Quick question re: apostolic succession

[Jack_245814]

Where’s the scriptural backing for the apostles being able to pass on their apostolic succession? I know it’s there, I just can’t remember the reference. Is it the “laying-on-of-hands” sections, when the apostles imparted the power of the apostles to St. Titus and St. Timothy and all the rest? Or is that something different?

And, assuming that, what was the scriptural backing for the proper “heir of St. Peter” being found as the duly appointed successor in the city that he died in? Or does that belief rely more on Oral Tradition which can be defended through patristics more than anything else?

 

[Church_Militant]

That would be something that I quoted today on an a-C forum, (against my better judgement).

Look here at Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

 

[Jack_245814]

Gotcha, that makes sense: if the apostles were able to impart full apostolic authority on a non-apostle, then that new-apostle would be able to pass it on himself, having full apostolic authority. The laying on of hands is pretty heavily attested to, as is the primacy of Peter.

That said, how do we know which bishops are “Peter’s bishops”? Why does the city the apostle dies in control who his “heirs” are? St. Peter himself didn’t impose his hands on his successors necessarily (though that’s possible: one of the Church Fathers says that Peter chose his immediate successors), and even if he did, we choose our popes after the previous one dies. I know there’s very strong patristic evidence for this, I’m just having trouble finding anything scriptural about it.

I am a Catholic, just asking about this stuff out of curiosity. It’d be perfectly fine by me if the doctrine of “who is the heir of St. Peter?” is based purely on the Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles.

 

[LilyM]

Gotcha, that makes sense: if the apostles were able to impart full apostolic authority on a non-apostle, then that new-apostle would be able to pass it on himself, having full apostolic authority. The laying on of hands is pretty heavily attested to, as is the primacy of Peter.

That said, how do we know which bishops are “Peter’s bishops”? Why does the city the apostle dies in control who his “heirs” are? St. Peter himself didn’t impose his hands on his successors necessarily (though that’s possible: one of the Church Fathers says that Peter chose his immediate successors), and even if he did, we choose our popes after the previous one dies. I know there’s very strong patristic evidence for this, I’m just having trouble finding anything scriptural about it.

I am a Catholic, just asking about this stuff out of curiosity. It’d be perfectly fine by me if the doctrine of “who is the heir of St. Peter?” is based purely on the Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles.

No Pope DOES directly appoint his successor, no. The successor is chosen by election (guided by prayer and the Holy Spirit) by his brother cardinal-bishops (themselves successors of the Apostles and themselves sharing in the power to bind and loose) after his death, just as the successor of Judas was chosen by lots (guided by prayer and the Holy Spirit) by the remaining eleven after HIS death. Make sense?

 

[Church_Militant]

Gotcha, that makes sense: if the apostles were able to impart full apostolic authority on a non-apostle, then that new-apostle would be able to pass it on himself, having full apostolic authority. The laying on of hands is pretty heavily attested to, as is the primacy of Peter.

That said, how do we know which bishops are “Peter’s bishops”?

Never really heard that before. Essentially, (and this also comes out in that letter from Ignatius that I cited in my blog article) if there was an apostle close by when a bishop was martyred then he seems to have stopped there to help them ordain another from among them, otherwise the elders, (read that priests) looked to the nearest bishop or else they were told to pick someone of good repute from among themselves. Persecution for the first 300+ years made it complex.

Why does the city the apostle dies in control who his “heirs” are?

Here again, they promoted from within, and this is something that you will discover more of as you read through the New Testament. I suspect that the equivalent today would be a diocesan priest etc.

St. Peter himself didn’t impose his hands on his successors necessarily (though that’s possible: one of the Church Fathers says that Peter chose his immediate successors), and even if he did, we choose our popes after the previous one dies.

A good point, but even today they are chosen from those Cardinals who are already servants of the church, and the Pope does appoint them. That apostolic succession follows from Pope to Pope and the bishops of his time.

I know there’s very strong patristic evidence for this, I’m just having trouble finding anything scriptural about it.

Well, one has to remember that because we are not Sola Scriptura Christians, we get our divine revelation from 3 sources, Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterial teaching of the church, so that patristic teaching you refer to is actually enough.

I am a Catholic, just asking about this stuff out of curiosity. It’d be perfectly fine by me if the doctrine of “who is the heir of St. Peter?” is based purely on the Sacred Oral Tradition of the apostles.

No problem. I hope that this has been helpful.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

That would be something that I quoted today on an a-C forum, (against my better judgement).

Look here at Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

This supports “Succession in Office”, the “Laying on of Hands” is Succession in Holy Orders.

Look to Clements first letter for a continuation of this. Paragraph 40 something.

 

[Church_Militant]

This supports “Succession in Office”, the “Laying on of Hands” is Succession in Holy Orders.

Look to Clements first letter for a continuation of this. Paragraph 40 something.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/COOL.gif Thanks Bro Rich!