Convince a Friend of Apostolic Succession Being True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter logicallyfallacious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

logicallyfallacious

Guest
How could I possibly convince my confused, might-as-well-be non-denominational friend that Apostolic Succession is true and legitimate, and those who have succeeded Peter, even priests, have the Apostolic Authority?

His argument is that Apostolic Succession isn’t Biblical… hmm.

I’ve provided 2 Timothy 2:2 for a reference-ish. Anything goes. He says he would convert if this doctrine of Succession is true and provable.
 
I tried that, but the only reason the Church Fathers have authority in doctrine is through Apostolic Succession; this is a fallacy.

If you could provide basic beliefs and doctrines that the Church Fathers established that even non-denominational Christians believe, I could call him out for fallacious belief. Do your worst.
 
The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t explicit in Scripture but was proclaimed as dogma by various councils. (I’m assuming your non-denominational friend believes in the Trinity, because it’s central to Christian belief). Now how could those councils have been authoritative if the people participating in them did not have legitimate apostolic succession?
 
HALT EVERYBODY! I mentioned the Trinity idea to him the other day, and he gave me some convoluted, non-related answer.

I asked him again just now, and he says that he’s too uneducated on the matter to answer. He wants me to give him a day or so.

Now is the time to compile all of the possible answers to his questions.

Here are some questions to which answers would be helpful:
  1. Which council defined the Trinity as we know it today? In what year did that council take place?
  2. Were all of the people who defined the Trinity then, Catholic?
  3. What are some heresies against the modern idea of the Trinity, e.g. Arianism?
If you have any other points, please share. Thank you.
 
I took a class on the early Church last semester and I still have the materials from it so here’s a few things:

The Council of Nicea in 325 condemned Arianism, which held that the Son was only a creature and less than the Father. The Nicene Creed stated that the Son was homoousios with the Father.

Another Trinitarian heresy was that of Marcellus of Ancyra, who did not sufficiently distinguish between three persons. He held that the persons were all just different manifestations of God for the purposes of salvation history, but his teaching basically made God into one subtance and one person.

The Cappadocian fathers (Basil of Caesaria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus) taught that God is one substance (ousia) in three persons (hypostases). Their teaching was confirmed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople are responsible for the Creed that is recited at every Catholic Mass till this day. And yes, all of the people responsible for defining this doctrine were Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Al elements are in the Bible: Apostles, Pope, Bishops, Priests, Deacons. St Paul ordained Titus and Timothy, and the practice continued on. We Catholics have plenty of witnesses. Ask your friend: where are the witnesses for your assertion?
 
Lots of inaccurate stuff getting posted in this thread…
logicallyfallacious said:
How could I possibly convince my confused, might-as-well-be non-denominational friend that Apostolic Succession is true and legitimate, and those who have succeeded Peter, even priests, have the Apostolic Authority?
Click to expand...
Priests are not participants in apostolic succession! Bishops are, but not priests.

Priests have valid ordination; they act in persona Christi Capitis; but they are not successors to the apostles.

Perhaps you’re calling it “apostolic succession” but really mean “valid orders”?
logicallyfallacious said:
I’ve provided 2 Timothy 2:2 for a reference-ish. Anything goes. He says he would convert if this doctrine of Succession is true and provable.
Click to expand...
Umm… “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well”…?

I would point to Acts 1:15-26, in which an apostolic successor to Judas is chosen by the remaining apostles.
theCardinalbird said:
40.png
logicallyfallacious:
His argument is that Apostolic Succession isn’t Biblical… hmm.
Click to expand...
Then I wonder what happened in Acts 6:
Click to expand...
What happened in Acts 6 was that deacons were chosen and ordained. Deacons are not successors of the apostles, either.
theCardinalbird said:
Acts 13:
And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.

Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.
Click to expand...
At the very most, you can claim that a priestly ordination took place. Priests aren’t successors to the apostles.

However, you’d have to contend with the rebuttal that Paul – having already been chosen by Christ – was already an apostle. Therefore, that would imply that the imposition of hands was for the assignment of a mission, not for a consecration as a successor to the apostles.
theCardinalbird said:
I also love 1 Timothy 4:

14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
Click to expand...
Again – priesthood =/= apostolic succession.
 
Gorgias said:
Priests are not participants in apostolic succession! Bishops are, but not priests.

Priests have valid ordination ; they act in persona Christi Capitis ; but they are not successors to the apostles.

Perhaps you’re calling it “apostolic succession” but really mean “valid orders”?
Click to expand...
Now I know where I got confused…
 
Gorgias said:
Again – priesthood =/= apostolic succession.
Click to expand...
Priesthood is only priesthood because of apostolic succession, i.e. a priest is only a priest if ordained by a bishop who is a valid successor of the apostles.
 
Perhaps this works?:

Acts 1:15-26 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out.

19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.

23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
 
Last edited:
veritatisstella said:
Priesthood is only priesthood because of apostolic succession, i.e. a priest is only a priest if ordained by a bishop who is a valid successor of the apostles.
Click to expand...
Today? Yep.

In the beginnings of the Church? Nope.

As @theCardinalbird pointed out to us, apostles ordained deacons… and so, apostolic succession isn’t involved in any way in their ordinations!

(Moreover, as we look at the early Church, it’s difficult to say that there were ‘priests’, per say. At least, in the way we understand them today. In the beginnings of the Church, only apostles (and later, bishops) celebrated the sacraments. Later on, as the need arose, priests were ordained for sacramental ministry. In the beginning, though, sacramental ministry belonged exclusively to apostles / bishops.)
 
Last edited:
Have that friend investigate the Orthodox Church, since he/she may be distrustful of the Catholic.

Same origin, same succession, from the 12 and Saint Paul, to this very day .
 
I went through this myself in coming back to the Catholic Church. For me was knowing the history of Christianity dating back to the time of the Apostles. As an Evangelical/Pentecostal I went to Seminary and studied this in depth, read books, and did research on the matter. But it took 10 years to sink in.

I knew without a shadow of a doubt everything pointed back to the Apostles establishing today’s Catholic Church. There’s a direct lineage from todays Pope Francis, back to St. Peter. Anybody who’s really taken the time to study this can’t deny it.

It be like saying George Washington was never the 1st president of the United States, just because I refuse to believe it. History is history.

I go through this argument with my wife even today as she’s still an Evangelical. I tell her that if she can prove the Apostles didn’t establish the Catholic Church, I’ll never set foot in it again. Of course, she never has an answer. God is slowly drawing her in as at least we weekly go to mass in the evenings, while she goes to hers Sunday morning.
 
Last edited:
Update: He now says the findings in the council of Nicea were just findings by clever men, and says nothing about their Apostolic authority. I suppose he just doesn’t WANT to learn and discover the truth.
 
logicallyfallacious said:
Funny enough, he said he would do that! Thank you!
Click to expand...
Even if he eventually chooses Orthodox rather than Catholic, he is far, far better off as a Christian. 7 Sacraments and genuine, undisputed Apostolic succession.

Here is an Orthodox article regarding their dialog with the early reformers - who sought an alliance against the Catholic Church. The Orthodox rightly rejected the very DNA of the “reform”, i.e. all of the “solas”, as they dispensed with the Apostolic Tradition.

Curious, huh?
 
Last edited:
Paul did not claim apostolic succession. He claimed to have been appointed an apostle directly by Jesus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top