Apostolic succession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James15

Guest
Is the “Apostolic succession” really true?
Is there any historical and archeological proofs about the apostolic successions?
 
Yes of course. Apostolic succession is like presidential succession. No one that I know would deny that president Bush is the successor of George Washington as president of the United states. John Paul II is the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is not the seccussor of John Paul I or Paul VI, he is the seccessor of Peter and the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles in their office. Don’t get this confused with trying to follow a paper trail of Ordinations.
 
Are there early writings or manuscripts about the Apostolic succession?

Are there proofs of the apostolic succession?
Are there archeological findings of the apostolic succession?

Where are those evidences and who wrote those manuscripts?
 
My friend wrote:

First Century Patriarchs

The only first century patriarch the Romanist can find support is Tertullian:

Tertullian “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19] . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

But what can we learn about Tertulian?

“Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join a new prophetic sectarian movement known as Montanism (founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet Montanus), which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. His own dissatisfaction with the laxity of contemporary Christians was congenial with the Montanist message of the imminent end of the world combined with a stringent and demanding moralism. Montanism stood in judgment on any compromise with the ways of the world, and Tertullian gave himself fully to the defense of the new movement as its most articulate spokesman. Even the Montanists, however, were not rigorous enough for Tertullian. He eventually broke with them to found his own sect, a group that existed until the 5th century in Africa. According to tradition, he lived to be an old man. His last writings date from approximately 220, but the date of his death is unknown.” ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

It is obvious that Tertullian (145-220 AD) was unorthodox himself. Besides, did he have contact with the Apostles? The fact that he left the orthodox Catholic Church and formed his own sect in 200 AD gives us enough reason to question his writings in 220 AD.

They also find secondary support from a quote allegedly from Clement of Alexandria:

The Letter of Clement to James “Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies “[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Was the quote really from Clement of Alexandria? Or was it just a pseudo- clementine literature?
 
Lok at the First Letter of Clement of Rome and off the top of my head I believe by the end of the first century there were two or three lists of the Bishops of Rome starting with Peter. Irenaeus around 180AD, Eusebius around 215 calls Victor the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter. One of the Fathers states the “Peter has spoken” through (whoever was the Bishop of Rome at that time). Tertullian split from the Church later in his life and then returned. In 197 AD he speaks of the records of Ordinations in different Churches beginning with an Apostle.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Yes of course. Apostolic succession is like presidential succession. No one that I know would deny that president Bush is the successor of George Washington as president of the United states. John Paul II is the successor of Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He is not the seccussor of John Paul I or Paul VI, he is the seccessor of Peter and the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles in their office. Don’t get this confused with trying to follow a paper trail of Ordinations.
Click to expand...
But the “paper trail of Ordinations” is what Apostolic Succession is. It is not succession in office. Pope John Paul II is the successor of St. Peter, true enough, but he is also the successor of Paul VI. However, he received his episcopal consecration at the hands of +Eugeniusz Baziak, who in turn received his from +Boleslaw Twardowski, and so on back to one of the twelve Apostles. That is the Apostolic Succession, not his succession to the Petrine Office.

As I understand it, the vast majority of Catholic bishops trace their succession back to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. No documentation of his episcopal consecration has been found, although it is thought that he was consecrated by Gian Pietro Cardinal Carafa, later Pope Paul IV.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Lok at the First Letter of Clement of Rome and off the top of my head I believe by the end of the first century there were two or three lists of the Bishops of Rome starting with Peter. Irenaeus around 180AD, Eusebius around 215 calls Victor the thirteenth Bishop of Rome from Peter. One of the Fathers states the “Peter has spoken” through (whoever was the Bishop of Rome at that time). Tertullian split from the Church later in his life and then returned. In 197 AD he speaks of the records of Ordinations in different Churches beginning with an Apostle.
Click to expand...
Tertullian went back to the church after creating his own sect?
 
40.png
James15:
Tertullian went back to the church after creating his own sect?
Click to expand...
Tertullian did not return, at least not publicly. Perhaps he did so privately in the hour of death. But as far as we know he died a Montanist.
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Tertullian split from the Church later in his life and then returned. QUOTE]

I’ve never heard that Tertullian reconciled with the Church. It is my understanding that he died as a Montanist.
Click to expand...
 
Br. Rich SFO:
One of the Fathers states the “Peter has spoken” through (whoever was the Bishop of Rome at that time).
Click to expand...
“Peter has spoken through Leo!” was the cry emanating from the Council of Chalcedon. “Leo” is a reference to Pope St. Leo the Great.
 
Tertullian did not return to Catholic unity. I mixed him up with someone else. He did leave Montanism and formed what some call Tertullian-ism. His writings dated before his split with Catholic unity about 213AD are accepted by the Church.
 
40.png
dcs:
As I understand it, the vast majority of Catholic bishops trace their succession back to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba. No documentation of his episcopal consecration has been found, although it is thought that he was consecrated by Gian Pietro Cardinal Carafa, later Pope Paul IV.
Click to expand...
That is what I have always found from browsing the very interesting Catholic Hierarchy site.
 
40.png
James15:
Is the “Apostolic succession” really true?
Is there any historical and archeological proofs about the apostolic successions?
Click to expand...
Code: 
Irenaeus in particular, draws a detailed lineage back to Peter and Paul  in Rome. He says in the famous text from St. Irenaeus on the "preeminant authority" of Rome and the succession list of her Bishops.
.ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION.” [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)
 
Here’s a handy online list of some of the earliest Patristic references to Apostolic Succession.
It can be found at: cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

Here’s a little sample to wet your appetite:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…
Clement, Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17, (emphasis mine)

I believe this is the earliest extra-biblical reference to Apostolic Succession, and taken from a set of early christian documents prepared and published by Protestants! They estimate Clement wrote this epistle about A.D. 98. Imagine that!, while the ink from the Gospel of John was still drying.

Hope this info helps the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top