tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post7191212264591753796..comments2024-03-28T08:29:44.207-07:00Comments on Rational Christian Discernment: Evaluating Roman Catholic Claims Of Apostolic SuccessionJesse Albrechthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01349321905468957335noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8806658553756358958.post-60372036299285338202018-04-21T09:56:04.919-07:002018-04-21T09:56:04.919-07:00There is no record that Peter was ever a Bishop of...There is no record that Peter was ever a Bishop of Rome, so no bishop of Rome could ever be his successor. Irenaeus provided a list of the first 12 bishops of Rome and Peter was not on it; Linus was the first. Eusebius' church history never mentions Peter as a bishop of Rome; he only says Peter went to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. When Paul wrote Romans, greeting many people by name, Peter isn't mentioned. So there is no "unbroken chain" of apostolic succession in the Papist church.Glenn E. Chatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117405535707961903noreply@blogger.com