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

[fellowChristian]

Mind if I join?

List of Popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Pope Linus
newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.
This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his
II Timothy 4:21.
The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the** episcopal office **to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His **successor **was Anacletus.

Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

St. Irenaeus
newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church

He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142.
It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna.
During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons.
The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits.
Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons.

 

[fellowChristian]

Acts 1

15At this time **Peter stood up **in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,

16"Brethren, the Scripture had to be **fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, **who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus.

17"For **he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." **

18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20"For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’;
and,
** ‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE**.’

21"Therefore it is necessary that **of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- **

**22beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." **

23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias.

24And **they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen **

25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which **Judas turned aside **to go to his own place."

26And they drew lots for them, and** the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles. **

**Acts 1:15-26 **- the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Where to find APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSION in Scripture
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II

 

[guanophore]

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

If there is a Trinity, why is it not mentioned in the scriptures? If there is a table of contents of what goes in the Bible, why is it not included in the scriptures? If there is a hypostatic union, why is it not mentioned in the scriptures? If there is a dispensation to observe the Sabbath on Sunday, why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

I could go on. Not all of Divine Revelation is found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the sacred tradition of whence they came.

Sometimes its the minutae that nullifies an interpretation. In fact i think this is a problem for most of the marian doctrines.

Exactly! Which is why I keep asking, why not live and let live? Why not just accept that some believers include minutae in their faith that has no value to you? Why do yo keep tearing at the Body of Christ, expecting that others should believe as you do?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3336625]

Originally Posted by justasking4
If there apostolic succession why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

guanophore
If there is a Trinity, why is it not mentioned in the scriptures? If there is a table of contents of what goes in the Bible, why is it not included in the scriptures? If there is a hypostatic union, why is it not mentioned in the scriptures? If there is a dispensation to observe the Sabbath on Sunday, why is it not mentioned in the scriptures?

These are all good questions but they are irrelevant to the discussion and the claims of apostolic succession. Your answer shows how weak this support of apostolic succession is. I don’t blame you for trying to divert our attention from it.

I could go on. Not all of Divine Revelation is found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures were never meant to be separated from the sacred tradition of whence they came.

Is this Divine Revelation equal to the Scriptures? If so, can you give me a couple of specific examples of what it is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Sometimes its the minutae that nullifies an interpretation. In fact i think this is a problem for most of the marian doctrines.

guanophore
Exactly! Which is why I keep asking, why not live and let live? Why not just accept that some believers include minutae in their faith that has no value to you? Why do yo keep tearing at the Body of Christ, expecting that others should believe as you do?

Because its in the details we see if the doctines and practices are true or not. Anyone can make claims and make it seem that its in line with what the Scriptures teach. Paul in I Thessalonians 5:21 to examine everything carefully… hold fast to that which is good. This exhortation is the answer to your question.

 

[justasking4]

Mind if I join?

List of Popes
newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Pope Linus
newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.
This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his
II Timothy 4:21.
The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the** episcopal office **to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His **successor **was Anacletus.

Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

St. Irenaeus
newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm

Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church

He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142.
It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna.
During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons.
The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits.
Returning to Gaul, Irenaeus succeeded the martyr Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons.

Do you think its proper to think of Linus as a pope i.e. to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth if the early church was probalbly not that unified at this time in history?

 

[Non_Serviam]

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

One quick request for clarification before I head out to meetings. Are you saying that Paul became a minister before he was baptized?

 

[guanophore]

These are all good questions but they are irrelevant to the discussion and the claims of apostolic succession. Your answer shows how weak this support of apostolic succession is. I don’t blame you for trying to divert our attention from it.

The questions are not for diversion, they are rhetorical. My point is that you accept all these basic doctrines of the Catholic faith, but you reject the Apostolic Authority from whence they came!

Is this Divine Revelation equal to the Scriptures? If so, can you give me a couple of specific examples of what it is?

“Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ”. Jesus explained everything to his apostles.

One example of Sacred Tradition is the Apostolic Succession. This is part of the Divine Revelation. This is how Jesus set up his Church to function after he ascended to heaven.

Because its in the details we see if the doctines and practices are true or not. Anyone can make claims and make it seem that its in line with what the Scriptures teach. Paul in I Thessalonians 5:21 to examine everything carefully… hold fast to that which is good. This exhortation is the answer to your question.

But ja4, the NT was not written at the time! They were using Sacred Tradition to make the examination!

 

[guanophore]

Do you think its proper to think of Linus as a pope i.e. to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth if the early church was probalbly not that unified at this time in history?

Although the Petrine Ministry was still in it’s infancy at that time, the Church was completely unified throughout the known world. They were one in faith, doctrine, and practice.

Now you are trying to sow seeds of dissention into a culture 2000 years old! What is to be gained from your efforts to find and promote divisiveness. What is to be lost if you were to admit that the Church was One?

 

[guanophore]

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

I don’t think this notion can be scripturally supported when it comes to Paul. Paul was ordained by Christ. He is an Apostle, and does not require ordination by a bishop. On the contrary, he ordained bishops for all the Churches.

 

[mbrislawn]

Actually, all denominations have a form of apostolic succession, even if they don’t call it that. Most have ordination. If ordination is not succession, what is it? Why have it? Without a form of succession, how can a denomination or religious body continue to be recognized as the same body or organization over the generations?
Of course the Catholic and Orthodox churches have their succession from the apostles, not from a tradition begun by men.

 

[NotWorthy]

Actually, all denominations have a form of apostolic succession, even if they don’t call it that. Most have ordination. If ordination is not succession, what is it? Why have it? Without a form of succession, how can a denomination or religious body continue to be recognized as the same body or organization over the generations?
Of course the Catholic and Orthodox churches have their succession from the apostles, not from a tradition begun by men.

The difference is most others can just appoint themselves a pastor.

With the Catholic priesthood, every priest has been ordained by a bishop, that was ordained by a bishop, that ultimately was ordained by one of the Apostles. No self promotion is tolerated.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3337676]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Do you think its proper to think of Linus as a pope i.e. to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth if the early church was probalbly not that unified at this time in history?

guanophore
Although the Petrine Ministry was still in it’s infancy at that time, the Church was completely unified throughout the known world. They were one in faith, doctrine, and practice.

This does not entirely answer my question. Was Linus recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church?

Now you are trying to sow seeds of dissention into a culture 2000 years old! What is to be gained from your efforts to find and promote divisiveness. What is to be lost if you were to admit that the Church was One?

What it appears from history is that the claims of Rome cannot be sustained with the facts. This is disingenous on its part to claim that there has been a unbroken line of succession of popes when history shows otherwise.
It seems you have a very difficult time look deeply at the claims of your church and finding that its not what you may have been told.

 

[NotWorthy]

This does not entirely answer my question. Was Linus recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church?

What it appears from history is that the claims of Rome cannot be sustained with the facts. This is disingenous on its part to claim that there has been a unbroken line of succession of popes when history shows otherwise.
It seems you have a very difficult time look deeply at the claims of your church and finding that its not what you may have been told.

I think you are looking at the Roman Church through tinted glasses.

The role of the Pope should be to (a) shepherd and instruct the flock and to (b) intervene with disputes that can’t be resolved amongst those taking part in the disputes.

We see examples of (a) several times in Acts regarding

• the selection of Mathias as Apostle
• the Sermon at Pentecost
• the decision to include the Gentiles into the New Covenant Church.
  We see examples of (b) in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council. JA4, I’m asking to accept the Catholic interpretation of this council just for the sake of my argument. I know you disagree with this stance.

In the early Church, we see further examples of (b) in Clements letter to the Corinthians in the latter part of the first century and Victors little “Easter-Gate” edict (mid 2nd century), where he excommunicated all the Easthern Churches for not falling in line with the West’s establishment of the date for celebrating Easter. Neither one of these two events could have (or should have) occurred if the affected parties could have resolved the issue themselves.

In the early Church, we see little example of (a). Why? Because the first 30 popes had a hard time with a certain ailment. It seems they kept losing their heads - literally. I understand that the first 30 (or was it 35?) popes were executed by the Romans. It’s sort of hard to shepherd and instruct when you get killed everytime you surface.

---

In addition (and not directly related to the topic), if you consider

A) the Roman propensity to killing off sects by executing their leaders.
B) that no other bishops had so many killed so often as Rome’s.

Then what does that say about the Roman Pontiff?

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3339428]I think you are looking at the Roman Church through tinted glasses.

The role of the Pope should be to (a) shepherd and instruct the flock and to (b) intervene with disputes that can’t be resolved amongst those taking part in the disputes.

We see examples of (a) several times in Acts regarding

• the selection of Mathias as Apostle
• the Sermon at Pentecost
• the decision to include the Gentiles into the New Covenant Church.
  We see examples of (b) in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council. JA4, I’m asking to accept the Catholic interpretation of this council just for the sake of my argument. I know you disagree with this stance.

In the early Church, we see further examples of (b) in Clements letter to the Corinthians in the latter part of the first century and Victors little “Easter-Gate” edict (mid 2nd century), where he excommunicated all the Easthern Churches for not falling in line with the West’s establishment of the date for celebrating Easter. Neither one of these two events could have (or should have) occurred if the affected parties could have resolved the issue themselves.

In the early Church, we see little example of (a). Why? Because the first 30 popes had a hard time with a certain ailment. It seems they kept losing their heads - literally. I understand that the first 30 (or was it 35?) popes were executed by the Romans. It’s sort of hard to shepherd and instruct when you get killed everytime you surface.

I don’t dispute that that there were various leaders throughout the churches who did watch over their flocks. What i don’t think can be sustained historically or biblically is there was one leader-pope who was looked at as the supreme leader of all. To one have a supreme leader kind of thing requires a high level of organization, communication and peace from persecutions. As you say at the end when you are fending for your life you don’t have time to develop a highly organised organization.

---

In addition (and not directly related to the topic), if you consider

A) the Roman propensity to killing off sects by executing their leaders.
B) that no other bishops had so many killed so often as Rome’s.

Then what does that say about the Roman Pontiff?

There is no doubt historically that the church in Rome did carry a lot of influence because of its location etc. It would seem that the Romans looked at the Roman Pontiff as the one who carried the most influence at least in Rome and so he was their main target. However, there were other centers that were probably just as influencial throughout the empire. Antioch and Jerusalem were also major centers of Christianty. It took time before we see one man being recogonized as the supreme leader of the church.

What do you think?

 

[guanophore]

This does not entirely answer my question. Was Linus recognized as the supreme leader of the entire church?

Maybe I answered this in the post that I lost. I think your notion of leadership is tainted by secular influence. Jesus made it clear that leaders in the Kingdom were to wash one another’s feet, and not to “lord it over” others. You keep making this reference to “supreme” that is just not at all consistent with Christianity. Jesus is Head of the Church.

I very much doubt that Linus or anyone else thought of it that way. At the time, the doctrinal disputes that required the successor of Peter to arbitrate had not yet emerged. The tiny seed we see in the early church is hardly recognizeable in the Church as it is today. I am sure that Linus understood the Petrine gift, and took his responsibiity to manfest it very seriously.

What it appears from history is that the claims of Rome cannot be sustained with the facts. This is disingenous on its part to claim that there has been a unbroken line of succession of popes when history shows otherwise.
It seems you have a very difficult time look deeply at the claims of your church and finding that its not what you may have been told.

I know that there have been disputes and anti-popes. That does not take away that there has been valid Apostolic Succession. Just like there being anti-Christs does not take away from there being a true Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t dispute that that there were various leaders throughout the churches who did watch over their flocks. What i don’t think can be sustained historically or biblically is there was one leader-pope who was looked at as the supreme leader of all. To one have a supreme leader kind of thing requires a high level of organization, communication and peace from persecutions. As you say at the end when you are fending for your life you don’t have time to develop a highly organised organization.

Then you just answered your own question. The reason that the organiziational structure does not seem as clear in the early days is that there were other more immediate matters with which to contend. That does not take away the fact that the authority was present. It may appear to be exercised differently today, but it has always been there.

---

There is no doubt historically that the church in Rome did carry a lot of influence because of its location etc.

No, it was not because of location. It was because of the strength of the doctrine that was held there from the Apostolic Teaching.

It would seem that the Romans looked at the Roman Pontiff as the one who carried the most influence at least in Rome and so he was their main target. However, there were other centers that were probably just as influencial throughout the empire. Antioch and Jerusalem were also major centers of Christianty. It took time before we see one man being recogonized as the supreme leader of the church.

What do you think?

I think you are right. The title “pontiff” was centuries later, and other church communities did not begin to appeal to Rome until intractible heresies emerged, such as Mary bearng other children. Once falsehoods like this came up, there was a need to speak out against them.

 

[justasking4]

Maybe I answered this in the post that I lost. I think your notion of leadership is tainted by secular influence. Jesus made it clear that leaders in the Kingdom were to wash one another’s feet, and not to “lord it over” others. You keep making this reference to “supreme” that is just not at all consistent with Christianity. Jesus is Head of the Church.

I very much doubt that Linus or anyone else thought of it that way. At the time, the doctrinal disputes that required the successor of Peter to arbitrate had not yet emerged. The tiny seed we see in the early church is hardly recognizeable in the Church as it is today. I am sure that Linus understood the Petrine gift, and took his responsibiity to manfest it very seriously.

I know that there have been disputes and anti-popes. That does not take away that there has been valid Apostolic Succession. Just like there being anti-Christs does not take away from there being a true Christ.

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?

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t dispute that that there were various leaders throughout the churches who did watch over their flocks. What i don’t think can be sustained historically or biblically is there was one leader-pope who was looked at as the supreme leader of all. To one have a supreme leader kind of thing requires a high level of organization, communication and peace from persecutions. As you say at the end when you are fending for your life you don’t have time to develop a highly organised organization.

---

There is no doubt historically that the church in Rome did carry a lot of influence because of its location etc. It would seem that the Romans looked at the Roman Pontiff as the one who carried the most influence at least in Rome and so he was their main target. However, there were other centers that were probably just as influencial throughout the empire. Antioch and Jerusalem were also major centers of Christianty. It took time before we see one man being recogonized as the supreme leader of the church.

What do you think?

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.

 

[fellowChristian]

Do you think its proper to think of Linus as a pope i.e. to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth if the early church **was probalbly **not that unified at this time in history?

Even if you think that “probably” the Church was not “unified” Peter still did lay hands on his successor and Linus still was the bishop that sat in the chair of Peter.

The Body of Christ was and still is one. Jesus has only one body. Jesus has only one Church. Jesus has only one Bride. And I have faith and trust in His Word

Matthew 16:18

18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock **I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. **

“I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a **body knit together **as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in…We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits.” **Tertullian, Apology, 39:1 (A.D. 197). **

Look at the years.

The Church is called “Catholic”
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”** Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110). **

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and **bishop of the Catholic Church **which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” **Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155). **

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church.…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” **The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177). **

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the **Catholic Church **possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” **Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180). **

from 110 ad. to 1517 is **1,407 **years later that Martin Luther began his protest!

Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#scripture_II

 

[fellowChristian]

**Acts 9:17-19 **

17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and** 1** **after laying his hands on him **said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has **sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” **

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight**, 2** **and he got up and was baptized; **

19and he took food and was strengthened.

From Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html