Apostolic Succession (Jesus, reject, gospel, Kingdom, tradition)

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

The reason for this is due to the fact that the term Apostle refers only to the first generation of Church authority (i.e. Peter, Paul, etc).

Why? Scripture gives no such indication of this. To the contrary Paul taught that the very foundation of the church consisted of apostles and prophets. That doesn't sound like the office or term Apostle should be a temporary thing.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

After the Apostles died, we see in Church history, as you duly note, that the leaders of the Church were a group of Bishops. Each town had its own presiding bishop, which together formed the Magisterium.

Right, which illustrates my point that the true Apostolic succession did not continue. I believe that Apostolic succession should involve the successon of Apostles not Bishops.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

When we look at the authority and power of these bishops, we see that their authority was identical to their predecessors, the Apostles. While Apostolic AUTHORITY was certainly maintained by these appointed decendants of the Church leadership, the title "Apostle" was only ascribed to those first-century Church leaders.

How do we see that their authority was identical to that of the Apostles? I am yet to see or hear of any first-century document that specifically describes the passing of Apostolic authority from Apostles to Bishops. Sure Apostles called and ordained Bishops, but that does not mean they passed Apostolic authority on to them. Also, there is no scripture that indicates that the office of Apostle should be absolved into the office of Bishop. The title of Bishop was also around in the first century and appeared to be quite distinct from that of Apostle. Paul, who always referred to himself as Apostle gives instruction concerning the office of Bishop, but interestingly never refers to himself (or any of the Apostles for that matter) as a Bishop. He was not a Bishop, he was an Apostle -- they are two different offices of authority.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. ... Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome ... to Miltiades. Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, ... to Siricius Anastasius.

So all you have are sources 200+ years after Peter? That's a long time -- plenty of time to get certain details mixed up. Of course they would claim Peter as the Bishop of Rome -- it was in their best interest -- it "validated" their claims to Apostolic succession, though never in scripture was Peter referred to as Bishop.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

In the first century, you would be right. However, with the death of the Apostles, their succession and authority was simply passed on to the Magisterium, with the Bishop of Rome, aka the Papacy, as its head.

That's a pretty significant claim. How exactly did that happen (who authorized it, why, etc)? Is there any detailed documentation for such a transition in leadership organization? Why did they do away with the office/title of Apostle -- it seemed quite important in the N.T.?

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

As I hope you'll see if you do some historical research on Rome and the authority of the Bishop of Rome, Rome's Bishop is in fact the Head of the Church, due to the fact that Peter and Paul came to Rome, established the church, Peter stayed there as its Bishop, and then died there, giving to St. Linus his authority as Head of the Church.

Actually that contradicts the information in the link you provided. It stated that Peter and Paul indeed established the church in Rome and ordained Linus to be Bishop there and left him in charge -- implying they went on to attend to other churchwide affairs. Sure Peter likely spent much time in Rome attempting to establish and strengthen the church there -- it was obviously an important city. I don't know the details of Peter's death, but he likely died in Rome because it involved the Roman authorities.

There simply is no reliable evidence that Rome was the center of the church during Peter's lifetime, or that he was ever Bishop there. Again, I would like to see a documented account of how Linus assumed the keys of the kingdom after Peter's death. That's a significant event, you'd think that there would have been considerable documentation of such an occurance from around that very time period.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

These don't necessarily indicate that Rome was the center of the church. They simply show that Peter and Paul established the church in Rome and likely spent much time there.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

"[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it..."...The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it"
Damasus Pope, Decree of Damasus,3(A.D. 382), in JUR,I:406

"For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194

Again these statements are considerably after the fact, and again it was in their best interest to portray Rome as the center to solidify their claims to Apostolic succession through Linus -- Bishop of Rome.

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Why? Scripture gives no such indication of this. To the contrary Paul taught that the very foundation of the church consisted of apostles and prophets. That doesn't sound like the office or term Apostle should be a temporary thing.

As you know (I hope), Scripture doesn't say everything. The fact that the apostles formed part of the FOUNDATION for the Church does not mean that there needs to be Apostles in every generation, it simply means that the Apostles formed the initial basis. The term Apostle refers to main Church leader who lived during the time of Christ. Thus, the first-generation leaders are in view. If you want to discuss Scripture, no one after Barnabus is called an Apostle. Rather, Paul said, "For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death, for we have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men." 1 Cor. 4:9 Paul refers to the Apostles as those first century chief Church leaders, specifying them by the fact that they were brutally beaten and martyred for their faith. As you know, Church leaders have not been always brutally beaten for their faith, especially not in our days now, and especially not in America where the Mormon "Apostles" reside; that was characteristic of the first century climate.

Right, which illustrates my point that the true Apostolic succession did not continue. I believe that Apostolic succession should involve the successon of Apostles not Bishops.

You can believe whatever you want; I'm just going by history here.

How do we see that their authority was identical to that of the Apostles? I am yet to see or hear of any first-century document that specifically describes the passing of Apostolic authority from Apostles to Bishops. Sure Apostles called and ordained Bishops, but that does not mean they passed Apostolic authority on to them. Also, there is no scripture that indicates that the office of Apostle should be absolved into the office of Bishop. The title of Bishop was also around in the first century and appeared to be quite distinct from that of Apostle. Paul, who always referred to himself as Apostle gives instruction concerning the office of Bishop, but interestingly never refers to himself (or any of the Apostles for that matter) as a Bishop. He was not a Bishop, he was an Apostle -- they are two different offices of authority.

In the first century, they were different. However, once the Apostles died, authority was passed on to the chief Bishops that the Apostles had ordained. Among those Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was most honored and pre-eminent.

So all you have are sources 200+ years after Peter? That's a long time -- plenty of time to get certain details mixed up. Of course they would claim Peter as the Bishop of Rome -- it was in their best interest -- it "validated" their claims to Apostolic succession, though never in scripture was Peter referred to as Bishop.

Actually when you think about it, it's not that long. Eusebius, the first Church historian, was writing that around 324 AD. Recall that the Bible canon which you believe in wasn't even established until 397. But I'm confused how it would be in Eusebius' "best interest" to just randomly make up a falsified fact. If the fact hadn't been generally known and accepted, do you really think he would have gotten away with just making it up? Obviously the belief was around well before Eusebius; he was simply one of the first to explicitly state it since he was the first Church historian, and because, before His time, Peter's bishopwrick in Rome had been so recent that no one would have had any reason to doubt it. It would be a bit like one of us denying that James Polk used to be President, even though we weren't alive to see it.
Also, you say it validated "their" claims...whose claims? You mean the Church's?

FerventGodSeeker

[FerventGodSeeker]

That's a pretty significant claim. How exactly did that happen (who authorized it, why, etc)? Is there any detailed documentation for such a transition in leadership organization? Why did they do away with the office/title of Apostle -- it seemed quite important in the N.T.?

As I explained, the title of Apostle was only applicable to those first century leaders, so those who followed, while maintaining the authority of the Apostles, were not called "Apostles". Also, there wasn't really a transition in leadership organization. The Church was still organized much the same way. Bishops ruled their individual churches while the Apostles were alive, too. As for the main leader of the Church, Peter's authority shifted to Linus, which isn't a change in organization, either. While it was a rough time for the Church, owing to the intense persecution that Christians suffered, and due to the fact that the Church was just beginning and not as organized as it would later become, the transition from first- to second-generation Church leadership was as smooth as one could expect in such a climate.

Actually that contradicts the information in the link you provided. It stated that Peter and Paul indeed established the church in Rome and ordained Linus to be Bishop there and left him in charge -- implying they went on to attend to other churchwide affairs. Sure Peter likely spent much time in Rome attempting to establish and strengthen the church there -- it was obviously an important city. I don't know the details of Peter's death, but he likely died in Rome because it involved the Roman authorities.

Actually, it doesn't say they went elsewhere, it simply said, "

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus."

Also, if you read just two paragraphs beyond, it says,
"Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitiones". But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain. "
The reference by Irenaeus is that Peter and Paul handed down the episcopate upon their deaths.

There simply is no reliable evidence that Rome was the center of the church during Peter's lifetime, or that he was ever Bishop there. Again, I would like to see a documented account of how Linus assumed the keys of the kingdom after Peter's death. That's a significant event, you'd think that there would have been considerable documentation of such an occurance from around that very time period.

Actually, there wouldn't have been, since there was no real need to write it down. It was a current event at that time, people didn't need to write down who their new Bishop was, it was commonly known information. Given the fact that Peter spent a great deal of time in Rome, established the church there, and died there, paired with His pre-eminence as an Apostle in the early Church, it's not that tough to deduce logically the fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome. It was a commonly accepted and historically known fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome. The fact wasn't even disputed until the Waldenses in the 14th century. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church, splitting off from Rome in the 11th century, didn't question Peter's Bishopwrick in Rome...and their chief dispute with Roman Catholics is the Papacy! I could cite more historical references for you regarding Peter's stay in Rome, death in Rome, the pre-eminence of Rome, etc., but I'm getting the feeling that no amount of documentation would convince you.

These don't necessarily indicate that Rome was the center of the church. They simply show that Peter and Paul established the church in Rome and likely spent much time there.


Again these statements are considerably after the fact, and again it was in their best interest to portray Rome as the center to solidify their claims to Apostolic succession through Linus -- Bishop of Rome.

You completely ignored two of my citations:

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, "In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."

FerventGodSeeker

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

It was a current event at that time, people didn't need to write down who their new Bishop was, it was commonly known information. Given the fact that Peter spent a great deal of time in Rome, established the church there, and died there, paired with His pre-eminence as an Apostle in the early Church, it's not that tough to deduce logically the fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome. It was a commonly accepted and historically known fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome.

The gnostics would have disputed that claim.

Why is Peter considered to be the leader of the apostles? Because Peter was the first to whom Jesus appeared after Jesus had risen from the grave? Matthew and Luke list Peter as the first witness to the resurrection, but Mark and John list Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the resurrection.

The book of Matthew suggests that Jesus nominated Peter as the leader of the apostles before his death. Luke implies that Jesus might have nominated Peter as the leader of the apostles when he appeared to him alone after the resurrection. John (written substantially after the other gospels) directly states that Jesus directly placed Peter as the "shepherd" of his flock when Jesus appeared to Peter after the resurrection. Mark (written before any of the other gospels) makes none of these claims.

Originally Posted by FervenGodSeeker

Eusebius, the first Church historian, was writing that around 324 AD. Recall that the Bible canon which you believe in wasn't even established until 397. But I'm confused how it would be in Eusebius' "best interest" to just randomly make up a falsified fact. If the fact hadn't been generally known and accepted, do you really think he would have gotten away with just making it up? Obviously the belief was around well before Eusebius;

By 200 CE there was already a huge schism between the orthodox/catholic christians and the gnostic christians. By claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead, appointed Peter as the leader of the apostles, and that Peter had passed this authority on to the bishops ... this allowed the orthodox/catholic christians to claim legitimacy over the gnostic christians (the gnostics claimed legitimacy on other grounds).

Bishop Iranaeus (and the other bishops) had reason to lie. They were trying to promote their own doctrinal beliefs over those of "gnostic heretics". It was in the best interest of the bishops to promote their authority long before Eusebius was born.

All of these "facts" were disputed by the early church ... and most of the "facts" that remain were written by the side that won the debate....

[FerventGodSeeker]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Karl R

The gnostics would have disputed that claim.

No they wouldn't have. They would have disagreed with his teachings, perhaps, but not the fact that he was the Bishop of the orthodox Christian church in Rome.

Why is Peter considered to be the leader of the apostles?

For a vast number of reasons. Biblically speaking, Peter is clearly seen as the leader of all the Apostles. He was the only one given the keys to the Kingdom individually, as well as the power to bind and loose. Peter's name is always listed first in the lists of Apostles, with Judas Iscariot invariably last. Peter's words are the first and most important in the upper room before Pentecost, and he takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel after Pentecost, as well as the first to heal someone, the first to raise someone from the dead, and the first to declare an anathema, affirmed by God. At the first Church Council in Acts 15, it is Peter's teaching on the issue that goes totally unchallenged and is accepted and confirmed by the Church. Also, interestingly, Peter's name is mentioned in the Bible more than all the other disciples put together! With all this evidence, and more which I didn't even mention, it is undeniable that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and thus, leader of the whole Church.

By 200 CE there was already a huge schism between the orthodox/catholic christians and the gnostic christians. By claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead, appointed Peter as the leader of the apostles, and that Peter had passed this authority on to the bishops ... this allowed the orthodox/catholic christians to claim legitimacy over the gnostic christians (the gnostics claimed legitimacy on other grounds).

You may be unaware of this, but the Gnostics were not Christians. The Church declared them heretical very early on in Church history. Do you honestly find it even remotely plausible that Gnosticism could be true in its teachings on Christ, when ALL the Apostles who personally knew Christ and learned from Him were part of Catholic, orthodox Christianity? I don't even see how Gnostics could even be considered Christians. They don't believe in Christ as Savior, they believe in multiple gods, they reject the Scriptures, they reject all Church authority which Christ established. Other than the fact that they believe in some twisted form of Jesus, they bear almost no resemblance to Christianity.

Bishop Iranaeus (and the other bishops) had reason to lie. They were trying to promote their own doctrinal beliefs over those of "gnostic heretics". It was in the best interest of the bishops to promote their authority long before Eusebius was born.

They were not "their own doctrinal beliefs". You forget that Bishop Iraneus and the Early Church Fathers learned their theology directly from Apostles themselves. They are the Church's teachings, not any human individual's (2 Peter 1:20).

All of these "facts" were disputed by the early church

No they weren't...as you just pointed out, they may have been disputed by a heretical anti-Christian sect, but not the Church itself (and again, even a Gnostic of that time could not deny that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, even if they didn't agree with his teachings....that would be like denying that George Bush is the President of the USA, just because you don't like him)

... and most of the "facts" that remain were written by the side that won the debate...

Actually, we continue to learn increasingly more about the Gnostics and their views, as was seen most recently by the discovery of the Gospel of Judas...so that excuse just doesn't fly. History is clear; I'm sorry that it may not agree with what you happen to believe, but that's the way it is.


FerventGodSeeker

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

For a vast number of reasons. Biblically speaking, Peter is clearly seen as the leader of all the Apostles. ... (editted out for brevity) ... it is undeniable that Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and thus, leader of the whole Church.

And you're taking that from the four gospels (plus Acts) which were adopted by the orthodox church. Do you think that the gnostic gospels all list Peter as the leader? Do you think the canonical gospels might have been chosen over the gnostic gospels because they allowed the bishops to argue a clear line of succession from Jesus to Peter to them?

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

You may be unaware of this, but the Gnostics were not Christians. The Church declared them heretical very early on in Church history.

The Valentinians not only considered themselves to be christians, they also considered themselves to be part of the orthodox church. They attended orthodox churches and partook in the eucharist. Irenaeus knew they were there, which is why he warned about wolves in sheep's clothing hiding amongst the orthodox christians.

The orthodox church declared the gnostics to be heretical, and most of the gnostics declared the orthodox church to be heretical.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Do you honestly find it even remotely plausible that Gnosticism could be true in its teachings on Christ, when ALL the Apostles who personally knew Christ and learned from Him were part of Catholic, orthodox Christianity?

The orthodox church claims that the apostles were all part of their church. The four canonical gospels were (arguably) written by: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

The gnostics claim that the apostles were all gnostics. Their gospels include: The Gospel of Thomas, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Philip, The Apocolypse of Peter, The Apocryphon of James, The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles, and The Gospel of Judas.

I see the names of a lot more apostles on the second list.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

I don't even see how Gnostics could even be considered Christians. They don't believe in Christ as Savior, they believe in multiple gods, they reject the Scriptures, they reject all Church authority which Christ established. Other than the fact that they believe in some twisted form of Jesus, they bear almost no resemblance to Christianity.

You're using an orthodox definition of "christian".

They believe that christ opened their eyes to gnosis (insight). They reject the canonical scriptures ... just like the orthodox church rejected the gnostic scriptures. They reject the authority of the orthodox church, which the orthodox church claims was established by christ. The gnostics claim that they believe in the true form of Jesus and the orthodox version is twisted.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

They were not "their own doctrinal beliefs". You forget that Bishop Iraneus and the Early Church Fathers learned their theology directly from Apostles themselves.

Irenaeus lived from (approx) 130-202 CE. Please explain to me how he learned his theology directly from the apostles. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.

Similar claims could be made by the gnostics. The gnostic poet Valentinus claimed he learned Paul's secret teachings from Theudas, one of Paul's disciples.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

They are the Church's teachings, not any human individual's (2 Peter 1:20).

Then why were several of the church's teachings excluded from the canonical bible?
The Apocolypse of Peter
The Letter from Peter to Philip
The Act of Peter

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

No they weren't...as you just pointed out, they may have been disputed by a heretical anti-Christian sect, but not the Church itself

Irenaeus claims the gnostics are heretical and anti-christian. Valentinus claims he and his followers are part of the orthodox church.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

(and again, even a Gnostic of that time could not deny that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, even if they didn't agree with his teachings....that would be like denying that George Bush is the President of the USA, just because you don't like him)

Then why was Linus (appointed by Paul) the bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive? Peter even appointed Linus' successor, Clement. (According to Apostolic Constitutions VII:IV)

One bishop of Rome (Tertullian) complained that the gnostic Valentinus (and his followers) refused to submit to his authority. The Valentinians firmly believed they were part of the orthodox church, but did not see the bishops as heir to the authority. This was circa 150 CE.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

we continue to learn increasingly more about the Gnostics and their views, as was seen most recently by the discovery of the Gospel of Judas...so that excuse just doesn't fly. History is clear; I'm sorry that it may not agree with what you happen to believe, but that's the way it is.

I find it interesting that you would say that, but you only support your claims with one side of the arguement.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

As you know (I hope), Scripture doesn't say everything. The fact that the apostles formed part of the FOUNDATION for the Church does not mean that there needs to be Apostles in every generation, it simply means that the Apostles formed the initial basis. The term Apostle refers to main Church leader who lived during the time of Christ.

You're right scripture doesn't say everything. But if you're going to profess something that seems contrary to scripture (scripture states that apostles are part of the foundation of the church, you claim they aren't anymore) you better have a really strong argument. Who declared that the Apostleship only formed the initial basis and was no longer necessary after Peter? Who came up with that definition of Apostle?

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Thus, the first-generation leaders are in view. If you want to discuss Scripture, no one after Barnabus is called an Apostle. Rather, Paul said, "For I think that God has displayed us, the apostles, last, as men condemned to death