Could This Be True?

[FaithT]

https://gottesdienst.podbean.com/e/gottesblog-apostolic-succession-in-the-roman-catholic-and-lutheran-churches-–-larry-beane/



Apostolic succession going all the way to Peter is an important part of Catholic teaching…..

 

[HTacianas]

https://gottesdienst.podbean.com/e/gottesblog-apostolic-succession-in-the-roman-catholic-and-lutheran-churches-–-larry-beane/



Apostolic succession going all the way to Peter is an important part of Catholic teaching…..

Someone posted that same link earlier. The article is a bit silly actually. To say that since the records of consecration only go back to such and such a time means that there is no Apostolic succession is a bit like saying that since you're genealogical records only go back to your third great grandfather proves that you had no fourth great grandfather.

 

[chevyontheriver]

https://gottesdienst.podbean.com/e/gottesblog-apostolic-succession-in-the-roman-catholic-and-lutheran-churches-–-larry-beane/



Apostolic succession going all the way to Peter is an important part of Catholic teaching…..

It’s clever but that’s all. Succession has been a thing all along. Having modern standard records of it all is a modern thing. I’m not even a tinge worried about it.

 

[narnia59]

https://gottesdienst.podbean.com/e/gottesblog-apostolic-succession-in-the-roman-catholic-and-lutheran-churches-–-larry-beane/



Apostolic succession going all the way to Peter is an important part of Catholic teaching…..

The article says: "Interestingly, there are also no lineages for the first several hundred years of popes."

St. Augustine would beg to differ. From his Letter 53:

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.

Don't assume all scholarship is equal.

 

[RileyG]

No, the above article is incorrect for reasons stated here. Even St. John Chryostom stated which Popes can be traced back to St. Peter.

Blessings

 

[chevyontheriver]

The article says: "Interestingly, there are also no lineages for the first several hundred years of popes."

St. Augustine would beg to differ. From his Letter 53:

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius.

Don't assume all scholarship is equal.

I agree with what you have written but there is a difference. The modern records of succession show who ordained who. That is significant. The list of popes show who followed who but do not typically show who ordained who. See the difference? Somebody ordained them to follow the other guy, and that may or not be preserved.

I think the claim by this random Lutheran guy is basically hot air, but on the other hand I don't know that we have lists of who ordained who going all the way back to the apostles. We have lists of who succeeded who for Rome and other patriarchates and maybe other dioceses, and that seems sufficient to me to show apostolic succession.

 

[WarriorAngel]

https://gottesdienst.podbean.com/e/gottesblog-apostolic-succession-in-the-roman-catholic-and-lutheran-churches-–-larry-beane/



Apostolic succession going all the way to Peter is an important part of Catholic teaching…..

Read historical fathers on the line of the chair of Peter.
3 ancient fathers named them because as St Ireneaus said St Peter's chair is the most important.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I agree with what you have written but there is a difference. The modern records of succession show who ordained who. That is significant. The list of popes show who followed who but do not typically show who ordained who. See the difference? Somebody ordained them to follow the other guy, and that may or not be preserved.

I think the claim by this random Lutheran guy is basically hot air, but on the other hand I don't know that we have lists of who ordained who going all the way back to the apostles. We have lists of who succeeded who for Rome and other patriarchates and maybe other dioceses, and that seems sufficient to me to show apostolic succession.

St Peter ordained Clement 1

 

[narnia59]

I agree with what you have written but there is a difference. The modern records of succession show who ordained who. That is significant. The list of popes show who followed who but do not typically show who ordained who. See the difference? Somebody ordained them to follow the other guy, and that may or not be preserved.

I think the claim by this random Lutheran guy is basically hot air, but on the other hand I don't know that we have lists of who ordained who going all the way back to the apostles. We have lists of who succeeded who for Rome and other patriarchates and maybe other dioceses, and that seems sufficient to me to show apostolic succession.

It's more than sufficient. From Clement to Irenaeus to Augustine, there is a clear understand that the early church believed the apostles appointed successors and there was a clear, known line who those men were, especially in the chair of Peter.

The claim reminds me of one I ran into one time from a professed pagan who said that the Roman history knew nothing about the crucifixion of Jesus and thought that somehow disproved his existence. I asked him if there were detailed records of all the Roman crucifixions and Jesus' name was missing? That would perhaps be significant. But there are no records. Doesn't mean they didn't happen. It just wasn't important enough to them to document them. He thought that Jesus was such an important person there should have been something noted in Roman history. But he wasn't an important person to the Romans.

Likewise who actually ordained whom doesn't seem to have been something the early church thought was important enough to keep detailed records about. Should we assume then that there were no ordinations occuring? Hardly, it is clear from church history there were. Even Protestants "ordain" men and would say its basis is in Scripture. So even though they did think it was important enough to note that these men were successors to the apostles and knew who they were and we know they had to be ordained to become bishops, they didn't think it was that important who ordained whom. But that' hardly disproves the concept of apostolic succession and you'd have to ignore the rest of their writings to not see it clearly there.