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

  • Thread starter Thread starter guanophore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
guanophore said:
I took this post from another thread where Old Scholar seemed intent upon derailing the topic.

This is a very interesting perception of history. Apostolic succession is nothing to be “bragged about” any more than any of the other graces of God. However, I am curious, all those bishops that can trace their lineage back to the Apostles, do you think they are caught up in some sort of group hallucination?

Yes, Orthodox have valid apostolic succession, as do the 22 other Rites of the Catholic Church that are not Roman.
Click to expand...
If there are other “valid apostolic succession” then who is right?
 
NotWorthy said:
Doesn’t Scripture condemn those that are self-appointed pastors? Doesn’t this condemn a majority of the religions out there - Orthodox, Episcopal, and Anglican excepted (maybe a couple more)?
Click to expand...
Where does Scripture say this?
 
juliamajor said:
Originally Posted by guanophore
Indeed. One of the things I have always been curious about…why didn’t Jesus appoint another Apostle to replace Judas when He was with the Apostles for 40 days prior to His ascension? Why have Peter do it later?

juliamajor
Because Pete was in charge and the Lord wanted everyone to know it!!😃
Click to expand...
Do we have any records of Peter appointing the next head of the church before he died? If so, where and when?
 
justasking4 said:
Where does Scripture say this?
Click to expand...
The office of priests was passed on with the “laying on of hands”, beginning with the Apostles, and then passed on to there successors. For instance, Paul to Timothy.
Code: 
                1 Tim. 4:14 - Apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on                      of hands (ordination).  ***Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate***.
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately. - Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.
Code: 
                 2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God's intention is to transfer authority to                      successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the                      death of the apostles.  ***And what (2) you heard from (1) me** through many witnesses entrust to faithful (3) people** who will have the ability to teach (4)others** as well*.  Here we have four generations of Apostolic Succesion.
And here we have Paul warning Timothy that people will accumulate their own teachers (in other words, without Apostolic Succession).

2 Tim. 4:1-4 - Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop. I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. And here we have Paul talking of the Protestant Revolt.

BTW, some of this was taken from ScriptureCatholic.com
 
BTW, the early Church followed this same Tradition. The whole point of Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was berating them for replacing the Apostolic appointed priests, bishops and deacons with those of their own choosing.
Code: 
  				"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the  						first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be  						bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any  						new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and  						deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their  						bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also  						knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of  						the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had  						obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers]  						already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should  						fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our  						sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have  						blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." *Pope Clement, Epistle to  							Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).*
**
Click to expand...
 
justasking4 said:
If there are other “valid apostolic succession” then who is right?
Click to expand...
All valid Apostolic Succession is right.
justasking4 said:
Where does Scripture say this?
Click to expand...
Scripture says that those not in union with the Apostles are those that “went out from us, but were not of us”.
justasking4 said:
Do we have any records of Peter appointing the next head of the church before he died? If so, where and when?
Click to expand...
How is that relevant, ja4? You don’t accept anything that isn’t in scripture to begin with! 🤷

There are plenty of document that attest to the Apostolic Succession in the early church. This concept is too Catholic for you, so you will have to reject it.
 
guanophore said:
All valid Apostolic Succession is right.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s completely right.

There are four marks of the Church, and only one of them is Apostolic Succession (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic).

If the Anglicans don’t have “one” teaching (i.e. contraception and homosexuality), then they can’t be the true Church.
 
NotWorthy said:
I don’t think that’s completely right.

There are four marks of the Church, and only one of them is Apostolic Succession (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic).

If the Anglicans don’t have “one” teaching (i.e. contraception and homosexuality), then they can’t be the true Church.
Click to expand...
There must be a better way to say what I am trying to communicate. I think ja4 is trying to sow division, which is his own self appointed ministry on this board. He is noting that the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox have valid Apostolic Succession, and then will use that to say then it is right for them to reject the pope, etc, etc.

What I am trying to say is that valid Apostolic Succession is authentic, maybe that is a better word. In terms of who is “right”, both the East and the West have culpability in the schism. In that sense, both are “right” and both are “wrong”. I don’t know if that is better?
 
NotWorthy said:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do we have any records of Peter appointing the next head of the church before he died? If so, where and when?

NotWorthy
St. Ireneaus wrote of it. Maybe Ignatius?
Click to expand...
I checked the article on Linus (who is supposedly the next in line to Peter) at the New Advent site and as far as i can tell it says nothing about how Peter passed on his authority to Linus. There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity on this.
 
guanophore said:
There must be a better way to say what I am trying to communicate. I think ja4 is trying to sow division, which is his own self appointed ministry on this board. He is noting that the Catholic Church recognizes that the Orthodox have valid Apostolic Succession, and then will use that to say then it is right for them to reject the pope, etc, etc.

What I am trying to say is that valid Apostolic Succession is authentic, maybe that is a better word. In terms of who is “right”, both the East and the West have culpability in the schism. In that sense, both are “right” and both are “wrong”. I don’t know if that is better?
Click to expand...
Yes, Apostolic Succession is necessary and very, VERY authentic. I believe the sum of Paul’s exhortations to Timothy and others demonstrates the importance of it.

Regarding the East and West, we will be complete brothers again, my friend! I believe I will see it in the near future. I have faith that all Christians will be united again, but sadly, I don’t think I will see it during my time here.
 
justasking4 said:
I checked the article on Linus (who is supposedly the next in line to Peter) at the New Advent site and as far as i can tell it says nothing about how Peter passed on his authority to Linus. There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity on this.
Click to expand...
The office of Bishop has been passed on after one’s death, not during it. Peter would have appointed Linus as a priest, but others would have selected the next Bishop of Rome.

BTW, why do you say supposedly?
 
justasking4 said:
I checked the article on Linus (who is supposedly the next in line to Peter) at the New Advent site and as far as i can tell it says nothing about how Peter passed on his authority to Linus. There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity on this.
Click to expand...
I know you are horrible at role play, but for the sake of the lurkers on the thread, let me pose this question:

Supposing that through study, you came to the conclusion that Apostolic Succession is in the Scripture, and it represented fully in the writings of the Early Fathers.

Would such a resolution of ambiguity change anything for you?
 
guanophore;3331062]
Click to expand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
If there are other “valid apostolic succession” then who is right?
Click to expand...
guanophore
All valid Apostolic Succession is right.
Click to expand...
So there is more than one leader of the church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where does Scripture say this?
Click to expand...
guanophore
Scripture says that those not in union with the Apostles are those that “went out from us, but were not of us”.
Click to expand...
The context for your passage has nothing to do with apostolic succession.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do we have any records of Peter appointing the next head of the church before he died? If so, where and when?
Click to expand...
guanophore
How is that relevant, ja4? You don’t accept anything that isn’t in scripture to begin with!
Click to expand...
Its relevant in that if there is some kind of evidence that Peter did in fact pass his authority on to someone else then you don’t just have an assertion.
guanophore
There are plenty of document that attest to the Apostolic Succession in the early church. This concept is too Catholic for you, so you will have to reject it.
Click to expand...
Please don’t tell me what i have to reject…🤷
In my study of early church history there does not appear to be just one leader but a plurality of leaders in the early church.
 
guanophore;3331139]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I checked the article on Linus (who is supposedly the next in line to Peter) at the New Advent site and as far as i can tell it says nothing about how Peter passed on his authority to Linus. There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity on this.
guanophore
I know you are horrible at role play, but for the sake of the lurkers on the thread, let me pose this question:

Supposing that through study, you came to the conclusion that Apostolic Succession is in the Scripture, and it represented fully in the writings of the Early Fathers.

Would such a resolution of ambiguity change anything for you?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
NotWorthy;3331130]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I checked the article on Linus (who is supposedly the next in line to Peter) at the New Advent site and as far as i can tell it says nothing about how Peter passed on his authority to Linus. There is a tremendous amount of ambiguity on this.
Click to expand...
NotWorthy
The office of Bishop has been passed on after one’s death, not during it. Peter would have appointed Linus as a priest, but others would have selected the next Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
BTW, why do you say supposedly?
Click to expand...
I say “supposedly” because the history we know doesn’t support the idea that Linus was recognized as the the supreme leader of the entire church during this period. Perhaps i’m wrong and if so, then can you demonstrate that he was recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church during this period from documents during this period?
 
justasking4 said:
I say “supposedly” because the history we know doesn’t support the idea that Linus was recognized as the the supreme leader of the entire church during this period. Perhaps i’m wrong and if so, then can you demonstrate that he was recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church during this period from documents during this period?
Click to expand...
Do you accept that he was a Bishop of Rome following Peter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top