Succession of Bishops

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDHallKY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An important witness to the Catholicity of the 2nd and 3rd century Christians is Eusebius in his “Church History”. You said in an earlier post that you didn’t think Eusebius sounded Catholic. But then he verifies the apostolic succession of the Bishops of Rome in the “Church History”. I don’t see how he could be believed to have been anything else. He validates the fidelity to the Catholic Church of many of the early Church Fathers, too. So by going through that list, one can continue to add to the list of proven Catholics in the early centuries.

Before I give quotes from Eusebius, though, I wanted to state that there was no such thing as “other Christians” before the Great Schism (usually dated at 1054 A.D.) So, for the first 1,000 years you had the Christian Church which was the Catholic Church and then you had various heretical groups which were documented by the Church in such works as “Against Heresies” by St. Irenaeus.

Now, I am sure you will say, “Oh, but those were Christians and they were probably the real Christians and they were probably suppressed and their history erased by the Catholic Church in 313 A.D.” But using the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, it can be proven that the Church founded by Christ was, is, and always has been the Catholic Church. Anyone teaching in contradiction to that Church was teaching heresy. This is supported by the Bible which warns us not to believe false prophets who teach in opposition to the faith given to the Church.

Now to Eusebius:

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.’” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

Firstly, Eusebius establishes that the Church founded at Rome is *the *Church. He also confirms the existence of the “Bishop of Rome” (a title of all Popes). Perhaps most interesting of all is that he confirms that Peter’s remains were buried at the Vatican property/area. In fact, excavations of first century catacombs under the Vatican in the 20th century found the bones of what are believed to be St. Peter. If that is the case, which I believe it is, Jesus Christ’s promise is fulfilled in another most amazing way. The Church (the physical central church - the Vatican) is literally built on Peter.

More Eusebius:

“Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: ‘And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” *Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, 4:22 (A.D. 180). *

So, now we have confirmed that the foundations of *the *Church were laid at Rome and we have confirmed the names of some of those Bishops of Rome.

And then look at the opening of Eusebius’ Church History:

It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to give the names and number and times of those who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and, proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge falsely so-called [cf. 1 Timothy 6:20], have like fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.
 
“Soter, bishop of the church of Rome, died after an episcopate of eight years, and was succeeded by Eleutherus, the twelfth from the apostles.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V)

So, here Eusebius confirms the belief in apostolic succession in the earliest centuries and he confirms again that the Bishop of Rome legitimately receives this succession. (Now, whether or not you believe in apostolic succession, there is no doubt that Eusebius is describing Catholicism here).

"The same witnesses also recommended Irenaeus, who was already at that time a presbyter of the parish of Lyons, to the above-mentioned bishop of Rome, saying many favorable things in regard to him, as the following extract shows: 2. “We pray, father Eleutherus, that you may rejoice in God in all things and always. We have requested our brother and comrade Irenaeus to carry this letter to you, and we ask you to hold him in esteem, as zealous for the covenant of Christ. For if we thought that office could confer righteousness upon any one, we should commend him among the first as a presbyter of the church, which is his position.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V)

Here St. Irenaeus is confirmed to be of the Church.

Continuing with Eusebius:

But let any one treat these things as he chooses; we must pass on to what followed. Pothinus having died with the other martyrs in Gaul at ninety years of age, Irenaeus succeeded him in the episcopate of the church at Lyons. We have learned that, in his youth, he was a hearer of Polycarp. In the third book of his work Against Heresies he has inserted a list of the bishops of Rome, bringing it down as far as Eleutherus , under whom he composed his work. He writes as follows:

Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome

“The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 2. Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles.” A little farther on he says:

Evarestus succeeded Clement, and Alexander, Evarestus. Then** Xystus**, the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After him Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then Hyginus; then Pius; and after him Anicetus; Soter succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus holds the office of bishop. In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us.” (Eusebius, Church History, Book V)

What Eusebius has done here is confirm that the Church whose foundations were laid in Rome by Peter and Paul is the Church.

After we have confirmed the central location of authority for the true Church to be Rome, we confirm that Peter is buried in the area of the Vatican and that Peter, as Bishop of Rome, had successors. Here, too, is the confirmation that the true Church taught the doctrine of apostolic successsion. Now having a beginning list of names of early Christians, it is possible to go to those quotes from these men and find, that not only were they members of a Church that had as its foundation Rome but that their teachings on the Real Presence, the Regenerative aspect of Baptism, the Sacrifice of the Mass and other Catholic teachings were all right there from the beginning.

The entire “Church History” by Eusebius is here, by the way:

newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm
 
Odell,
Those “many churches” were in some cases divergent from the Apostles’ teaching, that’s why Paul wrote so many letters rebuking them. That’s why Jesus rebuked them in Rev. 2-3

But, they were for the most part in agreement that the “true church” was spiritual and not a physical heirarchy.
Are you telling me that the apostles did not believe in a hierarchy at all? Espcially after acknowleging that Paul just rebuked some who probly considered to be part of the true Chruch themselves. Did Paul have any authority to do this? Ithought theres no herarchy?

Pleses show me that there was no hirarchy from the bible.
What binds the “true church” together is the Holy Spirit… that Holy Spirit is perfect. Yes, it is the body of Christ, and Christ who is God (the Holy Spirit) is what that Church consists of.
Your not telling me anything I dont already know but thanks anyway.

You also just said that the Holy Spirit binds the true Church. And we believe that to. But you believe that the same Holy Sprit binds the church down the street that believes somthing differnt than you. So great the Holy Spriit binds two different beliefs in the same Church. One teaches that the Holy Spirit guided them to say somthing different than what the other had the Holy Spirit guid him to say. But they are binded together in the same Chruch by the same Holy Spirit. RIGHT!

Hey dosnt the bible say that the True Church is One in mind one in Spirit same fath same flock same fold. Just wondering.
I am not the church, and I have never claimed to be the church, I am part of the Church, which is IN CHRIST. Jesus said He is the truth, so no, the truth does not change and what is sin does not change. But some of the members of the “true church” do not understand what that truth is, and none of us understand the truth completely.
Would you say that some of the prechers of the one Church dont know what that truth is would there not be a possibility that they will teach error then. Where then would the members turn to? especially if they are independent. If my priest preached somthing that I thought was wrong I can go to the Chruch as a whole and see what it teaches. Where do your members go? The bible does say that the Church is the upholder and defender of truth (1Tim3:15) How do your members go to it for truth if it is a invisible chruch? And they cant for sure get the truth from you because you are fallible.
 
It is unacceptable to say that the Church was spiritual for several reasons but one is the fact of Paul and James writing to the communities rebuking them. The apostles had authority over these communities.
 
Since I am an “Independent Baptist”…
The term Independent Baptist was applied in the late 1800s and early 1900s when national Baptist denominations and conventions in the United States and England started modernising and liberalising.
 
Your response makes absolutely no sense. This is classic Orwellian doublethink. You can’t claim that the Papacy is both an invention of the Catholic Church and at the same time has never existed.

The question is not whether or not you believe the Pope has a valid claim as successor to Peter. The question is, who was the first Catholic Pope?

So I will ask you again, who was the first Catholic Pope?
Notice how John has not adequately responded to this…he’s dancing…
P7
 
Sean Boyle,

My belief, and my doctrine is not based on a protest of the Catholic Church, it is based on Pauline doctrine that I saw well before I was aware of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Therefore I am not “anti-catholic”, but “pro-truth”.

www.gideonsword.net
Pauline doctrine…so you are saying that you are “of Paul” in your traditions. Didn’t Paul himself warn the Corinthians agianst such nonsense in 1Cor. Odd use of the of teminology I must say. I thought you were here of truth??..
 
Eden,
Now, I am sure you will say, “Oh, but those were Christians and they were probably the real Christians and they were probably suppressed and their history erased by the Catholic Church in 313 A.D.” But using the testimony of the Early Church Fathers, it can be proven that the Church founded by Christ was, is, and always has been the Catholic Church. Anyone teaching in contradiction to that Church was teaching heresy. This is supported by the Bible which warns us not to believe false prophets who teach in opposition to the faith given to the Church.
You have just added to the scripture. The designation of the “faith given to the church” is not specified in 1 Peter 2.

The only thing you did in any of your previous prolix, was to prove that the Catholic Church has resisted those who would not conform to them… is that all you have? I have been saying the same thing.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Notice how John has not adequately responded to this…he’s dancing…
P7
Indeed. He dances around questions quite a bit, which I’m sure does not go unnoticed by any serious seekers who may be following this thread.
 
Eden,

You have just added to the scripture. The designation of the “faith given to the church” is not specified in 1 Peter 2.
That’s a weak answer.

You stated earlier that you did not believe Eusebius or the Christians that he described in the 2nd and 3rd centuries to be Catholic. And I proved, using Eusebius’ work, that you are wrong.
The only thing you did in your previous prolix , was to prove that the Catholic Church has resisted those who would not conform to them.
So, are you saying that you do not “resist” those who do not conform to your interpretation of the Bible? Well, why didn’t you say so before? I see, so in your Independent Baptist church, you personally believe that infant baptism is the badge of the Anti-Christ. But this is just a personal choice. So, other members of your church are free to be “non-conformists” and have their infants baptised, even by pouring? Is that true of drinking alcohol, too? Are members of your church allowed to have wine instead of grape juice because they don’t want to conform to the use of Welch’s? That’s very enlightening. I’ve never heard of a religious community that did not expect it’s members to conform to their teachings. Do you accept members into your community who do not conform to the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, too?
 
(2 Pet. 1: 20-21 KJV)
**Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. **
**{21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: **
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
 
Eden,
Notice how John has not adequately responded to this…he’s dancing…
P7
Indeed. He dances around questions quite a bit, which I’m sure does not go unnoticed by any serious seekers who may be following this thread.
What purpose could you have for asking me who the first Pope was? Since answering that question would essentially be a confirmation of the papacy in some form, and subsequently a validation of apostolic succession.

Although there is clearly a leader of the Catholic institution, there is no “Pope” of the Apostolic sort. God never ordained Apostolic succession.

As far as who was the first recognizable leader of the Catholic institution… In my opinion? That would have to be Augustine… The Catholic church as we know it today as a metamorphasis from Metropolitans to the “Mother church” occurred about the same time as Augustine. And since he formed much of the doctrine of Catholicism in his writings.

I’m sure you will have a different answer. But that’s OK.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Eden,
So, are you saying that you do not “resist” those who do not conform to your interpretation of the Bible? Well, why didn’t you say so before? I see, so in your Independent Baptist church,
I didn’t say that the Catholic church was wrong in acting on their convictions to resist fellowship with those they deemed to heretics. We need more convictions these days.

But what I said, was that your statement of a historical document that showed the Catholics were against others, does not prove that the Catholics were right. Neither does it prove that the other sects were wrong… It only proves that there were contrary belief systems.

How do you get out of that, that I said it was ok to conform to whatever liberalism you want to in the local church?

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Eden,
(2 Pet. 1: 20-21 KJV)
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
{21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
This is not levelled against the right of private judgment of Scripture; or to be understood as if a private believer hasn’t got a right of reading, searching, examining, and judging, and interpreting the Scriptures himself, by virtue of the unction which teacheth all things; and who, as a spiritual man, judgeth all things… otherwise, why are such commended as doing well, by taking heed to prophecy, in the preceding verse, and this given as a reason to encourage them to do it?

These words could be rendered, “of one’s own interpretation”… that is, such as a natural man forms of himself, by the mere force of natural thinking and wisdom, without the assistance of the Spirit of God; and which is done without comparing spiritual things with spiritual… and which is not agreeably to the Scripture, to the analogy of faith, and mind of Christ.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Eden,
He dances around questions quite a bit, which I’m sure does not go unnoticed by any serious seekers who may be following this thread.
Another feeble attempt to discredit me for the benefit of reinforcing your untruths to those seekers…

This is exactly what I stated in a post on the “Baptism… and the true church” thread.

When you make statements like this, I will continue to expose them for what they are… feeble attempts to influence those “seekers” to neglect the truth that I write.

John
www.gideonsword.net
 
Eden,

Another feeble attempt to discredit me for the benefit of reinforcing your untruths to those seekers…

This is exactly what I stated in a post on the “Baptism… and the true church” thread.

When you make statements like this, I will continue to expose them for what they are… feeble attempts to influence those “seekers” to neglect the truth that I write.

John
www.gideonsword.net
Lots of pride in your responses, little, if any substance. Here is a hint for you, your opinions as a fallible person don’t count towards substance or truth.
 
Another feeble attempt to discredit me for the benefit of reinforcing your untruths
A hypocrite, hunting after the glory that comes from an apparent righteousness, is untroubled so long as he thinks that he escapes notice. But when he is detected, he utters streams of imprecation, imagining that by abusing others he can hide his own deformity.
St. Maximos the Confessor (First Century on Theology no. 23)
 
Eden,

Another feeble attempt to discredit me for the benefit of reinforcing your untruths to those seekers…

This is exactly what I stated in a post on the “Baptism… and the true church” thread.

When you make statements like this, I will continue to expose them for what they are… feeble attempts to influence those “seekers” to neglect the truth that I write.

John
www.gideonsword.net
John, I don’t see anyone here trying to discredit you, or insult you, or any of the like. What I simply see is that you seem sooooooo concrete in the conviction that you hold that you are willing to deny even history itself to make your claim and make it somehow true…I mean come on…there were NO POPES? Dude…please…that’s like saying that there were no German Leaders or something…like you would rightfully reject Hitler and what he stood for but you cannot deny history and say that Germany had no Chancellor in the 1930’s and 40’s. It’s the same principle here. You can reject the Pope, but you can’t come out and say there WERE no popes. I understand that to you to even acknowledge their office or their title would be to admit apostolic succession…fine, I got that, but like I showed by the example of Hitler…dude…don’t deny history for the sake of your own theology…that would be dishonest…more to you than to anyone else.
If you don’t believe in the Pope, then okay, but it doesn’t hurt to say that there has been popes period, okay?
P7
 
Eden,

Another feeble attempt to discredit me for the benefit of reinforcing your untruths to those seekers…

This is exactly what I stated in a post on the “Baptism… and the true church” thread.

When you make statements like this, I will continue to expose them for what they are… feeble attempts to influence those “seekers” to neglect the truth that I write.

John
www.gideonsword.net
John, I don’t see anyone here trying to discredit you, or insult you, or any of the like. What I simply see is that you seem sooooooo concrete in the conviction that you hold that you are willing to deny even history itself to make your claim and make it somehow true…I mean come on…there were NO POPES? Dude…please…that’s like saying that there were no German Leaders or something…like you would rightfully reject Hitler and what he stood for but you cannot deny history and say that Germany had no Chancellor in the 1930’s and 40’s. It’s the same principle here. You can reject the Pope, but you can’t come out and say there WERE no popes. I understand that to you to even acknowledge their office or their title would be to admit apostolic succession…fine, I got that, but like I showed by the example of Hitler…dude…don’t deny history for the sake of your own theology…that would be dishonest…more to you than to anyone else.
If you don’t believe in the Pope, then okay, but it doesn’t hurt to say that there has been popes period, okay?
P7
 
Eden,

Another feeble attempt to discredit me for the benefit of reinforcing your untruths to those seekers…

This is exactly what I stated in a post on the “Baptism… and the true church” thread.

When you make statements like this, I will continue to expose them for what they are… feeble attempts to influence those “seekers” to neglect the truth that I write.

John
www.gideonsword.net
Since you stated recently that you do not like to read long posts, I will just give a short list of the topics that you have danced around:
  1. Who was the first Catholic Pope?
  2. Were the 32 Popes before Constantine Catholic?
  3. Where did the Baptist bible canon come from?
  4. Was Eusebius describing the Catholic Church in his “Church History” and does his description of the Church with foundations at Rome not illustrate that he was, in fact, Catholic?
  5. Noted redirection: On the topic of how the Pope defines moral theology, when the subject of abortion was brought up and I talked about abortion always being anti-Christian, the topic was immediately dropped. (That’s because the Baptist position on abortion does not have a pretty history, which I’m sure John would like to avoid discussing.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top