[BenKenobi]

There is that little complication.

“Are you saying that the leadership in the RCC are apostles?”

They have a direct link to the apostles in having been ordained by those who were ordained by those who were ordained going all the way back to the Apostles.

“Are you saying that seeing the risen Lord is a requirement to be a leader in the Catholic church?”

I’m saying that the selection process for replacements to the Apostles was well documented in scripture and this article fails to even mention Acts in this discussion. This is a grave oversight.

“If seeing the risen Lord is a requirement to be chosen in the process of apostolic succession, then apostolic succession died out when the last of the men who saw the risen Lord died.”

Never said it was. I’m saying that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors also had the authority to do the same.

[metmom]

But an apostle by definition of Scripture has to be one who has seen the Lord.

Acts 1:21-22 21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Those were Peter's own words.

What men today have walked with Jesus and the apostles for those three years and have been a witness to he resurrection?

No men after that generation died out qualified for the post.

You can't have a succession of apostles if you don't have anyone qualified to be one. It just doesn't work.

[knarf]

"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."

"Never said it was. I’m saying that the Apostles had the authority to appoint their successors and that their successors also had the authority to do the same."

Which IS it ?