non-Catholic proof of apostolic succession

[namax91]

That’s basically what I’m wondering. Is there any historical proof outside of Christianity of apostolic succession or of Jesus founding the Church?

 

[Kmon23]

The church of Antioch from Scripture still exists today. It is true there are 5 different churches today that have/claim succession (from schism etc., although three now recognize each other’s claims), and all 5 agree it is through apostolic succession that we have the living tradition of the early church.

 

[eamonnroma]

The church of Antioch from Scripture still exists today. It is true there are 5 different churches today that have/claim succession (from schism etc., although three now recognize each other’s claims), and all 5 agree it is through apostolic succession that we have the living tradition of the early church.

So the Church of Antioch is historically the Church found by Jesus?

 

[weller2]

That’s basically what I’m wondering. Is there any historical proof outside of Christianity of apostolic succession or of Jesus founding the Church?

The concept of apostolic succession has been introduced ca. 180AD by Iraeneus of Lyons. Among other things, he said he had met a man (Polycarp) who knew the Apostles:

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
2. **But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, ** and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[weller2]

Regarding non-Christian sources on Jesus starting the Church, you have Tacitus (106AD) who wrote the following concerning the events of 64AD in Rome:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

Josephus (94AD) also identified Jesus as the founder of the sect, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[John_Martin]

Read the Gospel of Matthew very carefully, and you will see nothing in that text that is written to you as the reader, such that you can claim participation in Christ because you took the author at his word. Nothing is there allowing participation.

If you want to participate in the Jesus of Matthew, the only clue Matthew reveals is a group of disciples who were told to go an make disciples, baptizing and teaching. You as a reader have to find a disciple if you want to be a part of Jesus, be baptized and be taught. The scripture itself points only to the disciples as the place to receive participation in God and in his Christ. Legitimate participation requires apostolic succession.

 

[commenter]

That’s basically what I’m wondering. Is there any historical proof outside of Christianity of apostolic succession or of Jesus founding the Church?

Christianity had opponents for the first 4 centuries, some of whose writings have survived. They gave a few different kinds of logical arguments against Christianity, as represented by the Catholic Church of their time. I am not aware of any who attacked apostolic succession, which was publicly claimed by Christians. In other words, they seemed to regard Christ, the apostles, and the leaders of the Church of their time, as all part of the same wrong system. I don’t know of any who claimed that the Church of their time was cut off from the apostles’ time, no contemporary writers (to my knowledge) said “Hey, you Christians had no bishops for generations, then reinvented it 50 years ago in 275 AD to try and boost your credibility”.

I think if they had evidence of a break, an interval with no succession possible, they would have pointed it out.

 

[Kmon23]

So the Church of Antioch is historically the Church found by Jesus?

Well Antioch was founded by one of the Apostles technically.
The Church in Rome could be considered a living church from Apostolic times.

 

[oldcelt]

Regarding non-Christian sources on Jesus starting the Church, you have Tacitus (106AD) who wrote the following concerning the events of 64AD in Rome:

Josephus (94AD) also identified Jesus as the founder of the sect, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Tacitus is probably the most reliable, because of his obviously negative view of the Christians. Josephus’ account may have been altered somewhat to make it sound more affirmative. However, that he referenced Jesus is virtually certain.

 

[Ignatius]

That’s basically what I’m wondering. Is there any historical proof outside of Christianity of apostolic succession or of Jesus founding the Church?

What do you mean outside of achristianity? Christ only founded one Church so The Church is the only one He founded. Why would a non-christian want to claim Christ as their founder and the Apoztles as their chief pastors? Would being founded by Christ on His Apostles not make them Christians?

 

[Ignatius]

Is there any historical proof outside of Christianity of apostolic succession or of Jesus founding the Church?

Yes, the Assyrian, Chaldean, Greek Orthodox, Coptic and all other Churches; in fact, with the exception of the Protestant churches that started in the 16th century, all of the churches that can trace their foundation back to the Apostles have valid Apostolic Succession and documentation of their lines of succession.

The Roman and Jewish writers of that period also attest to it.

 

[adamhovey1988]

The church of Antioch from Scripture still exists today. It is true there are 5 different churches today that have/claim succession (from schism etc., although three now recognize each other’s claims), and all 5 agree it is through apostolic succession that we have the living tradition of the early church.

That is actually where I was going. Good answer.