Posted on 02/17/2015 8:43:39 AM PST by RnMomof7
Interpreted properly, that means that he must be the husband of only 1 wife and not divorced and remarried like so many protestant leaders...that's adultry!
And have children who he has raised well. No celibate priests allowed.
Thanks for your comment.
It was big of you to admit that your claim that apostolic succession exists "Only in the Catholic Church fantasies and made up history" was false.
By the way, if you're interested in discussing why most Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants still believe in apostolic succession, write up your point about Linus and how that calls apostolic succession into question and I'll be happy to discuss.
I already did. You can't even show from historical documentation that Linus was even a Bishop. Paul surely didn't place him in that capacity. Any mention of it a hundred years later is based on undocumented hearsay at best.
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).
Richard Peter McBrien info found here.
We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Linus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
In fact Tertullian maintains that Cletus and not Linus was the successor to St. Peter (Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, p. 1).
Anyhow the heresies are at best novelties, and have no continuity with the teaching of Christ. Perhaps some heretics may claim Apostolic antiquity: we reply: Let them publish the origins of their churches and unroll the catalogue of their bishops till now from the Apostles or from some bishop appointed by the Apostles, as the Smyrnaeans count from Polycarp and John, and the Romans from Clement and Peter; let heretics invent something to match this (Tertullian. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum. Circa 200 A.D. as cited in Chapman J. Transcribed by Lucy Tobin. Tertullian. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIV. Copyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis" from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr. Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion...There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints...But from a manuscript of Torrigio's we see that on the sarcophagus in question there were other letters beside the word Linus, so that they rather belonged to some other name (such as Aquilinus, Anullinus). The place of the discovery of the tomb is a proof that it could not be the tomb of Linus (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae", II, 23-7) (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Linus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
The whole line is based on fallacy.
That would be MISinterpreted...You don't interpret clear, plain speech...You believe it, or NOT...
And in the case of your religion, you don't like what it clearly says so you pervert it and make up your own version...
Thanks for that explanation. It took me a while to reply because I wanted to digest it first and also because I thought I understood the Chruch’s position to be different from the what you assume it to be but I wanted to be sure.
I’ll provide two links on the subject, one from the Catholic church and one from the Methodists, and though they differ in many key aspects such as the specific roles of bishops, they essentially agree in a way that makes the issue of Titus irrelevant.
To summarize, they believe that apostolic succession is indeed historical (in addition to being spiritual, but it’s the historical aspect I think we’re debating here) but it is not a single line going from one single apostle to one single successor, but from a community of bishops and presbyters who were chosen by by the Twelve or by Paul or by those chosen by them on and on tot he comunity of bishops today.
According to the Vatican:
“Likewise, the ministry of governing should never be separated from the community in such a way as to place itself above it: its role is one of service in and for the community. But when the New Testament communities accept apostolic government, whether from the apostles themselves or their successors, then they obey and relate the authority of the ministry to that of Christ himself.
The absence of documents makes it difficult to say precisely how these transitions came about. By the end of the first century the situation was that the apostles or their closest helpers or eventually their successors directed the local colleges of episkopoi and presbyteroi. By the beginning of the second century the figure of a single bishop who is the head of the communities appears very clearly in the letters of Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who further claims that this institution is established “unto the ends of the earth” (Ad Epk. 3, 2).
During the second century and after the Letter of Clement this institution is explicitly acknowledged to carry with it the apostolic succession. Ordination with imposition of hands, already witnessed to in the pastoral Epistles, appears in the process of clarification to be an important step in preserving the apostolic Tradition and guaranteeing succession in the ministry. The documents of the third century (Tradition of Hippolytus) show that this conviction was arrived at peacefully and was considered to be a necessary institution.
Clement and Irenaeus develop a doctrine on pastoral government and on the word in which they derive the idea of apostolic succession from the unity of the word, the unity of the mission, and the unity of the ministry of the Church; thus apostolic succession became the permanent ground from which the Catholic Church understood its own nature.”
The comparable Methodist statement on the same subject is more clear in my opinion:
“Apostolic Succession, and its validity, can be addressed in many different ways. The most traditional method is to look at the theory of Apostolic Succession in a mechanical sense. (ie, in Rome St. Paul laid his hand’s on Linus, who laid his hands on Clement, and so on, and so on, and so on . . . .etc.) There are, indeed, various historical problems involved in this scheme, mostly stemming from the simple fact that the early catholic (universal) Church didn’t establish a clear differentiation between Presbyter and Episcopos until around the middle of the second century. It would appear, based upon Scripture and what records we have from that time, that the leaders of every local congregation were called Presbyters, but that the chief leaders — those who represented the congregation in early councils and such (people like Chloe [a woman!!!!] from 1 Corinthians) — would be considered Presbyters and Episcopoi. Hence, from an early period in history the Episcopoi were Presbyters who exercised oversight powers for each congregation. As the years passed, and the Church grew in numbers, not all local congregations had Episcopoi (Bishops) — they, subsequently, were under the local leadership of at least a single Presbyter (Priest), and under the general leadership of an Episcopos (Bishop) at some other church in the area. Hence, Dioceses developed — following, in general, Roman Geopolitical divisions, just as we tend to follow our county and state boundaries in setting up State Conventions and Annual Conferences.
The method for passing on ministry from one generation in the Church to the next was set very early on. Clearly, a well defined ministry was in existence by the time of St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, for he speaks at length about Episcopoi and Presbyters, as well as about the laying on of hands.
St. Paul does make reference to one of the duties of an Episcopos (in this case, Titus) being to appoint the Presbyters in every town ( Titus 1:5-9). He also makes reference to HIS laying hands upon Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6), in which a gift of God was planted in Timothy through the laying on of my hands. He also makes reference to the laying on of hands of the council of Presbyters (1 Timothy 4:14), which — when taken together with St. Paul’s statement that he, himself, had lain hands upon Timothy — leads us to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Episcopoi and Presbyters of a local congregation to lay on hands in the passing on of Grace for ministry. And, since the Episcopoi (Bishops) were the chief overseers of the church (much as were the Apostles before them), it is reasonable to assume that the Episcopoi exercised leadership in this activity. Indeed, Paul’s remark to Timothy (1 Tim. 5:22) that he should not lay on hands on anyone hastily, indicates that, as an Episcopos, Timothy played a key role in not just the act of ordination, but also the selection of who gets ordained.
Nowhere in Scripture do we find it stated, however, that only Episcopoi laid on hands for ordination to ministry. Nor can we find anything which limits the ordinational authority to just the Episcopoi. Such limitations began to appear in the practice of the Church around the middle of the second century and, for the most part, have continued on to this day in those denominations which have maintained the Episcopal form of Church Government.”
http://www.revneal.org/Writings/apostoli.htm
Indeed if you read further in the Methodist statement, you will find an acknowlegdgement of the type of problem you raise with Titus:
“If we look at Apostolic Succession as a mechanical, legalistic theory, then we are presented with a few problems. There are some significant reasons to suspect that there have been at least a few breaks in the order of succession. For example, we know that the church in North Africa had a series of breaks, where the last of a line of Bishops had died without having consecrated his successor. In these cases, the Presbyters (Elders) gathered together and elected one of their own to assume the Episcopal office. In most cases, three of the Presbyters would lay their hands on the head of a fourth and consecrate him to the Episcopacy. These Presbyters would never ordain other Presbyters, however. Their authority to consecrate a Bishop was limited to only those emergency situations. Once a Bishop was selected and ordained, he then continued the practice of ordaining Presbyters, and other Bishops, and the Presbyters never took it upon themselves to do it on their own as a matter of course.
The question that has been asked, throughout the history of the Church, has been how important is it that an Episcopacy (Bishop) be among those who lay on hands at the ordinations of Bishops? The Roman Catholic Church decided that, under normal conditions, it was so important for Bishops to do it that it became part of Cannon Law that a minimum of 3 be required for a valid ordination to the Episcopacy (if three are not available, 2 or 1 may be used). However, it should be noted that the Papacy has always recognized the validity of the North African Episcopal line — even given these known breaks in the order of Succession! Hence, we are left with a simple conclusion: while it may be normal for Bishops, and only Bishops, to exercise the grace of ordination to Christian ministry, it is not absolutely necessary for there to be a Bishop present in the laying on of hands for such an ordination to be valid. What is necessary is that at least ordained Presbyters be the ones who lay on hands.
This conclusion has significant implications for the theory of Apostolic Succession. Essentially, it means that we’re not talking about some mechanical Bishop-to-Bishop, hand-to-head passing on of power, but a stream of continuity within the Council of Presbyters and overseen and administered by the Episcopal office within the Presbyterate. There has been an unending continuity of ministry within the Presbyterial ranks of the Church from the days of the Apostles until now. So, even if a literal line of Bishop-to-Bishop consecrations cannot be absolutely maintained all the way back tot he Apostles, we can maintain a continuity of Apostolic ministry at the Presbyterial level from the days of the Apostles to the present.”
The Vatican statement does not address the issue you raise nearly as directly as the Methodists. I don’t know if they would go as far as to agree with the Methodists on this point but I will do some further research on the issue and post whatever I find.
Your entire long post was wasted because the entire premise is based on untruth. First off, there is no proof that Peter was actually a Bishop in the Roman church. Second, There is no proof that Linus was even a Bishop anywhere. Let's look at a couple of statements about that from historians.
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).
Richard P. McBrien was a priest and editor of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis" from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr. Finally this book asserts that Linus after his death, was buried in the Vatican beside St. Peter. We do not know whether the author had any decisive reason for this assertion...There was nothing in the liturgical tradition of the fourth-century Roman Church to prove this, because it was only at the end of the second century that any special feast of martyrs was instituted and consequently Linus does not appear in the fourth-century lists of the feasts of the Roman saints...But from a manuscript of Torrigio's we see that on the sarcophagus in question there were other letters beside the word Linus, so that they rather belonged to some other name (such as Aquilinus, Anullinus). The place of the discovery of the tomb is a proof that it could not be the tomb of Linus (De Rossi, "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae", II, 23-7) (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Linus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
So you see, the entire pyramid comes crashing down and was based on supposition and apocryphal writings. There is no such thing as apostolic succession. So speculation on how anyone feels about it or believes about it is immaterial.
As you see, what we often end up with on these threads is a question of authority. There is the authority of Christ’s Church which we recognize.
Then there is the contrary - evidenced by those we (putting it kindly) debate on these threads.
For them, they are the authority. Rather each is his/her own authority. Authority on what Holy Scripture says, authority on history, authority on what are valid sources, authority even on what Church is.
It seems not to matter whether they disagree with each other, only that they agree the Church has no authority.
It really is impossible to contradict or argue against one for whom he/she is their own authority. Well, not impossible to argue with, but futile.
But it can be entertaining. Enjoy!
{^_^}
You didn't read it correctly. The Methodist author is criticizing that approach just the same way you are. The author is agreeing that that way of understanding apostolic succession has historical problems. You are also saying that that way of understanding apostolic succession has historical problems.
Please read it again, because I think you missed his further point on the correct way to think about apostolic succession.
I can read it all day long and it still ends up that this whole “apostolic succession” thing is based on falsehoods.
This conclusion has significant implications for the theory of Apostolic Succession. Essentially, it means that we're not talking about some mechanical Bishop-to-Bishop, hand-to-head passing on of power, but a stream of continuity within the Council of Presbyters and overseen and administered by the Episcopal office within the Presbyterate. There has been an unending continuity of ministry within the Presbyterial ranks of the Church from the days of the Apostles until now. So, even if a literal line of Bishop-to-Bishop consecrations cannot be absolutely maintained all the way back to the Apostles, we can maintain a continuity of Apostolic ministry at the Presbyterial level from the days of the Apostles to the present.
You can still disagree with this author, but even if you prove that Titus never existed it doesn't disprove the author's point that "there has been an unending continuity of ministry within the Presbyterial ranks of the Church from the days of the Apostles until now".
What is it with this focus on some “Presbyterial ranks”? It’s nonsense and has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. It doesn’t take some “Presbyterial ranks” to understand what Jesus and the apostles taught was needed for salvation. Those “Presbyterial ranks” have led more people astray then anything else. The gospel is preached by individuals and the focus on “Presbyterial ranks” is NOT what is taught in scripture.
Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
In that context, what if anything did the laying on of hands do, if all that is necessary for transmission of the faith is just to hear it with your ears or read it with your eyes?
Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
>>In that context, what if anything did the laying on of hands do, if all that is necessary for transmission of the faith is just to hear it with your ears or read it with your eyes?<<
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
The way I read it, the presbyters or elders (in the plural) laid hands on them and spoke prophetic words and thus transmitted a spiritual gift. It seems to suggest that there is more to the transmission of the faith than words alone. Or at least that the Apostles thought there was. Am I reading it wrong?
The "elders" of the ekklesia were to be chosen from among that group and were given specific requirements for that position. Not one of the Catholic Leadership today qualify. So for Catholics to play the game of "how it's done" is ridiculous.
So what was the point of laying on hands? Let's assume that it has nothing to do with authority. Does it mean anything at all? Or is that passage of Scripture superfluous? If it is, why are there all those passages about Apostles laying on hands?
Acts 8:17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
Acts 6:6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them.
2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
Acts 13:3 Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
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.