The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy,
"[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—
1) his own generation,
2) Timothy’s generation,
3) and the generation Timothy will teach.
Apostolic Succession | Catholic Answers
Notice Paul says, "what you HEARD from me, not what you READ from me. We call it Tradition.
Around 64 AD Peter died and was succeeded by Linus.
Around 76 AD Linus died and was succeeded by Anacletus
Aanacletus died in 88, succeeded by Clement. It keeps going until you come to Pope Francis.
The list can found in any encylopedia, or google "list of popes"
NOW that is an "Interpretation". YOUR interpretation.
It is not however what the Scripture in fact says. What you have done is to make it say what YOU want it to say.
I do understand that the verse you used comes from a Catholic website and of course you will have to agree with it because you are a Catholic. But what does Paul actually say because he does NOT say anything about Apostolic succession.
When we read the passage what we see in this verse would refer to oral revelation from Paul's inspired mouth to Timothy, but it says nothing about apostolic succession. But lets not forget that Paul had written 13 other letters before 2 Timothy, which was his last. We must include Paul's writings in this co
Now THINK, If this text was the basis for succession, then it would mean that Timothy was Paul's successor.
This is nowhere recorded in tradition!
Then please consider with me that in 2 Tim 2:2, we have the famous 4 generation discipleship passage:
1. Paul
2. Timothy
3. Faithful men
4. Others.
What was taught within these four generations may have included oral revelation, but this oral doctrine was also taught in scripture and that is the KEY!
As a Roman Catholic and Orthodox defenders who see the succession of Bishops or the Pope, look elsewhere! First, the one's who were to be entrusted were, "faithful", not Bishops. Timothy was not a Bishop, was he to chose the next bishops to entrust the oral tradition to them?
Second, the office of one bishop over the presbytery, did not exist until after 150 AD. Diocesan bishops, where one bishop was over another did not exist until 250. (
Click here for proof.) So to suggest this passage teaches succession in any Catholic or Orthodox way, is vacuous.
Where was Timothy a bishop, who succeeded him? Shouldn't Timothy have been a bishop at Rome if this teaches succession? The tradition that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus is very late and most scholars believe it is a fabrication. The Orthodox church, with nothing else, just blindly accept it at true. There is No tradition says that Timothy was Paul's successor. We have no line of successors in history either. Why didn't Paul make this claim of succession to someone who was to be bishop of Rome. And why didn't Peter make this statement? Because it did not happen!!!!
Finally, it is indeed odd for Roman Catholics to claim this verse teaches succession when the church at Ephesus, where the fabricated tradition says Timothy was bishop, is under the umbrella of the Greek Orthodox church. If I were Roman Catholic I would never use any verse that implied Timothy was specifically included in succession of any kind.
But you are free to "Interpret" this anyway you choose. All I do is try to teach the Word of God and not "interpret" anything.
