What is wrong with Apostolic Succession? Isn’t it an important aspect of Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.americaiscool.com/images/lds-jesus-apostles.jpg
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
Click to expand...
Linked Biblical Sources

(continued)

1 Timothy 3:1
1 Timothy 4:14
1 Timothy 5:22
2 Timothy 1:6 cf. 2 Timothy 1:1-8.
2 Timothy 4:1-6
Titus 1:7
1 Peter 2:25
1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17
John 6:70
John 6:70
John 14:26, 16:18
Ephesians 2:19,20
Ephesians 2:20
Ephesians 4:11,12
Philippians 4:3
Mark 6:13
Mark 6:30
1 Timothy 3:1
1 Timothy 4:14
1 Timothy 5:22
2 Timothy 1:6 cf. 2 Timothy 1:1-8.
2 Timothy 4:1-6
Titus 1:7

FATHERS KNOW BEST

Scripture & Tradition
Apostolic Tradition

Church & Papacy
Apostolic Succession
The Authority of the Pope Part 1
The Authority of the Pope Part 2
Origins of Peter as Pope
Peter’s Primacy
Peter’s Roman Residency
Peter’s Successors

Source -Catholic Answers Library
 
Peter_J said:
?

I would have thought that was something we agreed upon.

In the early Church, there was at first only the office of Bishop. Then the Bishops appointed Deacons (“It is not right for us to neglect the Word of God to wait on tables”, etc.) Later still, the office of Priest (or, more precisely, Priests who aren’t Bishops) was established.

Or looking at it another way, at first all Priests were Bishops. Later on, some Priests were Bishops and some Priests were not Bishops.
Click to expand...
When I say “specific office” I mean “distinguishable from the office of presbyter”.

I think we agree that the separate office of Bishop developed post-biblically. We may not agree, but it’s what I believe anyway.

If I am right then it means that the office developed as a practical necessity but not by divine mandate. This would mean that it can be changed when the causes that necessitated it no longer exist, or even when better solutions are found.

I am not arguing for repristination, I am just saying that if the specific office of Bishop is a historical development, in order for the Catholic idea of succession to be indisputible, it would have to be shown that God clearly intended it and somewhere defined it as universal, enduring and binding.

And if this cannot be shown, it certainly ought not be assumed.
 
Steadfast said:
When I say “specific office” I mean “distinguishable from the office of presbyter”.

I think we agree that the separate office of Bishop developed post-biblically. We may not agree, but it’s what I believe anyway.

If I am right then it means that the office developed as a practical necessity but not by divine mandate. This would mean that it can be changed when the causes that necessitated it no longer exist, or even when better solutions are found.

I am not arguing for repristination, I am just saying that if the specific office of Bishop is a historical development, in order for the Catholic idea of succession to be indisputible, it would have to be shown that God clearly intended it and somewhere defined it as universal, enduring and binding.

And if this cannot be shown, it certainly ought not be assumed.
Click to expand...
Aren’t the offices of deacon, presbyter and bishop specifically enumerated in Scripture? Why do you deny the distinction?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Aren’t the offices of deacon, presbyter and bishop specifically enumerated in Scripture? Why do you deny the distinction?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
The offices of Presbyter and Deacon are specifically defined. The word “bishop” is used but it is interchangeable with “presbyter”.

See Titus 1:5-9
 
Steadfast said:
You’re arguing backwards from a presupposition.
Click to expand...
Actually, I wasn’t arguing at all… just stating truth. The Bishops of the Catholic Church are successors to the Apostles. It has flowed from the Apostles to the Bishops of the Church today, so how can that be backward? That you argue against this, you do at your own peril. To be ignorant of this is to be ignorant of the way Christ built His Church.
 
Steadfast said:
The offices of Presbyter and Deacon are specifically defined. The word “bishop” is used but it is interchangeable with “presbyter”.

See Titus 1:5-9
Click to expand...
It seems that while the Apostles were still alive, no one could really take the office of what we today regard as “bishop.” Only as the Apostles died did some regions have bishops properly so-called, as genuine successors of the Apostles, who ruled in their stead. Before that time, it seems logical that at least some “bishops” functioned as nothing more than “presbyters.”

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
It seems that while the Apostles were still alive, no one could really take the office of what we today regard as “bishop.” Only as the Apostles died did some regions have bishops properly so-called, as genuine successors of the Apostles, who ruled in their stead. Before that time, it seems logical that at least some “bishops” functioned as nothing more than “presbyters.”

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
What appears to have actually happened is that during the apostolic age, Presbyters and Elders were synonymous and though there was certainly some prestige associated with being an elder appointed directly by an Apostle (i.e. Timothy, Titus) they remained peers.

At some point later (no one really knows when), the office of Bishop was distinguished from that of Presbyter.

None of this changes my point though.
 
Steadfast said:
Faith, my son…

This is true of the Catholic who says that his church was instituted by Christ and cannot therefore err and the Protestant who says that the Bible is clear about everything necessary to believe in order to be saved and with Jesus and everyone else in between or even outside these poles.
Click to expand...
Just wondering how Protestants can say the Bible has all that is needed and turn on the Church that through its’ tradition of early Fathers word of month teachings picked from all the early gospels and other wrtings on Christ what was to become the NEW Testament. This was not finalized until sometime around 400AD (I think) and thus if traced back it can not be said that the Catholic Church (before the Schism = seperated Orthodox brethern) was not the name of the church that was involved in doing this through the work of the Holy Spirit.
 
Tomb54 said:
Just wondering how Protestants can say the Bible has all that is needed and turn on the Church that through its’ tradition of early Fathers word of month teachings picked from all the early gospels and other wrtings on Christ what was to become the NEW Testament. This was not finalized until sometime around 400AD (I think) and thus if traced back it can not be said that the Catholic Church (before the Schism = seperated Orthodox brethern) was not the name of the church that was involved in doing this through the work of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
The thing is, the further back you go, the less “controversial” the things we hear the fathers saying, thus with Polycarp there is nothing he says which a Protestant should contradict. The same goes for other direct descendants of the Apostles.

Moving forward though ideas begin to develop which become more and more difficult to reconcile with Scripture or, at the very least, difficult to be seen as somehow binding on consciences given the lack of clear biblical support.

I don’t think it’s adequate to simply assume a pedigree and therefore apostolic endorsement.

At any rate, for the purposes of our discussion, it remains that not having a clear distinction in the Bible between Bishops and Presbyters (Overseers and Elders) makes the claim for their divine institution difficult to make. Likewise, it makes polity more generally a practical adiaphoron, at least as a larger issue.
 
Steadfast,

When I speak of someone being a Bishop, it’s to be understood that he’s also a Priest – every Bishop is also a Priest, by definition.

So, restating what I said before, yes I agree with you that initially the office of Priest and the office of Bishop were combined, not separated.

But reading some of your other statements, I’d say you’ve got the facts a little mixed up. For example you say that “the separate office of Bishop developed post-biblically”. That doesn’t really make any sense: initially, every Priest was a Bishop; then, later, there were also some Priests who were not Bishops. That’s what “developed”, the office of “Priest who isn’t a Bishop”. That’s what “developed as a practical necessity but not by divine mandate”. No?

P.S. Sorry I didn’t respond sooner.
 
Peter_J said:
?

I would have thought that was something we agreed upon.

In the early Church, there was at first only the office of Bishop. Then the Bishops appointed Deacons (“It is not right for us to neglect the Word of God to wait on tables”, etc.) Later still, the office of Priest (or, more precisely, Priests who aren’t Bishops) was established.

Or looking at it another way, at first all Priests were Bishops. Later on, some Priests were Bishops and some Priests were not Bishops.
Click to expand...
Peter that is not true. Peter identifies himself as an Elder in his letter and not a Bishop. To say only Bishops existed first is ridiculous.
 
NDfan said:
Peter that is not true. Peter identifies himself as an Elder in his letter and not a Bishop. To say only Bishops existed first is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You’re attacking a strawman. What I was saying is that, at first, all Priests were Bishops. See also post #91.
 
Peter_J said:
You’re attacking a strawman. What I was saying is that, at first, all Priests were Bishops. See also post #91.
Click to expand...
I’m not attacking a strawman Peter. But your line of thinking is that since initial church leaders were Bishops then it follows that all Bishops were successors of Apostles. That’s impossible given how fast the church grew initially. The church in Rome was not founded by Peter or Paul. It’s believed it was formed by Jews that heard the Gospel from Peter at Pentecost. There was no succession there.

If we read about the church in Antioch from Acts we see the first preachers were from Cyprus and Cyrene who preached to the Hellenists Jews. Luke tells us the hand of GOD was with them. Not that they were successors of the Apostles or Bishops. When the church in Jerusalem heard of the success there they sent Barnabas to check it out. Barnabas did nothing but exhort them to remain faithful to the Lord. Then he went to retrieve Paul so they could continue to teach there.
 
NDfan said:
But your line of thinking is that since initial church leaders were Bishops then it follows that all Bishops were successors of Apostles.
Click to expand...
Which of my posts are you referring to?
 
Peter_J said:
Steadfast,

When I speak of someone being a Bishop, it’s to be understood that he’s also a Priest – every Bishop is also a Priest, by definition.

So, restating what I said before, yes I agree with you that initially the office of Priest and the office of Bishop were combined, not separated.

But reading some of your other statements, I’d say you’ve got the facts a little mixed up. For example you say that “the separate office of Bishop developed post-biblically”. That doesn’t really make any sense: initially, every Priest was a Bishop; then, later, there were also some Priests who were not Bishops. That’s what “developed”, the office of “Priest who isn’t a Bishop”. That’s what “developed as a practical necessity but not by divine mandate”. No?

P.S. Sorry I didn’t respond sooner.
Click to expand...
I think we’re in fundamental agreement, Pete. That’s all I am saying: there is nothing in the Bible which would indicate that the word “Bishop” and the word “Elder” referred to grades in the same office. They seem to refer to different functions of the same office, one perhaps “administrative” and the other “pastoral”.

My argument flows from this.
 
Steadfast said:
I think we’re in fundamental agreement, Pete. That’s all I am saying: there is nothing in the Bible which would indicate that the word “Bishop” and the word “Elder” referred to grades in the same office. They seem to refer to different functions of the same office, one perhaps “administrative” and the other “pastoral”.
Click to expand...
Right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top