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.
Excellent and thorough rebuttal. Well done.
thanks.
Why would a Protestant sect care about the validity of Apostolic Succession. Does that question have anything to do with the 5 Solas? Does it in any way threaten to obscure the doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants.
While I have much to disagree with you prior to this statement you’ll forgive me if I just stopped reading and ask for an explanation of this:
“So does Christ... There’s no direct mention of him (Christ?) after the Gospels.”
In parenthesis is my question basically.
JB
BK: So does Christ... There’s no direct mention of him after the Gospels. Does that mean that Paul replaces Christ? Nonsense.
No direct mention of Christ after the gospels?????
Please tell me that you're not really saying that and meant something else.