Apostolic Succession

[Polaris]

The evidence is that in the early Christian church (post 1st or 2nd century) there was no official office of Apostle -- there were just a group of Bishops.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.?

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.

"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.

"[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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

(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.

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]

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?

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.

True, as far as we know no other Apostles were called, and I agree that Paul well understood the fate of the Apostleship and the church in general, especially since he's the one who prophecied concerning the Apostasy. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 in reference to the timing of the Second Coming Paul declared: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;" Obviously you will interpret this differently, but we take it to mean a literal, universal falling away or apostasy. Small local, falling aways, had been occurring constantly as is evidenced by the fact that almost every apostolic epistle was corrective in nature.

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

Let's be accurate here. My beliefs are based on my understanding of the limited 1st and 2nd century historical information we have access to and modern-day revelation. Your beliefs are based on the same limited history and Catholic tradition. Neither modern-day revelation nor Catholic tradition can be proven to be be correct (at least for now).

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.

Sure, according to Catholic tradition. You still haven't provided any detailed document that explains how or why the Apostolic authority was passed on to Bishops.

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.

I'm not saying Eusebius randomly made up falsified facts. It seems quite feasible to envision the percieved status of Peter drifting over the course of several generations -- going from chief Apostle to head of the church to first Bishop of Rome -- subtle yet critical differences. I'm not suggesting it was some flat out lie that Eusebius was somehow able to pull off. He, and most Christians at the time, likely believed the status of Peter he portrayed.

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.

There is one very important difference with your example. We have considerable documentation concerning the actuality and details of James Polk's administration. It would be very difficult to err in understanding his actual status and presidential accomplishments.

Peter's status as Bishop of Rome has no documented foundation other than statements made 200+ years after his death. As I stated before, that's plenty of time for details to drift.

Also, you say it validated "their" claims...whose claims? You mean the Church's?

The church leadership. They obviously leveraged their belief in Peter's Bishopric as validation to their claims of Apostolic authority.

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.

I disagree with you here. There was indeed a transition in leadership organization. Look at Paul. He spent much of His time traveling, establishing, and strengthening the church in several different regions. While the Bishops were the congregational "overseers" the Apostles were "those sent out" to establish the church in all regions, call and ordain Bishops as local overseers, and then continue strengthening and correcting as needed. To say that there was no longer need for Apostles implies no more need to extend the reach of the church and no more need to strengthen and correct at even regional or local levels. The disintegration of the Apostleship changes the leadership organization to one with a much more horizontal heirarchy, which is considerably different from the mostly vertical heirarchy established in the NT.

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.

First, who declared that Peter's church-governing authority was rightfully shifted to Linus (besides statements 150+ years after the fact)?

Second, why did Linus become the leader and not one of the remaining Twelve who was actually called by Christ himself?

 

[Booko]

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.

As you probably know, I don't really have a horse in this race, but reading this it occured to me that the number of apostolic names on texts isn't much in the way of proof in any direction.

It was customary at the time to attribute texts of any sort to famous people. The doesn't mean the names in the titles had anything to do with the contents of the texts.

 

[Polaris]

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.

So you admit there are conflicting reports. How can we trust that the report you hold to is correct? How can we reliably assume that Irenaeus's report is the more accurate one?

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.

So record keeping is not necessary huh? That's exactly how details drift. I believe that the people at Peter's time knew the details of his status, but that doesn't mean that the people 200 years after him knew those details, especially if they weren't reliably recorded.

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.

How is that an accurate logical deduction given the scriptural evidence that Apostle and Bishop are not one in the same? I believe he established the church there and spent a great deal of time there and eventually died there, but I don't see how that logically deduces 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.

Of course Peter's bishopric wasn't questioned by the EOC, their Apostolic succession is based on the same premise. And of course Peter's bishopric was commonly accepted by the Fathers and followers of the Catholic faith, but you're really stretching to consider it a "historically known fact", especially when the first mention of Peter as Bishop wasn't recorded until 200+ years after his death.

Your probably right, no amount of documentation you have that is post 2nd or 3rd century is going to be very convincing to me -- Apostolic authority had been lost and rationalized into the Bishopric quite firmly by that point. However I would be interested in any documentation that you have before that that explains the details of how Apostolic succession occurred (particularly in Linus' case), why the Apostleship was absolved into the Bishopric, and at what point Peter was declared 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.

Sorry, I'm not sure how I missed those. I'm not sure what your specific argument is here. The fact that Irenaeus believed that somehow the Apostolic authority was indeed passed from Peter and Paul to the Bishops doesn't mean he was right. Someone had to believe it for it to become tradition. I do find it interesting though that he never refers to Peter as Bishop, always Apostle.

You're getting closer though. If you could find similar reliable sources from this time period or earlier (the earlier the better) that are in agreement with Irenaeus then you'd significantly strengthen your claims in my view. If any doctrine/practice/organization deviates from that in the scriptures there better be solid, reliable documenation in order for such a "tradition" to assume any validity.

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."

As you probably assumed, the date alone makes me read this with a large grain of salt.

 

[Karl R]

Hush, Booko. You're spoiling the surprise.

I was setting a trap for FerventGodSeeker.

it occured to me that the number of apostolic names on texts isn't much in the way of proof in any direction.

It was customary at the time to attribute texts of any sort to famous people. The doesn't mean the names in the titles had anything to do with the contents of the texts.

I was expecting FerventGodSeeker to make that statement, at which point I was going to point out that biblical scholars make the exact same statements about every canonical gospel and letter.

Both sides claimed the apostles to be on their side. The authorship of all texts from that period is suspect. Therefore nobody can claim with certainty that all the apostles were part of the orthodox/catholic church. It's quite likely that apostles were involved in the beginning of the orthodox and gnostic movements.

 

[Quiddity]

So you admit there are conflicting reports. How can we trust that the report you hold to is correct? How can we reliably assume that Irenaeus's report is the more accurate one?

Oral Tradition……Which is exactly how the Church functioned. Most early writings are letters between learned men of the faith. Just like the Bible.

So record keeping is not necessary huh? That's exactly how details drift.

One would think so huh? But just look at how one book was able to create 33,000+ conflicting denominations. All schools I’m aware of have a teacher along with a textbook for a reason.

I believe that the people at Peter's time knew the details of his status, but that doesn't mean that the people 200 years after him knew those details, especially if they weren't reliably recorded.

Where do you think the Holy Spirit was in this mess?

How is that an accurate logical deduction given the scriptural evidence that Apostle and Bishop are not one in the same? I believe he established the church there and spent a great deal of time there and eventually died there, but I don't see how that logically deduces the "fact that Peter was Bishop of Rome".

The word “Apostle” itself does have various meanings. The office of Apostle is another story. There is no doubt that the office of Apostle is unique. But it is absolutely unhistorical and foreign to Christendom to say that Apostles didn’t become Bishops. I need only bring Eusebius to the stand to refute this assertion:
All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .
(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)
This is just one of many quotes Polaris. Apostles did in fact become Bishops. If you wish to read more on it on your spare time you can start here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

Of course Peter's bishopric wasn't questioned by the EOC, their Apostolic succession is based on the same premise. And of course Peter's bishopric was commonly accepted by the Fathers and followers of the Catholic faith, but you're really stretching to consider it a "historically known fact", especially when the first mention of Peter as Bishop wasn't recorded until 200+ years after his death.

Even earlier. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was born in 115 AD. St. Peter died about 64 AD. That’s only like a 50 year difference or so. He said,
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3:3:3).
Also from CATHOLIC ANSWERS:
……. One witness to the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose seven authentic letters are dated no later than A.D. 117 or 118, so he must have known some of the apostles themselves, as Antioch was a center of missionary activity frequented by Paul in Acts 11:26–30 and 13:1–3. Ignatius says, "It is fitting in every way . . . that you be knit together in a unified submission, subject to the bishop and presbytery that you may be completely sanctified" (Letter to Ephesians 2:2). Again he says of the Church, "Jesus Christ . . . is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who are appointed in every land, are the will of Jesus Christ. So it is proper for you to be in harmony with the will of the bishop" (ibid., 3:2–4:1). He also wrote, "It is clear that one should see the bishop as the Lord himself" (ibid., 6:1). These quotes show first that Ignatius considered the bishops of the Church to be the "will of God" (i.e., their office was appointed by God) and second that obedience to the bishop was considered obedience to God himself. In some sense, the bishop represented God in the same way that the apostles did.

Your probably right, no amount of documentation you have that is post 2nd or 3rd century is going to be very convincing to me -- Apostolic authority had been lost and rationalized into the Bishopric quite firmly by that point. However I would be interested in any documentation that you have before that that explains the details of how Apostolic succession occurred (particularly in Linus' case), why the Apostleship was absolved into the Bishopric, and at what point Peter was declared Bishop of Rome.

I honestly couldn’t do it justice in this one post or even in a few. I’m going to cheat and give you a link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07326a.htm

Sorry, I'm not sure how I missed those. I'm not sure what your specific argument is here. The fact that Irenaeus believed that somehow the Apostolic authority was indeed passed from Peter and Paul to the Bishops doesn't mean he was right. Someone had to believe it for it to become tradition. I do find it interesting though that he never refers to Peter as Bishop, always Apostle.

I don’t. It would have been more respectful because of the unique office of Apostle to call him an Apostle and not a bishop. Nonetheless it is noted in history either way.

Hope that helps Polaris.

Peace be with you,
~Victor

 

[Polaris]

Oral Tradition……Which is exactly how the Church functioned. Most early writings are letters between learned men of the faith. Just like the Bible.

I hope there was considerably more to it than just oral tradition, that's a dangerous way to preserve large amounts of detailed information.

So are you suggesting that written letters and the Bible are examples of oral tradition?

One would think so huh? But just look at how one book was able to create 33,000+ conflicting denominations. All schools I’m aware of have a teacher along with a textbook for a reason.

That's right. A textbook implies that there were indeed records kept. FerventGodSeeker claimed that keeping records wasn't needed -- I think it was, and your example agrees with me.

Where do you think the Holy Spirit was in this mess?

Good question. There's no way to know for sure.

The word “Apostle” itself does have various meanings. The office of Apostle is another story. There is no doubt that the office of Apostle is unique. But it is absolutely unhistorical and foreign to Christendom to say that Apostles didn’t become Bishops. I need only bring Eusebius to the stand to refute this assertion:
All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .
(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)

It's foreign to Catholics and Orthodox to say that Apostles didn't become Bishops. I'm yet to see conclusive, descriptive, historical evidence that supports the claim. Again you are quoting Eusebius who came long after the death of Peter, and his beliefs are based on Catholic traditions.

This is just one of many quotes Polaris. Apostles did in fact become Bishops. If you wish to read more on it on your spare time you can start here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm

I'll look through this when I have time, but you have to understand that a Catholic encyclopedia is hardly where I would go to find objective information on this topic. I could just as easily give you a link to an LDS encyclopedia that explains the distinct differences between the offices of Apostle and Bishop.

If there are indeed quotes that are applicible to this topic it would be helpful if you would identify them.

Even earlier. St. Irenaeus of Lyons was born in 115 AD. St. Peter died about 64 AD. That’s only like a 50 year difference or so. He said,
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3:3:3).
Also from CATHOLIC ANSWERS:
……. One witness to the structure of the early Church is St. Ignatius of Antioch, whose seven authentic letters are dated no later than A.D. 117 or 118, so he must have known some of the apostles themselves, as Antioch was a center of missionary activity frequented by Paul in Acts 11:26–30 and 13:1–3. Ignatius says, "It is fitting in every way . . . that you be knit together in a unified submission, subject to the bishop and presbytery that you may be completely sanctified" (Letter to Ephesians 2:2). Again he says of the Church, "Jesus Christ . . . is the will of the Father, just as the bishops, who are appointed in every land, are the will of Jesus Christ. So it is proper for you to be in harmony with the will of the bishop" (ibid., 3:2–4:1). He also wrote, "It is clear that one should see the bishop as the Lord himself" (ibid., 6:1). These quotes show first that Ignatius considered the bishops of the Church to be the "will of God" (i.e., their office was appointed by God) and second that obedience to the bishop was considered obedience to God himself. In some sense, the bishop represented God in the same way that the apostles did.

Not once in these quotes is Peter addressed as Bishop. To the contrary the bishops mentioned are numbered in succession since the apostles, not including the apostles.

Also it makes perfect sense that Ignatius would exhort the church members to honor and heed the Bishop -- he is their ordained overseer. That does not necessarily make him an Apostle nor give him Apostolic authority.

I honestly couldn’t do it justice in this one post or even in a few. I’m going to cheat and give you a link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07326a.htm

At least the cliff notes version would be helpful

 

[Quiddity]

I hope there was considerably more to it than just oral tradition, that's a dangerous way to preserve large amounts of detailed information.

Why is it dangerous Polaris? Tradition is found in both written and unwritten form. And what do you mean by details?

So are you suggesting that written letters and the Bible are examples of oral tradition?

It's examples of "Tradition" put into writing. Oral Tradition may or may not have been put into wrting. Although nothing pops to mind that wasn't eventually put into writing. But for some odd reason unknown to me, you seem to think that everything was delivered complete, nice and neat. Not the case at all. Things took time to be put into writing and to develop. Truth as we know it was found in the consciousness of the Church led by the Holy Spirit.

That's right. A textbook implies that there were indeed records kept. FerventGodSeeker claimed that keeping records wasn't needed -- I think it was, and your example agrees with me.

Of course there were but what I think FGS is saying is that something like "murder is wrong" didn't have to be put into writing to make it true. God's Word is not limited to what is on paper. He seems to have a liking to working through different channels.

Good question. There's no way to know for sure.

Well, at some point he must have stopped right?

It's foreign to Catholics and Orthodox to say that Apostles didn't become Bishops. I'm yet to see conclusive, descriptive, historical evidence that supports the claim. Again you are quoting Eusebius who came long after the death of Peter, and his beliefs are based on Catholic traditions.

Actually I gave you St. Irenaeus as well (only 50 years). But I'm starting to doubt that the year even matters to you. I could give you St. Ignatius or St. Polycarp who was alive and met some of the Apostles and it seems to make little difference to you. Since you don't even know where the Holy Spirit has it's workings and when it stopped, I suppose that makes it easy to pick and choose regardless of the year.

I'll look through this when I have time, but you have to understand that a Catholic encyclopedia is hardly where I would go to find objective information on this topic. I could just as easily give you a link to an LDS encyclopedia that explains the distinct differences between the offices of Apostle and Bishop.

Did you mean unbias information instead of objective?
Catholic Encyclopedia is rather good at noting outside scholars and Protestant sources as well. If that isn't objective then well you must share the wealth with me and tell me what is.

If there are indeed quotes that are applicible to this topic it would be helpful if you would identify them.

I addressed this above.

Not once in these quotes is Peter addressed as Bishop. To the contrary the bishops mentioned are numbered in succession since the apostles, not including the apostles.

Give me a time gap you are looking for please. This "it's not early enough" is getting a bit unproductive and tiresome. Tell me what you will and will not accept and why.

Also it makes perfect sense that Ignatius would exhort the church members to honor and heed the Bishop -- he is their ordained overseer. That does not necessarily make him an Apostle nor give him Apostolic authority.

I gave you a quote in my previous post where James is in fact called Bishop. But since it does not fulfill your criteria because of the whole "Apostacy" concept, I'm just gonna ask you to note what is and isn't acceptable to you in the LDS forum so I can always reference to it and we can stop this going back and forth stuff.

At least the cliff notes version would be helpful

I'm not sure what will be helpful for you anymore. I'll have you write a detailed ( ) reference thread that notes what I asked above.

Peace,
~Victor

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

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?

Why do I care what the Gnostic Gospels have to say? Even Gnostics could not and today cannot agree on what to believe out of the Gnostic early Church period writings, or how to interpret such writings that they may happen to agree on. The Gnostic beliefs were and are haphazard, sporadic, and generally local, centered around just one guy teaching one particular theory, and then another guy, on and on. It wasn't like two formalized churches battling for authority. The Gnostics were basically parasitic and simply tried to infect as many orthodox Christians and communities as they could with whatever brand of Gnosticism they preferred.
I think that the canonical Gospels were chosen for a number of reasons; I think it's pretty clear that they point to Peter as leader of the Church, but there's no reason to assume the canon was formulated just to prove that.

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.

So they snuck in to orthodox Christian churches and PRETENDED to be orthodox, and an orthodox Church leader called them on it and said they shouldn't be allowed....THAT makes them Christian???

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

Most? What about those that didn't? Again, Gnostic belief was not unified as Christianity was, and still is.

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.

You forgot every epistle written by Paul, the two letters by Peter, and the 3 Epistles from John...

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

Well no kidding. Would you like me to use a heretical one (the opposite of orthodox)?

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.

It's a pity there's no proof of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

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.

I was referring to the ECF's, who learned directly from the Apostles. Iraneus learned directly from the ECF's...that's a pretty short chain.

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.

Ah....Paul's "secret" teachings. What about his public ones that he repeated constantly and consistently to the whole Church? Is everything a big conspiracy theory with these people?

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

If they were excluded from the canon, that means by definition they WEREN'T part of that which the Church considered inspired and authoritative.

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

Well that's nice. It's a pity no orthodox believers agreed with them.

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

What are you talking about? Are you denying that we continue to learn increasingly more about Gnostic beliefs? Claiming that the Catholic Church just covered everything up (these conspiracy theories just keep flying around...) doesn't jive in the face of how much we know about Gnosticism today. We know what the various groups of Gnostics believed. We just don't agree with it, and never have.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[sojourner]

Polaris said: That's right. A textbook implies that there were indeed records kept. FerventGodSeeker claimed that keeping records wasn't needed -- I think it was, and your example agrees with me.

There is one significant factor that leads us to believe 1) that Jesus did not organize the Church as it appears now, in either LDS or orthodox format, and 2) that there were no early records kept:
Jesus preached the immanent establishment of the kingdom. The early followers did not "dig in" and establish themselves with any high order of organization, nor did they keep records of important developments. They all thought that Jesus would return and set up his kingdom during their lifetimes. Even Paul adopts a sort of "leave off your everyday living and prepare for the kingdom" attitude. It was not until the original Twelve began to die off that the Church began to realize that they were probably here for the long haul and needed to develop some kind of temporal administration. it was not until subsequent generations began to question that records began to be kept. That's why the transference of authority from original apostle to subsequent bishop was so sketchy -- the apostles didn't think there was any reason for themto be succeeded. Even when it became apparent that the parousia was not immanent, they quite possibly believed that the remaining time was still going to be short. They didn't see a need to establish any kind of long-term "proof of authority."

 

[Polaris]

Why is it dangerous Polaris? Tradition is found in both written and unwritten form. And what do you mean by details?

It's examples of "Tradition" put into writing. Oral Tradition may or may not have been put into wrting. Although nothing pops to mind that wasn't eventually put into writing. But for some odd reason unknown to me, you seem to think that everything was delivered complete, nice and neat. Not the case at all. Things took time to be put into writing and to develop. Truth as we know it was found in the consciousness of the Church led by the Holy Spirit.

We apparently have different understandings of oral tradition. When I hear oral tradition I think of the passing of information by word of mouth without the information actually being recorded. With that understanding, oral tradition would be a very dangerous way to preserve any considerable amount of information because it relies on humans to keep their story straight simply based on memory. If you're suggesting that oral tradition involves written records then that defintely helps reduce error.

I have never claimed "that everything was delivered complete, nice and neat." I have been arguing to the contrary -- the information wasn't passed on in a way that was "complete, nice and neat", and therefore I believe certain doctrinal and organizational details have drifted or been lost altogether.

Of course there were but what I think FGS is saying is that something like "murder is wrong" didn't have to be put into writing to make it true. God's Word is not limited to what is on paper. He seems to have a liking to working through different channels.

The details as to who authorized Apostolic succession through Bishops and how exactly that was done is hardly as obvious as "murder is wrong". I'm not saying God is limited to what is on paper, but our understanding of accurate historical events is. Sure God works through different channels, but it seems His most common way is to reveal His will to his authorized servants (i.e. prophets and apostles) and it is of most benefit to us if they record such information so we have reliable access to it.

Well, at some point he must have stopped right?

Actually I gave you St. Irenaeus as well (only 50 years). But I'm starting to doubt that the year even matters to you. I could give you St. Ignatius or St. Polycarp who was alive and met some of the Apostles and it seems to make little difference to you. Since you don't even know where the Holy Spirit has it's workings and when it stopped, I suppose that makes it easy to pick and choose regardless of the year.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what exactly you mean when you ask if the Holy Spirit "must have stopped". Are you referring to the church-governing revelation? If so, I believe that stopped with the death of the Apostles -- they were the ones ordained and authorized to receive the church-governing revelation through the Holy Ghost. They were the ones who held the Keys of the Kingdom.

The years do matter to me. I am yet to see any document that specifically refers to Peter as Bishop that's not 200+ years after his death, and the first reference to Apostolic succession through Linus (that I know of) is 150+ years after Peter. Irenaeus was only 50 years after Peter, are you sure? Here are the dates I have for each of the Bishops of interest. These are the approximate dates of their ministry in the Bishopric -- please correct me if I have something wrong.

Ignatius - 68 - 98
Polycarp - 120 - 160
Irenaeus - 180 - 202
Eusibius - 313 - 339

Did you mean unbias information instead of objective? Catholic Encyclopedia is rather good at noting outside scholars and Protestant sources as well. If that isn't objective then well you must share the wealth with me and tell me what is.

The context for my use of objective means the same thing as unbiased: (from dictionary.com) - uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. If the Catholic Encyclopedia indeed quotes non-Catholic sources for the purpose of providing alternative non-Catholic views objectively then I stand corrected.

Not once in these quotes is Peter addressed as Bishop. To the contrary the bishops mentioned are numbered in succession since the apostles, not including the apostles.

Give me a time gap you are looking for please. This "it's not early enough" is getting a bit unproductive and tiresome. Tell me what you will and will not accept and why.

Did you not read my response? It says nothing about a time period. Quoting Ignatius, you attempted to make a point about Peter's Bishopric. My response (shown above) refutes your point without any reference to time.

Also it makes perfect sense that Ignatius would exhort the church members to honor and heed the Bishop -- he is their ordained overseer. That does not necessarily make him an Apostle nor give him Apostolic authority.

I gave you a quote in my previous post where James is in fact called Bishop. But since it does not fulfill your criteria because of the whole "Apostacy" concept, I'm just gonna ask you to note what is and isn't acceptable to you in the LDS forum so I can always reference to it and we can stop this going back and forth stuff.

The writings of Ignatius (68-98 AD) carry much more weight with me than those of Eusibius (313-339 AD). As far as I'm aware, Ignatius never referred to any of the Apostles as Bishops.

 

[Polaris]

I'm not sure what will be helpful for you anymore. I'll have you write a detailed reference thread that notes what I asked above.

That's a valid concern. Let me attempt to explain as clearly and directly as I can. Let me know if I get any historical details wrong, or if there are things you would like clarified. Then if you wish I'll post it in the LDS forum.

We believe that the Apostles as a whole held the keys and authority to govern the church. In fact Paul states that apostles and prophets constitute the foundation of the church. Like you, we believe that Peter was the chief Apostle. Part of the Apostles' responsibilty was to establish the chruch abroad, call Bishops to oversee the local congregations, then when the church in that area was sufficiently strong the Apostles moved on to continue the establishment of the church in other regions. As is illustrated by the Pauline epsitles, the Apostles often returned to places where the church had been established to strengthen and correct as needed. From historical accounts we learn that Peter established the church in Antioch and ordained Evodius as Bishop (who according to certain accounts was succeeded by Ignatius). After the church was well established in Antioch, Peter went on to Rome to establish/strengthen the church there.

Certain accounts claim that Peter ordained Linus as Bishop in Rome. Other accounts claim that Peter himself was established as Bishop of Rome and that Linus succeeded him upon his death. It makes perfect sense to me to assume that Peter called and ordained Linus to be Bishop just as he did in Antioch with Evodius, but we just don't know for sure. It is at this point that we disagree with Catholic tradition. Upon Peter's death Catholic tradition claims that Linus assumed both the Bishopric and the Keys to the Kingdom (Apostolic authority), essentially bypassing the remaining Apostles to become head of the church. We believe that while Linus may have been ordained as a Bishop, he was not necessarily given Apostolic keys and authority -- those remained with the Apostles who were still alive. Once the remaining Apostles died, we believe the Apostolic authority and church-governing revelation was taken with them. Unfortunately there is no reliable historical evidence that can confirm the truth either way. The only references to Linus' apostolic succession were made 150+ years after the fact. To my knowledge there is no document that explains who authorized Apostolic succession through the Bishopric and how such a succession actually occurred.

Either Peter informed the church leadership how the Apostolic succession would occur and made provisions for such a succession, or after his death, Linus and the other remaining leaders in Rome simply assumed leadership because they were of highest authority in Rome at the time, but without an official, authorized Apostolic ordination. The fact is we don't know. There is no document that gives any details as to how such an Apostolic succession occurred. Catholic tradition was formed, which declares that the Apostleship was absolved into the Bishopric, and by about 200 AD that was firmly regarded as the truth. As I mentioned before, Paul stated that Apostles make up the foundation of the church. Catholics and Orthodox claim it doesn't anymore. It would take solid, reliable historical evidence to convince me that the proper foundation of Christ's church has changed. Without such evidence, I will continue to believe that the church leadership was assumed by Linus without an official, authorized Apostolic ordination.

Now let me be clear in what I mean by solid, reliable historical evidence. If we had any record from around the time of Peter's death that provided details as to Linus' "Apostolic succession" -- who authorized it, how it was realized, etc, then I would consider that pretty solid evidence. Without such records how can we know that he didn't just assume the leading position because he was the highest authority in Rome at the time? Why did the succession fall to him and not to one of the remaining Apostles who were called by Christ himself? These are questions that historical records simply cannot answer. Catholic tradition gained acceptance likely because it made sense to them at the time and was soon strongly rooted and believed as truth. This makes it difficult for me to consider writings after the 2nd and 3rd century as authorative. I cannot prove that Apostolic succession didn't occur, and without more detailed, and reliable historical evidence than what is currently available you can't prove that it did. You're left to trust in Catholic tradition while I trust in modern-day revelation.

 

[Polaris]

Polaris said: That's right. A textbook implies that there were indeed records kept. FerventGodSeeker claimed that keeping records wasn't needed -- I think it was, and your example agrees with me.

There is one significant factor that leads us to believe 1) that Jesus did not organize the Church as it appears now, in either LDS or orthodox format, and 2) that there were no early records kept:
Jesus preached the immanent establishment of the kingdom. The early followers did not "dig in" and establish themselves with any high order of organization, nor did they keep records of important developments. They all thought that Jesus would return and set up his kingdom during their lifetimes. Even Paul adopts a sort of "leave off your everyday living and prepare for the kingdom" attitude. It was not until the original Twelve began to die off that the Church began to realize that they were probably here for the long haul and needed to develop some kind of temporal administration. it was not until subsequent generations began to question that records began to be kept. That's why the transference of authority from original apostle to subsequent bishop was so sketchy -- the apostles didn't think there was any reason for themto be succeeded. Even when it became apparent that the parousia was not immanent, they quite possibly believed that the remaining time was still going to be short. They didn't see a need to establish any kind of long-term "proof of authority."

Interesting post. So are you suggesting that the early Apostles were in error? While I disagree that the Apostles were in error, I would argue that one possible reason they did not attempt to establish a long-term "proof of authority" was because they knew an Apostasy was eminent as indicated by Paul's statement in 2 Thess 2:3. They knew there would be no long-term authority.

 

[sojourner]

Interesting post. So are you suggesting that the early Apostles were in error? While I disagree that the Apostles were in error, I would argue that one possible reason they did not attempt to establish a long-term "proof of authority" was because they knew an Apostasy was eminent as indicated by Paul's statement in 2 Thess 2:3. They knew there would be no long-term authority.

No. I'm not suggesting it at all! I'm stating it. Jesus talked about an immanent parousia. Assuming that those statements are authentic, the apostles expected Jesus to return in their lifetime. There is no reason to suspect that those statements were taken in any way other than literally by the early Church. They would have had no reason to worry about an apostasy -- in their minds, there would not have been enough time left to them to experience an apostasy.

In answer to your earlier post:

We apparently have different understandings of oral tradition. When I hear oral tradition I think of the passing of information by word of mouth without the information actually being recorded. With that understanding, oral tradition would be a very dangerous way to preserve any considerable amount of information because it relies on humans to keep their story straight simply based on memory. If you're suggesting that oral tradition involves written records then that defintely helps reduce error.

I have never claimed "that everything was delivered complete, nice and neat." I have been arguing to the contrary -- the information wasn't passed on in a way that was "complete, nice and neat", and therefore I believe certain doctrinal and organizational details have drifted or been lost altogether.

The OT was entirely oral tradition for thousands of years. No scripture. At all. These words didn't drop out of the sky...they had been passed orally from person to person over many, many years. If, as you say, a completely oral tradition "would be a very dangerous way to preserve any considerable amount of information because it relies on humans to keep their story straight simply based on memory," this raises two questions:
1) In what way, then, are subsequent written translations (as well as subsequent written historical documentation) seen to be more susceptible to doctrinal "drift" or loss, than the original oral transmission?
2) In what possible way can the original writings, themselves, be seen as "accurate" using this criterion?
Fact is, scripture, doctrine and practice have been susceptible to this since their inception!

 

[Quiddity]

Polaris, if I can ask you to be patient. I will get back to this topic to address post #17 specifically. I see no reason to address post #16 without actually understanding what it is you are seeking. Thanks for remaining charitable and peace be with you.

As the Terminator said, "I'll be back"