It seems like posters on this site refer often to the authority of the Catholic Church citing Apostolic succession as the reason. Usually the surnaming of Simon Peter is given as the reason for the authority of the pope. Also the appointment of matthias in the beginning of acts is cited as a scriptural account of apostolic succession. however, there is a particular difference between the mathias-judas story and the peter-lionus story (sp?). Judas apostleship was forfeit (acts 1:20) and the qualifications of the replacement was that he should be an eye-whitness of jesus’ ministry and resurection–he was taught directly by jesus himself.
I hav’nt heard that these qualifications apply to bishops of the catholic church since Paul was appointed on the road to demascus.
it seems adequate to me on the sources I’ve seen that peter fullfilled his appointment in his lifetime and that no appointed bishop after him need take the same place but that each bishop fill an office pertinate to the time but none be replaced.
----------------------Here's the question:
Can anyone document for me that Christ or Peter intended for Peter’s particular office and authority to continue in a successive bishop until the return of Christ–if that is what the catholic church teaches will happen.
I’m not interested in a regurgetation of “the pope is peter.” I’m more interested in we know the pope is peter because we have this copy of teaching from year x by person w that authenticates the dogma of apostolic succession. preferebly by someone who was a close companion of the first generation of apostles if possible.