Posted on 02/17/2015 8:43:39 AM PST by RnMomof7
LOL First of all Methodists don’t have a pope not do many of those other denominations mentioned. Second we can eliminate any credibility to that fantasy line of Popes because there was no Linus listed as even a Bishop of Rome anywhere in any history of the day. It’s all made up by the Catholic Church from on obscure verse in scripture. Do a study on the history on the title pope and you will see there was no such thing as a single “pope” for at least 300 years.
“...obscure verse in scripture ...”
All scripture is profitable, remember.
Was St. Iraneus straight up lying in his Adversus Heresies book? Not likely.
Please show historical documented evidence that Linus was even a Bishop in Rome.
If you want to debate the role of the Pope, be my guest.
But that’s not what what you were previously arguing, and what I corrected you on. You said that apostolic succession through the Catholic Popes and Bishops exists only in made up Catholic histories or fantasies.
I showed you places where Protestants and Orthodox (as examples) also accept the same line of apostolic succession, through the same Catholic Bishops and Popes until the Reformation or the break between the East and West. Of course they disagree on the specific roles of those Popes and Bishops.
You can add to your list and say that this line of succession exists only in Catholic, Orthodox and many Protestant histories and fantasies if you wish, but your original point that this concept is unique to the Catholic Church was already disproven.
I don't care what you think they accept. You claimed apostolic succession. That demands that Linus was actually at least a Bishop in the church in Rome. If you cannot prove that you cannot prove apostolic succession. So how about it?
On this kind of thread, if you successfully refute one argument, you’ll find yourself playing Whack-A-Mole quite quickly.
{^_^}
Excellent!!
Incorrect. In my comment, I neither supported nor opposed apostolic succession.
I simply (and quite easily) proved that the idea of apostolic succession is not unique to the Catholic Church. Which means that the proposition that apostolic succession exists:
"Only in the Catholic Church fantasies and made up history."
is false.
Some people believe in aliens and Santa Clause also.
Oh, burn.
Not.
Seriously, this obsession with aliens is pervasive. From aliens building the pyramids to surveillance of the White Hut.
Yes. Many people believe one or both of those things. But if you claimed that they were all Catholics it would be easy for me to disprove that claim.
As easy as it was to disprove your prior claim regarding apostolic succession.
LOL You didn’t catch on? Believing in apostolic succession is like believing in aliens. It ain’t so I don’t care whether they are Catholic or Protestant. Catholics like the lemming affect. I don’t.
It appears to me, that the early church considered there to be three kinds of apostles.
1. Christ Jesus, Heb. 3:1. Definitely a kind of its own.
2. The twelve
3. Paul and Barnabas, Acts 14:14
Neither Paul or Barnabas were of the twelve, yet they are called apostles...which would indicate the early church must have seen the original twelve as a special class, they being personally taught by Christ during his time on earth, then being sent by him.
While others, such as Paul and Barnabas, not taught personally by Christ during his time on on earth, yet were apostles, they being "sent" by the Spirit and by laying on of hands in the church at Antioch:
Acts 13 (KJV) 1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost...
It, thus, seems to me, the early church considered being "sent," whether by the Father, as Jesus was, or by Jesus, as the twelve were, or by the Holy Ghost, as Paul and Barnabas were, the primary determinant as to the meaning of "apostle."
Again, it seems to me, that if the Holy Ghost could send Paul and Barnabas, with a Spirit filled church having lain hands on them, as at Antioch, this opens the door for others of this kind of apostle.
Of course, this leads into the bigger cessationist issue. Since most FReepers on this thread seem to believe the Spirit no longer can operate like it did in the early church (as at Antioch), then, of course, no apostles of the Paul and Barnabas class.
It all sort of opens a Pandora’s box doesn’t it. I’ve come to the conclusion that making any definitive statement on this issue is fraught with problems. And I haven’t had anyone show me that it’s necessary. Spiritual discernment is still paramount along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit with study of scripture.
Amen that
The historical documented evidence is in Book III, Chapter 3 of the book by St. Irenaeus against heresies mentioned in the original post.
This is a legitimate work recognized by modern scholars. Irenaeus wrote circa 175-185 A.D. and cannot be dismissed as an illegitimate source.
Research Against Heresies for yourself, don’t take my word for it; you will find that his list of the earleist Popes is legit
The longer one studies looking for real truth the more it becomes evident that the history the Catholic Church claims is pure fiction. There is not indication whatsoever that Linus was even a Bishop.
Very little is known about Linus. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 339) identified him with the companion of Paul who sent greetings from Rome to Timothy in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:21), but Scripture Scholars are generally hesistant to do so...It should be remembered that contrary to pious Catholic belief--that monoarchical episcopal structure of church governance (also known as the monarchical episcopate, in which each diocese was headed by a single bishop) still did not exist in Rome at this time (McBrien, Richard P. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to Benedict XVI. Harper, San Francisco, 2005 updated ed., pp. 33-34).
That would be Richard P, McBrien, priest, editor of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Since you are going to refer to a bible, YOUR bible also says all legitimate bishops are married with children...So if an unmarried bishop snuck in there illegitimately, every time he layed his hands on someone, it was an illegitimate ordination...
There is certainly no apostolic succession thru any unmarried bishop...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.