C
crownofswords
Guest
I was discussing the topic of apostolic succession on youtube and was unsure how to answer this claim:
Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners” (history of the papacy) follows a very well documented historical study by multiple figures, both Protestant and Catholic, to say that Irenaeus’s stories were “pious romance, not history”, and that we cannot assume that the Apostles established a succession in Rome “for ALL (my emphasis) the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve”. (Pg 2).
Does anyone have an answer for this?
Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners” (history of the papacy) follows a very well documented historical study by multiple figures, both Protestant and Catholic, to say that Irenaeus’s stories were “pious romance, not history”, and that we cannot assume that the Apostles established a succession in Rome “for ALL (my emphasis) the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve”. (Pg 2).
Does anyone have an answer for this?