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

[Subrosa]

Is this really so hard to understand, guys? The Apostles started churches and left bishops in charge. Every bishop after that was given the same office, practices, responsibility and authority up to and including the present day.

Why is this so hard a concept? It happens in every political office. It happens in every religious ministry.

I just attended last week a Baptist concecration of a new pastor. They used the laying on of hands and had a big ceremony. Guess what? The new pastor gets all the same office, practices, responsibility and authority of the last one, who got it from the one before him, and on & on all the way to John Smythe who seperated from the Anglican Church in 1609. And get this - Pastor Betty-Rae is subject to examination from the local Baptist Church council and thier President, himself a Baptist minister (who had a Roman collar on! ). Certainly a hierarchy.

The difference is that Catholic (& Orthodox for that matter) bishops are handed the same office, practices, responsibility and authority of the Apostles - i.e., Apostolic Succession. That authority was given to the Apostles and is recorded in the bible. (Mt 28:18)

Subrosa

 

[po18guy]

Is this really so hard to understand, guys? The Apostles started churches and left bishops in charge. Every bishop after that was given the same office, practices, responsibility and authority up to and including the present day.

Why is this so hard a concept? It happens in every political office. It happens in every religious ministry.

I just attended last week a Baptist concecration of a new pastor. They used the laying on of hands and had a big ceremony. Guess what? The new pastor gets all the same office, practices, responsibility and authority of the last one, who got it from the one before him, and on & on all the way to John Smythe who seperated from the Anglican Church in 1609. And get this - Pastor Betty-Rae is subject to examination from the local Baptist Church council and thier President, himself a Baptist minister (who had a Roman collar on! ). Certainly a hierarchy.

The difference is that Catholic (& Orthodox for that matter) bishops are handed the same office, practices, responsibility and authority of the Apostles - i.e., Apostolic Succession. That authority was given to the Apostles and is recorded in the bible. (Mt 28:18)

Subrosa

Amen! With Roman collars, altar calls, etc, see how some churches stand in imitation of the One True Church? Praise God that we have a similar “altar call”. BUT, it is Christ who waits and, per John 6:53 and 1 Corinthians 11, we go forward not only in admission that we are sinners and need Christ’s salvation, but also to eat His Body and drink His Blood. Talk about a personal relationship with Christ! We then have life within us-thus we call all to the One faith, as Christ Himself did. Praise God in Heaven.

Christ’s peace be with all of you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What I don’t understand about the no apostolioc succession crowd is this: Why would Jesus want to leave His church with no one in authority?

How could Jesus be that dumb?

And if it had no authority, it would not be in any position to continue His Work on earth.​

Acts is without meaning, & the promises of Christ are without meaning, if the Apostles had no authority. To do God’s own work, & to further the spread of the Kingdom of God, a share in the authority of Christ is essential. Only that authority can bring life to the dead & reconciliation with the Father. And for that one needs to be sent by God - not by man; so the sending of the Apostles by Christ has to be as effective & gracious & as truly God-breathed now, as when He sent them out to the nations. If the authority is not identical, neither can the work be.

 

[po18guy]

And if it had no authority, it would not be in any position to continue His Work on earth.​

Acts is without meaning, & the promises of Christ are without meaning, if the Apostles had no authority. To do God’s own work, & to further the spread of the Kingdom of God, a share in the authority of Christ is essential. Only that authority can bring life to the dead & reconciliation with the Father. And for that one needs to be sent by God - not by man; so the sending of the Apostles by Christ has to be as effective & gracious & as truly God-breathed now, as when He sent them out to the nations. If the authority is not identical, neither can the work be.

Amen! Oh, how the evil one blinds so many to the goodness of God and the trustworthiness of His church. But, that is why we are here.

Christ’s peace to all.

 

[guanophore]

Is this really so hard to understand, guys? The Apostles started churches and left bishops in charge. Every bishop after that was given the same office, practices, responsibility and authority up to and including the present day.

Why is this so hard a concept? It happens in every political office. It happens in every religious ministry.

I just attended last week a Baptist concecration of a new pastor. They used the laying on of hands and had a big ceremony. Guess what? The new pastor gets all the same office, practices, responsibility and authority of the last one, who got it from the one before him, and on & on all the way to John Smythe who seperated from the Anglican Church in 1609. And get this - Pastor Betty-Rae is subject to examination from the local Baptist Church council and thier President, himself a Baptist minister (who had a Roman collar on! ). Certainly a hierarchy.

The difference is that Catholic (& Orthodox for that matter) bishops are handed the same office, practices, responsibility and authority of the Apostles - i.e., Apostolic Succession. That authority was given to the Apostles and is recorded in the bible. (Mt 28:18)

Subrosa

The contention of justasking4 is that the power and authority germaine to the office of Apostle died with the Apostles. He does not dispute that the Apostles appointed bishops, only that the Teaching Authority and rule (keys) given to the Apostles were passed one.

 

[justasking4]

thessalonian;2763618]Justasking,

Back a couple of pages you said that Matt 16:18 says nothing about succession. No, but v. 19 does. Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom. Now tell me, when I get keys for a house I buy I get them from the previous owner right and I pass them along to a new owner if I sell the house, correct. Sounds alot like succession to me.

It may sound like it to you but its not about succession.

When you add to that Jesus paralleling Is 22:22-24 where he takes the keys from the house of david from shebna and gives them to Eliakim, you have a great arguement for succession of an office. That office, the Steward of the Davidic Kingdom was a successionary office that Jesus parallels the office given to Peter to. Shebna was a steward in a line of 700 years of stewards. So yes Matt 16 does imply quite strongly succession.

The problem is that no one in the NT thought of Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Even in the church of the 2nd-3rd centuries do we see only one church as being the supreme leader. There were other churches just as powerful as the church in Rome.

 

[po18guy]

It may sound like it to you but its not about succession.

The problem is that no one in the NT thought of Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Even in the church of the 2nd-3rd centuries do we see only one church as being the supreme leader. There were other churches just as powerful as the church in Rome.

JA4, Peter is mentioned 195 times in the Catholic NT (same as yours, because it IS yours). Next up is John, with just 29 mentions. Peter is always listed first, Judas last (Mt 10:2-5; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). If you care to note, it’s “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Not even Luther dared to change this.

I know that your church has little to no tradition to fall back on, so the Cliffs Notes are all you’re using. Well, according to the Cliffs Notes, Peter, named by Christ, certainly appears to be the leader. It is shown by more than a preponderance of the above evidence. It actually borders on “clear and convincing”. This would award Peter the leadership in any courtroom, even if you are an atheist attorney.

Don’t you ever suspect that there is more to Christianity than just the NT? Where does the NT say it is everything? It doesn’t. So, why do you believe that it is? You believe a negative to be true. It says that Peter is the head. You disbelieve a positive. Under what authority did this belief of yours come about, and who gave that authority?

You appear to believe by proof, not faith.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[guanophore]

It may sound like it to you but its not about succession.

The problem is that no one in the NT thought of Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Even in the church of the 2nd-3rd centuries do we see only one church as being the supreme leader. There were other churches just as powerful as the church in Rome.

This is not a problem for Catholics, ja4, only for you, since you reject the Authority appointed by Christ. Jesus did not appoint Peter to be a “supreme leader”. He appointed Peter to shepherd the flock, and that he did. He gave him special gifts for that purpose, just like He gave Mary special gifts for her purpose.

How do you suppose there were other churches just as powerful as the Church of Rome if there is no such thing as succession? Do you think they just sprang out of the ground?

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
It may sound like it to you but its not about succession.

The problem is that no one in the NT thought of Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Even in the church of the 2nd-3rd centuries do we see only one church as being the supreme leader. There were other churches just as powerful as the church in Rome.
po18guy;
JA4, Peter is mentioned 195 times in the Catholic NT (same as yours, because it IS yours). Next up is John, with just 29 mentions. Peter is always listed first, Judas last (Mt 10:2-5; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-17; and Acts 1:13). If you care to note, it’s “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Not even Luther dared to change this.

No doubt Peter is mentioned a lot. The most as you state. However we can also look at this another way. After the resurrection Paul is mentioned most. I think he is mentioned over a hundred times while Peter is far less. Peter wrote only 2 letters while Paul wrote over 10. Paul is ministering to a far larger group than Peter. Paul to the gentiles, Peter to the Jews. Paul never appeals to Peter for any of his authority.

I know that your church has little to no tradition to fall back on, so the Cliffs Notes are all you’re using. Well, according to the Cliffs Notes, Peter, named by Christ, certainly appears to be the leader. It is shown by more than a preponderance of the above evidence. It actually borders on “clear and convincing”. This would award Peter the leadership in any courtroom, even if you are an atheist attorney.

i think not. Just because something is mentioned more does not mean its the most influential. Paul no doubt has had a greater impact on the church with his theology than Peter.

po18guy;
Don’t you ever suspect that there is more to Christianity than just the NT? Where does the NT say it is everything? It doesn’t. So, why do you believe that it is?

The NT is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else is. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant. From it we can have everything we need for salvation. It actually makes this claim as you may know.

po18guy;
You believe a negative to be true. It says that Peter is the head.

If Peter alone was the only head then why don’t the scriptures teach this? Take for example the first council in Acts 15. It was not Peter who finally ruled but James. Secondly, Paul never acknowledges Peter as the supreme leader of the church but acutally rebukes him.

You disbelieve a positive. Under what authority did this belief of yours come about, and who gave that authority?

I go to the inspired-inerrant scriptures as the final authority.

po18guy;

You appear to believe by proof, not faith.

True biblical faith requires us to have evidence and reason for our beliefs. Jesus Himself taught this principle in a number of places.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[justasking4]

Subrosa;2763624]You need to ask yourself two questions -

Is everything in the bible true?

Can you clarify?

Is everthing that is true in the bible?

No.

Answer these questions honestly, then research. the answers are out there.

Subrosa

 

[Randy_Carson]

The problem is that no one in the NT thought of Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Even in the church of the 2nd-3rd centuries do we see only one church as being the supreme leader. There were other churches just as powerful as the church in Rome.

Then why did Paul go to Jerusalem to submit the question concerning the Gentiles to the Church in Acts 15? Why did Paul go to spend fifteen days with Peter and no one else (except James)? Because Peter was the man to see!

Concerning the beliefs of the early Church concerning Peter:

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

**Origen **

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

**Cyprian **

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair * cathedra*], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 **[A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)

“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

**Ambrose **

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

**John Chrysostom (347–407) **

"He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to inquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, “If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep” (Commentary on St. John’s Gospel, homily 88). Later in the same homily, John Chrysostom observes that Jesus “appointed” Peter “teacher of the world.”

**Jerome **

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

**Pope Innocent I **

“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope] and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).

**Augustine **

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” (Against the Letter of Mani, 5 [A.D. 395]).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” (To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 [A.D. 397]).

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I go to the inspired-inerrant scriptures as the final authority.

But this is not what Jesus taught.

Matthew 18:15-18
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

It is the Church - and not a book - that has final authority. The Church has the authority to bind and loose.

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that no one in the NT thought of Peter as the supreme leader of the church. Even in the church of the 2nd-3rd centuries do we see only one church as being the supreme leader. There were other churches just as powerful as the church in Rome.

Randy Carson
Then why did Paul go to Jerusalem to submit the question concerning the Gentiles to the Church in Acts 15? Why did Paul go to spend fifteen days with Peter and no one else (except James)? Because Peter was the man to see!

No doubt Peter was a leader in the NT church. I don’t doubt that. What i have a problem is with the way the catholic church potrays Peter as being the supreme leader of the entire church. That you don’t see in the NT.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No doubt Peter was a leader in the NT church. I don’t doubt that. What i have a problem is with the way the catholic church potrays Peter as being the supreme leader of the entire church. That you don’t see in the NT.

Not a problem, Scripture comes from the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The NT is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else is. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant.

Excuse me.

Where does the Bible say that?

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole infallible rule of faith for believers?

We know that all scripture is "God-breathed’, but then so is the Church.

John 20:22-23
22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

See? God-breathed Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Not a problem, Scripture comes from the Catholic Church.

Easy there…Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sure, it was written and canonized by the Church, but its primary author is God.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[justasking4]

But this is not what Jesus taught.

Matthew 18:15-18
15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

It is the Church - and not a book - that has final authority. The Church has the authority to bind and loose.

What does binding and loosing mean in the context of Matthew 18?

 

[justasking4]

Easy there…Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Sure, it was written and canonized by the Church, but its primary author is God.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

good point

 

[justasking4]

Randy Carson;

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The NT is inspired-inerrant. Nothing else is. It is the foundation for all doctrine and practices because it alone is inspired-inerrant.
Randy Carson;
Excuse me.

Where does the Bible say that?

It derived from the very nature of the scriptrues themselves. What other foundation is inspired-inerrant?
See also 2 Tim 3:16.

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole infallible rule of faith for believers?

It goes back to my previous point and what follows from that. If the scriptures truly are from God then we know they are inerrant-inspired-infallible.

Randy Carson;
We know that all scripture is "God-breathed’, but then so is the Church.

John 20:22-23
22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

See? God-breathed Church.

i have never seen John 20:22-23 used to support the idea that the church is “God-breathed”. Do you have a source for this interpretation of that passage?