Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you explain that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Copts, and Armenians all hold to Apostolic succession?
What I don't get is how anyone can claim apostolic succession in the absence of apostles? To have apostolic succession, you'd have to have apostles ordaining new apostles when the original ones died, as was the case early on in Christianity. But once that practiced ceased, once all of the apostles had died without the successors being ordained, apostolic succession clearly existed no more. Bishops, apostles, popes... the words aren't interchangeable and no bishop was ever called by an apostle to be a pope. Besides, the word "Pope" wasn't even used by the Catholic Church until the 10th century. Going backwards from there and referring to ever bishop of Rome before that time as "Pope" definitely doesn't do anything to prove that any of them were duly ordained and were in the same line of succession as the Apostle Peter.
What I don't get is how anyone can claim apostolic succession in the absence of apostles? To have apostolic succession, you'd have to have apostles ordaining new apostles when the original ones died, as was the case early on in Christianity. But once that practiced ceased, once all of the apostles had died without the successors being ordained, apostolic succession clearly existed no more. Bishops, apostles, popes... the words aren't interchangeable and no bishop was ever called by an apostle to be a pope. Besides, the word "Pope" wasn't even used by the Catholic Church until the 10th century. Going backwards from there and referring to ever bishop of Rome before that time as "Pope" definitely doesn't do anything to prove that any of them were duly ordained and were in the same line of succession as the Apostle Peter.
the keys get passed down, as shadowed in Isaiah 22:21-24
I'm not going to take the time to quote the early church fathers who in their writings showed that they did NOT consider themselves on the same level or as having the same authority as the apostles, but I have posted a link in which scholar Michael Kruger has quoted the early church fathers to that effect.
the keys get passed down, as shadowed in Isaiah 22:21-24
I realize that the keys get passed down. My point is that the one passing them down has to have the authority to do so, and it can't be "apostolic succession" when there are no more apostles. Granted, it's a better system than exists within Protestantism, where there are just a bunch of autonomous churches, but bishops are not apostles, and the bishop of Rome was never supposed to have sovereignty over the bishop of any other congregation. At least there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that, or even any first-century writings.
I realize that the keys get passed down. My point is that the one passing them down has to have the authority to do so, and it can't be "apostolic succession" when there are no more apostles. Granted, it's a better system than exists within Protestantism, where there are just a bunch of autonomous churches, but bishops are not apostles, and the bishop of Rome was never supposed to have sovereignty over the bishop of any other congregation. At least there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that, or even any first-century writings.
Even Jesus affirmed the authority of the scribes and Pharisees when He instructed the people to '...do as they say (teach)...'; but '... do not do as they do for they do not practice what they preach...' Matt 23:3
This was prior to our Lord stripping them of their authority (Matt 28:18) { just as He did to Shebna (Isaiah 22:19) }
But where can it be shown that our Lord stripped authority & took back the keys, and re-issued them, AFTER Peter?
But where can it be shown that our Lord stripped authority & took back the keys, and re-issued them, AFTER Peter?
Nowhere that you would believe, CCCyou. But that's okay. We have far too much we can agree on and I like you far too much to want to argue with you over something we will never see eye to eye on.
Nowhere that you would believe, CCCyou. But that's okay. We have far too much we can agree on and I like you far too much to want to argue with you over something we will never see eye to eye on.
Brother you are so tied up in your tradition you cannot see that all you need is Christ.
All I need is Christ; but how does that work out practically speaking? How do I actually "obtain" Him outside the context of the Church? How can I be baptized for the forgiveness of sins outside the context of the Church? How can I eat His flesh and drink His blood as He commanded outside the context of the Church?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I know you cannot see this mike but what you just explained about you and your church tells me you are not free but in bondage.
I'd rather be in bondage to Christ through His Church than in bondage to my sin (Romans 6:22). It's only after we become slaves to Christ that we can be truly free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
I really don't care what church anyone belongs to mike, anyone seeking God will find him regardless of church membership.
Certainly I can agree that if you seek, you will find.
I agree fully that Peter was was the individual to whom Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." It is what happened after Peter's death that I contest. I see nothing in the Bible to indicate that the Bishop of Rome should have authority over any other bishop. Now, Peter was most assuredly an Apostle, which would have jurisdiction over his subordinates who were bishops. The Bible does not, however, state that Peter ever went to Rome mention Peter as ever going to Rome, and there is no early Christian record of this being the case. There are actually no 1st century A.D. historical accounts that mention the apostle Peter being Bishop of Rome.
You're operating on the twin premises that (1) "if an event took place, it must have been recorded in Scripture" and (2) "if a doctrine is to be believed, it must be explicitly stated in Scripture".
I can't agree with either of these premises.
With that disclaimer aside; at the end of 1 Peter, Peter writes that he has written his letter "in Babylon". Biblical scholars overwhelmingly believe that it's a cryptic reference to Rome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
The Catholic theologian and Jesuit priest, Francis A. Sullivan wrote in his book, "From Apostles to Bishops," that there is no evidence that any bishop ruled over Rome in the first century and that the Church in Rome was more likely led by a body of presbyters until sometime in the second century. He believes there is a wide consensus among scholars (even Catholic ones) that this was the case.
Unfortunately, I'm not surprised as Jesuits have become a bit infamous for attempting to undermine what is supposedly their own religion... I don't place a lot of trust in Jesuit theology which is often opposed to Catholic theology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Again, what gave Paul the authority to ordain Linus when he (Paul) himself would have come before Linus in the line of succession to the office of Pope.
Paul had apostolic authority just as Peter did. There is no definite "line of succession" to the Papacy. Throughout history, Popes have been elected and appointed through varying methods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
A 4th Century collection called Apostolic Constitutions claims that Linus was consecrated a Bishop by Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Maybe, but the fact that he was a bishop proves nothing. The Pope (if there was ever such an individual) would have been selected from among the Apostles, who were over the entire Church and not just over a single denomination.
My above response stating that Paul ordained Linus was in response to your asking about it specifically, here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Then you'd have to show who ordained Linus and by what authority they did so.
A Pope would not necessarily have been selected from among the original Apostles, as by the time Peter died, they were probably very old and scattered all over the world. It would have made perfect sense to appoint a Roman such as Linus as the next Pope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
One last thought: Why would God have given His Revelation to the Apostle John (who was still alive when Peter died) instead of to Pope Linus. Seems to me that God was saying something there, and that was that a man would have been called to be an Apostle in order to be in the line of succession for leadership of the Church. Why would God have bypassed the Pope and given this revelation to someone else had that someone else not held the authority which entitled Him to receive revelation on behalf of the Church?
I can't possibly answer a question as to why God would do something the way He did it. Jesus Christ had a unique relationship with the Apostle John, just as He had a unique relationship with Peter. The only thing I can say is that Christ's apostles were simply answering their call, each one being different and unique. John was never called to the Papacy. It's as simple as that.
Last edited by EscAlaMike; 08-27-2021 at 08:35 AM..
your believing an organization simply because it claims it's the one really isn't proof.
I recognize that my standards of what constitutes "proof" are different from yours, as I submit to an Authority that you do not.
I'm perfectly willing to discuss things such as purgatory and the other things you listed; but you told me to "prove" them to you. Without you and I sharing a common standard of proof, I don't know that that's possible.
I can show you that there is a Biblical basis for purgatory; and I'm willing to show you if you're unfamiliar with it; but whether that will constitute as "proof" for you, I can't say.
Also, I think a discussion on purgatory would be best served in a new thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But that's okay. We have far too much we can agree on and I like you far too much to want to argue with you over something we will never see eye to eye on. 
