Petrine succession - how to defend

[crownofswords]

I was engaging a Christian on youtube who doesn’t believe in Petrine succession. I posted quotes from the Church Fathers (Clement and Irenaeus), gave a list of popes dating from Peter to the present and linked an article from the Called to Communion titled “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison.”

The following is his response:

Swords, I have read all of this. If you look closely at it, you’ll see my name peppered throughout. Called to Communion is, frankly, worse than sloppy history, in fact, it is not history at all, it is the same kind of wives tales you find in this video, and fortunately, Brandon Addison has addressed this thoroughly here: Triablogue: Brandon Addison’s Complete Response to “Called to Communion” regarding “the Nonexistent Early Papacy”. In short, he concludes, “[In the Called to Communion piece] Assertions take the place of arguments.” Nothing that Bryan Cross says comports with modern biblical history, and everything that Brandon Addison says is based on not only historical consensus, but historical complete agreement.

As far as the idea of “Petrine apostolic succession”, see Triablogue: Kruger vs Ratzinger 2: “Apostolic Succession” is the adoption of a Second Century Gnostic Concept

The first and only usage of the concept of “a succession (διαδοχἡ) of teachers and instructors” [within the context of Christianity] prior to Irenaeus is found in the Gnostic Letter to Flora of the Gnostic teacher Ptolemaeus (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168). Von Campenhausen notes in a footnote, “this is the only pre-Irenaean attestation of that conception of παράδοσεις [tradition being handed on] which from now on is the determinative one” (von Campenhausen, 158).

Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (London: Black, 1969).

End quote.

The problem is, I’ve always used the Father’s as powerful evidence for Catholicism in the Early Church. This guy really knows his stuff and is the first Protestant I’ve had trouble answering.

I’m reluctant to make the Isaiah 22 reference as he probably knows it (and has a rebuttal in hand if I do bring it up). I’ll give it a shot if there is no good evidence.

If you’re wondering, this discussion was in the comment section of Fr. Mike’s “Why be Catholic and Not Just Christian.” I won’t give the person’s name here, but the discussion I had with him is 4 days old. My name on youtube is “Crown of Swords The Dragon Reborn.”

 

[AdamP88]

I wouldn’t bother getting into arguments on youtube of all places. You’re probably not going to convince him. At the end of the day though, the protestant narrative of the early Church is not historically accurate and not consistent with Scripture.

I reccomend Scott Hahn for information on how to refute protestant arguments.

 

[MT1926]

I wouldn’t waste your time with someone like this. He will nit pick the details to death while ignoring the plain and simple fact that Jesus started one Church with a hierarchical structure. To me that is the more important point to get across. Did Jesus start one Church with visible leaders? If so which Church is it? If not why would Jesus start a Church with no visible authority? I would also ask him to name one other institution that has lasted for 2000 years? Don’t you think the Church founded by Christ would be able to out survive any man made institution?

Some people are all brains and no common sense. Don’t waste your time, he will just continue to throw opinionated articles at you, that will take days upon days to research the arguments to discover they are just opinions.

If you really want an in depth understanding of this topic, get Steve Rays book “Upon this Rock”. I’m about 3 chapters in, it is a tough read (he has footnotes for every word he writes).

God Bless

 

[rcwitness]

I would search quotes by the Early Church Fathers and councils about the Bishop of Rome having succession from St. Peter.

I think Pope St Julius, St Jerome, and others offer a sound support for the intentions of our Lord to keep St Peter’s office as a very special place in the Church.

I also try to ask (without diverging from the topic) at what point was our Bible books known and how we are to uphold/defend our Canon of Scripture. We do not have a correct list of books in our Bible until at least after 367 AD!!! That’s pretty late in the age of the Church! We can find more support of Petrie succession prior to our Canon of Scripture!

 

[rcwitness]

The letters from Jerome to Damasus are examples of the primacy of the See of Peter:

“Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.”[19]

 

[PJM]

ITS REALLY very simple:

Get out the KJ Bible and READ
Mt 10:1-8 and then Mt 28:18-20;;; ISSUE settled

God Bless you
'Patrick

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here’s the thing. Brandon (Protestant) originally posted a guest article on Called To Communion. Then, Called To Communion responded to that whole article, point by point, refuting it all. Then Brandon set out to refute the rebuttal, but Brandon never got very far. There was no contest, the Catholic side demolished Brandon’s thesis, and Brandon & Co didn’t even address all the Biblical evidence.

Triablogue is a horrible place to visit. Discussion is impossible, especially once they sense you’re starting to beat them. John and Co have been beaten multiple times, and pretty badly. They hold the insane thesis that succession and archbishops were an invention after the year AD100 or so. This not only doesn’t leave much of a window, it means the Church went into full apostasy. The Council of Nicaea in AD325 was always supposed to be a sure sign of orthodoxy, yet the Council clearly testifies to sucession and archbishops of cities. Of course, these Protestants want nothing of this, but it’s quite amusing that they would even care about being Protestant at that point. If the early Church was in apostasy, then there’s nothing to “Reform”.

Simply ask him if the Council of Nicaea is true Christianity or not. If he says Yes, then he’s trapped. If he says No, then discussion is hopeless because then he’s beyond Protestant and into some strange completely ahistorical religion. The fun thing is when you start asking them what specifically they believe, they wont actually give you an answer and they prefer to hide behind generic claims. They attend “churches” that were made up by guys less than 50 years ago. I fondly remember when I talked with Brandon when this all happened, I was able to get him to deny his own Creed and he was fine doing so!

 

[Francis]

Jeremiah 3:15 I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.That is the Pope the Shepherd Psalm 12:6 The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. (Answer to Isaiah 22 )

Matthew 23:37
The Lament over Jerusalem ] “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
Matthew 16:16-18 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

PAPACY & APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
Primacy of Peter
• Mt 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
• Mt 16:19 – give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
• Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
• Jn 21:17 – given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
• Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
• Lk 24:34 – risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
• Acts 1:13-26 – headed meeting which elected Matthias
• Acts 2:14 – led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
• Acts 2:41 – received first converts
• Acts 3:6-7 – performed first miracle after Pentecost
• Acts 5:1-11 – inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
• Acts 8:21 – excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
• Acts 10:44-46 – received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
• Acts 15:7 – led first council in Jerusalem
• Acts 15:19 – pronounces first dogmatic decision
• Gal 1:18 – after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
• *Gal 2:11-14 – I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
• Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
• “Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
• Spoke for Apostles – Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
• Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

PETER & PAPACY Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13… Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle. Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29… Peter speaks for the apostles. Acts 3:6-7… Peter worked first healing. Acts 10:46-48… Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter. Jn 1:42… Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock). Mt 16:18-19… “on this Rock… keys of the Kingdom." Is 22:22; Rev 1:18 … keys as symbol of authority. Jn 21:17… “feed my sheep” Lk 22:31-32 … “strengthen your brethren.” “BROTHERS”

 

[Francis]

To crownofswords

Firstly not everything is written in the bible. John 21:24 says This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.Finally Only The Catholic Church has the sole right to interpret the scriptures and to correct errors Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son. 2 Timothy 3: 13 But wicked people and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving others and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, 15 and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.7
2 Peter 1:20-21 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

 

[commenter]

I am Catholic. To me, the canon of the New Testament seems like the strongest argument as to the necessity of a Petrine succession, at least through the 4th century. The Protestant argument has to assume

1. A “New Testament” ought to exist
2. The Hebrew scriptures were also inspired for Christians, and should be retained;

1. these 27 books were the only plausible books that could ever have been chosen for it.
   None of these are “obvious”. Sometimes Protestant scholars with the existing New Testament in their hands will work backwards, and find criteria for canonizing books, that more or less justifies these 27 books. The conclusion is that no single “authority” was needed, the early Christians simply needed to use our ex post facto criteria.

The problem, other than “why would they use our after the fact criteria?”, is that even given those criteria, many other books meet the criteria, and some of the 27 might not. So there had to be at least apostolic succession in place. But other groups like the gnostics might claim apostolic succession, too.

Some argue that the canon arose out of the Christian community. But then the gnostic Christians were part of the Christian community too. In any event, with our familiarity with committee processes, it would seem plausible that without a single person authority, the canon might have been 270 books. The fact that the canon is so tiny suggests a highly authoritative person and office was in charge.

 

[De_Maria]

I was engaging a Christian on youtube who doesn’t believe in Petrine succession. I posted quotes from the Church Fathers (Clement and Irenaeus), gave a list of popes dating from Peter to the present and linked an article from the Called to Communion titled “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison.”

The following is his response:

Well, let’s see.

Swords, I have read all of this. If you look closely at it, you’ll see my name peppered throughout.

So, if your name is on it, it can no longer be questioned? How does that work? Did someone somehow slip your name into the authoritative name of Popes?

Called to Communion is, frankly, worse than sloppy history, in fact, it is not history at all, it is the same kind of wives tales you find in this video, and fortunately, Brandon Addison has addressed this thoroughly here: Triablogue: Brandon Addison’s Complete Response to “Called to Communion” regarding “the Nonexistent Early Papacy”. In short, he concludes, “[In the Called to Communion piece] Assertions take the place of arguments.”

That sounds very much like an opinion. An assertion which has taken the place of an argument. And, you seem to be attacking all sorts of straw men, but you’re not dealing with my arguments.

Nothing that Bryan Cross says comports with modern biblical history, and everything that Brandon Addison says is based on not only historical consensus, but historical complete agreement.

As far as the idea of “Petrine apostolic succession”, see Triablogue: Kruger vs Ratzinger 2: “Apostolic Succession” is the adoption of a Second Century Gnostic Concept

You love to argue with websites. Can’t you formulate your own expressions and put them here. Or are you afraid I’ll just debunk them?

The first and only usage of the concept of “a succession (διαδοχἡ) of teachers and instructors” [within the context of Christianity] prior to Irenaeus is found in the Gnostic Letter to Flora of the Gnostic teacher Ptolemaeus (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168). Von Campenhausen notes in a footnote, “this is the only pre-Irenaean attestation of that conception of παράδοσεις [tradition being handed on] which from now on is the determinative one” (von Campenhausen, 158).

He’d be wrong. We can see the idea of succession mentioned a couple of times in the New Testament. See the following verses:

1 Corinthians 11:2
Acts 1:21-26
1 Timothy 1:6
1 Tim 4:14,
1 Timothy 5:22

And Jesus said:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Unless Jesus was going to give the gift of immortality to the folks that He instructed right then, the only way that this could be accomplished until the end of the world, requires Apostolic Succession.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The problem is, I’ve always used the Father’s as powerful evidence for Catholicism in the Early Church. This guy really knows his stuff and is the first Protestant I’ve had trouble answering.

You’re doing fine. Just break down his words by idea and turn his words against him.

I’m reluctant to make the Isaiah 22 reference as he probably knows it (and has a rebuttal in hand if I do bring it up). I’ll give it a shot if there is no good evidence.

Don’t be. Notice that he is only making assertions to deny your evidence. Make sure to point that out. And, I’m not a big fan of people sending me to read blogs, or webpages or to watch videos. Have him say what he wants to say, there, where you said it.

If you’re wondering, this discussion was in the comment section of Fr. Mike’s “Why be Catholic and Not Just Christian.” I won’t give the person’s name here, but the discussion I had with him is 4 days old. My name on youtube is “Crown of Swords The Dragon Reborn.”

[/QUOTE]
I used to post on Youtube. I’m too wordy for that little combox. Shucks! I’m too wordy for this one, too.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Petrine succession and primacy were well-established before the canon of your online friend’s New Testament was even settled. We have multiple lists of the bishops of Rome before the fourth century. Tertullian speaks of Peter ordaining Clement, who eventually became Pope after Linus and Cletus. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century mentions the 12 or so bishops of Rome from his day on back to Peter.

Even without the explicit testimony, let’s just be reasonable here for a second. Apostolic succession was a universal given in the early church. The earliest extra-biblical Christian writings speak of the Apostles ordaining men, and only these men are legitimate leaders because they come from the Apostles themselves. Igantius of Antioch in the early second century testifies to the threefold leadership structure of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Whereas early on, bishop (just meaning “overseer”) and presbyter (just meaning “elder”) were fluid terms, the distinct offices themselves were apparent from New Testament times, as certain pastors held the fullness of apostolic authority (i.e., the Apostles) as well as some of their associates held a distinct leadership position among other presbyters and were indeed authorized to appoint other elders and govern Christian communities (think Timothy and Titus in Ephesus and Crete, and then you have James in Jerusalem).

We should only expect Rome to also have a chain of bishops going back to the Apostles. And what do you know! All the evidence points to just that.

If the existence of monarchical bishops (one bishop as the shepherd of a region) were an innovation, you’d expect there to be an outcry. But there isn’t! In fact, apostolic succession and the leadership of bishops are some of the earliest and well-established Christian doctrines we know of.

Some try really, really hard to find some gap of time that there may have not been a bishop in Rome. The smarter ones know that they’re stuck with AD 150 and before in order to try to forge their reasoning, because it’s quite obvious that Rome has bishops after that, and the evidence is not as obvious before then. But why should that make us nervous? All Christian doctrines become more and more apparent as more expressions and writings become available. But all early Christians identify Clement of Rome, late first century, as its bishop. And all early lists of popes know who succeeded Peter. The evidence is on the Catholic side.