Apostolic succession?

[mosheli]

The Catholics claim that Peter was the rock and given the keys in Matthew 16, and that he became the first bishop of Rome who the all the popes have succeeded up to the present day. They also have similar supposed apostolic succession of other apostles in other bishoprics. I found in my studies that the early popes list seems to be a fake as it seems to match the list of Roman emperors because they have similar names and dates and a number of them match all in successive order. (See my articles on this or I can give more details if wish. Just two brief examples are pope Pius 1 matches emperor Antoninus Pius, and pope Alexander matches Trajan who was identified with Alexander the Great and/or with an Alexander he martyred.) So the popes can not really be successors of Peter because a number of the early popes really match the emperors. But there is a question I have wondered which is what really happened to Peter and the apostles, and was there any real succession somewhere in the messianic church? I noticed that Ephesus the 1st of the 7 churches in Revelation seems to typify the early church centered at Jerusalem because Ephesus has a number of correspondences with Jerusalem.

[alon]

First understand there is a lie in your Bible. No, not of God, but of the translators. In the LXX everywhere you see the word ekklesia, it is translated synagogue, or more likely congregation (which is more accurate). But suddenly in the New Testament the same term becomes “church.” There was no “church.” There were from the very late 1st cen CE on individual “churches,” each with its own leadership and doctrines, holidays and teachings. They could not even agree on how many Gods there were (1, 2, and a very few said 3)! But in the time the NT was being written, there were no churches claiming the name of the Christ. Only synagogues.

The Roman Catholic Church also claims that Peter was the first bishop of Rome (and thus the 1st Pope). However when Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans he greets several people by name, but not Peter. Odd to leave out the “1st Pope” in such a letter. In fact, there is no evidence outside Catholic tradition that Peter ever even went to Rome.

In 325 CE the Counsel of Nicaea was held at the "request" of the Emperor Constantine. He was trying to bring cohesiveness and order to his empire, and saw religion as a great vehicle to assist in this. Constantine was able to bring unification to the Roman empire, but his decree that Rome should be the only Christian Religion did not go as well.

The early church was not a cohesive organization. The very late 1st cen churches were autonomous, each governed by a plurality of elders. Deacons and episkopoi functioned as heads of the various churches, and all the Christian bishops saw themselves as successors to the apostles. For example, Polycarp of Smyrna entered negotiations in Rome with ‘bishop’ Anicetus concerning the date of Easter (@154 CE). Both presbyters invoked their traditions, but they could not agree and so each kept to his own.

In the late 2nd cen CE while presiding over a synod in Rome, Bishop Victor tried to declare all the congregations of Asia Minor outside the church community because they insisted on their date to observe Easter. The bishops of Asia Minor invoked their own apostolic tradition, and Victor was not victorious in this attempt. Disputes like this were not decided by any authoritarian decree from Rome, but by agreement of the regional episcopal synods and by individual bishops, who saw themselves as equals.

When Bishop Stephen of Rome condemned a decree of the north African council on the baptism of heretics, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage vehemently disagreed with his attempt to force his opinion on the other bishops. Steven called himself “bishop of bishops” earning condemnation when Cyprian convened a council of 87 bishops, the 7th Council of Carthage (258 CE).

“On this matter, each of us should bring forth what he thinks … for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop … has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.” (Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. V, "The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian")

So there was an attempt by the bishop of Rome to exert authority, but the council unanimously rejected Stephens claim to hold a succession from Peter. In fact, Cyprian writes:

“In this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.” (Epistles of Cyprian 73:17)

Far from being compliant, Cyprian was “indignant” that Stephan would even make such claims. And in fact it would take many councils over several centuries before the church as we know it was brought under Rome's rule and made one cohesive church. Then along came the Great Schism of 1054, in which the the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church broke communion. So goes all religion. You think you got it and then some nimnul has to go and change things.

Be that as it may, the idea of apostolic succession in the church was, and is a lie as well.

Dan C

[jimmie]

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

I thought popes were supposed to be celibate.

[alon]

Aug 10, 2020 5:48:27 GMT -8 jimmie said:

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

I thought popes were supposed to be celibate.

Excerpt from Catholic Online "A very brief history of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church," (author not listed)

The history is confusing because there was no single uniform declaration in the early Church. ... The history of choosing only celibate men for ordination is spotty - with a lack of records in many places. There was inconsistency, with rules that varied from one region to another. The best anyone can do is offer what little evidence there is from the Bible, church history and Church documents.  ... In 304 AD, the first written requirement for those seeking ordination to remain celibate can be documented. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira required all clergy to abstain "from their wives and not to have children." Some Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Christians give lesser credence to this council and the practice of ordaining married men to the order of deacon and priest has a long history in their ranks.

Emperor Constantine rejected a blanket ban on married men being ordained as priests in 325 at the Council of Nicaea. Some priests had wives, others did not.

For nearly a thousand years a patchwork of rules applied in various places, some allowing married men to be ordained, but only if they agreed to abstain from relations with their wives, and so on.

It wasn't until the medieval period that the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church began to require priestly celibacy. In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII issued a decree requiring all priests to be celibate and he expected his bishops to enforce it. The decree stuck and celibacy has been the norm ever since in the Latin Rite.

So it wasn't until around the time of the Great Schism that celibacy in the Roman Catholic clergy became the uniform rule. Do a search and you'll find a lot written on the topic. The Catholics seem obsessed with it. Celibacy was one of the big issues that caused the split, though from the 5th to 11th centuries CE the schism was growing. Roman primacy, whose theology was based in Roman law grew in preeminence over Eastern theology which had its basis in Greek philosophy. Until the issue was decided by the schism, there was no universal agreement on where the seat of church power should be- Rome or Constantinople. Like I said, it took centuries for the Catholic church to become the unified power we see from Medieval times until now. The term "catholic" means "universal," but from the 2nd cen CE to the 11th a catholic church was only an idea. Then, in addition to the 11th cen schism, we have the Protestant Reformation of the 16th cen CE. It would appear that corralling Christians is more like herding cats; lots of strays. And like alley cats, many a priest and Pope have strayed from their promise of celibacy. But that promise (apparently not a vow as we all thought) was not universally required until the 4th cen CE. 

Dan (weird what all you can find on the internet) C

[mosheli]

Thanks that's good info Alon.

Though your info also seems to confirm that the bishops existed and so would seem not to match the emperors list though I've found heaps of matches between them.

Why do you write CE instead of AD? Seems sort of conventional secular like.

[alon]

Aug 10, 2020 22:26:09 GMT -8 mosheli said:

Thanks that's good info Alon.

Though your info also seems to confirm that the bishops existed and so would seem not to match the emperors list though I've found heaps of matches between them.

Why do you write CE instead of AD? Seems sort of conventional secular like.

Existence of the various bishops and their assemblies is documented historical fact. Not sure if any emperors made the list, though I never heard of this happening before. Constantine however did insert himself into the newly forming Christian religion. He headed the First Council of Nicea, even though he himself was not a believer. Had he not, the Trinitarian view instead of becoming predominant would likely have died there, as very few supported this doctrine.

The Council of Nicea was convened because the Arian controversy threatened to split his empire along religious lines. Arius was a bishop from ALexandria. He, like the Ebionites of the late 1st cen who split from the sect of the Notsarim believed that if Yeshua was the Son of God, he must be a created being, junior in age and status. opposing him was a deacon from Alexandria, Athanasius, who was a Trinitarian. So this was a case of two wrong doctrines, both with its supporters threatening to spread controversy throughout the empire with the vast majority actually being at varying points between these two. Constantine worshiped Sol Invectus, the unconquerable sun. So all he really cared about was that this matter be settled and the empire united.

Concerning the Nicene Council, Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination” (1971 edition, Vol. 6, “Constantine,” p. 386). So basically, Constantine picked what was to become a cornerstone of church doctrine, though he was himself not a Christian. And when all these congregational leaders went home, they still taught according to their own beliefs. The arguments turned bloody and climaxed @ 20 yrs later, and according to historian Will Durant “Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years (342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome” (The Story of Civilization, Vol. 4: The Age of Faith, 1950, p. 8). But the empire was now in the position of having to support this baffling "3 in 1" view of a God neither Constantine nor his successor Theodosius believed in.

Meanwhile, three theologians from the province of Cappadocia in eastern Asia Minor came up with a more or less definitive explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Basil bishop of Caesarea, his brother Gregory bishop of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus were steeped in Greek philosophy. They put forth an idea that went beyond Athanasius’ view, that God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit were coequal, coeternal, and united in one being, yet also distinct each from the other. 

To them, the Trinity made sense only as some mystical or spiritual idea. Gregory of Nazianzus  explained that this view of God induced a profound emotion which confounded thought and intellect. “ ‘No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Three than I am carried back into the One. When I think of any of the Three, I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me’ ” (Armstrong, “Greek Philosophy’s Influence on the Trinity Doctrine” p. 117). 

In 381 CE Emperor Theodosius the Great convened the Council of Constantinople to settle the argument. But the convocation fell into disarray with several members walking out, including the chair, Gregory of Nazianzus. Gregory then fell ill and had to withdraw anyhow, and an elderly city senator Nectarius, who knew nothing of Christianity and had to first be baptized was appointed chair. So basically a mouthpiece for the emperor was named chair of another major theological convocation to decide church doctrine.

The teaching of those 3 theologians from Cappadocia “made it possible for the Council of Constantinople (381) to affirm the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which up to that point had nowhere been clearly stated, not even in Scripture” (The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, “God,” p. 568). And thenceforth, the doctrine of the Trinity was fixed in Christian thought, if not well understood by the average Christian over the ages to now. 

How did I end up here? To answer your question, these church leaders, their history and that of their faith, as well as the proceedings that formulated that faith further are all well documented, but not taught to the average Christian; else Messianic Judaism would have taken off more strongly and long before it has.

CE just means "Common Era," and is what most Jews use. AD is Anno Domini, "In the Year of the Lord," while BC means "Before Christ." Most scholars say the word anno should not be capitalized in proper Latin. I find all this inconsistent while "Common Era" and "Before Common Era" makes more sense. Further, I have this thing about naming Yeshua "Christ," It is "the Christ," as it is a title, meaning Messiah. It is not a name, though the majority of Christians use it like one. ... Short answer: personal preference.

Dan C