled question at the time, whatever may be the case today.

In this case, it was the 3rd Pope elected to came out with the backing of the Cardinals

Not sure what you mean by that. The “third Pope” was Alexander V, who was succeeded by “John XXIII.” As the numbering indicates (since a 20th-century Pope took that same number), he is not considered a legitimate Pope by Catholics today–he was deposed by the Council of Florence.

You could make a much better case that there was *no *legitimate Pope during those years, but the standard Catholic line seems to be that the “Roman” popes were the valid ones, and you have so far produced no argument showing otherwise.

Your argument therefore fails utterly.

Edwin

I suppose your point would be well taken if it came about that the first Pope elected maintained his office…then it could be said that the other two were illegitimate since there already was a Pope. However, that was not the case. The third Pope elected was the only Pope that retained his position.