__________________________________________________________________________________

ABORTION, at whatever stage and for whatever reason, IS HUMAN SACRIFICE to INHUMAN SELFISHNESS. Remember Biblical Canaan and South American pre-Columbian civilizations which were notorious for offering human sacrifices to their false gods.
_________________________________________________________________________________

"This Rock" - The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of "Apostolic Succession"
(A Question-and-Answer Session - September 23, 2009)

You wrote:

In the absence of any contemporary records, how can you be sure that Peter had a
successor? To make claims centuries later is not the same as demonstrating that
events actually ocurred. I am aware of a "pope list" from the 3rd or 4th
century. That is not contemporary. In light of the papacy's history of
concocting false documents, (I refer to the forged Donation of Constantine),
such claims would need very strong evidence to be accepted by non-catholics.

My reply:

With due respect, I do not agree that there is no "contemporary records" of
apostolic succession. Every Pope to the present was elected "as the successor of
St. Peter:" St. Linus after St. Peter, St. Anacletos after St. Linus. . . . up
to the present Pope. See (http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm)

Academicians or so-called Bible scholars always insist on "exegesis" in
interpreting the Bible and condemn resort to so-called "eisegesis." I feel that
"reading one's ideas into Biblical verses" could be the way that the Holy Spirit
conveys spiritual meanings and truths to us. Thus, the NT revelations could
never have been anchored on the Old Testament verses without Jesus, Peter, and
Paul reading their ideas into some Old Testament verses. Pure exegesis leads
only to "stale and spiritless" interpretations. I believe that tradition is a
better guide to Biblical understanding or meanings of verses that Bible scholars
are still debating on and offering alternatives without settling issues once and for all. What am I leading to?

Consider Mt. 16:17-18. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for
this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell
you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of Hades will not overcome it."

Why did Jesus not say: "You are Peter and on you, Peter, I will build my
church?" Of course this has led others to interpret "this rock" to mean Peter's
declaration: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mt 16:16).

But until Luther's "reformation," and including Luther himself, the ancient
fathers of the Church were agreed that by "THIS ROCK" Jesus did refer to St.
Peter.

Why "ON THIS ROCK?" and not "ON YOU, PETER?" I believe that the reason is
simple. Peter is human, mortal, and will die. A rock could last "forever"
indicating a "role" that could also last "forever." Had Jesus used "on you,
Peter" the death of Peter could have led to CHAOS and eventual END/DEATH OF
THE CHURCH OF GOD. But Jesus envisioned his Church to last indefinitely, for a
long, long time, definitely much longer than the life-time of Peter, thus "ON THIS ROCK" rather than "ON YOU PETER."

The use of "rock" implying "historic time duration" rather than "Peter" pointed to more Peters, as rock, to come. Thus, the principle of "Apostolic Succession," in so far as the role of Peter as the ROCK is concerned, has Biblical support.

This is my original idea. It surfaced in my consciousness only a day or so. I
have not read this or similar ideas in support of "APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION" before.

In Service to the "Lay People of God"

Isabelo S. Alcordo, Ph.D.