PING
I’m a Messianic Jew. Do I count? I mean Yashua being Jewish and all. Rome took over and look what happened. I’ve read the history of the popes. And that church history. But then, there was Luther.
There is no church but the local church, and there are no pastors but local church pastors.
You have to have seen the risen Christ to be an Apostle.
1. I see no references to Act. Read there. It discusses how the Church chose to appoint the replacement of Judas. The understanding being that the positions did not die with the Apostles, but that they could select their own.
“2. Peter might well have been, in a somewhat loose sense, overall apostolic leader in the New Testament, but if he was, it was a very, very loose sense.”
Nonsense. He was universally acknowledged as the first among the Apostles, including Paul, who says that he was the least of them and unworthy to be called an Apostle.
Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, in forgiving sins. Peter, not any of the other Apostles was given the authority by Christ over the Church. “Feed my sheep”, three times Christ admonished Peter.
“For example, on one occasion, Paul the Apostle quite strongly challenges and disagrees with him in public”
Yet, Paul considered himself to be the least among the Apostles. So clearly, he did not believe that the disagreement changed his position.
“Peter’s New Testament epistles are not, perhaps, major epistles, as the Pauline ones are, indeed, they are somewhat short and not high on doctrinal content.”
How is that relevant to the point? Again the relevant texts show that Peter was considered by the Apostles to be first among them.
“Later, he appears to disappear altogether from any New Testament consideration with scarcely a mention anywhere.”
So does Christ... There’s no direct mention of him after the Gospels. Does that mean that Paul replaces Christ? Nonsense.
“Peter may well have been the overall leader for taking the gospel to the Jews (as Paul was with respect to the Gentiles), yet the epistle of James (James almost certainly being the Senior Elder at Jerusalem), does not even mention him once!”
This is an argument from silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of Absence.
“Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter ever became ‘bishop’ of Rome”
The tables of Bishops list Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Eusebius, writing in the fourth century lists Peter as the bishop of Rome. So yes, there is historical evidence for Peter as the first bishop of Rome.
There are exactly zero lists of bishops that do not list Peter as first. In the absence of evidence that does not corroborate with the evidence that we do have, we are forced to conclude that Peter was beyond reasonable doubt, the first bishop of Rome.
“Surely all of this would be utterly inconceivable if Peter had understood Jesus’ comment to him in Matthew 16:18 to mean that he should adopt a grandiose and pope-like style of leadership!”
Finally, you mention Matt 16:18. You might want to also mention the end of John and after the Great Commission, where Christ speaks (again to Peter alone), and tells him to ‘feed his sheep’.
It’s clear to me that Peter was given the authority to lead the Church, from the beginning. And as Bishop of Rome, that establishes Petrine Primacy (which is what the doctrine is called), and the elevation of the Bishop of Rome.
Apostolic succession is something else altogether.
“If he was a leader at all (which seems quite debatable)”
Only among those who choose to deny scriptural evidence to the contrary.
“3. In the New Testament, no ‘bishop’ (overseer) had jurisdiction over the bishops or presbyters of other churches”
Again, MT says the opposite, and the Apostles considered Peter to be their leader. Paul himself says as much.
“(carefully check out Ignatius of Antioch, in his Letter to Polycarp)”
Oh, so patristic evidence is valid? Let’s see the full quote from Ignatius so we can verify whether he actually says this.
“4. The Roman Catholic Church itself has not maintained it’s own concept of apostolic succession through the laying on of hands upon holy men.”
Ok, this is a direct challenge of Apostolic succession.
“In fact, ‘Simony’ (that is, the buying of the office of ‘pope’ or ‘bishop’ for money, or favours) was an absolute disgrace”
Two things here.
1, the sacrament of ordination is not conditional on the sinfulness of the bishop. The consecration is valid so long as the bishop is in good standing with the church at the time of the consecration (ie, not excommunicated, etc).
If sacraments were in fact dependent, then they would never be efficacious, because men are sinful. Instead, they work from Christ through the priest, such that they still work, even if the priest is sinful.
Two, in order to establish a breach, you would have to show that all the current bishops can trace their lineage back to these priests. :)
Good luck with this, btw. Episcopal lineage is very sturdy. Say if 10 of 30 bishops were to fall away, and the remaining 20 ordained the next 30, then apostolic succession hasn’t been affected at all.
“Unless I am misunderstanding something here, appointing a corrupt bishop or pope just once would destroy the whole structure”
You’ve gravely misunderstood apostolic succession. In order for the succession to be broken, all of the bishops would have to fall away. Not just one.
“Frankly, I think that most studied RCs know this which could be why they tend to play down the teaching on ‘apostolic succession.”
Well, then. I think apostolic succession is absolutely crucial to the Church and one of her most important teachings. I’m happy to discuss it if you are.
I have been reading them myself for years. I do not claim to be a scholar but I do read the early Church Fathers. I am a layman who reads. I can tell by what is missing if they are that genuine in their work.
When someone shows early church Fathers without verses is like arguing the bible without showing those verses. Strange indeed.
Galatians 1:8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Heed God's Words and warning on preaching any other gospel, God says that any such follower shall be accursed.
It would be helpful if you pointed out that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches also believe in Apostolic Succession.
Except that there is no apostolic succession described nor is any authority given in the Scriptures to pick successors.
If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?
The authority of the Church comes from Christ, not from the Bible.
The Church used that Christ-given authority to write the New Testament and to ratify the works that we now call the Old Testament.
If the Apostles didn’t have the authority even to establish their own heirs then why would we trust the Bible they wrote?
IIRC Acts has a very good example of what happens when men choose who is to take the place of an apostle. I think his name was Mathias. Never heard from again. Pray to God never to be chosen by men!
The doctrine of apostolic succession appears to have begun primarily with Irenaeus in the late second century A.D. It was begun, not as a means of establishing a line of authoritative fellowship, but as illustrating a line of authoritative orthodoxy. It was begun as an argument against Gnosticism in Irenaeus’ classic work Against Heresies. Indeed, it proved to be the fatal blow against Gnosticism. Irenaeus’ argument, which the Gnostics could not counter, went thusly: We know of several congregations that were established by apostles, and we know who the bishops (or elders) of those congregations were from their time until now. None of those men ever taught the doctrines of Gnosticism. Therefore, Gnosticism is not an apostolic doctrine.
This line of thinking was later expanded by others in the third century, particularly Cyprian, to contend that those who were outside of this unbroken line of fellowship from the first century were not to be accepted as Christians even if they were orthodox in belief and practice.
Side notes: Irenaeus refers at times to a succession of bishops, and at other times to a succession of elders (or presbyters). At the time of Irenaeus there was a gradual change taking place in which the twofold offices of the New Testament period—bishops (also known as elders) and deacons—began to transition into the threefold offices of later times: bishops, elders, and deacons.
Cyprian (mid third century), although he argued for restricting fellowship to those within the line of succession, and was a proponent of the elevation of the office of bishop above that of elder, still did not ascribe to the later, more expanded versions of church government in which archbishops exercised authority over bishops beneath them, nor of a “universal bishop”. On one occassion he said:
“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” (Cyprian, in the Seventh Council of Carthage)
For a survey of the development of church government in the first and century centuries, see my posts on the following thread, especially post #23:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2827609/posts?page=21
Well, maybe some who are neither Catholics nor Protestants might like to contribute. Baptist-types are not Protestants. Plymouth-type brethren are not Protestants. But they have been around in one horribly persecuted form or another since the Pentecost that the Holy Ghost descended upon and in the first Christian assembly.
Your post is a good start, and it ought to drum up a lot of back-and-forth. Look up the church polity generally followed by the Darbyites?
With sincere regards --
I made a mistake and double posted. I’m sorry —
Prayers for your misunderstandings.
Simony is named after Simon the Magician. (Yes, a biblical account of it.)
No bishop pays to become a bishop, believe me, it is a big responsibility.
Again, prayers for you. May you come to the truth.
First of four parts.
Robin A. Brace, February, 2009.
"it's absence"? Thanks, I don't support illiteracy.