Historical study questions apostolic succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter crownofswords
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
 
It leaves the question unanswered regarding where the idea of Petrine apostolic succession originated to begin with. We’ve seen cases of dynastic lines fading into more mythological characters as time goes backwards in histories before – the Chinese Xia dynasty is probably the most famous example – but the difference between those and the apostolic succession is that we know the founding figure definitely existed (we know St Peter’s corpse is his) and we know that the idea of succession didn’t just appear out of thin air and wouldn’t have had a reason to.

That’s where I’d start, anyway. I haven’t done much thinking on it.
 
We know that the concept of direct Apostolic Succession was already important to the Church in the very FIRST century AD. We need only look at St Ignatius of Antioch for proof that the early Church saw this concept as essential to the faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top