If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

[justasking4]

So, let’s see. Jerusalem literally hates the Roman overseers, so they will just automatically give Rome pre-eminence? Carthage? Alexandria?

I don’t think this makes much applicable sense.

If i understand you correctly then there was not universal acceptance that Roman bishop was the head of all. Would this be correct?

 

[NotWorthy]

If i understand you correctly then there was not universal acceptance that Roman bishop was the head of all. Would this be correct?

No, I"m not saying that.

I’m saying the acceptance of the authority of the Roman Bishop does not automatically come from Rome’s secular authority. The acceptance of the authority of the Roman Bishop overcame the natural disdain many of these other diocese would have held for anything Roman.

It’s a further testament to the Church understanding that Peter and his successors are head of the Church despite the fact that they reside in Rome.

 

[justasking4]

No, I"m not saying that.

I’m saying the acceptance of the authority of the Roman Bishop does not automatically come from Rome’s secular authority. The acceptance of the authority of the Roman Bishop overcame the natural disdain many of these other diocese would have held for anything Roman.

It’s a further testament to the Church understanding that Peter and his successors are head of the Church despite the fact that they reside in Rome.

Does history show that immediately after Peter died in Rome that the leader of that church was recognized by all the other churches as being the supreme leader i.e. pope ?

 

[guanophore]

Lets see if we can get greater clarity by way of comparison. Pope Benedict today is the head of the Roman Catholic church and recognized by all Roman Catholic churches as having authority over them. In a sense when he speaks, he speaks for the entire Roman Catholic church. Even protestants would recognize this.

Now apply this same principle to Linus etc. Do you think Linus was looked at the same way as Pope Benedict is today somewhat?

This is a faulty premise, so will not work well as comparison. Pope Benedict is the Servant of the Servants of God. He is not “head”, Jesus is the Head of the Catholic Church. Moreover, he is the point of unity for all the Catholics, not just Roman. There are 23 Rites in all, and the Latin is only one. Also, there are not a plethora of “all Roman Catholic Churches”, there is only one Latin Rite. And lastly, he does not carry his authority in the manner you suggest, in that he would “lord it over” anyone.

Despite all these errors in you premise, the one comparison that can be made is that Linus, as does Benedict, understood that he had been given the keys of the Kingdom, and that he was specially commissioned to “strengthen the brethren”.

Does history show that immediately after Peter died in Rome that the leader of that church was recognized by all the other churches as being the supreme leader i.e. pope ?

No, this is an unchristian (secular/worldly) attitude about leadership that we did not see in the early church at all. The leaders, especially the most powerful, were also the most humble. They did not consider leadership to be “supremacy”, as you falsley indicate.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3343698]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets see if we can get greater clarity by way of comparison. Pope Benedict today is the head of the Roman Catholic church and recognized by all Roman Catholic churches as having authority over them. In a sense when he speaks, he speaks for the entire Roman Catholic church. Even protestants would recognize this.

Now apply this same principle to Linus etc. Do you think Linus was looked at the same way as Pope Benedict is today somewhat?

guanophore
This is a faulty premise, so will not work well as comparison. Pope Benedict is the Servant of the Servants of God. He is not “head”, Jesus is the Head of the Catholic Church. Moreover, he is the point of unity for all the Catholics, not just Roman. There are 23 Rites in all, and the Latin is only one. Also, there are not a plethora of “all Roman Catholic Churches”, there is only one Latin Rite. And lastly, he does not carry his authority in the manner you suggest, in that he would “lord it over” anyone.

I still don’t see how my premise is faulty. The pope of today does have jurisdiction over all Roman Catholic churches. To be vicar of Christ i.e. pope and the title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. I got this from the New Advent. I also did not say he necessarily “lords it over” anyone at this time but i woudl think some history would say otherwise.

Despite all these errors in you premise, the one comparison that can be made is that Linus, as does Benedict, understood that he had been given the keys of the Kingdom, and that he was specially commissioned to “strengthen the brethren”.

Was he the only one who had these keys in the sense that the catholic understanding of today?

 

[guanophore]

I still don’t see how my premise is faulty. The pope of today does have jurisdiction over all Roman Catholic churches.

No, ja4. There is only one Roman Rite. There are not “all RC churches” as you seem to think. There are 22 Rites besides the Roman that are all united.

To be vicar of Christ i.e. pope and the title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. I got this from the New Advent. I also did not say he necessarily “lords it over” anyone at this time but i woudl think some history would say otherwise.

Primacy? What does that mean to you? You keep using the terms “supreme head” or “supreme leader”. This is what makes me think you are applying a secular model. He has primacy of honor and of jurisdiction. That means, if there is a dispute, all recoginize that he has the authority to settle it. Just as Jesus said in the gospel, if two cannot agree “take it to the Church”. This is how Jesus wanted differences to be settled. Protestants have either fired the aribtor appointed by God, or rejected him and appointed their own.

I agree that some popes have behaved in a very unChristlike manner. But we were talking about Benedict and Linus, and I don’t think that applies to either of them.

Was he the only one who had these keys in the sense that the catholic understanding of today?

So far as I know. Jesus empowered all the Apostles, and expected them to act in unison. All the bishops were to remain in union with the Apostles doctrine, and all those who were not in unity with the Apostolic Successsion were not considered part of the Church.

 

[NotWorthy]

Does history show that immediately after Peter died in Rome that the leader of that church was recognized by all the other churches as being the supreme leader i.e. pope ?

History is sort of spotty, what with the numerous invasions of the barbarians and all. What we are left with is only a fraction of the records that were kept. But we don’t see anything one way or another until Clement’s letter to the Corinthians.

Notice, Clement chastises them for revoking the priests that were ordained by the Apostles, as well as successors of the Apostles (“in agreement with the whole Church” are the words that he uses, I believe).

There is authority in his words, there is Apostolic Succession in his words, and there is Church unity in his words.

 

[j1s2a3]

HMMM I think each time I read O.T.& N.T. its VERY clear to me Father is documenting succession Incl. apostolic.

 

[justasking4]

HMMM I think each time I read O.T.& N.T. its VERY clear to me Father is documenting succession Incl. apostolic.

How so?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3343820]No, ja4. There is only one Roman Rite. There are not “all RC churches” as you seem to think. There are 22 Rites besides the Roman that are all united.

What are some of the distinctions of these 22 Rites?

 

[vern_humphrey]

What are some of the distinctions of these 22 Rites?

Most of the other rites have Orthodox counterparts. They use the same ritual they always used – including such things as tincturing (dipping the host into the blood before consuming it) and so on.