M
mark_a
Guest
From which one of these bishops does he get his authority?
- Status
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Jerusalem being James’ jurisdiction as Bishop, it makes sense that the message would be his, no? Also, I see Peter speaking first (v. 7, “And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said…”) Does your Bible have a different chronology?
I hope I was understood that he was first to speak with an authoritative decision…not necessarily first to bring up the various arguments in v. 4-5. If I was not clear, I apologize.
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
Wow, lot’s of replies, thanks all! Just a note, when I argue here I’m not doing so necessarily from my personal belief, but rather from the arguments which have been presented to me. I guess you could say I’m going through a search for truth at the moment, so I’m doing my best to get all the questions answered, and the most pressing right now is this issue of authority.
I know many of you have mentioned the idea that the Bible was approved by the Church in the 4th century, and I definitely brought that up too, but he replied that the books of the New Testament were already largely accepted as canonical before the Church approved them (Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scriptural in his epistle).
I have to go to bed for now, but I’d like to thank you all again
That’s the Catholic interpretation, of course, but were we really promised that? Certainly, we were promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church built on Peter, but could that not be referring to Christianity in general? There is no dispute that Peter was higher than the other apostles, but there is dispute that Rome carried his authority.
His claim is that he is arguing ONLY what there is firm evidence for.
I know many of you have mentioned the idea that the Bible was approved by the Church in the 4th century, and I definitely brought that up too, but he replied that the books of the New Testament were already largely accepted as canonical before the Church approved them (Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scriptural in his epistle).
The thing is, there is no evidence that Linus exerted any control over anything beyond his jurisdiction in Rome. I’ve actually looked into the matter through several sources and verified this. The earliest thing I can come up with are the writings of Irenaeus, and once again that brings us back to the point of circular logic - I’m only referring to the beliefs of a bishop in communion with Rome to verify Roman authority. That doesn’t make them correct, so my trouble here is proving Roman authority based soley on the apostles and the succeeding generation, because obviously this first link is evidentially vital.
I have to go to bed for now, but I’d like to thank you all again
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
OnlyAmbrose:
Three comments:
Three comments:
- The authority didn’t rest in “Rome” but in the person selected as the successor to Peter.
- It is correct that everything currently in the Bible was accepted as infallible at the time of the Canonization. However, there were books that were considered part of the Canon that were rejected. Your friend needs to understand the historical manner in which they became accepted: By their reading in the Mass. You don’t have a Canon without the Mass.
- You might not have direct evidence that Linus “exerted” authority but there is evidence that he had authority. The lack of exercising ones authority doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I can punish my daughter by grounding her. But if she doesn’t commit an infractin deserving of it, my lack of grounding does not deny my authority.
T
Teflon93
Guest
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.Wow, lot’s of replies, thanks all! Just a note, when I argue here I’m not doing so necessarily from my personal belief, but rather from the arguments which have been presented to me. I guess you could say I’m going through a search for truth at the moment, so I’m doing my best to get all the questions answered, and the most pressing right now is this issue of authority.
That’s the Catholic interpretation, of course, but were we really promised that? Certainly, we were promised that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church built on Peter, but could that not be referring to Christianity in general? There is no dispute that Peter was higher than the other apostles, but there is dispute that Rome carried his authority.
His claim is that he is arguing ONLY what there is firm evidence for.
I know many of you have mentioned the idea that the Bible was approved by the Church in the 4th century, and I definitely brought that up too, but he replied that the books of the New Testament were already largely accepted as canonical before the Church approved them (Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scriptural in his epistle).
The thing is, there is no evidence that Linus exerted any control over anything beyond his jurisdiction in Rome. I’ve actually looked into the matter through several sources and verified this. The earliest thing I can come up with are the writings of Irenaeus, and once again that brings us back to the point of circular logic - I’m only referring to the beliefs of a bishop in communion with Rome to verify Roman authority. That doesn’t make them correct, so my trouble here is proving Roman authority based soley on the apostles and the succeeding generation, because obviously this first link is evidentially vital.
I have to go to bed for now, but I’d like to thank you all again
P
PC_Master
Guest
Not at all. However, “much debate” seems to indicate that there were statements both for and against the position being discussed. We know that Peter and James were there, who were considered church leaders. Paul, the great evangelist, was there, and if Paul’s other recollection of visiting Jerusalem is speaking of the same time period, then John was there as well. There could have been others, and in fact it seem likely that this was the case.
However, Luke’s goal was probably not to show who was in charge.
I didn’t understand that intent, but even so – Luke’s writing is in no way clear that Peter was the first to speak authoritatively. He says that there was much debate, and then Peter spoke, Paul spoke, and James spoke. He doesn’t exclude the possibility of other authoritative speech coming before Peter.
Anywho, in light of the OP’s question, I would ask this – can anyone provide evidence that Linus actually was regarded as the leader of the Christian church by the church in general, and not simply by a few select people? Even a pope or two after Linus would be a good starting point.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Ok well great…we don’t have to sort out right this second which one of them specifically was in charge. My whole point was that when debate arose, an authoritative body resolved the issue! Acts 15 refutes the OP pastor’s appeal to dissenting opinions as conclusive.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Here are a variety of writings (scroll down to part II) and beyond for early references to the primacy of the Roman Chair. That would include Linus. (not to mention the primacy of Peter spoken of in Scripture, which even anti-Catholics like John MacArthur acknowledge).
Are there a bunch of writings in the first centuries correcting these ECFs on Roman primacy? Presumably, there should be, unless it was true.
R
rpp
Guest
Here are some articles in the Catholic Answers library.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea4.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9904fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504frs.asp
Or just go to the library and search for “Primacy of Peter”.
I
Ignatius
Guest
That argument isn’t in the least bit compelling and that isn’t why. They tell us what the case was at the time of the early church bcause they were there, present at the time, your friend the pastor has no basis on which to contend otherwise.
Another thought; it doesn’t make any sense for Christ to give ‘all Authority’ and ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ so that whatever he ‘binds on earth shall be bound in heaven’ while the Lord was here on earth himself except for the purpose of passing it along. In other words, this Authority only really becomes necessary for His Church to carry on His mission untill He returns. Why would they need it when He was still here?
I
Ignatius
Guest
Tim Staples, an ordained Evangelical Protestant Minister addresses that and many issues in the following talks. I hope you find this helpful:
youtube.com/watch?v=w6JwWJWbsbs&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=MKO1JAUNWQY&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=GT7CSG1RYr4
youtube.com/watch?v=xBlxNhFHSis
May our lord Jesus Christ richly bless and watch over you.
Your brother in Christ.
youtube.com/watch?v=w6JwWJWbsbs&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=MKO1JAUNWQY&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=GT7CSG1RYr4
youtube.com/watch?v=xBlxNhFHSis
May our lord Jesus Christ richly bless and watch over you.
Your brother in Christ.
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
I understand your point, because I made it several times with him, but eventually I came to understand what HE was saying - there was never universal support of the idea that Rome was the superior to all other Sees. The eastern and African churches had some very different ideas.
That being said, we know that the Roman Church CLAIMED to have authority, starting with Pope Clement, but how do we know that claim is true? Our answer then is: Because the Roman Church fathers say so! Well how do we know that they are right and the other bishops are wrong? Because they’re in communion with the Roman Church! But how do we know the Roman Church is right? Because the early Roman Church fathers say so!
Etc, etc. Basically, what I’m looking for right now to counter his argument is some sort of historical eyewitness text of the apostles passing primacy to Rome. So far I can’t find any such thing, which is rather frustrating. I’d think that given the importance of such an event, it would have been written down, but I can’t find anything anywhere!
The only thing I CAN find are the writings of the Roman church fathers starting at about 100 AD. But in this logical search, I can’t yet accept those writings as doctrinal because they’re accepted based on the primacy of the Roman Church! I’m finding myself trapped - to prove the veracity of the writings of the ECFs, I have to establish that they were in communion with the right church, but to establish that the church they were in communion with was right, i have to refer to their writings.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not having read the rest of the thread, I’m probably repeating something here, but authority has to come from authority. We know that authority resides in Rome because that’s where St. Peter left it.
We know that Linus received Peter’s authority because nobody else did, or even claims to have. (The claims of Antioch, which are the only ones even passingly credible, are of very recent origin; the Bishops of Antioch at the time of Peter’s death did not claim to have received Peter’s authority at that time.)
Because authority can only come from authority, the various heretics and schismatics didn’t have it, because they had never *received *it. Let me give you my favourite example.
Mr. Smith starts up a business. Because he is the “author” of the business, he is the person “in authority” over it. Notice the correlation between “author” and “authority.” This authority is given by God to Mr. Smith by virtue of the fact that he is the author (creator) of this business. (Let me know if you have any problems or questions, so far.)
Now, Mr. Smith develops rather a large client base, and finds that he can’t manage his business all by himself, any more. So, he hires a few people. At this point, he has direct authority over these people - they meet with him each morning, and he hands out their assignments to them each day. They look to him for guidance when they have questions, and he makes all the important decisions.
Over time, the business grows even larger, and he has to hire even more people, to the point now where he can’t actually oversee everyone’s work any more. He has to start appointing managers.
Now, Mr. Jones has decided that he would like to become a manager in Mr. Smith’s business. What procedure should he follow, to receive this appointment?
- Set up an office of his own in the same building and put a sign on the door that says “Manager,” without consulting with Mr. Smith. (Predict: a) Will his pay go up? b) Stay the same? c) Or he will be fired?)
- Go to Mr. Smith and ask to be appointed as a manager.
b) If Mr. Smith says “yes,” does he a) now get to make up all his own rules, or b) does he still have to follow Mr. Smith’s rules, and teach them to those working under him?
It is the same in the Church. Jesus appointed Peter to be the shepherd of the Church. Peter appointed someone to follow in his footsteps; his authority went somewhere - the Tradition tells us that it was Linus, and as far as l know, there are no other claimants.
S
Steve40
Guest
I agree with those who have said that Rome is the line to St. Peter, the rock upon which Christ built His Church. This is only a part of the true marks of the Church. There are four of them and you most like have touched on them in discussing the Church fathers.
The Church is one, and in the Eucharist we are truly One Flesh.
The Church is holy, the Sacrements which were instituted by Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes us holy.
The Church is Catholic meaning universal, you do not have to belong to a certain nation or group of people to be in the Church.
The Church is Apostolic meaning that we teach what the Apostals taught.
The Church is one, and in the Eucharist we are truly One Flesh.
The Church is holy, the Sacrements which were instituted by Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit makes us holy.
The Church is Catholic meaning universal, you do not have to belong to a certain nation or group of people to be in the Church.
The Church is Apostolic meaning that we teach what the Apostals taught.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
May I see if I understand this pastor’s argument (beyond what I have already told you, which I think refutes him enough).
- This pastor understands that the first couple century’s writings by those who followed Rome, wrote that Rome was primary.
- This pastor claims that those who DIDN’T follow Rome, were silent on whether Rome was the primary authority (imagine that)
- The Pastor knows of no rebuttals against those who claimed Rome had primacy in the first couple centuries.
- So rather than accepting the only writings we have on the matter, the pastor chooses to embrace the far weaker argument from silence…and recognize NO successive authority.
Your pastor friend has chosen to embrace an argument for which there is no evidence and, because he thinks Roman Catholic writers in the first centuries were liars, he rejects the argument for which there is evidence. Is he writing a sequel to the Da Vinci Code?
D
dacoobob
Guest
I’m wondering about which Eastern/African fathers you’re thinking of, who opposed the primacy of Rome. Were they contemporaneous with, say, Ignatius of Antioch, or did such opposition only come later?
The thing about the early sources supporting Apostolic succession and Rome’s primacy is that they don’t argue for these doctrines, as against some opposing party; rather the few early Fathers who even bother to mention the primacy of Rome do so in an apparently offhand way, as something which almost goes without saying-- they seem to accept it implicitly. In other words, there’s no indication that I’ve seen that there was any controversy over these issues in the first few generations of the Church. This is a strong argument to me.
The thing about the early sources supporting Apostolic succession and Rome’s primacy is that they don’t argue for these doctrines, as against some opposing party; rather the few early Fathers who even bother to mention the primacy of Rome do so in an apparently offhand way, as something which almost goes without saying-- they seem to accept it implicitly. In other words, there’s no indication that I’ve seen that there was any controversy over these issues in the first few generations of the Church. This is a strong argument to me.
D
dacoobob
Guest
Indeed, your friend’s argument seems as circular as he says yours is.
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
The thing seems to be that there is total silence on the subject altogether until Clement, or even beyond. In the meantime, Rome under Linus and Anacletus didn’t even have a “bishop”, because the monoepscopal structure didn’t even exist at the time. I’ve been doing some independent research on the matter, and it appears that Peter, Linus, and Anacletus can’t even rightly be considered the first three bishops of Rome because Rome didn’t have the office of a bishop at the time.
I also scanned (incompletely, I admit, time is kinda limited right now with school
) Cyprian’s writings on unity in the church; I was expecting to find a good argument for Roman primacy, but I didn’t find anything of the sort. I did a ctrl + F search for “Rome” but couldn’t find any reference to special status given to the Roman Church. In a writing on unity in the church, it’s a given that this kind of thing would be mentioned if it was in fact accepted by the author. Now, if Cyprian didn’t see the primacy of the Roman Church, then wouldn’t that indicate that bishops accepted as orthodox may or may not have accepted the concept of Roman superiority?These are just thoughts of mine, I don’t think I’m sinning by questioning the Church so thouroughly, I’m just starting to see some historical holes in Church tradition, and I want to see them patched up
P
PC_Master
Guest
And where does Linus claim to have, or an early historical figure from that time period claim that Linus did? Yes, we see many claims much later that Linus held that position, but do we see that established in Linus’ day?
Did he? Did it? How do you know? Where’s your historical record that says so? This is what the original poster is searching for (as am I), and so far, it hasn’t been found by or presented to him (or me, for that matter).
The original poster is questioning (or rather presenting an argument questioning) that there was to be any succession of Peter’s office at all. You respond by saying that it was intended, but you need to provide evidence that it happened.
A
anthony022071
Guest
- Status