Apostolic Succession

[faithhopelove87]

I am a student at a major Catholic university in Chicago and I am currently enrolled in a class, Introduction to Catholicism, where my professor is teaching what I believe to be fallacies about apostolic succession. He claims that there is no evidence of direct sucessors, there is no proof of handing on of authority, and that there is no proof of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. Not only that, but he also believes that the papacy is basically outdated and that we are in need of a new system of authority. This goes against pretty much everything I have been taught in my several years of Catholic education, but perhaps this is some sort of gap in my knowledge(?) If he is teaching against what the Church teaches, are there any suggestions for bringing this to light during a class discussion?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am a student at a major Catholic university in Chicago and I am currently enrolled in a class, Introduction to Catholicism, where my professor is teaching what I believe to be fallacies about apostolic succession. He claims that there is no evidence of direct sucessors, there is no proof of handing on of authority, and that there is no proof of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. Not only that, but he also believes that the papacy is basically outdated and that we are in need of a new system of authority. This goes against pretty much everything I have been taught in my several years of Catholic education, but perhaps this is some sort of gap in my knowledge(?) If he is teaching against what the Church teaches, are there any suggestions for bringing this to light during a class discussion?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Papacy

catholicapologetics.org/ap050400.htm

catholicapologetics.org/ap050300.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

Peter’s presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name “Babylon” is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter’s time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation–classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God–ancient Babylon.

1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus … The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter’s presence and death in Rome.

Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter’s first successor as bishop of Rome.

2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.
Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, … to Siricius Anastasius.
On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.

The only biblical “claim to fame” of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater “order” according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.

The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.

1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership “father.” In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.

By the 300’s, bishops were sometimes called “pope” a corruption of the word for father. By the 700’s the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.

It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the “bad Popes.” That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.

The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the “bad Popes” is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.

Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.

 

[Chipper]

I am a student at a major Catholic university in Chicago and I am currently enrolled in a class, Introduction to Catholicism, where my professor is teaching what I believe to be fallacies about apostolic succession. He claims that there is no evidence of direct sucessors, there is no proof of handing on of authority, and that there is no proof of Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. Not only that, but he also believes that the papacy is basically outdated and that we are in need of a new system of authority. This goes against pretty much everything I have been taught in my several years of Catholic education, but perhaps this is some sort of gap in my knowledge(?) If he is teaching against what the Church teaches, are there any suggestions for bringing this to light during a class discussion?
Any help is greatly appreciated.

Sounds to me like the course should be titled “Introduction to Anti-Catholicism”.

I would of thought at first that he was just challenging everyone in the class, to investigate these topics, until he stated that the papacy is outdated. Actually quite a bit of information can be obtained by merely searching on the major terms, right here at Cathoic Answers library. A wealth of information will come out to support the Catholic viewpoint on all these topics.

 

[water]

Sounds to me like the course should be titled “Introduction to Anti-Catholicism”.

Yes, unfortunately. I was wondering who let the guy teaches the course that he does not even believe what he is teaching. Maybe the Dean of the Department should know about this.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Yes, unfortunately. I was wondering who let the guy teaches the course that he does not even believe what he is teaching. Maybe the Dean of the Department should know about this.

Is this Professor even Catholic?

 

[rciadan]

It is merely a “Cultural Catholic” college! One that has a “cafeteria” in the teacher lounge.
I say, tell the Dean you are taking your money and going to find an “actual” Catholic university!

 

[YADA]

First of all, I would discuss this the instructor. I woud find out if he in fact believes what was presented in the class as you understood it. If the instructor is truly teaching this in opposition to church teaching I would find out some information about the professor.

What is his faith tradition?

What does he know and understand about catholicism and the tenets of the faith?

This might seem trivial but it can be very important. Not all professors are catholic and believe it or not some non catholic professors on catholic institutions have been known to plead ignorance about the differences.

If the professor is teaching falsely [after properly documenting the false information and your discussions with him] I would contact the depsrtent chair. Keep in mind that this could be a teaching technique and later classes may present the catolic position.

If the departent chair fails to correct the false teachings [should you determine they are, in fact, against church teachings] contact the bishop’s [cardinal george] office at the archdiocese. You will need to have the facts, all the facts.

I know how troubling this can be I was in a masters program where a professor was teaching ‘calvinist’ theology that was contrary to the teachings of the church. A less concrete topic than the papacy, but one that distressed several students. As this program was required of deacon candidates and those who would hold pastoral positions in our diocese, this was very troubling. The professor stated he did not know the differences between his presbyterian faith and the catholic position. While he still works at the university, he was removed from teaching in that program. Whether at some later time, he might return is up to the bishop. They did not force him to chane any grades [as he graded us down for our disagreement with his understanding of the scriptures] but later classes were spared ‘his’ theology.

You shoulld not be taught a religious class at a catholic university that contradicts the teachings of the church unless that class is specifically identified as a class on the beliefs of another faith tradition.