I think it’s a miscommunication OP as Original Poster and Orthodox Patriarch…I don’t know what you mean here. Didn’t you say you were considering entering the Catholic Church? If not, I apologize. In that case perhaps you should modify your " religious affiliation " so others won’t missinterpret also. I don’t know where Patriarch Bartholemew comes into this???
There are two ways in looking about the concept of the apostolic succession. One is what the others have already said in here; tracing the line of ordination of every priests back then or the “lineage” from which a particular disciple came from (eg.John, the apostle taught his disciple named Polycarp, and Polycarp taught Irenaus, the Bishop of Lyons; a 2nd century theologian), another is through looking at what the Cathecism of the Catholic Church says: #863- The Church is apostolic, * built in the foundation of the twelve apostles of Jesus *who * present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops *. Like the apostles we in the Church are called to continue to proclaim the fullness of faith to all men. What does that mean then? It doesn’t mean that the bishops now,for example has this direct linkage to the original apostles and their disciples (and yeah we have more than 12 bishops all over the world [more than the number of the apostles, and ofcourse, we do not know how many disciples does the apostles have and how many students or followers does this disciples had], that would be also difficult to trace now because the Church is like more than 2000 years old; that means it takes approximately hundreds or even thousands of people to trace dating back to the time of the apostles). Apostolic succession is based on the fact that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as its capstone (Eph2:20), and then these apostles also taught disciples, for Jesus himself sent the apostles [to preach, etc] as the Father has also sent Him (Jn20:21) and then these disciples has also taught followers and those followers has done the same, hence we can see their teachings, well preserved and instructed through the bishops of the Church.
Linus: I’m so sorry – major miscommunication on my part! I thought you were referring to “Orthodox Patriarch” (boy, am I embarrassed! ).Might want to read “Heirs of the Fisherman” by John-Peter Pham. From there I would read the work of the early church father St Irenaeus -5-books. I would also read Lambeth and the 10 sessions. Which you can catch an overview here…[Papacy]…the rest is interesting and will be of help. There is “no” new arguement about the Primacy, nor will any be forthcoming. All are presented at Lambeth. And in essense all you hear is spin on the same points elaborated on at Lambeth.
Yes, Scholastic Philosophy is difficult but the Church useses it only as an aid to help explain some of the Doctrines. However, the Doctrines would be there with or without the aid of Scholasticism. The Church was already 1,000 years old or so before Scholasticism came along. Good luck in whatever you do.
Yes: I’m considering Catholicism – but have a great deal of respect and admiration for Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I love the Greek fathers and their great sense of proportion between reason & faith — neither fidesitic nor rigidly rational (Gregory of Nyssa, Chrystostom, etc.).
I love the wealth of intellectual resources and scholarship within the Roman Catholic tradition, but sometimes find the (apparent) scholastic rigidity a bit cumbersome. On the flip side, I love the personal nature of Orthodoxy, but find it has a weaker engagement with philosophical thought.
I also find the case for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome quite compelling (event though it is unpopular and seemingly more difficult to defend – especially among my evangelical protestant friends).
I would probably fit right in with the Eastern or Byzantine Rite (and would probably fit the sensibility of my family as well – who are all a LONG WAY from the Catholic Church, unfortunately). However, there is NO Eastern Rite parish near us, though. THere are a couple Orthodox Churches within a 15-mile range of his (still a bit far).
Yes: More information about the succession of Bishops in the LATIN rite would be nice.
THanks!
Please explain how Aviginon breaks the chain
As the saying goes, “ubi Papa, ibi Roma.”
If this is the case, then what, exactly determines WHO actually has this “Seat of Peter?” The Pope is, technically, the Bishop of Rome. It seems absurd to suggest that the Bishop of Rome can be located anywhere. Can the Archbishop of Detroit live in Toronto? Can the governor of Illinois live in Milwaukee full-time?
Eastern Orthodox or Syrian (Oriental) Orthodox?Despite my affectionate relationship to the Melkite Catholic Church, when it comes down to it…I’d place my money on the Orthodox Patriarch.
Not really. Peter was still first among equals (Pope) even when he was at Antioch. “The seat of Peter” is not tied to location, it just so happens that Rome is where the Church anchored. If the Pope is in France then the seat of Peter goes with him.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church which will give citations as needed for this and all topics for the faith
===================+++======================+++