Apostolic Succession?

Ang issue ng Apostasy and Restoration has been ang great debate between mainstream Christianity and Latter Day Saint Christianity, specially with Roman Catholicism at ang kanilang claims ng "apostolic succession" where ang kanilang claim ay na sila always ang true church at hindi nawala ang true church at nasasakanila parin ang priesthood keys that was given by Christ; so as they claim na walang need to restore the church and na walang need to restore the priesthood (that is false). Ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders (CFD) and their great incompetence with other religions always bring this up to the discussion when they can't hold much longer a serious discussion on other religions anymore, where they appeal to false authorities and other faulty reasonings. Roman Catholics claim apostolic succession particularly sa Papacy and for this ay I will address their claim against Latter Day Saints and other non-Roman Catholics (Eastern Orthodox; Protestants; etc.).

Roman Catholics claim that ang Papacy and ang special privilege of the Bishop of Rome ay always been since sa panahon ng mga apostles. this claim ng mga Roman Catholics ay ginawang dogma ng Vatican Council I noong July 8, 1870 by Pope Pius X. these can be found sa "Pastor Aeternus" ("First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ") na kung saan ay nilalaman ang definitions of four Catholic doctrines. ang claim that ang Papacy and ang special privelege of the Bishop of Rome ay nandyadyaan lagi since ang apostolic period has some errors in it. one is na ang Rome ay hindi inooperate ng isang singular bishop lamang but a group of bishops or elders, something that can be seen in 1 Clement as the author is not writing in behalf of one person but a plurality of bishops/elders to the congregations sa Corinth. that would obviously not showing any Papacy inside the church at all as Rome was not operated by one single bishop (Boylan, 2017). It was only from the middle of the 2nd Century na ang Rome ay inooperate by one single bishop, i.e by a Monarchial Episcopacy (J.N.D Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes [Oxford University Press, 1986]). Early Christians as well did not believe na si Peter is not the Rock (πέτρα), and even those from Early Christianity who hold that Peter is the Rock, they did not believe na ang Bishop of Rome lamang ang uupo sa upuan ni Peter but lahat lahat ng bishops inside the church. On the claim ng Roman Catholics na si Peter ay ang Rock sa Matthew 16:18-19, they should consider what early Christians have said na it's not "upon Peter", as Saint John Chrysostom have said na Jesus did not said that he will build his Church "upon Peter" as it is not upon man but upon the confession of Peter—on his own faith:

“ He did not say, “upon Peter” for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the Church is built. And what is this faith? “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (Migne, 52.806.75-807.1)

“ Therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.” And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.” (Homily LIV)

“ Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession.” (Homilies on Matthew 54.3)

Saint Augustine the same, states that the Church was not built by Christ upon a man but on the confession of Peter, that Christ is "the Messiah, the Son of the Living God" (Mt. 16:16):

“ Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognised. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.” (Sermon 229)

Eastern Orthodox claims also that what the "rock" (πέτρα) is in what Christ has said was the confession of Peter itself and not Peter itself. Latter Day Saint Biblical scholar and Theologian Robert Boylan (2020) compiled the following from the Eastern tradition on the "Rock" of Matthew 16:16-20. Starting with Didymus the Blind, who said that because of Peter's statement of faith about the person of Christ and his Deity (as Trinitarian in his view) and na si Peter glorified ang uncreated origins ni Jesus Christ (cf. Jn. 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1-3), that " Upon this rock the Church was built, the Church which the gates of hell—that is, the arguments of heretics—will not overcome. The keys to the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter in order that . . . he might open the gates of God’s kingdom to those whose faith agreed both with his own confession and with those things which he and the other apostles heard from Christ." (De Trinitate 1.30 [PG 39:417]). Theodore of Mopsuestia samely states that the rock in Matthew 16:16 " . . . is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is the rock he [i.e., Jesus] stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church on the same confession and faith” (Fragmenta in Mattaeum 92); that " . . . [The proper confession of Christ, found in the Church alone is the very] key to the kingdom of heaven, . . . [so that] he who is counted as belonging to the Church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven." (Ibid.). Gregory of Nyssa wrote in praising Peter's faith as the foundation of the church that " We do not extend our praises to Simon for his fishing, but rather for his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole Church." (Altera Laudatio S. Stephani Protomartyris). 

Maximus the Confessor wrote to Anastasius that " The God of all pronounced that the catholic church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him." (Letter to Anastasius). Basil of Seleucia on how Christ named Simon as "Peter"/"Cephas" (Jn. 1:42; Gal. 2:11, 18; 2:7-8, 9, 11, 14-15),  that " . . . Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it “Peter” perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession." (Oratio 25.4 [PG 85, 297]). John Damascus praising Peter said that " . . . O blessed mouth! O richly privileged lips! O soul that speaks of God! O mind inspired by God, worthy of sharing divine mysteries! O instrument on which the Father plays his son! This is the upright unshakeable faith on which—as on a rock—the Church is established; you have been rightly named for it. (Oration on the Transfiguration). Ambrosiaster on Peter's confession and his understanding of it as where believer's are established that ". . . The Lord said to Peter: On this rock I will build My Church, which means, “On this confession of the catholic faith I establish believers in life.” (Commentary on Ephesians 2:20). Hilary of Poitiers wrote " Upon this rock of this confession [i.e., Jesus’ divine nature] hat the building of the Church rests. (The Trinity 6.36) and " This faith is the foundation of the Church, and therefore the gates of hell are powerless against her. This faith possesses the keys of the kingdom of heaven. What this faith bound and loosed on earth will also be bound or loosed in heaven . . . [T]his is the revelation of the Father, this is the foundation of the Church. (The Trinity 6.37). None of these tell us anything about the Papacy. none of these say that Peter is the rock, but what we have over and over and over again is that the confession na si Jesucristo ang "Anak ng Buhay na Diyos" ay ang bato/rock na kung saan ay itinayo ang Simbahan ni Jesucristo; as ang belief na si Jesucristo ay ang Anak ng Diyos ay ang pinakaheart of Christian faith and is essential for someone to have eternal life (Jn. 3:1-21; 20:30-31; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 2:4; 2Ths. 2:16). Ito ang pinakatruth that one should need to believe and need to believe in order to be saved. Furthermore, as one former Roman Catholic wrote on the issue of the Papacy:

“ For thirteen centuries an incomprehensible silence on this fundamental article reigned throughout the whole Church and her literature. None of the ancient confessions of faith, no catechism, none of the patristic writings composed for the instruction of the people, contain a syllable about the Pope, still less any hint that all certainty of faith and doctrine depends on him. For the first thousand years of Church history not a question of doctrine was finally decided by the Pope. The Roman bishops took no part in the commotions which the numerous Gnostic sects, the Montanists and Chiliasts, produced in the early Church, nor can a single dogmatic decree issued by one of them be found during the first four centuries, not a trace of the existence of any. Even the controversy about Christ kindled by Paul of Samosata, which occupied the whole Eastern Church for a long time, and necessitated the assembling of several Councils, was terminated without the Pope taking any part in it. So again in the chain of controversies and discussions connected with the name of Theodotus, Artemon, Noetus, Sabellius, Beryllus, and Lucian of Antioch which troubled the whole Church, and extended over nearly 150 years, there is no proof that the Roman bishops acted beyond the limits of their own local Church, or accomplished any dogmatic result . . . The dispute about heretical baptism, in the middle of the third century, had a still more clearly dogmatic character, for the whole Church doctrine of the efficacy and conditions of sacramental grace was involved. Yet the opposition of Pope Stephen to the doctrine confirmed at several African and Asiatic Synods, against the validity of schismatically baptism, remained wholly inoperative. Stephen went so far as to exclude those Churches from his communion, but he only drew down sharp censures on his unlawful arrogance. Both St. Cyprian and Firmilian of Cesarea denied his having any right to dictate a doctrine to other bishops and Churches. And the other Eastern Churches, too, which were not directly mixed up in the dispute, retained their own practice for a long time, quite undisturbed by the Roman theory. Later on, St. Augustine, looking back at this dispute, maintains that the pronouncement of Stephen, categorical as it was, was no decision of the Church, and that St. Cyprian and the Africans were therefore justified in rejecting it; he says the real obligation of conforming to a common practice originated with the decree of a great (plenarium) Council, meaning the Council of Arles in 314 . . . [In the eighth century] Pope Hadrian I vainly endeavored to get the decrees of the second Nicene Council on Image Worship, which he had approved, received by Charles the Great and his bishops. The great assembly at Frankfurt in 794, and the Caroline books, rejected and attacked these decrees, and Hadrian did not venture to offer more than verbal opposition. In 824, the bishops assembled in synod at Paris spoke without remorse of the “absurdities” (absona) of Pope Hadrian, who, they said, had commanded an heretical worship of images (Mansi, Council. Xiv, p. 415 seq) . . . There is another fact the infallibilist will find it impossible to explain. We have a copious literature on the Christian sects and heresies of the first six centuries--Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, St. Augustine, and later, Leonitus and Timotheus, have left us accounts of them to the number of eighty, but not a single one is reproached with rejecting the Pope’s authority in matters of faith, while Aerius, e.g., is reproached with denying the episcopate as a grade of the hierarchy.” (Janus/Ignaz von Döllinger), The Pope and the Council (1870), pp. 53, 54-55, 61-62, 73.).

These later dogmas are not the same foundations that Christ has built his church upon and these were not present inside the church before such dogmas were made. The reality of the Great Apostasy is real at ang need ng Restoration of the church of Jesus Christ is real.

__________________

Like and support our Facebook page and message us for your questions and get answers on : Facebook.com/ldswarriors2000

Visit our blog at : Ldswarriors2000.blogspot.com

Visit my Quora profile at : Quora.com/Nika0604