The Faith We Hold.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#61
none of those supposed lines of apostolic succession are confirmed by independent contemporary sources...they don't pass even the most basic test of historical accuracy...

by your logic the egyptian pharaohs were descended from the gods simply because the pharaohs said they were...
What independent sources would you want? Pagan Roman sources? Why would the Pagan Romans care about saying who ordained who when they were more concerned with killing us? After the fall of Rome (or even the Christianization of the Roman Empire) the Church was the only one keeping any sort of records that weren't tax records. Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp are both accepted by modern historians to have most likely been disciples of the Apostle John (both were bishops who were ordained by him) and both of them ordained other men.

Also comparing Apostolic succession to the pharaohs is like comparing apples with oranges. We know that the Apostles existed and we know that they ordained men. However we do not know (or if your a Christian deny) that the Egyptian gods ever existed in a physical form on Earth or in any form whatsoever.

no less than five modern churches claim to have a proven line of apostolic succession...but the truth is that none of them do...
And all of them have a legitimate claim, except the Anglicans of course. Just to clear up the Anglican comment:

Anglicans are assumed to not have Apostolic succession for a couple of reasons. First, they have ordained women as bishops and therefore have snuffed out some lines of Apostolic succession since women cannot receive Holy Orders (and therefore any men the women ordained would not have Apostolic succession and so on). Second, because of the change in the ordination rite it is believed they have invalidated their Apostolic succession, since ordination requires proper rite, matter and form.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#62
What independent sources would you want? Pagan Roman sources? Why would the Pagan Romans care about saying who ordained who when they were more concerned with killing us? After the fall of Rome (or even the Christianization of the Roman Empire) the Church was the only one keeping any sort of records that weren't tax records. Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp are both accepted by modern historians to have most likely been disciples of the Apostle John (both were bishops who were ordained by him) and both of them ordained other men.

Also comparing Apostolic succession to the pharaohs is like comparing apples with oranges. We know that the Apostles existed and we know that they ordained men. However we do not know (or if your a Christian deny) that the Egyptian gods ever existed in a physical form on Earth or in any form whatsoever.



And all of them have a legitimate claim, except the Anglicans of course. Just to clear up the Anglican comment:

Anglicans are assumed to not have Apostolic succession for a couple of reasons. First, they have ordained women as bishops and therefore have snuffed out some lines of Apostolic succession since women cannot receive Holy Orders (and therefore any men the women ordained would not have Apostolic succession and so on). Second, because of the change in the ordination rite it is believed they have invalidated their Apostolic succession, since ordination requires proper rite, matter and form.
you can for example prove the existence of each of the presidents of the united states from independent contemporary sources...diplomatic correspondence with other nations...foreign newspapers...etc.

should we accept any lesser degree of historical proof regarding something that our salvation might possibly depend on?

but we don't even have many of these successors' own writings...let alone corroboration from independent sources... and for some of them such as anacletus we don't have -any- evidence that they even existed...we are just asked to trust hearsay written centuries after the fact by people with a vested interest in the validity of the succession...

and you ask why the romans who were killing christians would have cared about apostolic succession...i say rome's persecution of the christians would give them even more reason to keep track of who succeeded who...so that they could follow up the killing of one bishop with the killing of his successor and so on...

to give a contemporary example...the united states government has gone to great lengths to keep track of who is in charge of the various branches of al-qaeda and who takes charge when they are killed...

and if all of the schismatic churches really do have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession...then maybe the nestorians of the assyrian church of the east are the -real- church that jesus founded...and anyone who uses the terms 'theotokos' or 'mother of God' is a heretic by authority of the assyrian church...
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#63
the list of the popes is a perfect example of the failure of apostolic succession...from a historian's point of view the succession of the popes is in total disarray...

first of all many of the popes have no independent corroborating evidence that they even existed...anacletus is an example of that... for all we know many of these characters could be purely fictional...
Isn't it kind of hard for the leader of the Western Christian Church, the bishop of the see in which Saints Peter and Paul were martyred, and the See located in one of the most populated and powerful cities in the known world to be made up? In fact no historian doubts that the men in the list provided existed and were flesh and blood historical figures.

secondly ancient roman catholic sources themselves even disagree on the most basic issue of papal succession...who was peter's first successor? some say it was linus followed by anacletus and then clement...others say it was linus followed by clement...and still others say it was clement... on top of that there is the fact that the passage in the bible that mentions linus seems to indicate that he was actually in a subordinate position to eubulus...
First things first, we do not know if the Linus mentioned in the bible is the man who became Pope, Linus was a fairly common name.

Now, All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Before you ask yes I did take this from another site. But to sum it up all the early witnesses agree with the order given in the link I provided, with the exception of Tertullian and authors who followed his list hundreds of years later.

then there are the various competing antipopes and other popes whose succession was questionable...such as gregory vi who paid benedict ix to resign so he could become his successor...after which gregory vi resigned and his successor clement ii died allowing benedict ix to become pope again...total chaos!
To sum up and resolve that situation it went as such. The Council of Sutri was called to resolve the issue of who was the legitimate Pope. Pope Gregory VI bribed Benedict IX to resign, after Benedict IX resigned the Bishop of Sadina declared himself Pope as Sylvester the III, later the Council deposed him because of his unlawful election to the office. Then Gregory VI assumed the Papacy, later at the Council he renounced his claim to the Papacy because he gained it by "unlawful means". The Council then declared the Papacy "sede vacante" and Pope Clement the II was elected. After he died Benedict IX was elected Pope (a Pope if he resigns can have more than one reign). Later Benedict IX was deposed by the Council when they discovered that he had accepted a bribe to resign from the Papal office and Damasus II was elected and the issue of the Anti-popes was resolved.

luther's communication with the greek church was undertaken because he expected them to be in theological agreement with him... in the west there was a lot of ignorance about the eastern churches and luther mistakenly expected them to be more or less the protestants of the east... he didn't realize until later that the eastern church was really more like the roman catholic church's eccentric little sister and that the only substantial difference between the two from a protestant point of view was that roman catholic church had a pope...
I'll try to find the quotes from Luther detailing that Apostolic succession was one of the reasons he tried to establish contact with the Greek Church. Anyhow it's fairly common knowledge that Luther did not oppose Apostolic succession and he only modified the idea when he could not find Catholic bishops to ordain Lutheran bishops (only a bishop can ordain a bishop). Strangely even Catholic bishops that defected to Lutheranism refused to ordain Lutheran bishops (why I don't know). Luther then claimed that Apostolic succession was maintained through the priests that had defected (which is impossible since only bishops can ordain men). An exception to this is the Church of Sweden maintained Apostolic Succession since the bishops there did ordain other bishops, but Apostolic succession is assumed non-existent in the Church of Sweden since they started ordaining women.
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#64
you can for example prove the existence of each of the presidents of the united states from independent contemporary sources...diplomatic correspondence with other nations...foreign newspapers...etc.

should we accept any lesser degree of historical proof regarding something that our salvation might possibly depend on?
After the Dark Ages ended we have good historical documentation of the Popes. But during the Dark Ages, records were likely kept but are now lost to time. During that period Rome was burned more than once, sacked more than once, and ravaged by the Plague .

but we don't even have many of these successors' own writings...let alone corroboration from independent sources... and for some of them such as anacletus we don't have -any- evidence that they even existed...we are just asked to trust hearsay written centuries after the fact by people with a vested interest in the validity of the succession...
I'll point this out again. Irenaeus and other early witnesses compiled their list from a list that is traced back to the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), which was less than a century after the reign Anacletus. Which means some of those born during the reign of Anacletus would have still been living. I will also point out that we do have the writings of Clement I, the fourth Pope. Most notably the Epistle of Clement. Once again the only dissenter in the given order of the Early Popes is Tertullian and writers that based their lists on his centuries after him.

and you ask why the romans who were killing christians would have cared about apostolic succession...i say rome's persecution of the christians would give them even more reason to keep track of who succeeded who...so that they could follow up the killing of one bishop with the killing of his successor and so on...
And why would they need to keep records of that? Even if they did we don't have those records for the same reason that we don't have records of the other innumerable amount of people that were killed by the Romans at the time, Rome burned. And if they survived that most people during the Dark Ages were more concerned with staying alive, so if they found them they probably burned them for warmth as has been recorded as happening before.

to give a contemporary example...the united states government has gone to great lengths to keep track of who is in charge of the various branches of al-qaeda and who takes charge when they are killed...
Yeah and Al-Qaeda is a violent terrorist group in the Modern Age where we have the internet and electronic file keeping. Not to mention in the early period of these first 3 contested Popes Christianity was considered nothing more than a heretical branch of Judaism that refused to worship the Emperor in the Imperial Cult.

and if all of the schismatic churches really do have a legitimate claim to apostolic succession...then maybe the nestorians of the assyrian church of the east are the -real- church that jesus founded...and anyone who uses the terms 'theotokos' or 'mother of God' is a heretic by authority of the assyrian church...
You can be heretical and maintain Apostolic succession. All of these churches were anathematized by various Ecumenical Councils in which they participated. But they refused to recognize these Councils after the ruling did not come down in their favor. For example the Assyrian Church and their leader called for and participated in the First Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council). The Council ruled that dyophysitism was heresy and anathematized all who believed in it. The Assyrian Church refused to accept this decision and split. The same thing happened at the Council of Chalcedon when the Oriental Orthodox split.
 
Nov 23, 2011
772
0
0
#65
RachelBibleStudent;603060 said:
the list of the popes is a perfect example of

the failure of apostolic succession...from a historian's point of view the

succession of the popes is in total disarray...

first of all many of the popes have no independent corroborating

evidence that they even
RachelBibleStudent;603060 said:
existed...anacletus is an example of that... for

all we know many of these characters could be purely

fictional...

secondly ancient roman catholic sources themselves even disagree on

the most basic issue of papal
succession...who was peter's first

successor? some say it was linus followed by anacletus and then

clement...others say it was linus followed by clement...and still others

say it was clement... on top of that there is the fact that the passage in

the bible that mentions linus seems to indicate that he was actually in

a subordinate position to eubulus...

then there are the various competing antipopes and other popes whose

succession was
questionable...such as gregory vi who paid benedict ix

to resign so he could become his successor...after

which gregory vi resigned and his successor clement ii died allowing

benedict ix to become pope again...total chaos!

luther's communication with the greek church was undertaken because

he expected them to be in
theological agreement with him... in the

west there was a lot of ignorance about the eastern churches

and luther mistakenly expected them to be more or less the protestants

of the east... he didn't realize until later that the eastern church was

really more like the roman catholic church's eccentric little sister

and that the only substantial difference between the two from a

protestant point of view was that roman catholic church had a pope...



Actually, Rachel, you are in denial or ignorance of the common source

of both Protestantism and Catholiicism: Augustine of Hippo. There is

a substantial difference between the teachings of Augustine, many of

which are heretical, and the teachings of the Greek Orthodox Church

Fathers. Just because apostolic succession is faulty and not true in

roman catholicism does not mean apostolic succession does

not exist anywhere else. Apostolic succession depends upon Apostolic

faith, and the Orthodox East at no point ever lost the "faith once

delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The church at Rome (papal) lost

the true faith officially in 1054 AD, but actually Rome began losing faith

in the 9th century AD with Pope Nicholas I of Rome. In the west there

is still a lot of ignorance about the eastern churches and you still

don't understand Her Faith. If you did, you would be Orthodox. You

fail greatly to correctly understand the Bible. Not having Apostolic

Tradition to correctly understand the Greek Bible, the Protestants do

greatly err. Not having the correct Scriptures nor the power of God, the

Holy Spirit. Joining with papal Rome in error over John 15:26. Most

Protestants do that. Siding with Augustine of Hippo over against all

other Latin and Greek Church Fathers.

All of the Protestants have their own popes, their own teachers whose

"infallibility" they don't question.

In Orthodoxy, infallibility is limited to the Bible, Church Tradition, which

includes 7 infallible ecumenical councils. The Church Fathers were

basically infallible, but they erred in some points every now and then.

Luther will not admit infallibility for his "faith alone" teaching, and he

stated that it the doctrine "upon which the church (that is, Luther),

stands or falls". Lutheranism is founded upon Luther, not the Bible.

Calvinism is founded upon Calvin, not the Bible. Methodism

(Wesleyanism) is founded upon Wesley, not the Bible. And so with all

the Protestant denominations, and the teaching of Evangelical

preachers like John Hagee on TV. Protestantism is in almost total

chaos, actually.

God bless you and save you. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
 
Nov 23, 2011
772
0
0
#66
SantoSubito;603084 said:
After the Dark Ages ended we have good historical documentation

of the Popes. But during the Dark Ages, records were likely kept but are now lost to

time. During that period Rome was burned more than once, sacked more than once, and ravaged by the Plague .

I'll point this out again. Irenaeus and other early witnesses compiled their list from a list

that is traced back to the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), which was less than

a century after the reign Anacletus. Which means some of those born during the reign of

Anacletus would have still been living. I will also point out that we do have the writings

of Clement I, the fourth Pope. Most notably the Epistle of Clement. Once again the only

dissenter in the given order of the Early Popes is Tertullian and writers that based their

lists on his centuries after him.
SantoSubito;603084 said:



And why would they need to keep records of that? Even if they did we don't have those

records for the same reason that we don't have records of the other innumerable

amount of people that were killed by the Romans at the time, Rome burned. And if they

survived that most people during the Dark Ages were more concerned with staying alive,

so if they found them they probably burned them for warmth as has been recorded as

happening before.



Yeah and Al-Qaeda is a violent terrorist group in the Modern Age where we have the

internet and electronic file keeping. Not to mention in the early period of these first 3

contested Popes Christianity was considered nothing more than a heretical branch of

Judaism that refused to worship the Emperor in the Imperial Cult.


You can be heretical and maintain Apostolic succession. All of these churches were

anathematized by various Ecumenical Councils in which they participated. But they

refused to recognize these Councils after the ruling did not come down in their favor. For

example the Assyrian Church and their leader called for and participated in the First

Council of Ephesus (the Third Ecumenical Council). The Council ruled that dyophysitism

was heresy and anathematized all who believed in it. The Assyrian Church refused to

accept this decision and split. The same thing happened at the Council of Chalcedon

when the Oriental Orthodox split.





Santo Subito: I disagree. You cannot be heretical and maintain Apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession depends upon Apostolic Faith, and Rome lost faith in, lost THE Faith

"once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), OFFICIALLY in 1054 AD (Rome had actually

been losing the faith at least since Pope Nicholas I in the 9th Century). Apostolic

succession depends upon maintaining Apostolic Faith, because "without faith it is

impossible to please God", as the Bible says!

God bless you.


In Erie Scott R. Harrington

 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#67
Isn't it kind of hard for the leader of the Western Christian Church, the bishop of the see in which Saints Peter and Paul were martyred, and the See located in one of the most populated and powerful cities in the known world to be made up? In fact no historian doubts that the men in the list provided existed and were flesh and blood historical figures.



First things first, we do not know if the Linus mentioned in the bible is the man who became Pope, Linus was a fairly common name.

Now, All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Before you ask yes I did take this from another site. But to sum it up all the early witnesses agree with the order given in the link I provided, with the exception of Tertullian and authors who followed his list hundreds of years later.
it actually would not be that difficult for one or more 'bishops of rome' to have been simply fabricated decades later...especially if the whole concept of apostolic succession was formulated after the fact in order to defend the status quo...

it is not all that hard to imagine periods where the church in rome was not governed by a single ordained figure...and that these gaps were then filled in later on with imaginary or at least embellished personalities... there are lots of examples of this happening in other historical succession lines such as for monarchies...

irenaeus' list is the earliest source for the succession of the bishops of rome...but he lived about 100 years after the first person on his list...he clearly did not have firsthand knowledge...

there also seem to have been other competing sources such as tertullian who i think you dismiss too quickly...and whatever tradition the 'apostolic constitutions' got their list from...

only a few of the bishops on irenaeus' list actually meet even the most loose criteria for affirming whether or not they actually existed... namely linus...assuming he is the one referred to in the bible...and who seems to have been more of a third choice and not directly ordained by peter... also clement...known from his own writings and possibly also a reference in the bible... pius...mentioned in the muratorian canon... anicetus...referred to by his contemporary hegesippus... and finally eleutherius who was irenaeus' contemporary...

the ones in between...anacletus and evaristus and alexander and sixtus and telesphorus and hyginus...have no corroborating evidence and may or may not have existed...
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#68


Just because apostolic succession is faulty and not true in

roman catholicism does not mean apostolic succession does

not exist anywhere else.
as dubious as the claims of apostolic succession in the roman church are...the other churches' lines of succession are even more doubtful...
 
Nov 23, 2011
772
0
0
#69
RachelBibleStudent;603404 said:
as dubious as the claims of apostolic succession in the roman church are...the

other churches' lines of succession are even more doubtful..

.
RachelBibleStudent:

If Christ had wished us to know the following, it would have been

written down in the Bible.

"A false church, the pope of Rome's flock,will become Reformed in the

16th century, and, therefore, will magically and automatically become

the true church founded by Christ Himself, because His true Church was

not on earth until it was restored by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the

other Protestant Reformers in the 16th Century". But you expect us to

believe this statement is true, without any proof it would happen from

the Bible itself! Weird!

God bless you!

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#70
it actually would not be that difficult for one or more 'bishops of rome' to have been simply fabricated decades later...especially if the whole concept of apostolic succession was formulated after the fact in order to defend the status quo...
Which would mean you would have to operate on the assumption that Apostolic succession was a later innovation. Which as I will bear out in another post is not a very good assumption (unless you hold that the faith became corrupted almost immediately).

it is not all that hard to imagine periods where the church in rome was not governed by a single ordained figure...and that these gaps were then filled in later on with imaginary or at least embellished personalities... there are lots of examples of this happening in other historical succession lines such as for monarchies...
That would make the See of Rome an exception among every other See. One bishop per city was established from the beginning. However, if your trying to advance a congregationalist form of church governance from the beginning, then such a thing is possible, but the writings of the ECF's do not show that in the Early Church there was a congregationalist polity.

irenaeus' list is the earliest source for the succession of the bishops of rome...but he lived about 100 years after the first person on his list...he clearly did not have firsthand knowledge...
But that doesn't mean he didn't have access to people that had first hand knowledge. Irenaeus was born in 115 AD, which is hardly 100 years after the first person on his list, and people in his parents and grandparents generation would have known of these first Popes. Tertullian on the other hand wasn't born until 160 AD, further removing him from first and second hand sources, when you take into account that he wouldn't start writing until around 180 AD at the earliest.


there also seem to have been other competing sources such as tertullian who i think you dismiss too quickly...and whatever tradition the 'apostolic constitutions' got their list from...
Irenaeus and all the other early fathers agree, Tertullian is the lone dissenter, and he is further removed from the events than Irenaeus.

the ones in between...anacletus and evaristus and alexander and sixtus and telesphorus and hyginus...have no corroborating evidence and may or may not have existed...
How would Irenaeus not count as corroborating their existence when he lived during most of their reigns? With the exception of Alexander and Evaristus?
 
S

SantoSubito

Guest
#71
Some of the Church Fathers that demonstrate Apostolic Succession:

Pope Clement I

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

Tertullian

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John. (ibid., 32).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).



Jerome

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).



Augustine

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Also In my previous post I said "but the writings of the ECF's do not show that in the Early Church there was a congregationalist polity." That should have been: "but the writings of the ECF's do not show that in the Early Church there was not a congregationalist polity."