 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
baptist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | RCC to Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13th, 2007 05:36 pm |
|
| Which is logically correct, "apostolic succession" or "church succession" of the original Church of Christ that was built by Christ? Why?
|
|
|
Intercessor
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Southcentral, Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 859 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13th, 2007 06:52 pm |
|
baptist wrote: Which is logically correct, "apostolic succession" or "church succession" of the original Church of Christ that was built by Christ? Why?
Welcome to the forum, John.
"Church succession" suggests more than one Church. The Catholic faith teaches that Christ established only one true Church and that the one Church has continued for over two thousand years. So that term ("church succession") would not be appropriate.
There have been multiple apostles and multiple generations of apostles. Christ breathed on the first group (and specifically gave Simon Peter the "keys to the kingdom"). They were given authority to oversee the Church and even to forgive or retain sins (as Christ's representatives here on earth). Those apostles laid hands on succeeding apostles, passing on the Holy Spirit and the authority of apostleship. So we have enjoyed a succession of apostles during the past two thousand years--an unbroken chain of authority and guidance from the time of Peter.
Check back again in a day or two. David or Rick will have a correction for you, if I didn't handle your question properly.
Again, we're glad to have you come to this forum, John.
God bless you.
Last edited on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 04:33 am by Intercessor
____________________
"If our charity is arrested by the difficulties encountered in dealing with our neighbor, . . . our relations with our brethren are not regulated by our love of God, but by our love of self." Divine Intimacy p. 781, Fr. Gabriel, O.C.D.
|
|
|
baptist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | RCC to Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 12:39 am |
|
Hi Phoebe,
Thanks for the input. I think I did not make myself clear.
When I say "church succession", I mean that Jesus Christ built one sole group of believers and it was called Church of Christ/God...
Jesus Christ had appointed 12 apostles as the 1st generation group of the Church...the 1st generation Church.
Then, the members of this 1st group (especifically the apostles), had appointed/anointed 2nd generation groups, then, this 2nd generation groups had anointed/appointed the 3rd generation hroups, and so on...and it is continuing today. It is like family. The grandmother gave birth the daughter, the daughter bore her daughter, her daughter bears the little girl...and so on...
But the annointing /appointing authority came from the original Church of Christ, that was come from Jesus Christ Himself.
Hope it helps.
Last edited on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 12:41 am by baptist
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 01:08 am |
|
Baptist, what you describe is a kind of simplified explanation of what Catholics call “apostolic succession.” The name “church succession” evidently comes from a different tradition. Since you are now Baptist, I assume this is where you encountered the term. Perhaps Baptists mean something different by “apostolic succession”?
As to your initial question, concerning which term is “logically correct,” Phoebe answered correctly in the literal sense of the terms. Different Churches do not succeed one another; the leaders of the one Church succeed one another, just as you describe.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 11:34 am |
|
baptist wrote: I mean that Jesus Christ built one sole group of believers and it was called Church of Christ/God...
Actually, the apostles originally intended to reform Judaism. It was not until they were expelled from Temple that they began to worship separately. They were generically known as Christians by the Jews and Romans, so they adopted the title for themselves, and as early as 107 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch coined the name "Catholic Church". It's been in place ever since. Every other Christian ecclesial community is an offshoot of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter.
An excellent visual representation of the branching of Christianity is available at a web site called Conglomination. It also includes a listing of major Christian sects and when they were founded, as well as a good explanation of which sects broke from which.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
baptist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | RCC to Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 02:05 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: baptist wrote: I mean that Jesus Christ built one sole group of believers and it was called Church of Christ/God...
Actually, the apostles originally intended to reform Judaism. It was not until they were expelled from Temple that they began to worship separately. They were generically known as Christians by the Jews and Romans, so they adopted the title for themselves, and as early as 107 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch coined the name "Catholic Church". It's been in place ever since. Every other Christian ecclesial community is an offshoot of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter.
An excellent visual representation of the branching of Christianity is available at a web site called Conglomination. It also includes a listing of major Christian sects and when they were founded, as well as a good explanation of which sects broke from which.
Thank you for your answer. But I believed that the explanation that you had given were the "Catholic" interpretation/version of the history/origin of the real original Church of Christ/God.
For example, the Catholic group had interpreted the prophecy of Jesus Christ and stated that it was Peter who was chosen by Christ to which the Church should be founded. Did Peter know it?
I mean, for the sake of our discussion, Peter maybe the head/leader of the FIRST locale church/group, the first generation of believers that was founded by Christ Himself. But the Church (the 1st generation locale group in Jerusalem) had annointed/appointed 2nd generation leaders to oversee their respective locale groups, and it is being called the "church succession". Do you think I'm right?
While the Catholic group is saying that it was Peter, the first apostle who lead the 1st generation of Church. And after he died, he passed his authority to another person (the 2nd generation), and so on...and it is called "apostolic succession". I think this is not what the NT history was telling us. Do you think I'm wrong?
Also, Ignatius of Antioch maybe correct to describe the Church of God as Catholic to counter the claim of the Romans as the universal empire of that day but it doesn't mean the "Catholic" group today, am I right?
So, which is really logical, apostolic succession or church succession?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 04:00 pm |
|
baptist wrote: CajunRick wrote: baptist wrote: I mean that Jesus Christ built one sole group of believers and it was called Church of Christ/God...
Actually, the apostles originally intended to reform Judaism. It was not until they were expelled from Temple that they began to worship separately. They were generically known as Christians by the Jews and Romans, so they adopted the title for themselves, and as early as 107 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch coined the name "Catholic Church". It's been in place ever since. Every other Christian ecclesial community is an offshoot of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus on the rock of Peter.
Thank you for your answer. But I believed that the explanation that you had given were the "Catholic" interpretation/version of the history/origin of the real original Church of Christ/God.
I don't really understand your point. The word "church" is used in many capacities. Paul generally referred to a community of believers as "church" so we had the church at Corinth, the church at Antioch, the church at Rome, etc. In the early church, for the most part, the original apostles and disciples were succeeded by bishops who were elected from the community, either by the faithful or by bishops of nearby churches. All of these particular Churches were united in the one Body of Christ directed by the bishop of Rome in a primacy of honor, and when disputes arose, it was the bishop of Rome who was generally called upon to resolve them.
Within each particular church, the bishop presided. As the Church grew, elders/presyters/priests were ordained to assist the bishop, and were sent to more remote locations so they could have liturgy on a regular basis. The priests remained loyal to the head bishop even when additional bishops were named. The head bishop became known as the patriarch. Only those who were bishops could ordain priests, and only groups of bishops could ordain other bishops.
This is not a "Catholic" interpretation. It is historical fact. When the Orthodox Churches in the east and the Latin Church in the west broke in 1054, bishops, priests, and faithful in the east maintained apostolic succession by remaining in union with the patriarch of their particular church. In the west, the Church of England and the various Protestant churches rejected apostolic succession by breaking from their patriarch, the bishop of Rome. Martin Luther wasn't named by anyone to start a new church; he didn't succeed anyone in any rightful manner. Calvin, Zwingli, and others didn't have a mandate to form even more churches. John Smyth did not receive a revelation from God to start the Baptist church in 1605, nor to repudiate his own teachings later in his life.
According to the World Council of Churches, there were over 40,000 Protestant "denominations" in 2001, and that number has probably grown by another 5000. Do you truly believe that the word "one" in the Apostles' Creed means 40,000+
And by the way, our purpose here is to provide a Catholic interpretation. We are here to present Catholic teaching, not to debate it. Questions are certainly welcome, and anyone who sincerely seeks information about the Catholic faith, regardless of purpose, is welcomed here.
I do admit this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "church succession" so I'm really not sure what it's supposed to mean. Continuity of faith and doctrine has been important since Jesus taught us to love God and our neighbor. Anything not in the original Deposit of Faith is rejected. But not everything is explicit in scripture (belief in the Trinity, for example) so it's possible you may mean something acceptable by it.
Since the earliest days of the Church, it has been believed that the true Church could be identified by the four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. So any church that succeeds another and still bears the four marks would be considered a true Church. That's why, for example, the Polish National Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are recognized even though they are not affiliated with either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 07:21 pm |
|
Hello John:
You have received good answers to your question. For additional information you can look at:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
I can understand your confusion. I was Baptist for a while and in my experience, the facts of Church History were carefully ignored.
BTW, if you want to learn about the Catholic Faith, you must go to Catholic sources; othrwise, it is probable that you will only receive more misinformation.
God's Blessings,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| First Name: | Jeff / japhy | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | (Roman) Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 11:00 pm |
|
baptist wrote: I mean, for the sake of our discussion, Peter maybe the head/leader of the FIRST locale church/group, the first generation of believers that was founded by Christ Himself. But the Church (the 1st generation locale group in Jerusalem) had annointed/appointed 2nd generation leaders to oversee their respective locale groups, and it is being called the "church succession". Do you think I'm right?
While the Catholic group is saying that it was Peter, the first apostle who lead the 1st generation of Church. And after he died, he passed his authority to another person (the 2nd generation), and so on...and it is called "apostolic succession". I think this is not what the NT history was telling us. Do you think I'm wrong? How many years of Church history does the NT provide? Paul's letters only take us through the mid-60's, and the Gospels cover history before then. The book of Revelation is the latest history we have in the Bible (unless I'm mistaken). What the book of Acts shows us in the beginning is that, when one of the Apostles (Judas) died, Peter understood from the Scriptures that another must be elected to take his place. Matthias succeeded Judas.
I would also ask you to consider this: why Paul had the authority to write to all the particular Churches he did (Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Colossae, Ephesus, Galatia, and Philippi)? Was he all their pastors? Or a travelling preacher? No, he had a particular mission given him by God, and his teaching authority was known and respected. This does not lead me to the conclusion that Christ set up a bunch of isolated autonomous churches with their own exclusive leadership; the council in Jerusalem passed law that was binding on all the particular Churches! In addition to that, these Churches did not have the right to teach whatever they felt; Paul also wrote to keep them in check theologically and doctrinally.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 166 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14th, 2007 11:13 pm |
|
Hi John -
Welcome to the Board ! Just wanted to perhaps save you a little time here by saying that we're not about debate but discussion.
You mentioned -
"Thank you for your answer. But I believed that the explanation that you had given were the "Catholic" interpretation/version of the history/origin of the real original Church of Christ/God."
The above statement you made to Rick says that the Catholic Church has a "spin" on this but not the facts. If you are convinced that what the Catholic Church teaches is mainly opinion and are here purely to dissuade and / or debate, then you probably should try another site.
Speaking for myself, I would say that we have no problem here with visitors who disagree with what they believe the Catholic Church teaches on a number of points, but who are willing to be fair and are here to try to accurately understand the Catholic position, so they can at least disagree for the right reasons.
If you fall into the latter category, then we welcome your questions !
God bless.
|
|
|
baptist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | RCC to Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2007 01:10 am |
|
CajunRick wrote:
Within each particular church, the bishop presided. As the Church grew, elders/presyters/priests were ordained to assist the bishop, and were sent to more remote locations so they could have liturgy on a regular basis. The priests remained loyal to the head bishop even when additional bishops were named. The head bishop became known as the patriarch. Only those who were bishops could ordain priests, and only groups of bishops could ordain other bishops.
This is not a "Catholic" interpretation. It is historical fact. When the Orthodox Churches in the east and the Latin Church in the west broke in 1054, bishops, priests, and faithful in the east maintained apostolic succession by remaining in union with the patriarch of their particular church. In the west, the Church of England and the various Protestant churches rejected apostolic succession by breaking from their patriarch, the bishop of Rome. Martin Luther wasn't named by anyone to start a new church; he didn't succeed anyone in any rightful manner. Calvin, Zwingli, and others didn't have a mandate to form even more churches. John Smyth did not receive a revelation from God to start the Baptist church in 1605, nor to repudiate his own teachings later in his life.
According to the World Council of Churches, there were over 40,000 Protestant "denominations" in 2001, and that number has probably grown by another 5000. Do you truly believe that the word "one" in the Apostles' Creed means 40,000+
And by the way, our purpose here is to provide a Catholic interpretation. We are here to present Catholic teaching, not to debate it. Questions are certainly welcome, and anyone who sincerely seeks information about the Catholic faith, regardless of purpose, is welcomed here.
I do admit this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "church succession" so I'm really not sure what it's supposed to mean. Continuity of faith and doctrine has been important since Jesus taught us to love God and our neighbor. Anything not in the original Deposit of Faith is rejected. But not everything is explicit in scripture (belief in the Trinity, for example) so it's possible you may mean something acceptable by it.
Since the earliest days of the Church, it has been believed that the true Church could be identified by the four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. So any church that succeeds another and still bears the four marks would be considered a true Church. That's why, for example, the Polish National Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are recognized even though they are not affiliated with either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
Rick,
Thank you for the reply.
Maybe you are far more better than me about history but one thing I knew is that when we say "apostolic succession", we mean to say that the authority of Apostle was given to every chosen person by the Catholic group, starting from Peter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, accdg to Catholic teaching, Peter was the 1st Pope (Apostle), and Peter's papacy was seconded by St. Linus (67-76), then,
by
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)...and so on...
And this is called Apostolic Succession. The head of this church/group, i.e. catholic, is the Pope.
But by reading the NT Bible, especially the book of Acts and letters to early Church by the Apostles, they did not give us any hint of this "Apostolic Succession"'s teaching.
What we are reading in the Bible and in the history was that there was a Church Succession. There was the 1st original locale CHURCH founded by Christ, then this Church begat new locale Church led by elected bishop or leader, and this new church begat new locale church, and so on...and it continues. It is the opposite of Apostolic Succession. The leader is Jesus Christ.
So which is which? Which is logical? Apostolic Succession or Church Succession?
|
|
|
baptist
Member
| Joined: | Sat Oct 13th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | John | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | RCC to Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2007 01:52 am |
|
mg57 wrote: Hi John -
Welcome to the Board ! Just wanted to perhaps save you a little time here by saying that we're not about debate but discussion.
You mentioned -
"Thank you for your answer. But I believed that the explanation that you had given were the "Catholic" interpretation/version of the history/origin of the real original Church of Christ/God."
The above statement you made to Rick says that the Catholic Church has a "spin" on this but not the facts. If you are convinced that what the Catholic Church teaches is mainly opinion and are here purely to dissuade and / or debate, then you probably should try another site.
Speaking for myself, I would say that we have no problem here with visitors who disagree with what they believe the Catholic Church teaches on a number of points, but who are willing to be fair and are here to try to accurately understand the Catholic position, so they can at least disagree for the right reasons.
If you fall into the latter category, then we welcome your questions !
God bless.
I came here to understand fully the teaching of Roman Catholic Church teachings since some of the members of my family are members of this group. They were not fully taught by the Catholic priest in their respected area, so I had to search for themselves.
If the Catholic is the real true Church of Jesus Christ, then, I believe that you will give me some logical explanation of my questions so that I could clearly see both sides. If not, then, maybe you are hiding something that should not be known. But the truth shall set us free from ignorance of religions.
So far, I'm still waiting for some convincing proofs, a logical and reasonable explanaton of the validity of Catholic group. I hope you could help me. If not, then, it only means that my family members are being deceived by the Catholic. I hope that I'm wrong.
So which is logical, apostolic succession or church succession? And why?
Last edited on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 01:53 am by baptist
|
|
|
faithfl1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 64 |
| First Name: | Sharon | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | protestant, non-denominational (born-again), Roman Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2007 02:14 am |
|
As it was stated earlier, this is not up for debate. We (Catholics) have nothing to hide at all. Nor does the Church. The one and only True Church of Jesus Christ. the reason you are misunderstanding the answer's that have been given is through no fault of anyone. It's just a matter of History. The wonderful history of the Catholic Church. Once understood, there's no denying it. Here is a link that may help you find some answer's,http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/ but be careful, you might just discover the Truth.   God Bless!
____________________
Sharon S.
...I love you, Lord, my strength Psalm 18:2
I have the strength for everything through Him who empowers me. Phil 4:13
|
|
|
NanaR
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Kentucky USA |
| Posts: | 141 |
| First Name: | Ruth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Born JW, born-again Catholic (Tiber Swim Team 2008) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2007 08:50 am |
|
baptist wrote: CajunRick wrote:
Within each particular church, the bishop presided. As the Church grew, elders/presyters/priests were ordained to assist the bishop, and were sent to more remote locations so they could have liturgy on a regular basis. The priests remained loyal to the head bishop even when additional bishops were named. The head bishop became known as the patriarch. Only those who were bishops could ordain priests, and only groups of bishops could ordain other bishops.
This is not a "Catholic" interpretation. It is historical fact. When the Orthodox Churches in the east and the Latin Church in the west broke in 1054, bishops, priests, and faithful in the east maintained apostolic succession by remaining in union with the patriarch of their particular church. In the west, the Church of England and the various Protestant churches rejected apostolic succession by breaking from their patriarch, the bishop of Rome. Martin Luther wasn't named by anyone to start a new church; he didn't succeed anyone in any rightful manner. Calvin, Zwingli, and others didn't have a mandate to form even more churches. John Smyth did not receive a revelation from God to start the Baptist church in 1605, nor to repudiate his own teachings later in his life.
According to the World Council of Churches, there were over 40,000 Protestant "denominations" in 2001, and that number has probably grown by another 5000. Do you truly believe that the word "one" in the Apostles' Creed means 40,000+
And by the way, our purpose here is to provide a Catholic interpretation. We are here to present Catholic teaching, not to debate it. Questions are certainly welcome, and anyone who sincerely seeks information about the Catholic faith, regardless of purpose, is welcomed here.
I do admit this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "church succession" so I'm really not sure what it's supposed to mean. Continuity of faith and doctrine has been important since Jesus taught us to love God and our neighbor. Anything not in the original Deposit of Faith is rejected. But not everything is explicit in scripture (belief in the Trinity, for example) so it's possible you may mean something acceptable by it.
Since the earliest days of the Church, it has been believed that the true Church could be identified by the four marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. So any church that succeeds another and still bears the four marks would be considered a true Church. That's why, for example, the Polish National Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are recognized even though they are not affiliated with either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.
Rick,
Thank you for the reply.
Maybe you are far more better than me about history but one thing I knew is that when we say "apostolic succession", we mean to say that the authority of Apostle was given to every chosen person by the Catholic group, starting from Peter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, accdg to Catholic teaching, Peter was the 1st Pope (Apostle), and Peter's papacy was seconded by St. Linus (67-76), then,
by
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)...and so on...
And this is called Apostolic Succession. The head of this church/group, i.e. catholic, is the Pope.
But by reading the NT Bible, especially the book of Acts and letters to early Church by the Apostles, they did not give us any hint of this "Apostolic Succession"'s teaching.
What we are reading in the Bible and in the history was that there was a Church Succession. There was the 1st original locale CHURCH founded by Christ, then this Church begat new locale Church led by elected bishop or leader, and this new church begat new locale church, and so on...and it continues. It is the opposite of Apostolic Succession. The leader is Jesus Christ.
So which is which? Which is logical? Apostolic Succession or Church Succession?
Baptist:
The Early Church Fathers record much more than the Succession of the Bishops of Rome. Note this from Hippolytus, who lived in the Third Century and was martyred in 236 A.D.:
The following is the record of the Churches founded by the 70 who were sent out by our Lord Jesus Christ before his death (as recorded in the New Testament). This record was kept because those taught by the apostles and by the rest of the 70 disciples knew that there would be Successors to them and to themselves.
I have a dear friend who was a Deacon in the Baptist Church for a number of years. He is the one who sent me this information initially. Take a look.
From:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0504.htm
49
"Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life."
You have heard, beloved, the answer of the Lord; you have learned the sentence of the Judge; you have been given to understand what kind of awful scrutiny awaits us, and what day and what hour are before us. Let us therefore ponder this every day; let us meditate on this both day and night, both in the house, and by the way, and in the churches, that we may not stand forth at that dread and impartial judgment condemned, abased, and sad, but with purity of action, life, conversation, and confession; so that to us also the merciful and benignant God may say, "Your faith has saved you, go in peace; "13 and again, "Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many, things: enter into the joy of your Lord."14 Which joy may it be ours to reach, by the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom pertain glory, honour, and adoration, with His Father, who is without beginning, and His holy, and good, and quickening Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages of the ages. Amen.14
Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End .
1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.
2. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried.
3. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan's time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found.
4. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there.
5. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there.
6. Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum,14 a town of the great Armenia.14
7. And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue,14 and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia.
8. And Thomas preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians,14 and was thrust through in the four members of his body with a pine spears14 at Calamene,14 the city of India, and was buried there.
9. And James the son of Alphaeus, when preaching in Jerusalem. was stoned to death by the Jews, and was buried there beside the temple.
10. Jude, who is also called Lebbaeus, preached. to the people of Edessa,14 and to all Mesopotamia, and fell asleep at Berytus, and was buried there.
11. Simon the Zealot,14 the son of Clopas, who is also called Jude, became bishop of Jerusalem after James the Just, and fell asleep and was buried there at the age of 120 years.
12. And Matthias, who was one of the seventy, was numbered along with the eleven apostles, and preached in Jerusalem, and fell asleep and was buried there.
13. And Paul entered into the apostleship a year after the assumption of Christ; and beginning at Jerusalem, he advanced as far as Illyricum, and Italy, and Spain, preaching the Gospel for five-and-thirty years. And in the time of Nero he was beheaded at Rome, and was buried there.
The Same
1. James the Lord's brother,15 bishop of Jerusalem.
2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles.
4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus.
5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus.
6. Stephen, the first martyr.
7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch.
8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed,15 believing together with his daughters.
9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred.
10. Timon, bishop of Bostra.
11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli.
12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria.
13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan.
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.
15. Luke the evangelist.
These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered15 by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me."15 But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel15 on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.
16. Silas, bishop of Corinth.
17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica.
18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.
19. Epaenetus, bishop of Carthage.
20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia.
21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus.
22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia.
23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium.
24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea.
25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon.15
26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former.
27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols.
28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna.
29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain.
30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens.
31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus.
32. Agabus the prophet.
33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes.
34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania.
35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon.
36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia.
37. Patrobulus,15 bishop of Puteoli.
38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi.
39. Linus, bishop of Rome.
40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus.
41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope.
42, 43. Olympus and Rhodion were martyred in Rome.
44. Lucius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria.
45. Jason, bishop of Tarsus.
46. Sosipater, bishop of Iconium.
47. Tertius, bishop of Iconium.
48. Erastus, bishop of Panellas.
49. Quartus, bishop of Berytus.
50. Apollo, bishop of Caesarea.
51. Cephas.15
52. Sosthenes, bishop of Colophonia.
53. Tychicus, bishop of Colophonia.
54. Epaphroditus, bishop of Andriace.
55. Caesar, bishop of Dyrrachium.
56. Mark, cousin to Barnabas, bishop of Apollonia.
57. Justus, bishop of Eleutheropolis.
58. Artemas, bishop of Lystra.
59. Clement, bishop of Sardinia.
60. Onesiphorus, bishop of Corone.
61. Tychicus, bishop of Chalcedon.
62. Carpus, bishop of Berytus in Thrace.
63. Evodus, bishop of Antioch.
64. Aristarchus, bishop of Apamea.
65. Mark, who is also John, bishop of Bibloupolis.
66. Zenas, bishop of Diospolis.
67. Philemon, bishop of Gaza.
68, 69. Aristarchus and Pudes.
70. Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul.
Peace,
Ruth
____________________
When you bend down to help someone up, that is the best exercise for your heart. -- Fr. Noe, 2007
http://nanaruthann.blogspot.com
|
|
|
Esther
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Kansas City, Kansas USA |
| Posts: | 148 |
| First Name: | Esther | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Southern Baptist to Roman Catholic 11/26/06 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2007 10:39 am |
|
baptist wrote:
So far, I'm still waiting for some convincing proofs, a logical and reasonable explanaton of the validity of Catholic group. I hope you could help me. If not, then, it only means that my family members are being deceived by the Catholic. I hope that I'm wrong.
John,
You will find the convincing proof when you are open to it. I was baptist (like many others on this forum, including a couple former baptist ministers) and reluctantly found the Lord calling me to His Church. But may I suggest a book? If you really want some "convincing proof" check out "Catholicism and Fundamentalism" By Karl Keating. That book changed my life and was a major part of my conversion. I would also take a look at the council of Hippo and the council of Carthage and PRAY for understanding. Also ask the question 'who gave them the authority to establish the cannon of the Bible'. Look at Church history and the belief in the Trinity. I am sure you already do, but read the Bible more and you will see passages in a whole new light. I know this sounds odd, but trust me. Every conversion story I have heard, that is something most of us experience (is the Word in a whole new light).
Bottom line is this has to be something you do. The information is out there. You found a great resource here. This place is friendly, open to questions, and bursting at the seams with information. But the Catholic faith cannot be described in a couple posts. It takes lots of research, time, and most of all faith.
God bless, and keep asking questions!!
Esther
PS- The reason we do not debate is we don't have to. The Church speaks for herself. 
|
|
|
japhy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Princeton, New Jersey USA |
| Posts: | 179 |
| First Name: | Jeff / japhy | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | (Roman) Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15th, 2007 12:06 pm |
|
baptist wrote: Maybe you are far more better than me about history but one thing I knew is that when we say "apostolic succession", we mean to say that the authority of Apostle was given to every chosen person by the Catholic group, starting from Peter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, accdg to Catholic teaching, Peter was the 1st Pope (Apostle), and Peter's papacy was seconded by St. Linus (67-76), then,
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)...and so on...
And this is called Apostolic Succession. The head of this church/group, i.e. catholic, is the Pope.
But by reading the NT Bible, especially the book of Acts and letters to early Church by the Apostles, they did not give us any hint of this "Apostolic Succession"'s teaching.
What we are reading in the Bible and in the history was that there was a Church Succession. There was the 1st original locale CHURCH founded by Christ, then this Church begat new locale Church led by elected bishop or leader, and this new church begat new locale church, and so on...and it continues. It is the opposite of Apostolic Succession. The leader is Jesus Christ.
As I asked you before, where does the Bible end, historically? Acts ends with Paul still alive. Paul's letters were written while he was still alive. John's letters, Peter's letter, James' letter... they were still living. Revelation is the latest book, historically-speaking. So you can't expect them to record the (non-apocalyptic) history of anything past their time.
And you also have explained how, if these churches have their own isolated leadership, why Paul wrote to so many of them. Did he have authority over them? Why, if each church's "leader [was] Jesus Christ" were there divisions and heresies and problems in them? Perhaps these particular Churches were not adhering to the universal -- Catholic -- faith of the Church, which is why it was imperative for Paul to write to them (and visit them, or send Timothy or someone in his place) to correct a particular Church.
____________________
[Mary said,] "Do whatever he tells you." - John 2:5
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | |
| | |
