M
mcq72
Guest
I acknowledged this “replacement”. The reasoning was so that scripture might be fulfilled and Satan not have a specific victory with over what Christ chose.
and what do we call those successors?
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
Bishops! (Not sure why you think this helps your case, but I’m willing to listen…)
M
mcq72
Guest
No such presupposition. I have accepted your valid point. I do not want to then make presupposition that other cities where Ignatius cited their bishops by name were free or protected from any future persecution. That’s all.
M
mcq72
Guest
I just look at apostles as “apostles”, which is overseers, feeders, presbyters, missionaries. They did appoint presbyters and missionaries, but do not see appointment of a head presbyter over entire organization.
Peter probably appointed many presbyters and missionaries, but have no evidence of saying to one, here are the keys, you are top server and have jurisdiction over of all.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Except that apostolic succession, in and of itself, doesn’t deal with the existence or absence of petrine succession.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Paul certainly used the term ‘apostle’ in a wider sense. I don’t think it’s an invalid sense. I think Paul would agree that ‘apostle’ apples in each sense that you point out. However, I think that the context of Acts 1 shows a more focused sense of the word.
And, in terms of the way that we might discuss the authority and mission entrusted to the Twelve by Jesus, we can naturally talk about the difference between that ministry and the ministry of “feeders, presbyters, and missionaries”. So… call them all ‘apostles’, if you wish, but please be willing to note that the authority who creates the roles differs, and the authority vested in them differs!
Of course we do. We see, in historical documents, that Linus received that mission and authority! (Or… are you saying that the only valid source for establishing authority in the Church comes from the Bible? If so, be prepared to be asked where that assertion is established, and how denominations established 15 centuries later lay claim to that authority!)
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The fact that governors were okay with him meeting other Christians along the way proves this. This doesn’t happen in Rome.
G
Gorgias
Guest
If the apostles are empowered to establish and implement apostolic succession, why would they not be able to implement petrine succession?
D
dochawk
Guest
to flip that around, why would they?
We believe petrine succession to be established by Christ, not the apostles.
It’s just that establishing apostolic succession doesn’t establish petrine; you have to get there elsewise.
We believe petrine succession to be established by Christ, not the apostles.
It’s just that establishing apostolic succession doesn’t establish petrine; you have to get there elsewise.
M
mcq72
Guest
I personally feel he was an apostle like the other11, and that he was probably the Lord’s choice for replacing Judas.
M
mcq72
Guest
Well did Paul ordain Linus, or both Peter and Paul? Was their a head bishop in Rome, or a presbytery of bishops? Was Linus one of those bishops and was he chairman of the group, carrying some distinction yet equal to the others in said group? So which documents do we use, for each of these questions are raised by respective documents? And isn’t there a document that cites Clement as the 2nd bishop of Rome?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
So no one could visit Paul in prison at Rome?
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. Do we see that anywhere? That would be the Protestants’ protest: “if it’s not in the Bible, then it doesn’t exist.”
The Catholic claim would be that Jesus gave an unfettered divine proxy to Peter and the apostles to lead the Church. The historical fact that they established succession is merely evidence of the utilization of that proxy.
It’s called “apostolic authority”.
That’s a question for historians, although if you look at Ireneaus, you find that they claim that Peter and Paul set Linus in place.
There’s no evidence of such a ‘committee’, as such, as you are claiming, AFAIK.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Ignatius was who we were discussing.Julius_Caesar:
So no one could visit Paul in prison at Rome?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
How can there be “equality” if there is a chairman? That’s akin to Augustus’ first among equals.
Y
YADA
Guest
St Paul “did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days” … while there to visit “the Rock” he also “did not see any other apostle except James”
The text does not say Paul went to visit both Peter and James …
I recently went to see my three adult children, I also did not see any other friends except Dave and Amy.
The purpose of my travel was to see family -while there, I also saw some friends but not all of my friends, as there were some I did not see.
The text does not say Paul went to visit both Peter and James …
I recently went to see my three adult children, I also did not see any other friends except Dave and Amy.
The purpose of my travel was to see family -while there, I also saw some friends but not all of my friends, as there were some I did not see.
M
mcq72
Guest
Fair question. He is still a bishop, and not a king over them . He must judicate with them.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And we harmonize this with Acts which says Barnabas took him to meet the Apostles. Peter and James right?
So Paul did visit with both of them.
Y
YADA
Guest
Didn’t say there was no visit, just that Peter - Cephas- The Rock was the primary contact…James was also seen …
The use of Cephas- …not Simon or Simon Peter is noteworthy and the purpose for the trip … James is just another person who was there
The use of Cephas- …not Simon or Simon Peter is noteworthy and the purpose for the trip … James is just another person who was there
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Yet a chapter later, James is mentioned before Peter. James isn’t just another dude.
- Status