Petrine Theory, Apostolic Succession

[yqbd]

this newsletter just came out about John Paul II and the subject of Peter and Apostolic Succession.

what are the rc responses to what the author wrote?

biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_129.htm
scroll down, about more than half way to Petrine Theory and Apostolic Succession.

some quotes, though there is more there.

Apostolic Succession
A fatal blow to the Catholic view of the “Petrine Primacy,” is the lack of any New Testament support for the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic Church. If, according to the Catholic claim, Christ appointed Peter as His vicar to govern the church, then we would expect Peter to function as the leader of the Apostolic church. But this is hardly the case.

**Paul Did not View Peter as the Head of the Church. **Moreover, there are no indications that Paul viewed Peter as the leader of the church. We are told that when Peter went to Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). Paul’s action hardly suggests that Peter was recognized and respected as the infallible head of the church.

Origin of the Apostolic Succession Theory. The notion that Christ invested Peter with the authority to govern the church and that such an authority has been transmitted in an unbroken succession to his successor, is a pure Catholic fabrication devoid of biblical and historical support. It first appears in the writing of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (A. 175-195), who uses the argument of the apostolic succession to refute gnostic heretics. He argues that the gnostic teachings are heretical because they are rejected by those churches which can trace their apostolic pedigree (succession—Against the Heresies book 3).

**Missing Links in the Papal Successions. **The same hold true for the Bishop of Rome. Anyone familiar with the history of the papacy, knows how difficult it is even for the Catholic church to prove the unbroken succession from Peter to the present pope. There have been times when the papacy was in the hands of several corrupt Popes, who fought among themselves for the Papal throne. For example, in 1045 Pope Benedict IX was driven out of Rome by the people because of his unworthiness and Silvester II was placed on the Papal throne. Later Benedict IX returned and sold the Papal throne to a man who became Gregory VI.

 

[jimmy]

yqbd:

this newsletter just came out about John Paul II and the subject of Peter and Apostolic Succession.

what are the rc responses to what the author wrote?

biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_129.htm
scroll down, about more than half way to Petrine Theory and Apostolic Succession.

some quotes, though there is more there.

**Paul Did not View Peter as the Head of the Church. **Moreover, there are no indications that Paul viewed Peter as the leader of the church. We are told that when Peter went to Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). Paul’s action hardly suggests that Peter was recognized and respected as the infallible head of the church.

Peter did serve as the leader of the Church in the Bible. Look at Acts 15 where Paul went to Peter to see whether gentiles should be baptized. Peter said it was not necisary.

**Paul Did not View Peter as the Head of the Church. **Moreover, there are no indications that Paul viewed Peter as the leader of the church. We are told that when Peter went to Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). Paul’s action hardly suggests that Peter was recognized and respected as the infallible head of the church.

This is an old opposition that has been refuted thousands of times. The fact that Peter was corrected for his actions does not change that he was the leader of the Church. We are supposed to correct someone who is not acting according to what they teach, as Paul did with Peter. It is an error to associate this with Papal authority.

Origin of the Apostolic Succession Theory. The notion that Christ invested Peter with the authority to govern the church and that such an authority has been transmitted in an unbroken succession to his successor, is a pure Catholic fabrication devoid of biblical and historical support. It first appears in the writing of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (A. 175-195), who uses the argument of the apostolic succession to refute gnostic heretics. He argues that the gnostic teachings are heretical because they are rejected by those churches which can trace their apostolic pedigree (succession—Against the Heresies book 3).

What is the point of this arguement? It does not make any point. Yes, Irenaeus traced the Bishop of Rome from the apostles to the Bishop of Rome at his time. That is 13 of them. There are no Church Fathers that refute the idea of succession. The author of this article even shows one of the proofs.

If he is saying that is when apostloic succession began, it is a weak arguement. First of all, there could have been earlier lists. We certainly do not have all the writings of the early Christians. Second, the fact that Irenaeus gives the list means that there was succession of Bishops.

The author can deny history all he wants.

**Missing Links in the Papal Successions. **The same hold true for the Bishop of Rome. Anyone familiar with the history of the papacy, knows how difficult it is even for the Catholic church to prove the unbroken succession from Peter to the present pope. There have been times when the papacy was in the hands of several corrupt Popes, who fought among themselves for the Papal throne. For example, in 1045 Pope Benedict IX was driven out of Rome by the people because of his unworthiness and Silvester II was placed on the Papal throne. Later Benedict IX returned and sold the Papal throne to a man who became Gregory VI.

This has nothing to do with papal succession. It does not change that the bishops succeeded eachother.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

Peter did serve as the leader of the Church in the Bible. Look at Acts 15 where Paul went to Peter to see whether gentiles should be baptized. Peter said it was not necisary.

Well, that disposes of infallibility

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, that disposes of infallibility

You need to clarify that statement Fr.

 

[Aris]

yqbd:

this newsletter just came out about John Paul II and the subject of Peter and Apostolic Succession.

what are the rc responses to what the author wrote?

biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_129.htm
scroll down, about more than half way to Petrine Theory and Apostolic Succession.

some quotes, though there is more there.

DEAD HORSE

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The newsletter mentions several times the lack of biblical support. He is completely mistaken. Apart from the usual Matt 16, there is also the fact that he is the first mentioned, the first to speak at Pentecost, Christ’s Church is also prefigured in the Davidic kingdom that has 12 cabinet members with one being the prime minister. Those are just a few of the many examples. See this: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Of course it probably would not help to point these out because first an anti-Catholic will say there is no biblical support for any Catholic teaching, but when we do give biblical support they will accuse us of eisegesis or “reading into Scripture”. But you should probably point them out anyway because perhaps someday they will get tired of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, “la la la! I can’t hear you!”

Scott

 

[Aris]

Scott Waddell:

Of course it probably would not help to point these out because first an anti-Catholic will say there is no biblical support for any Catholic teaching, but when we do give biblical support they will accuse us of eisegesis or “reading into Scripture”. But you should probably point them out anyway because perhaps someday they will get tired of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling, “la la la! I can’t hear you!”

Scott

Scott that was so funny!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

jimmy:

You need to clarify that statement Fr.

It was said that Peter told Paul that gentiles did not need to be baptized !!!

 

[jimmy]

Fr Ambrose:

It was said that Peter told Paul that gentiles did not need to be baptized !!!

hahahaha, I did not realize what I said. I meant circumsized

 

[yqbd]

jimmy:

Peter did serve as the leader of the Church in the Bible. Look at Acts 15 where Paul went to Peter to see whether gentiles should be baptized. Peter said it was not necisary.

This is an old opposition that has been refuted thousands of times. The fact that Peter was corrected for his actions does not change that he was the leader of the Church. We are supposed to correct someone who is not acting according to what they teach, as Paul did with Peter. It is an error to associate this with Papal authority.

thank you for your response. here’s the rest of that quote and some that was before it where the author talks about Acts 15. would you mind responding on that part also?

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_129.htm:

Apostolic Succession

A fatal blow to the Catholic view of the “Petrine Primacy,” is the lack of any New Testament support for the primacy of Peter in the Apostolic Church. If, according to the Catholic claim, Christ appointed Peter as His vicar to govern the church, then we would expect Peter to function as the leader of the Apostolic church. But this is hardly the case.

For example, there are no indications that Peter ever served as the presiding officer of the Jerusalem church. The organizational structure of the Jerusalem Church is characterized as collegiality with a presidency. But there are no indications that Peter ever served as the presiding officer of the church. At the Jerusalem Council, it was James, not Peter, who presided in the deliberations (Act 15:13).

Furthermore, the ultimate authority of the Jerusalem Church resided, not with Peter, but with the apostles, who were later replaced by “elders.” For example, it was “the apostles” who sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to check on the new Christian communities. Had Peter been the leader of the apostolic church, he would have counseled the apostles to send him to Samaria, rather than being told by the apostles to go there.

It was the “apostles” who sent Barnabas to Antioch (Acts 11:22). It was “the apostles and the elders” who sent Judas and Silas to Antioch (15:22-27). It was “James and the elders” who advised Paul to undergo a rite of purification at the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24). Had Peter been appointed by Christ to serve as the Head of the Church, he would have played a distinctive leadership role in the decisions mentioned above.

**Paul Did not View Peter as the Head of the Church. **Moreover, there are no indications that Paul viewed Peter as the leader of the church. We are told that when Peter went to Antioch, Paul “opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). Paul’s action hardly suggests that Peter was recognized and respected as the infallible head of the church.

Furthermore, Paul refers to the “pillars” of the Apostolic Church as being “James, Cephas, and John” (Gal 2:9). The fact that “James,” the Lord’s brother, is mentioned before “Cephas,” the Aramaic for of “Peter,” indicates that James, rather than Peter, served as the leader of the church. Had the apostles understood that Christ had appointed Peter to serve as the Head of the church, they would have entrusted to him the leadership of the church. But the fact is that Peter is never seen in the NT as the sole or chief leader of the Apostolic Church.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

This guy is clearly an anti-Catholic troll who believes the Church is the antichrist :yawn: . I would suggest avoiding all of his threads and not letting him bait you into his “arguments.”

 

[michaelgazin]

As has already been said, these are the same arguments that have been brought up for the past 400 years. The Catholic Church is still kickin, so they must have some good answers. You should read professional articles by Catholics on the same subject before posting here. You may find your answer quicker that way. For example, click on every link here:
catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Do a search on Catholic.com homepage for apostolic succession, peter’s primacy etc.

Peace,
Michael

 

[hlgomez]

SAME OLD LIES, YAQUBOS.:yawn:

Pio

 

[Tom]

There was no Apostolic succession!!! Oh wait… if there was no Apostolic succession then the New Testament isn’t the Word of God!!! The original Apostles did NOT write most of the New Testament. So we need to edit the New Testament (in the same way the protestors attempt to edit the Old) by eliminating all of the writings of Luke, Paul, Mark, heck very little of the NT was written by the original Apostles.

 

[Mad_Amos]

Galatians 1:18

From the NAB: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days”.

Paul may have exercised his obligation in admonishing sin when he rebuked Peter’s behavior among the Jewish people, but he also seemed to have absolutely no problem in seeking his counsel.

Ultimately, however, even the above is insufficient “proof” for asserting definitively what the Church understands and infallibly teaches concerning Peter. Verses can be exchanged ad infinitum with neither side ever gaining anything in the way of true understanding, particularly when the practice is conducted with little or no reference to context.

Regardless of what any detractor of our spiritual heritage may claim, our belief in Petrine primacy stems not from the writings of ancient Christians or even some ad hominem verse, but rather from the words of the Savior that have spoken to us down through the ages: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”. These are the very words of God Himself; we simply require no other. No amount of disingenuous exegetical discourse can or will change that, and it is invariably a dangerous and fruitless exercise to attempt to do so. True eisegetical abuse becomes evident in the myriad attempts to undermine the real meaning of the title conferred upon Symeon or even the antecedent for the “rock” to which Our Lord referred in Matthew 16:18.

The evangelicals of this world would do well to understand and remember one thing very clearly. There are no words ever spoken - neither those of Irenaeus nor even of Paul - that can trump the words of God Himself.

 

[LtTony]

**“Well, that disposes of infallibility” **

Fr Ambrose:
Please elaborate.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[LtTony]

**“Well, that disposes of infallibility” **

Fr Ambrose:
Please elaborate.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[LtTony]

Scott PGH "This guy is clearly an anti-Catholic troll who believes the Church is the antichrist. I would suggest avoiding all of his threads and not letting him bait you into his “arguments.”
Scott, your advise is sound. But at least now he’s being a bit more honest about it. Jesus is not the the topic with ybdq. For ybdq, it is all about him; him being right. I’ve told him that he spends more time being anti-Catholic than he does being pro-Christian. I’m guessing him to be very young, so there is hope.

So OK, junior…

"…pure Catholic fabrication devoid of biblical and historical support…"
Wow, devoid is a pretty exclusive word. Like none, zero, zip. Fabrication is also a very strong word. The person making allegations containing those words could easily back themself into a corner. I mean, he has turned it into a right or wrong issue where there is no room for grey or civil discourse. I mean, if he’s wrong, he’s dead not just wounded.
I would have chosen “contentious” or “in dispute” to better characterize the disagreements. But that’s just me. I’m not a whack with a hate-filled website.
When someone uses a phrase like “absolutely devoid” I place them on the fringe. You know, like “never say never.” Never.

Look, even many Protestant theologins would tell you reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.

I am irritated yet amused by the neophytes who run over here, thinking they are clever. That they have found a chink in the Church’s armour. Something that theologins for the past 500 years had never argued nor had we Catholics even considered the 1500 years prior to that. But when it is more about “a man” proving he is right – and more importantly, proving somebody else is wrong – it can make sense I suppose.

Maybe this will help. I truely hope so…

1 Cor, 12
4 As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ.
13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.

14 Now the body is not a single part, but many.
15 If a foot should say, “Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
16 Or if an ear should say, “Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,” it does not for this reason belong any less to the body.
17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

18 But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended.19 If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20 But as it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I do not need you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I do not need you.”
22 Indeed, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are all the more necessary, 23 and those parts of the body that we consider less honorable we surround with greater honor, and our less presentable parts are treated with greater propriety, 24
whereas our more presentable parts do not need this. But God has so constructed the body as to give greater honor to a part that is without it, 25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.

26 If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. 27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.

Amen

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

**“Well, that disposes of infallibility” **

Fr Ambrose:
Please elaborate.

Jump back up to Message # 8 and also # 9