apostolic succession

[ham_n_eggs]

I am a Protestant who has become interested in the Catholic faith. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the apostles, by God’s authority, were able to pass on their authority to others.
Let’s also assume that St. Paul (“God’s chosen instrument”) passed this authority on resulting in the establishment of churches.

Why then (as far as I have seen which, again, is limited) is there no mention in Sacred Tradition of the churches or line of succession from the Apostle Paul? Are those churches not considered a true line because he was not the “Rock” or because there is no record of them?

 

[NotWorthy]

I am a Protestant who has become interested in the Catholic faith. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the apostles, by God’s authority, were able to pass on their authority to others.
Let’s also assume that St. Paul (“God’s chosen instrument”) passed this authority on resulting in the establishment of churches.

Why then (as far as I have seen which, again, is limited) is there no mention in Sacred Tradition of the churches or line of succession from the Apostle Paul? Are those churches not considered a true line because he was not the “Rock” or because there is no record of them?

After the demise of the Apostles, the lines of succession are passed on through the position of bishop. Some of the Apostles became heads of local churches (bishops), such as Peter and John. Others, didn’t, as in Paul. We can trace the bishops of Antioch (until the Moslems overran the Church), Rome, Jerusalem, and such. Even Bishopricks that weren’t in existence in Apostolic times can be traced to one of the original Apostles.

For instance, where I live, in the diocese of Beaumont, we were started within the Houston Diocese, which branched off from some other diocese, with ultimately branched off from one of the original sees.

 

[epostle]

This shows Apostolic Succession in scripture, among other things:
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/authority.html

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and 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…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement

, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).

Phil.4
[3] And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

To me, “fellow workers” means a common authority of those chosen to be leaders, unless one wants to claim anyone has the same authority as Paul.

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110

).

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180

).

 

[ham_n_eggs]

So, Paul didn’t become a bishop because he died in Rome. That would make sense. Does Sacred Tradition say anything about what happened the churches he planted? Did they then appoint another to lead them, what happened?

 

[Wolseley]

I am a Protestant who has become interested in the Catholic faith. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the apostles, by God’s authority, were able to pass on their authority to others.
Let’s also assume that St. Paul (“God’s chosen instrument”) passed this authority on resulting in the establishment of churches.

Why then (as far as I have seen which, again, is limited) is there no mention in Sacred Tradition of the churches or line of succession from the Apostle Paul? Are those churches not considered a true line because he was not the “Rock” or because there is no record of them?

Both Epistles to Timothy are instructions from Paul to Timothy, who he placed in charge of the church which he (Paul) had established.

 

[ham_n_eggs]

Is that church line in existence today?

 

[davidv]

Is that church line in existence today?

Yes. Every validly ordained Catholic priest and bishop has the assurance that they were ordained by those who were ordained by…(through all the generations) ordained by the apostles.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes. Every validly ordained Catholic priest and bishop has the assurance that they were ordained by those who were ordained by…(through all the generations) ordained by the apostles.

Well, let’s be specific. The Church in Antioch may not be in existence, as our numerous early eastern Churches due to the Muslim influx. But every single ordained priest and Bishop can trace themselves back to the Twelve and Paul. (The Original "Baker’s Dozen" Apostles!!!).

 

[ham_n_eggs]

Thanks, I appreciate your responses.

 

[Ignatius]

I am a Protestant who has become interested in the Catholic faith. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the apostles, by God’s authority, were able to pass on their authority to others.
Let’s also assume that St. Paul (“God’s chosen instrument”) passed this authority on resulting in the establishment of churches.

Why then (as far as I have seen which, again, is limited) is there no mention in Sacred Tradition of the churches or line of succession from the Apostle Paul? Are those churches not considered a true line because he was not the “Rock” or because there is no record of them?

It would make no sense to choose the Twelve of there were to be no Apostolic Succession. It was for when He would leave that they and their Successors would be needed, not while He was still on earth.

 

[Todd_Easton]

St. Paul had the authority and did ordain bishops. If you look up individual churches (Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) in the online Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org you can see brief articles that describe the history of these churches and, although it does not give a complete succession of their bishops, it does mentions some of the more famous ones.

The Church of Rome itself was established and organized by St. Paul (and St. Peter) and a complete succession of its bishops (the popes) is readily available.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I am a Protestant who has become interested in the Catholic faith. For the sake of argument, let’s agree that the apostles, by God’s authority, were able to pass on their authority to others.
Let’s also assume that St. Paul (“God’s chosen instrument”) passed this authority on resulting in the establishment of churches.

Why then (as far as I have seen which, again, is limited) is there no mention in Sacred Tradition of the churches or line of succession from the Apostle Paul? Are those churches not considered a true line because he was not the “Rock” or because there is no record of them?

I,m going to bed but just may be not all is in the Bible John 21:25… look at the answer above and you can go to them links for your answer and bwy thank you for your answer,some one will help you,good night

 

[gamesport]

The replacement of Judas in Acts 1: 15-26 is great evidence of the Indestructibility of the Bishopric of the 12, and of Apostolic succession.

And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered together, about a hundred and twenty),
Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus.
For he was numbered among us, and received his portion in this ministry.
(Now this man obtained a field with the reward of his iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
And it became known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch that in their language that field was called Akeldama, that is, The field of blood.)
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take.
Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.
And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen,
to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.
And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Now there were 120 of them there. What need was there to replace Judas with Matthias and for him to be numbered with the Eleven. Whe couldn’t the rest of the 120 just go ahead and keep on preaching without having to put someone specifically in Judas’s previous office, if there was not a real indestructable office that required succession. ?