Muslim questions succession

[FireFromHeaven]

I continued my debates with Muslims and a muslim said this. How do I answer? It is long.

This is how the discussion went:

I said that Christians don’t have an Isnad (chain of transmission).

LUX IN TENEBRIS:

“Now Christians do have a detailed isnad, but not of what you would expect. We have a detailed isnad for Apostolic succession, i.e. the Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. This isnad was used to combat early gnostic heresies, which claimed a secret knowledge from the apostles. The importance is that it does show a connnection to the past. Christ promised He would be with His church till the end of time, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her, so we know the Church that is built on the Apostles is free from error, and this is by Divine protection.”

My response:

"There exists confusion regarding the chronological order of the Popes and their actual indentities.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman.

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety.

This information is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there is one word that can summarize this Apostolic succession, it is - confusion. For any Muslim or anybody who really isn’t familiar with this information, this talk is regarding the first Popes that came after Peter the Apostle who is said to have been the disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the chronological order and even identities are put into question.

I’ll give an analogy from the Islamic succession of the Khilafah. It indeed would be a sad state of affairs if Muslims were not certain who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon). What would it sound like to you if people were saying that Abu Bakr was the first, others were saying Umar was actually the first and then others that Uthman was the first. And to make matters even more laughable people wouldn’t even be sure regarding the identity of Uthman, some would be saying that he was actually Ali and some saying that he was Arab and others that he was actually Persian. And to top it off, people would have varying lists with some having Umar first followed by Abu Bakr and others with Uthman followed by Umar. Obviously this analogy is not really all that great because everybody unanimously agrees that Abu Bakr was the Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him), followed by Umar, followed by Uthman, followed by Ali and their biographies are well known(may God be pleased with them all), but it does show how obviously ridiculous it is when the order of Popes and their identities are disputed . And Lux, don’t try to pull out the Shia card and say that there is confusion since their error deals with theology and who ought to have been Caliph, not with actual history.

So you see, this is why I really don’t give Apostolic Succession much credit because obviously there exists a great amount of confusion."

The same can repeated for all the Gospels. They cannot be traced back to their authors.

We consider the mainstream Gospels in the same way that modern Christians consider Apocrypha, i.e. they are not valid works, they were not written by the people whom they are claimed to be written by, they cannot be traced back to the original authors.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I think there is some confusion here. Apostolic succession has absolutely nothing to do with Papal succession. Popes are not appointed by their predecessors (although this was done for a short time), so there is no “chain of succession” of Popes. There have been long periods (more than a year) when there was no Pope. The Church doesn’t actually need a Pope (it’s nice to have one, but completely unnecessary, unless you want to promulgate Doctrine).

It is true that the Church has not always been able to name all the previous Popes (and there was disagreement about what lists existed). Modern scholarship and research have allowed us to reconstruct the line of Popes with a fairly high degree of certainty. But if we could not do this, it would not matter. Nothing in the Church is based on the succession of Popes.

 

[DavidFilmer]

“Apostolic succession” means that a Bishop was ordained by someone who had valid Apostolic succession. Eventually, this succession goes back to an Apostle. In order for any Bishop to be valid, he must have valid Apostolic Orders.

Few Bishops know their lineage. I’ve never known a Bishop who knew the names of all his predecessors. So how do we know he’s really a Bishop? How do we know he has valid succession, after 2000 years of Episcopal Ordinations?

Only one Bishop is needed to validly ordain another Bishop. But the very first Ecumenical Council (Nicea, in 325 AD) imposed a rule which remains in place to this day - a licit Episcopal Ordination requires three Consecrators. As long as just one is valid, the Ordination is valid (FWIW, it is customary for an Episcopal Ordination to be celebrated by many Bishops (ten or more), simply because they want to be present).

Suppose that there were invalid bishops running around in 325 AD. Suppose we accept the ridiculous idea that as many as 1 in 20 bishops was invalid. What is the probability of selecting three invalid bishops? It’s 20 x 20 x 20 (assuming there are at least 22 invalid bishops). That is a probability of 1 in 8000. The first generation of Bishops had 1 in 20 invalid bishops, but the second generation has only 1 in 8000 invalid bishops.

The probability of selecting three invalid bishops from such a pool is 8000 x 8000 x 8000, which is 1 in 512,000,000,000. As you see, the line of succession actually purifies itself over time. There have been hundreds of generations of Bishops, meaning the probability of having even one invalidly ordained bishop is staggeringly improbable. It’s what physicists call a “small but nonzero probability.” That is the probability that all of the air will disappear from your living room (it could happen).

It is therefore unnecessary that we know (and can prove) any Bishops episcopal lineage. We don’t need knowledge of history, or even the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to know that every Bishop has valid Apostolic succession. We know this with simple math.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

How do I prove to him that before the council more than 19/20 were correctly ordained? How do I show him the church’s teachings remain the same as that of the apostles? He denies the bible so don’t use it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

How do I prove to him that before the council more than 19/20 were correctly ordained?

In order to have a Bishop with invalid succession, somebody somewhere has to decide to pretend to be a Bishop. That guy knows he’s a fraud. But if he “ordains” another, that guy probably doesn’t know he’s not really a Bishop. This can’t happen unless someone deliberately pretends to be a Bishop.

The Edict of Milan ended religious persecution in the Roman Empire in 313 AD. Constantine himself converted to Christianity, which made it suddenly cool to be Christian.

Before 313, being a Christian could get you killed. It was illegal. There would be no possible reason why someone would want to pretend to be a Christian Bishop. It was dangerous enough for real Bishops. There is no reason to contest the claim that 100% of pre-Milan Bishops were the real thing.

The only window of opportunity to introduce invalid (but unaware) Bishops was the twelve-year period between Milan and Nicea. That’s not a whole lot of time. That’s why 1 in 20 is silly. But the math still wins even if HALF of the bishops were invalid. It just takes more generations to reach crazy odds. The first generation is 1:2. The second generation is 1 in 2 x 2 x 2, which is 1 in 8. Third generation is 1 in 512 (I doubt there were even 512 Bishops in 325 AD). The fourth generation becomes pretty certain at 1 in 134,217,728. And it gets less and less likely with each subsequent generation.

The math still wins.

By the way, I am not aware of anybody who actually was an invalid bishop, or was accused of being one. Nicea acted to insure the validity of the line, not because there was actually a problem with it.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Excellent. Now how do we demonstrate the teachings of the apostles were passed on?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Excellent. Now how do we demonstrate the teachings of the apostles were passed on?

Math won’t help us with this. We need to get the Holy Spirit involved on this one. Which means this can’t be a “starting point” for discussion. There is no way to prove this to a non-Christian who rejects both Scripture and Doctrine (likewise, you could not start off by talking about Eucharist).

But there is an interesting aspect to Catholic Doctrine that makes it rather unique. It is a Doctrine of the Church that the Doctrine of the Church can never change. It can never be added to, or subtracted from, or altered. If anyone can show where this has actually happened, s/he will positively show that the Catholic Church is invalid.

Anti-Catholics have seized upon this, and have poured countless hours of research into trying to show that the Church has changed Doctrine. After all, if it happened, you should be able to find it in a history book. It would be a historical event.

A fair amount of traffic on CAF involves people asking about obscure Papal writings, wondering if these demonstrate some change in Doctrine. So far, nobody on earth has proven that Catholic Doctrine has ever changed.

How many institutions can make a similar claim? The Catholic Church is 2000 years old.

By comparison, the United States has been around for less than 250 years. We have a Supreme Court, which makes decisions based upon the Constitution (a very short document). The United States Supreme Court has *reversed *itself more than 200 times. Not changed, not revised, but reversed.

The Church has never reversed itself, or even revised itself.

It’s not a proof, but it is certainly interesting.

 

[Robyn_p]

Excellent. Now how do we demonstrate the teachings of the apostles were passed on?

Have you shown him some of the early Church fathers teaching and compared it with today’s Catholic teaching? If they are consistent, that would be a strong case I would say. Most of the early Church fathers were taught by and ordained by the Apostles themselves, if anyone knew what the apostles meant, it would be them!

For example, I’ll just pick the Real Presence as one topic. Just tell him what Catholics believe about it, quote the Catechism if you have to, just to make sure he knows the official Catholic doctrine. Then ask, “Do you think it would be impressive and significant if we can find this exact same teaching within decades of Jesus’ death and constantly without vary all the way down to our own day? Would that not at least point to the fact of apostolic teaching being preserved?” Then show him where the early fathers DO in fact teach the Catholic doctrine. I’ll give you a few just from the first two centuries to help.
Ignatius of Antioch:

They [the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist **is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ,**which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in his loving kindness raised from the dead. (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 6, no. 2,)

Justin Martyr around AD 160:

And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things which we teach are true, and has received the washing that is for remission of sins and rebirth and so lives as Christ taught. For we do not receive these things as common bread and common drink; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been incarnate by God’s Logos took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food transformed through the word of prayer that is from Him, from which our blood and flesh are nourished by transformation,** is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who became incarnate.**(First Apology, chap. 65)

Irenaeus of Lyons AD 180:

He(Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own blood, from which he causes our own blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as His own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies. Therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and** becomes The Eucharist, the Body of Christ**.(Against Heresies bk 5, chap 2, nos. 2-3)

That’s only three from the second century alone!! Ignatius is writing less than a decade after John the apostle died! And this is literally barely scratching the surface. They ALL profess the exact same belief. And it’s the same with every other Catholic teaching. Baptism, the papacy, holy orders, confession, Mary, etc… If the same thing is being taught in the second, twelfth, and twentieth centuries, and every century in between, without any reversals, that’s a pretty powerful argument.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

He replied. Im not sure how to answer. I think that once this debate ends I should stop discussing thing with muslims and began to study Catholicism more.

First off you misunderstand apostolic succession. It is not base on the pope. It is based on te bishops. The pope, if you remember from the news recently, is elected by the cardinals not picked by his predecessor( though this did happen for a time). The bishops are much easier to trace back to the apostles. Before the edict of Milan Christianity was illegal. Thus we can be 100% sure that the only bishops were those selected by the apostles. Being a bishop was very dangerous in early Christianity and if caught was punishable with death. So we can be sure up to there. After that there was a 12 year period. A couple of fake, non apostolic, bishops could have gotten in, but that isn’t a lot of time. The there was the council of Nicaea. The council made it so that all bishops must be ordained by three other bishops. This ensured that the line would purify over time.
Also why are the Shia card not pullable? Their “error” was that only Ali and his descendants had islan. That effects your succession. But Shia and Sunni are not allowed on this board so I digress.

Your example with the caliphate also falls flat. The caliphs were not like the popes. The popes led a small heavily persecuted religion. It is understandable that confusion cropped up as people were killed and books burned. What the people after the apostles agreed was that there was a pope and he led the church.

So you still have to provide a source on the apostles rebuking him.
He said this.
It’s quite clear that I do not misunderstand Apostolic Succession. You are merely using semantics here because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.Likewise the Patriarch of Jerusalem is the Bishop of Jerusalem, the Patriarch of Alexandria is the Bishop of Alexandria etc. For example, according to your concept of Apostolic Succession, Peter and James were the first bishops of Rome and Jerusalem respectively. However, the fact remains that we know practically nothing of the people they supposedly ordained and their identities are questioned.
*
The fact is that bishops cannot be traced back to the Apostles. Every Islamic scholar has chain of authority going back to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). There are even ordinary people who have learnt the Qur’an from a scholar and they have a chain going back to the Prophet (pbuh). There are such people on the Internet as well. Can the same be said of a modern day bishops? If I go to a bishop, will he be able to give me his chain of Apostolic succession, if you will, on the spot, or will he send me to the Vatican library? Can modern day bishop tell me who ordained him bishop and who in turn ordained that person…all the way back to the Apostles and Jesus (pbuh)? That is the question.*
*
I fail to see how Christianity being illegal before the edict of Milan is proof that the “bishopsy” was started by the Apostles. You are jumping to conclusions. If being a bishop was dangerous business back in the day, it does not mean that the operation was started by the Apostles.*
*
You actually proved my point with the Caliphate example. You said that Christianity was a persecuted religion, i.e. people got killed and books got burned. That’s the ideal situation for heretics to take over the operation. This goes for all religions, by the way. Thus it is not unique to Christianity.*

Did I butcher the arguement? How can I do better?

 

[SavedByTheCross]

The problem is that they are not debating in good faith. You’re trying to prove something to them that they will refuse to accept regardless of what evidence you bring. The Quran tells them that the Church is lying about Jesus. They will not waiver on this belief. Most people can see that it is unlikely almost to the point of being impossible that the early Church writings could have completely fabricated the teachings of the Apostles. Churches throughout the known world were teaching these doctrines, with the belief that it was traced back to the Apostles. A lie that big would be very hard to pull off. But the Muslims you’re debating won’t see that. They can’t, because it would make their holy book false. If historians uncovered a personally signed and witnessed document written by one of the Apostles testifying to the truth of Church doctrine, Muslims would find a way to deny it. They have to. Because the Quran can’t be wrong. If you proved Apostolic succession beyond a shadow of a doubt, they would retort with a claim that the Apostles never really understood Jesus’s teachings, or that his real Apostles were some other unknown people, or aliens abducted them and erased their real memories, or blah-blah-blah. This isn’t a real debate and it will not accomplish anything toward changing their opinions. Unless the forum allows you to present info that shows the weaknesses of Islam, it is probably a waste of time to continue discussing anything with them. Just my opinion.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Is there a way to show the Quran is false?

 

[SavedByTheCross]

Is there a way to show the Quran is false?

answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

Not sure if I linked it right.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

Not sure if I linked it right.

It works. It’s fine.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Here he goes again.

Hello,
*
Here are my comments.
*
I still do not agree that Apostolic Succession and Papal Succession are mutually exclusive. It’s quite evident that in the beginning they were quite closely connected, or are you suggesting that at the time of Peter and his immediate successor(s) there were many bishops to tend a small, persecuted community of Christians in Rome? I find that a little bit hard to believe. Later on with the huge growth of Christian communities, it is quite understandable that there were many bishops and papal succession and Apostolic succession became distinct. But in the beginning, I believe it was a small affair. My question is who did Peter appoint as his successor. Did he ordain Cletus/Anacletus, i.e. one person, or did he ordain both Cletus and Anacletus? Let’s not pretend that such basic questions do not matter.
*
I disagree that modern scholarship has allowed you to reconstruct the line of Popes. That might be true in the case of later Popes in the Middle Ages or a similar period. However, the evidence regarding the first supposed bishops of Rome is quite confusing.*
*
I think the matters is as I suspected. Present day bishops do not have full list that links them to the Apostles. It probably goes without saying that I have to conclude that the link to the past has been severed.*
*
I don’t know why the council of Nicaea and 325 CE are brought up because I have not talked about later Popes/bishops. I have been focusing on the first bishops. Let’s not start talking about later ones. The math is great but it carries with it the assumption that there actually were bishops who had Apostolic Succession at the time.Thus far I have not seen any evidence that any bishop in history has had Apostolic Succession, therefore, it’s useless to start talking about what happened after Nicaea.
*
If modern day bishops do not know their exact chain of succession going back to Peter, why would the bishops in 325 CE know it either? It seems to me that a lot of things in Christianity are simply taken for granted and source criticism is close to none.
*
This does not merely concern the Apostolic Succession starting from Peter.
*
This is what Eusebius writes on the successors of James the Just:
*
*
“1. The chronology of thebishopsofJerusalemI have nowhere found preserved in writing;fortraditionsays that they were all short lived.
*
2. But I have learned this much from writings,that until the siege of theJews, which took place underAdrian,there were fifteenbishopsinsuccessionthere,all of whom are said to have been ofHebrewdescent, and to have received theknowledgeofChristin purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of theepiscopate. For their wholechurchconsisted then of believingHebrewswho continued from the days of theapostlesuntil the siege which took place at this time; in which siege theJews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.
*
3. But since thebishopsof thecircumcisionceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, wasJames, the so-calledbrother of the Lord;the second, Symeon;the third, Justus;the fourth, Zacchæus;the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca;the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres;the fourteenth, Joseph;and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.
*
4. These are thebishopsofJerusalemthat lived between the age of theapostlesand the time referred to, all of them belonging to thecircumcision.
*
5. In the twelfth year of the reign ofAdrian,Xystus, having completed the tenth year ofhisepiscopate,wassucceededbyTelesphorus,the seventh insuccessionfrom theapostles. In the meantime, after the lapse of a year and some months, Eumenes,the sixth in order, succeeded to the leadership of theAlexandrian church, his predecessor having held office eleven years.”
*
newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm
*
Look at the names. There is practical no biography on these men. Who were they, really? That is a question mark.
*
This same pattern happens with the Coptic Church.
*
"At all eventsDemetriusis the firstAlexandrianbishopof whom anything isknown."newadvent.org/cathen/04706b.htm
*
Check out when Demetrius becomes Patriarch of Alexandria.BishopofAlexandriafrom 188 to 231. Mark who supposedly started the community is supposed to have died in 68. This means that between 68 and 188 we have ten Patriarchs of whom practically nothing is known if Demetrius is at all events the first Alexandrian bishop of whom anything is known.
*
This same trend concerns the Apostolic Succession of Rome:
*
"PopeClementI (called CLEMENS ROMANUS to distinguish him from theAlexandrian), is the first of thesuccessorsofSt. Peterof whom anything definite isknown, and he is the first of the “Apostolic Fathers”."newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
*
Well at least this is better than the case of Alexandrian bishops.
*
I also find it sad that the Church has used and held in high esteem pseudo-Apostolic material:
*
"A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises onChristiandiscipline,worship, anddoctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for theclergy, and to some extent for the*laity.
*
*Continued

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Its tone is rather hortatory than preceptive, for, though it was evidently meant to be a code ofcatecheticalinstruction and ofmoralandliturgicallaw, its injunctions often take theformof little treatises and exhortations, amply supported byscripturaltexts and examples. Its elements are loosely combined without great regard for order orunity. It purports to be the work of theApostles, whose instructions, whether given by them asindividualsor as a body, are supposed to be gathered and handed down by the pretended compiler,St. Clement of Rome, the authority of whose name gave fictitious weight to more than one such piece of earlyChristianliterature. TheChurchseems never to have regarded this work as of undoubtedApostolicauthority. TheTrullan Councilin 692 rejected the work on account of the interpolations ofheretics. Only that portion of it to which has been given the name “Apostolic Canons” was received; but even the fifty of thesecanonswhich had then been accepted by theWestern Churchwere not regarded as ofcertainApostolicorigin. Whereknown, however, theApostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for muchecclesiasticallegislation. They are today of the highest value as anhistoricaldocument,revealingthemoralandreligiousconditionsand theliturgicalobservances of the third and fourth centuries

I still am learning about the apostolic succession and lack the knowledge to answer. Anyone on here who knows about this stuff?

 

[FireFromHeaven]

What he is saying goes beyond te apostolic teachings being fabricated. He is denying the most basic doctrine of our faith. How do we reply?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I still do not agree that Apostolic Succession and Papal Succession are mutually exclusive.

They’re not mutually exclusive. All Popes must have valid Apostolic succession (because all Bishops must have valid Apostolic succession, and the Pope is a Bishop).

It’s just that Papal succession is theologically meaningless. If we discovered that Linus really wasn’t the second Pope, nothing would change except the textbooks (and there would be no hurry to change those). Nothing in the Church is based on knowing the lineage of the Papacy. If we completely lost the list of Popes, and knew none but Peter, it would not matter one bit.

It’s quite evident that in the beginning they were quite closely connected, or are you suggesting that at the time of Peter and his immediate successor(s) there were many bishops to tend a small, persecuted community of Christians in Rome?

There’s no reason to believe that the early Roman Church had more than one Bishop (who, as Bishop of Rome, would also have been the Pope, and, of course, Apostolically ordained, just like the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Bishop of Crete, and the Bishop of Antioch, and every other Bishop).

My question is who did Peter appoint as his successor.

We don’t know how Peter’s successors were selected. They were probably named by Peter, but that’s speculation. They could have been elected by the Christians in Rome (some Popes were selected by popular election). They could have been appointed by other Bishops (which is how it is done today).

The method of selecting a Pope does not matter. The only thing that matters is that he is recognized by the Church as the Bishop of Rome.

I think the matters is as I suspected. Present day bishops do not have full list that links them to the Apostles. It probably goes without saying that I have to conclude that the link to the past has been severed.

Nope. The math still wins.

Even if each Bishop had such a list, there’s no way to validate it.

In Apostolic succession, it does not matter WHO your Consecrator is. His name is irrelevant. You might not even know his name (that would be weird, but perfectly OK). The only thing that matters is that he is Apostolically ordained himself. His identity and biography are irrelevant.

Thus far I have not seen any evidence that any bishop in history has had Apostolic Succession, therefore, it’s useless to start talking about what happened after Nicaea.

This guy’s a Muslim? Then I suppose he does not know about Timothy and Titus, who were ordained by Paul, and were both instructed to ordain other Bishops (and given a list of criteria by which potential Bishops could be evaluated). We don’t know the names of the Bishops who were ordained by Timothy and Titus (nor do we need to know).

If modern day bishops do not know their exact chain of succession going back to Peter, why would the bishops in 325 CE know it either?

Why would they need to know it at all?

They would only need to know it if there was any doubt. The only way that the line of succession could be invalid is if someone decided to pretend to be a Bishop, and that guy “ordained” others as bishop. That is the ONLY way. It is 100% foolproof unless somebody does that.

Nobody would have done any such thing before 313, because there was no motive for the deception. Being a Bishop before 313 was illegal, and carried the penalty of death.

Look at the names. There is practical no biography on these men. Who were they, really? That is a question mark.

It’s only a question of historical curiosity. It has no theological significance.

This same pattern happens with the Coptic Church.

And the Coptic Church is not any more bothered with it than the Roman Church (which is to say, not bothered at all).

 

[Robyn_p]

I just thought of something. The Quran says Jesus was a prophet right? But Mohammed also says that Christianity quickly became corrupted and distorted his message. However, Jesus predicted that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church, if the Church started distorting his teachings and promoting lies, I can confidently say that would qualify as the gates of hell prevailing.

So Muslims have a dilemma. Either Jesus was wrong, making him a false prophet, or Mohammed was wrong and the Church never apostasized. In either case the Quran gets something wrong. Because if Jesus made a false prophecy, that would make him a false prophet, contradicting the Quran. It’s not possible that Jesus can be a true prophet of Allah, yet make a false prophecy. They can’t have it both ways.:nope:

Of course, they could say the Gospels are corrupted, and Jesus never really said that, but then they are again faced with a dilemma of Mohammed recommending the Christian scriptures and saying they are valid, why would he say that if they were corrupted?
Surah 29:46:

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one;

Again, this makes Mohammed wrong about something. He can’t say that Jesus is a great prophet, the Christian Scriptures are also revealed by God…but Jesus made a false prophecy. The Christian Scriptures record Jesus prophesying his Church would never fail. If Jesus is a prophet, he couldn’t lie. Therefore his Church could not fall away. To say it did puts them in a rather awkward situation of saying one of God’s prophets got something wrong.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I just thought of something. The Quran says Jesus was a prophet right? But Mohammed also says that Christianity quickly became corrupted and distorted his message. However, Jesus predicted that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church, if the Church started distorting his teachings and promoting lies, I can confidently say that would qualify as the gates of hell prevailing.

So Muslims have a dilemma. Either Jesus was wrong, making him a false prophet, or Mohammed was wrong and the Church never apostasized. In either case the Quran gets something wrong. Because if Jesus made a false prophecy, that would make him a false prophet, contradicting the Quran. It’s not possible that Jesus can be a true prophet of Allah, yet make a false prophecy. They can’t have it both ways.:nope:

Of course, they could say the Gospels are corrupted, and Jesus never really said that, but then they are again faced with a dilemma of Mohammed recommending the Christian scriptures and saying they are valid, why would he say that if they were corrupted?

Again, this makes Mohammed wrong about something. He can’t say that Jesus is a great prophet, the Christian Scriptures are also revealed by God…but Jesus made a false prophecy. The Christian Scriptures record Jesus prophesying his Church would never fail. If Jesus is a prophet, he couldn’t lie. Therefore his Church could not fall away. To say it did puts them in a rather awkward situation of saying one of God’s prophets got something wrong.

More than likely they will say that we added that.

 

[Augustine3]

They’re not mutually exclusive. All Popes must have valid Apostolic succession (because all Bishops must have valid Apostolic succession, and the Pope is a Bishop).

It’s just that Papal succession is theologically meaningless. If we discovered that Linus really wasn’t the second Pope, nothing would change except the textbooks (and there would be no hurry to change those). Nothing in the Church is based on knowing the lineage of the Papacy. If we completely lost the list of Popes, and knew none but Peter, it would not matter one bit.

There’s no reason to believe that the early Roman Church had more than one Bishop (who, as Bishop of Rome, would also have been the Pope, and, of course, Apostolically ordained, just like the Bishop of Jerusalem and the Bishop of Crete, and the Bishop of Antioch, and every other Bishop).

We don’t know how Peter’s successors were selected. They were probably named by Peter, but that’s speculation. They could have been elected by the Christians in Rome (some Popes were selected by popular election). They could have been appointed by other Bishops (which is how it is done today).

The method of selecting a Pope does not matter. The only thing that matters is that he is recognized by the Church as the Bishop of Rome.

Nope. The math still wins.

Even if each Bishop had such a list, there’s no way to validate it.

In Apostolic succession, it does not matter WHO your Consecrator is. His name is irrelevant. You might not even know his name (that would be weird, but perfectly OK). The only thing that matters is that he is Apostolically ordained himself. His identity and biography are irrelevant.

This guy’s a Muslim? Then I suppose he does not know about Timothy and Titus, who were ordained by Paul, and were both instructed to ordain other Bishops (and given a list of criteria by which potential Bishops could be evaluated). We don’t know the names of the Bishops who were ordained by Timothy and Titus (nor do we need to know).

Why would they need to know it at all?

They would only need to know it if there was any doubt. The only way that the line of succession could be invalid is if someone decided to pretend to be a Bishop, and that guy “ordained” others as bishop. That is the ONLY way. It is 100% foolproof unless somebody does that.

Nobody would have done any such thing before 313, because there was no motive for the deception. Being a Bishop before 313 was illegal, and carried the penalty of death.

It’s only a question of historical curiosity. It has no theological significance.

And the Coptic Church is not any more bothered with it than the Roman Church (which is to say, not bothered at all).

Hi,

I’ve been chatting with this Muslim myself on the Islamic forum and it’s clear his Islamic belief presupposes the Catholic Church is “guilty until proven innocent”. One of the strengths of Islam is that they have an unbroken chain of narrations dealing with the Quran etc. This person is using this strength as a strategy against us. His strategy is if you can’t present an unbroken clear concise list of the apostles by worthy witnesses then you can’t prove there is an apostolic succession. Random Early Church Father writings are not a worthy source because even they conflict with the papal succession.

He affirms all we have is a Church that claims she descends from the apostles with no real hard evidence. The math fails if there was fraud rigjht from the start (so he says!).

Hey FireFromHeaven It’s RC Apologist from the Islamic forum!