I have already covered this issue many times previously on this thread. From a previous post:
"Two important traditions are apostolic succession and the infallibility Church councils certified by the pope. Of course these traditions are demonstrated in scripture fully verified by history. However, some Protestants assert that the biblical proof is not explicit enough and that historical evidence is inadmissible, even when the truth of said evidence is beyond question. I could understand ruling out historical reports that were doubtful, but denying proven history amounts to denying truth. When such proven history concerns issues of Christian doctrine, the denial amounts to a rejection of true doctrine."
The scriptural precedent for apostolic succession is at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven apostles to chose a successor for Judas. The Apostles had just received instructions from the Risen Christ that included His infallible interpretation of the ways that OT prophesies had just been fulfilled. Peter invoked an OT prophesy on Judas, and, exercising his authority as pope, gave instructions to replace Judas as "bishop." All the Apostles dutifully obeyed.
The scriptural precedent for the infallibility of papally certified Church councils was the First Church Council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James where led by the Holy Spirit to established rules for Christian Gentiles. This was done over the objections of the Judaizers that had apparently been associated with James and had temporarily fooled Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:11-13).
Historical proof of Peter's apostolic succession is located in these previous thread posts:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1900#1900
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2618333/posts?page=1921#1921
mas cerveza por favor (jeste jednou pivo, prosim) wrote:
“The scriptural precedent for apostolic succession is at the end of Acts 1 when Peter led the eleven apostles to chose a successor for Judas. The Apostles had just received instructions from the Risen Christ that included His infallible interpretation of the ways that OT prophesies had just been fulfilled. Peter invoked an OT prophesy on Judas, and, exercising his authority as pope, gave instructions to replace Judas as “bishop.” All the Apostles dutifully obeyed.”
No. Judas was replaced as an apostle, and this by direct indication of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 1:26) Which other of the apostles were replaced? When? By whom? And why was, according to Roman logic, only one, Peter, replaced, and not 12? No, you read into the text what you want to see, not what is. Besides which, if Psalm 109:8 referred to Judas, and since the inspired St. Luke tells us that this is so, it must be, then it was Scripture, the Word of God, that determined that Judas was to be replaced as an Apostle, not Peter.
Peter also once walked on water at the command of His Lord. Does his successor also? Examples do not doctrine make.
mcpf also wrote:
“The scriptural precedent for the infallibility of papally certified Church councils was the First Church Council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James where led by the Holy Spirit to established rules for Christian Gentiles. This was done over the objections of the Judaizers that had apparently been associated with James and had temporarily fooled Peter and Barnabas (Gal 2:11-13)”
Again, no. The authority of the council is grounded in God alone, first, in the direct revelation to Peter while at Joppa, and second, in the Holy Scriptures of the OT, from which one specifically is quoted in full: Amos 9:11-12. Again, you read into the Scriptures what you want to be there.
Which was LED BY JAMES and called in part because of an ERROR that Peter supported by his behavior ( Judaizing)
There is NOTHING in Acts that supports INFALLIBILITY.. (to anyone that understands how to read the word of God and does not blindly play follow the blind man )
Repeating the same errors/lies does not make them true..
++++Historical proof of Peter’s apostolic succession is located in these previous thread posts:+++
We are looking for INFALLIBLE evidence not Catholic historians
The problem is that scripture never puts peter in Rome but as a prisoner .
When Paul writes to Rome, he never greets Peter in the letter, which proves (to my mind anyway) that Peter was not in Rome so he could not be the founding Bishop.
It is true, he probably was crucified in Rome, but dieing there does not make you a bishop there.
AS the 1st church met in Jerusalem it was presided over by James not Peter.
Paul confronted Peter as an equal.
It was the custom in those times to place the most important person first on the list. Peter is placed first when it comes to the list of the twelve original apostles,
however, James becomes a believer after the resurrection, and interestingly appears to be the leader, and Paul affirms it by placing his name first on the list. The Catholic Church cannot scripturally make a claim that Peter was the first Pope when the scriptural evidence clearly demonstrates that he was not even the chief apostle
It is clear here that james was in charge of that council and that it was James that made the final ruling.
Peter was the problem not the solution
Please READ the words of James
Act 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men [and] brethren, hearken unto me:
Not to Peter , listen the ME
Act 15:14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Act 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Act 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
That is James making the decision NOT PETER
Can the Pope be OVERRULED in matters of faith? That should be your first clue that he was not in charge and that he was not infallible .
Peter never claimed headship for himself. He was a humble man that would rebuke what is said of him today
Peter was the apostle to the Jews ..not the Roman gentiles
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” (Gal. 2:7-8).,P>It was Paul not Peter that wrote doctrinal letters to the Romans and Ephesian Church
PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles! This would have kept him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile church.
It is paul that wanted to build the church at Rome. That fact proved that Peter was not the “bishop “ of Rome. As Paul told us he would not build on another foundation.
“Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION” (Rom. 15:20).
When paul wrote to the church at Rome Peters name is no where listed
Around 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles.
66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED.History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine.
Peter was an obedient apostle Of Christ and he carried out with honor the work the Lord had ordained for him to do , and that work never included being a bishop to a gentile church
You haven't covered it at all...There is nothing in the scripture that indicates Apostolic succession nor an infallible Catholic religion...
And the fact that your religion has foisted this anti-biblical fable on you guys for so long has nothing to do with your claim that you have unwritten Apostolic tradition straight from the Apostles' mouths...
C'mon, let's see the unwritten Apostolic traditions that you guys have that were left out of the scriptures...The OTHER things that Jesus taught that John didn't write about...Let's hear it...