Posted on 01/02/2012 9:00:25 PM PST by RnMomof7
Very good question.
Isaiah 22 verse 15. Read it and ponder it. :)
"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 ?
What is the question? I’m not sure I understand.
There’s two things going on here. 1, Petrine Primacy and 2, apostolic succession.
Petrine primacy comes from the fact that he chose Peter, and that he gave Peter the Keys to the kingdom of Heaven. This is why Peter became the head of the Apostles.
What we see in Acts 1, is when Judas commits suicide, Peter says that his seat must be replaced by another. Rather than the 12 becoming 11, the 12 remain 12.
This is the point that I am trying to drive home. Peter had the authority to appoint a replacement for Judas, and the Apostles had the authority to ordain priests.
Apostolic succession talks about the succession, from Peter and the Apostles, all the way down to today. Each of the sees had their own ministry and Peter was the head of all of them. Peter could appoint men to replace a see, and the bishops could appoint their priests.
Who then, are the present day twelve ?
Well, I don’t mean to frighten you, but just one remains.
The other 11 have been devastated.
From what I understand, now I don’t know enough myself to answer this question properly, is that in the time of Eusebius, there were 5.
Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem.
Jerusalem had been re-established after it’s devastation in Bar-Kochba, and Constantinople, to my understanding was elevated.
So there were just three in existence from the very beginning some 1600 years ago.
Antioch, as you well known, was devastated in the Seige when it fell to the Turks in the 11th century.
Alexandria fell to the Arabs, much earlier. Rome is the only one that remains.
I don’t know enough about the structure of the very early church to know what happened to the other 7. Perhaps someone else here knows. But it is to my understanding that Rome is the only one left.
It would be helpful if you pointed out that the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches also believe in Apostolic Succession.
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.
We don’t even know with certainty the bishoprics of all the 12.
From what I can see:
Bishop of Rome - St. Peter (+Antioch)
Bishop of Byzantium - St. Andrew
Bishop of Parthia - St. Matthew
Bishop of Jerusalem - St. James the Less
Bishop of Spain - St. James the Greater (Compostela)
Bishop of India - St. Thomas
Bishop of Phyrygea - St. Philip
Bishop of Armenia - St. Bartholemew
Bishop of Ephesus - St. John
Bishop of Alexandria - St. Mark
Bishop of Babylon - St. Simon
Bishop of Persia - St. Jude.
But most of this is speculation. We just don’t have that much information on the apostles.
Except that there is no apostolic succession described nor is any authority given in the Scriptures to pick successors.
If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?
It’s central to the claim that the Catholic church was founded by Christ.
“If there is then it must asked who replaced the apostles as they died? and who has formed this body over time?”
Acts 1 - St. Peter. After that, his successors.
Matthias was chosen by lot, not by Peter and there are no successors named. none.
The choosing of Matthias happened before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost by casting lots.
There is no other reference to them taking a vote on anything after they where baptized by the Holy Spirit.
This is the same way they choose the Pope, they cast lots. So much for being led by the spirit.
May God lead us to His truth, BVB
Peter, and this is the important point, decided that a replacement must be selected.
Not the other apostles, Peter.
This is why succession is biblical. He could have said, no, the 12 are now 11. Why did Peter insist that another be appointed?
The authority of the Church comes from Christ, not from the Bible.
The Church used that Christ-given authority to write the New Testament and to ratify the works that we now call the Old Testament.
If the Apostles didn’t have the authority even to establish their own heirs then why would we trust the Bible they wrote?
So you don’t see the connection between them selecting the Pope through casting of lots among worthy successors and what’s going on in Acts 1? :)
You don’t think maybe that’s the reason they do things that way?
Peter narrowed down the candidates and insisted that a replacement be appointed. Therefore we can conclude that succession is what is taught as the appropriate method of passing on the authority from one generation to the next.
Great, nay terrific posts from you this thread.
You are the one who doesn’t understand. They took the vote before they were filled with the Spirit.
Are you happy with them choosing your Pope using that as an example.?
May God lead us all to His truth, BVB
Peter wanted a man for the successor of Judas that had been with Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry. That is reasonable, since they had such men at that time. Peter did not set the same conditions for future successors.
The Early Father held themselves to be Apostolic successor-bishops and they in turn ordained successors. Do you know better than the Early Fathers?
There is really no doubt on the question among secular historians. Perhaps you should debate with them.
I’m not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
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.