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

[justasking4]

Do you accept that he was a Bishop of Rome following Peter?

Yes.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes.

Are you acknowledging that Peter was the Supreme leader of the Church?

 

[justasking4]

Are you acknowledging that Peter was the Supreme leader of the Church?

No. Peter along with others were leaders. There was a plurality of leaders. John, Peter, James and Paul come to mind.
The other aposltes never acknowledge Peter as being the supreme leader either.

 

[NotWorthy]

No. Peter along with others were leaders. There was a plurality of leaders. John, Peter, James and Paul come to mind.
The other aposltes never acknowledge Peter as being the supreme leader either.

So, where is this plurality, now? Where was it for the centuries precluding the Holy Scriptures (if that is your answer to the first question)?

So why are you asking us to go down this rabbit hole. You don’t accept Peter as Supreme Leader, why should we expect you to accept his successor?

Peter’s Supremacy would make a great thread. I can’t believe someone can’t see it in Scripture.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Lets address Peter as the founder of Rome. Would you happen to know the year?

Around the reign of Nero. The Church itself has its origin in Jerusalem. The Catholic Church is built upon St. Peter by Jesus Christ.

 

[justasking4]

So, where is this plurality, now? Where was it for the centuries precluding the Holy Scriptures (if that is your answer to the first question)?

So why are you asking us to go down this rabbit hole. You don’t accept Peter as Supreme Leader, why should we expect you to accept his successor?

Peter’s Supremacy would make a great thread. I can’t believe someone can’t see it in Scripture.

This is what a couple of church historians say about a single leader in the early church:

Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and **it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop **provided the leadership.” This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

 

[guanophore]

So there is more than one leader of the church?

There are many leaders in the Church, ja4, and some of them are married, and some of them are women.

Both the East and the West have Patriarchs (popes).

The context for your passage has nothing to do with apostolic succession.

Really, what makes you think not? I am not at home right now, but will look up some more passages on this when I get back and post.

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.

It would not be “my” assertion, but an assertion that has been promulgated for 2000 years by the whole of the Apostolic Churches all around the world!

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.

Fair enough. Suffice to say that the Apostolic Succession is uniquely Catholic, and those who believe that the Catholic church is in error will not be able to accept it.

There has always been a plurality of leadership it the Apostolic Church from the first day until now. The difference is that, in the Apostolic Churches, they are all in union with one another.

 

[NotWorthy]

This is what a couple of church historians say about a single leader in the early church:

Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and **it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop **provided the leadership.” This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

You’re so funny.

When Scripture supports it, you turn to the ambiguity of experts to disprove the Church (of which we can get equally vociferous opinions proving both our points, right JA?). But when the Early Church Fathers clearly support a teaching, you turn to the ambiguity of Scripture to dispute the Catholic Church (of which we can get equally vociferous opinions on the interpretations, right JA4?).

 

[guanophore]

You’re so funny.

When Scripture supports it, you turn to the ambiguity of experts to disprove the Church (of which we can get equally vociferous opinions proving both our points, right JA?). But when the Early Church Fathers clearly support a teaching, you turn to the ambiguity of Scripture to dispute the Catholic Church (of which we can get equally vociferous opinions on the interpretations, right JA4?).

So true, NotWorthy. But, let us look a the bright side! A year ago, there wasn’t even room for ambiguity. Everything was black and white, and nothing outside scripture had any value at all. At least we have progressed to ambiguity!

 

[guanophore]

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.

Yes.

Ok, you agree that Linus was Bishop of Rome after Peter, so your issues seem to be 1) Does this include Apostolic Authority and 2) Where is it shown that Linus was Head of the whole Church (Petrine Charisma)

I have read some documents that indicate that Linus, as well as other bishops of Rome, took over some duties while the previous Peter was still living. In fact, this is still the case today. The successor of Peter has more duties than any other one man coudl fill, and many of these are delegated to other bishops or cardinals. Often the successor of the Pope is chosen from among those who worked closely with the previlous pope.

If Peter was incarcerated, and could not reach the people, then it is very likely he delegated some of his shepherding duties to faithful men who could be entrusted to take on this work.

It brought up some questions; Are you saying that Timothy was some kind of pope or supreme leader of the entire church? Was Paul making Timothy an apostle?

No, the Bishops were appointed over specific areas, as is clear in the NT. They are considered the chief authority in that region, keeper of the Sacred Traditions, and charged to maintain right doctrine. This is why, in the earliest writings of the Fathers, we read “let nothing be done without the Bisohp”. Those who were not in unity with Timothy, who was given Apostolic authority, were considered out of order. Only God can make an Apostle.

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?

It seems that it was not clear to the Universal Church how essential the Petrine Ministry would become. At this early age of the Church, the functions were local, and as long as they had Apostles, there were not so many questions about doctrine and practice. It was not until all the Apostles had passed that many of these doctrinal problems arose, and required arbitration or final judgement from an authority recogized by all. This authority was found in Rome, because both Peter and Paul taught there. It was a wellspring of right doctrine,and a beacon for the world.

This is what a couple of church historians say about a single leader in the early church:

Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and **it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop **provided the leadership.” This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

This is the same as it is today. “As it was in the beginning, is now, and every shall be” at least until the end of the age. It is your perception of the Magesterium that is distored, ja4, not the structure itself. Jesus grafted Peter into HIs own rockyness. He taught for all the Apostles to be of one mind,a nd one heart. All those who are united to Peter are also part of Christ’s rockyness, for upon this Rock did He build His Church. All the bishops in union with the Successor of Peter are considered perfectly united with Christ, the Head of the Church in doctrine and practice. Those who depart begin to step away from the Church that Jesus founded. Some step small, others step big.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3332065]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is what a couple of church historians say about a single leader in the early church:

Roman Catholic scholar Joseph F. Kelly wrote in The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (1992, p. 2), “The word ‘pope’ was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” This is echoed by Protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelly who wrote:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

NotWorthy
You’re so funny.

When Scripture supports it, you turn to the ambiguity of experts to disprove the Church (of which we can get equally vociferous opinions proving both our points, right JA?). But when the Early Church Fathers clearly support a teaching, you turn to the ambiguity of Scripture to dispute the Catholic Church (of which we can get equally vociferous opinions on the interpretations, right JA4?).

I can’t seem to win for losing with you and my other catholic friends here— I bring up a counter point and i’m blasted for doing so. Anyway what do you think of these comments by these historians?

 

[justasking4]

So true, NotWorthy. But, let us look a the bright side! A year ago, there wasn’t even room for ambiguity. Everything was black and white, and nothing outside scripture had any value at all. At least we have progressed to ambiguity!

 

[NotWorthy]

I can’t seem to win for losing with you and my other catholic friends here— I bring up a counter point and i’m blasted for doing so. Anyway what do you think of these comments by these historians?

I think I adequately pointed out your methods. If something is clear as day in Scripture (Peter, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church), then you go to Church historians to dis-prove it). If Church Historians clearly point out the the practice of the early Church (infant baptism has been practiced by the Church since the first century) then you turn to Scripture and claim we mis-interpreted.

You hold the Catholic Church up to a different candle then your own church.

But hey, so do I!!!

My point would have been clearer if I had pointed out that I could produce “expert historians” both Catholic and Protestant that will claim the Pope has been pre-eminent as demonstrated first by Clement in the first century, and then by Victor in the 2nd century.

Are both of our sets of historians right?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3334337]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I can’t seem to win for losing with you and my other catholic friends here— I bring up a counter point and i’m blasted for doing so. Anyway what do you think of these comments by these historians?

NotWorthy
I think I adequately pointed out your methods. If something is clear as day in Scripture (Peter, you are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church), then you go to Church historians to dis-prove it).

The problem is that its not as clear as day. I’ve been acused of being blind at times and maybe i am—
I don’t necessarily base my rejection that Peter was the first pope or supreme leader on history but that the Scriptures don’t demonstrate it. Matthew 16 aside we don’t see the other apostles appealing Peter as the foundation of the church for example. Nor do we see Peter himself making such claims in his 2 letters. Secondly to say that the church of Christ would have its foundation primarily on a sinful fallen man is not strong enough to build on.

If Church Historians clearly point out the the practice of the early Church (infant baptism has been practiced by the Church since the first century) then you turn to Scripture and claim we mis-interpreted.

What’s wrong with this? I compare with scripture i.e. a person must repent and believe then be baptized which all require some knowledge to do. I don’t think even you would deny that it is stated like this in scripture would you?
Then we look for specific explicit cases of infant baptism in Scripture and there are none. Just because the early church after the apostles did something doesn’t mean its right or biblical.

You hold the Catholic Church up to a different candle then your own church.

But hey, so do I!!!

My point would have been clearer if I had pointed out that I could produce “expert historians” both Catholic and Protestant that will claim the Pope has been pre-eminent as demonstrated first by Clement in the first century, and then by Victor in the 2nd century.

Maybe i’m missing something here when you and other catholics claim there was a pope from Peter onward. What little i know of this period after the death of the apostles is that Christianity was still fragmented and spread out over a large terrority and was not united like the catholic church is today. It took centuries for this to happen and if this is true then saying that the bishop of Rome was always the supreme head of the entire church cannot be supported by the facts of history.

Are both of our sets of historians right?

If they are drawing different conclusions i don’t see how.

PS- i would like your opinion about another thread that deals with the idea of a person chosing not to sin. Do you think a person can chose not to sin for the rest of their lives? Does the church offically teach this?

 

[NotWorthy]

PS- i would like your opinion about another thread that deals with the idea of a person chosing not to sin. Do you think a person can chose not to sin for the rest of their lives? Does the church offically teach this?

Well certainly a person can CHOOSE not to sin for the rest of their lives.

Can they live up to that burden? With Concupiscence still enmeshed in their souls? I wouldn’t be placing any bets on the success of their endeavors.

 

[justasking4]

Well certainly a person can CHOOSE not to sin for the rest of their lives.

Can they live up to that burden? With Concupiscence still enmeshed in their souls? I wouldn’t be placing any bets on the success of their endeavors.

Thank you for helping to restore what sanity i have left–

 

[ChristianRoots]

This post was taken from another thread where it was off topic.

See Acts 6:6; 8:17; 9:12,17; 13:3; 19:6

 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22
 2 Timothy 1:6

 

[guanophore]

I don’t necessarily base my rejection that Peter was the first pope or supreme leader on history but that the Scriptures don’t demonstrate it. Matthew 16 aside we don’t see the other apostles appealing Peter as the foundation of the church for example.

I don’t see where it was necessary. It seems to me that all the decisions that were made were done so in union with all the Apostles.

Nor do we see Peter himself making such claims in his 2 letters.

Why would he? He was clear that Jesus wanted him to wash the feet of the other Apostles. He was a very humble man, and his letters reflect this. No doubt he was in awe that Jesus had given him the keys, being an unworthy man as he knew he was.

Secondly to say that the church of Christ would have its foundation primarily on a sinful fallen man is not strong enough to build on.

This is just a misunderstanding on your part, then. The Church that Jesus founded is built upon HImself, as the chief cornerstone. He is the Head of the Body, and it is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, empowered by the HS. If you don’t think that God is able to make perfect things through imperfect people, then your God is too small.

Just because the early church after the apostles did something doesn't mean its right or biblical.

So, when and how did they come off the rails? How come, even before all the Apostles were dead, do we see those persons in union with the persons appointed by the Apostles (bishops) doing things like infant baptism? Do you really think they “lost it” (the message) that quickly?!

Maybe i’m missing something here when you and other catholics claim there was a pope from Peter onward. What little i know of this period after the death of the apostles is that Christianity was still fragmented and spread out over a large terrority and was not united like the catholic church is today. It took centuries for this to happen and if this is true then saying that the bishop of Rome was always the supreme head of the entire church cannot be supported by the facts of history.

All those scattered Christian communities were one in doctrine. All were "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and **one **Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. (Eph. 4:5)

It did take many years for it to become necessary to appeal to the authority of the successor of Peter. We don’t see the first documentation of this until the late second century. But, ever since that time, there has been rampant heresy and a persistent appeal to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3335493]
Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t necessarily base my rejection that Peter was the first pope or supreme leader on history but that the Scriptures don’t demonstrate it. Matthew 16 aside we don’t see the other apostles appealing Peter as the foundation of the church for example.

guanophore
I don’t see where it was necessary. It seems to me that all the decisions that were made were done so in union with all the Apostles.

Its necessary for your case. If you don’t see the other apostles concurring with your position then its weakened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Nor do we see Peter himself making such claims in his 2 letters.

guanophore
Why would he? He was clear that Jesus wanted him to wash the feet of the other Apostles. He was a very humble man, and his letters reflect this. No doubt he was in awe that Jesus had given him the keys, being an unworthy man as he knew he was.

I agree that there is humbleness in him. However, again you have nothing from his pen to support your position that he alone was the supreme leader.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Secondly to say that the church of Christ would have its foundation primarily on a sinful fallen man is not strong enough to build on.

guanophore
This is just a misunderstanding on your part, then. The Church that Jesus founded is built upon HImself, as the chief cornerstone. He is the Head of the Body, and it is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, empowered by the HS.

Even the passage you refer does not say that Peter alone is the foundation.

guanophore
If you don’t think that God is able to make perfect things through imperfect people, then your God is too small.

This is not the issue at all. The question is: what did God actually do? What do the Scriptures say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Just because the early church after the apostles did something doesn’t mean its right or biblical.

guanophore
So, when and how did they come off the rails? How come, even before all the Apostles were dead, do we see those persons in union with the persons appointed by the Apostles (bishops) doing things like infant baptism? Do you really think they “lost it” (the message) that quickly?!

If read the letters very carefully you will find even in their life times there was the constant threat of false teachers. It certainly appears that after they left the scene false teachers were making headway into the church very early.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Maybe i’m missing something here when you and other catholics claim there was a pope from Peter onward. What little i know of this period after the death of the apostles is that Christianity was still fragmented and spread out over a large terrority and was not united like the catholic church is today. It took centuries for this to happen and if this is true then saying that the bishop of Rome was always the supreme head of the entire church cannot be supported by the facts of history.
guanophore

All those scattered Christian communities were one in doctrine.

i don’t know this period that well and can say what all these dozens if not hundreds of churches believed on the key doctrines. I suspect that there was some false teachings that did come in. One way to know is to know which writings were rejected. We see this come up in NT canon era.

All were "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. (Eph. 4:5)

It did take many years for it to become necessary to appeal to the authority of the successor of Peter. We don’t see the first documentation of this until the late second century. But, ever since that time, there has been rampant heresy and a persistent appeal to the Bishop of Rome.

Do you believe that the pope in Rome (Linus) was recognized as the supreme head of the entire church?

 

[guanophore]

Its necessary for your case. If you don’t see the other apostles concurring with your position then its weakened.

No, not for MY case, but yours. Since you have so much trouble accepting anything that is not explicitly in scripture, you have a hard time with it. The fact that Jesus gave the Keys to Peter is sufficient for me. I wonder why it is not for you?

I agree that there is humbleness in him. However, again you have nothing from his pen to support your position that he alone was the supreme leader.

This is your own faulty perception of leadership you are projecting into the text, and into The Church. Jesus was clear that those who were leaders were to wash the others’ feet. This is the kind of leader Peter was. I am ashamed to say that not all the successors of Peter had this kind of character, but there never was, and is not now, someone who was supposed to be “supreme”. Jesus is the Head of the Church. That is why the Pope signs his letters “servant of the servants of God”.

Even the passage you refer does not say that Peter alone is the foundation.

This is also something you pulling in from some anti-Catholic source, unless you just are making it up on your own. The Catholic Church does not teach this. I think you really need to lay off those chick tracts.

This is not the issue at all. The question is: what did God actually do? What do the Scriptures say?

This scriptures say that God is able to do abundantly more than we can ever ask, or think to imagine. The scripture says that God is glorified in his angels and saints. The scriptures say that greater things will we do than He did, because He goes to the father. If you do not believe these things your faith is not biblical. Your God is also too small.

If read the letters very carefully you will find even in their life times there was the constant threat of false teachers. It certainly appears that after they left the scene false teachers were making headway into the church very early.

Yes, this is why they appointed bishops in every place.

2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and **maintain the traditions **even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:2

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:15

11 Command and teach these things.1 Tim 4:10-11

5 This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1:4-5

This is the apostolic succession. The Apostles appointed Bishops, and charged them with “all authority” (remember where that phrase came from?) They were to keep the traditions as had been delivered by the Apostles, command, exhort, reprove and amend what was defective in the believers. This is the ministry of the Bishop.

i don't know this period that well and can say what all these dozens if not hundreds of churches believed on the key doctrines. I suspect that there was some false teachings that did come in. One way to know is to know which writings were rejected. We see this come up in NT canon era.

Yes, what is curious is that you accept as authoritative the canon that was created as a product of the infallble Holy Spirit, but you reject so many other doctrines that come from the same Apostolic Authority.

Do you believe that the pope in Rome (Linus) was recognized as the supreme head of the entire church?

First of all, I reject your notion of “supreme head” as inappropriate. Jesus is Head of the Church, and the Petrine gift is one of humility, not one of lording it over others. I would like it if you would stop throwing in that strawman. Did the rest of the Church all over the world know that the Keys had been passed on?I doubt it. I think communication was so slow in those days, that by the time people on the other side of civilization learned his name, he was probably already home with Jesus. I think that Jesus established the Primacy of Peter for such times as came later.