O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
That more or less sums up what I’m getting at
- Status
S
steve_b
Guest
IMO. Your pen pal ignores a very important fact
We know he’s a Protestant. We know Protestants got their start from breaking with Rome via Martin Luther et al in the 16th century
St Paul in the 1st century gives the following instructions to the Church of Rome and any who would break with her…
Rm 16:
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
Huh?
Who’s providing this information?
“If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” [Cyprian]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?
So you say, okay, that doesn’t mean he’s talking about the pope. And certainly he can’t be talking about Rome right? Or is he?
In the year 252, in a letter to Pope Cornelius informing him of a rival bishop to Cyprian in Carthage coming to visit Cornelius, Cyprian writes,
“When a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.” [Cyprian]
Catch that? The pope is the successor to Peter; he sits on the chair of Peter, source of all priestly unity, who is in Rome. But here’s something else.
Just in case your pen pal uses Cyprian to deny papal primacy
Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen asking him to remove Bishop Marcian of Arles, who was refusing absolution to repentant sinners even on their deathbed, and to arrange for a new bishop to replace him.
Now if all bishops have equal power, and there was no primacy in ANY bishop, why did Cyprian ask Pope Stephen to remove Bp Marcian? This presumes either
- Cyprian doesn’t think he (personally) has the power to do it, but he clearly thinks Stephen does.
- Cyprian acknowledges primacy of the pope.
If all bishops have equal authority and power, (as anti Catholics think) and there was no understanding of primacy in any one bishop at this time or anytime previously in history, then - Pope Stephen cannot remove Marcian nor can any bishop remove another bishop, therefore, Marcian is safe, and this request by Cyprian was off the wall.
The conclusion is, primacy WAS understood to be valid, Cyprian didn’t think himself in that primacy position, but he did of the pope…
Don’t discount the possibility that the people you’re talking with might have THEIR facts screwed up.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
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
Actually, what you quoted is not from the pastor I’m talking with, that’s from my own independent research from a variety of secular and non-secular sources.
He disassociates himself with Protestantism and the Reformation altogether. He thinks that Martin Luther and the rest of the reformers had it all wrong too.
Several books i’ve checked out from the library on this topic. The most useful so far that I’ve found is:
McBrien, Richard. Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II. HarperColling Publishing. 2000
He had a pastoral role in Rome, likely over a house church or a collection of house churches, but not over Rome itself.
Well, the whole Cyprian thing was a result of my own hasty research and trust in the ctrl + f function
Thank you for the replies
Still, what I’m looking for is that historical link between the apostles and Linus. The closest thing I can get is the writing of Irenaeus a hundred years later…
A
anthony022071
Guest
A
anthony022071
Guest
bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how “Peter bade Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat” (III, 80). The word “chair” (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one’s episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop’s chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as “the place of Peter” (Ep ad Anton), and as “the Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen’s claim to the “succession of Peter” and to the “Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was “the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years” (Chron an 44), and calls Linus “first after Peter to obtain the episcopate” (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was “the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter” (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica “honors the memory of the Apostle Peter” in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340’s) calls Rome the “Apostolic Throne” – a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, “in which chair sat Peter himself.” He also says how “Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair,” which “is the first of the marks of the Church.” (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the “Apostolic chair” in which “the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church” (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how “The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church” and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, “Thou art Peter…” (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as “Peter’s chair” and the Roman church where “Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat” (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the “chair of Peter” and the “Apostolic chair,” and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of “the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat” (Contra Lit Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were “the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair” (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as “the chair of Peter, the seat of faith” (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome “the Apostolic See” and the “Chair of the Apostle Peter” (Carm de Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how “it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors” and how “the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place” (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of “blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see” (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how “the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)” (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates “in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter” (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope “the interpreter of Peter’s voice.”
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of “the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops” (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).
(1) Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).
(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how “Peter bade Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat” (III, 80). The word “chair” (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one’s episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop’s chair).
(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).
(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).
(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as “the place of Peter” (Ep ad Anton), and as “the Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).
(6) Firmilian (257) speaks of Pope Stephen’s claim to the “succession of Peter” and to the “Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Cyprian).
(7) Eusebius (314) says that Peter was “the bishop of Rome for twenty-five years” (Chron an 44), and calls Linus “first after Peter to obtain the episcopate” (Chron an 66). He also says that Victor was “the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter” (HE III, 4).
(8) The Council of Sardica “honors the memory of the Apostle Peter” in granting Pope Julius I the right to judge cases involving other episcopal sees under imperial Roman law (Sardica Canon IV, and Ep ad Pope Julius).
(9) Athanasius (340’s) calls Rome the “Apostolic Throne” – a reference to the Apostle Peter as the first bishop to occupy that throne (Hist Arian ad Monarch 35).
(10) Optatus (370) says that the episcopal chair of Rome was first established by Peter, “in which chair sat Peter himself.” He also says how “Peter first filled the pre-eminent chair,” which “is the first of the marks of the Church.” (Schism Donat II, 2 and II, 3).
(11) Pope Damasus (370) speaks of the “Apostolic chair” in which “the holy Apostle sitting, taught his successors how to guide the helm of the Church” (Ep ix ad Synod, Orient ap Theodoret V, 10). Damasus also states how “The first See is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church” and says how Rome received primacy not by the conciliar decisions of the other churches, but from the evangelic voice of the Lord, when He says, “Thou art Peter…” (Decree of Damasus 382).
(12) Ambrose (c. 390) speaks of Rome as “Peter’s chair” and the Roman church where “Peter, first of the Apostles, first sat” (De Poenit I, 7-32, Exp Symb ad Initiand).
(13) Jerome (c. 390) speaks of Rome as the “chair of Peter” and the “Apostolic chair,” and states that Peter held the episcopal chair for twenty-five years at Rome (Epistle 15 and se Vir Illust I, 1).
(14) Augustine (c. 400) tells us to number the bishops of Rome from the chair of Peter itself (in Ps contra Part Donat), and speaks of “the chair of the Roman church in which Peter first sat” (Contra Lit Petil).
(15) Prudentius (405) writes how in Rome there were “the two princes of the Apostles, one the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other holding the First Chair” (Hymn II in honor of St Laurent, V).
(16) Bachiarius (420) speaks of Rome as “the chair of Peter, the seat of faith” (De Fide 2).
(17) Prosper of Aquitaine (429) calls Rome “the Apostolic See” and the “Chair of the Apostle Peter” (Carm de Ingratis).
(18) The Roman legates at the Council of Ephesus (431) declare how “it is a matter doubtful to none that Peter lived and exercised judgement in his successors” and how “the holy and most blessed [Pope] Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place” (Acta Councilia, session 3, tom III, col 621).
(19) Peter Chrysologus (440) speaks of “blessed Peter living and presiding in his own see” (Ep ad Eutech).
(20) Pope Leo the Great (440) says how “the whole Church acknowledges Peter in the See of Peter (Rome)” (Serm II, 2).
(21) At the Council of Chalcedon (451), the assembled bishops respond to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great by crying out, “Peter has spoken through Leo.” The sentence of the council is pronounced by the legates “in the name of Leo, the Council, and St. Peter” (Canons of Chalcedon).
(22) The Synodical Letter to Pope Leo from Chalcedon calls the Pope “the interpreter of Peter’s voice.”
(23) Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III (450) speak of “the primacy of the Apostolic See (Rome), made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops” (Inter ep Leon I, Vol XI, col 637).
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
Wow, a lot of those points are very helpful, thanks anthony! i’ll look into it more deeply and come back with what I find
A
anthony022071
Guest
In case you missed them,see also posts 40 an 44.Wow, a lot of those points are very helpful, thanks anthony! i’ll look into it more deeply and come back with what I find
C
Chancellare
Guest
Best post in this thread!
S
steve_b
Guest
According to Irenaeus he is the Linus mentioned by Saint Paul in 2 Timothy 4.Thank you for the replies
P
PC_Master
Guest
Bishop in that era is not the same concept as the idea of bishop that we have today. In early church history, bishops were shepherd of only a single church in a single city (or perhaps a collection of house churches which more resemble modern Protestant “Bible Study groups”) – this it more akin to the role the Roman Catholic priest serves today.
Indeed Paul and others did appoint leaders over local congregations. This, I don’t think, is really in contention.
Notice that it says to succeed to their ministry, not their office. Now, given that we’re speaking of numerous bishops/pastors/overseers, this text isn’t specific to the Roman position. Now, we obviously don’t have a 1:1 replacement for each of the individuals mentioned in scripture, so it seems that the focus on ministry, as opposed to specific individual office, is valid. The ministry is to shepherd the flock of God. As that flock grows, more individuals are needed to accomplish the task, admittedly. But regardless, this passage doesn’t speak specifically of the Roman bishop/whatever.
First, Clement’s letter was written to one church in one location, not to all the churches. Second, The tone of the letter is no more significant than that which Paul wrote with. Paul, as one enlightened by God, felt if his duty to write to the churches, admonishing them and correcting them of their errors. Do we assume Paul was the leader because he did this?
Here, we have Clement claiming to speak the words of God (just as Paul did). The danger mentioned, of course, is not due to disobedience of the Roman bishop, but rather due to disobedience of God’s will, which Clement believed he was conveying.
There is a difference between an enlightened church leader being used by God, and the office he occupies being first among the church.
This, along with several other claims, only says that there were others who led the Roman church after Peter. This is hardly surprising. What it does not say, however, is that any of these individuals were regarded as having chief authority within the church.
Was it not also Firmilian who said that Stephen had done great harm to the Christian faith? Using the “chair of Peter” symbolism does not imply leadership of the entire church unless it can be asserted that (1) Peter had such leadership and (2) Peter passed it on to someone else.
Continued…
P
PC_Master
Guest
Beyond this, we’ve now moved 300 years past Christ’s ministry. It seems useless to address the further points, as it is quite possible for corruption to have happened at that time, especially with Constantine looking to unite the whole Roman Empire under one faith.
To trust references so far removed is like trusting a book today written about what the founding fathers of the USA said or did during the time surrounding the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Unless you have a source of antiquity to back it up, any claims the book might make are unsubstantiable. The witnesses to the information are long dead, and the story has been passed down through 8 - 10 generations. Corruption is not only possible, but perhaps is likely. How do we know they’re accurate, and not just hearsay, a story that’s been repeated many times, that was misunderstood by the author? We don’t. Ever play the game telephone and seen the results? Thus, we must consider the antiquity of the source.
To trust references so far removed is like trusting a book today written about what the founding fathers of the USA said or did during the time surrounding the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Unless you have a source of antiquity to back it up, any claims the book might make are unsubstantiable. The witnesses to the information are long dead, and the story has been passed down through 8 - 10 generations. Corruption is not only possible, but perhaps is likely. How do we know they’re accurate, and not just hearsay, a story that’s been repeated many times, that was misunderstood by the author? We don’t. Ever play the game telephone and seen the results? Thus, we must consider the antiquity of the source.
Perhaps. No one here is questioning that Linus existed, or even that he was in Rome. The question is whether or not he held the office today thought of as bishop (and not simply that of a pastor or priest), and whether he held any authority passed from Peter.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
I think the real question is this.
“Do you (non denominational pastor) hold to the other church fathers who did not agree with Rome?”
If he does not, then his argument falls on it’s face.
You cannot disagree with the most visible and authoritative church which God has protected from apostacy and protected in teaching since the beginning, and claim it is because certain ecf disagree, yet not hold to what those ecf believed.
It would once again prove that this person is not even willing to hold to another very early interpretation of scripture and teaching, and that they have interpreted scripture for themselves in the tradition (small “t”) of the reformers, and therefore using a reformers lens for interpreting scripture.
The real question goes back on him, for his idea of the church is more than 1500 years seperated from the actual events, while our’s is right there from the earliest times.
The church was safeguarded by Christ and He promised not only that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but that He would be with them always, even until the end of the age.
Therefore the visibility of the church and her teaching authority must remain in every age.
Now if he can prove his church exists in every century and in apostolic succession to the first apostles, then he has an argument.
If not, then there is no argument.
“Do you (non denominational pastor) hold to the other church fathers who did not agree with Rome?”
If he does not, then his argument falls on it’s face.
You cannot disagree with the most visible and authoritative church which God has protected from apostacy and protected in teaching since the beginning, and claim it is because certain ecf disagree, yet not hold to what those ecf believed.
It would once again prove that this person is not even willing to hold to another very early interpretation of scripture and teaching, and that they have interpreted scripture for themselves in the tradition (small “t”) of the reformers, and therefore using a reformers lens for interpreting scripture.
The real question goes back on him, for his idea of the church is more than 1500 years seperated from the actual events, while our’s is right there from the earliest times.
The church was safeguarded by Christ and He promised not only that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, but that He would be with them always, even until the end of the age.
Therefore the visibility of the church and her teaching authority must remain in every age.
Now if he can prove his church exists in every century and in apostolic succession to the first apostles, then he has an argument.
If not, then there is no argument.
P
PC_Master
Guest
Justin> You’re engaging in a “my grass is greener than your grass” argument. What if this is a case where both your yard and the “opposing” yard both have weeds, and are generally not green? Arguing which is better would seem to be pointless if both have problems.
Premise 1: Peter held a unique leadership position over the whole church, and exercised that position from Rome. This point is contested, but let’s not argue it yet – for the moment, consider it conceded.
Premise 2: When Peter died, that office (“the papacy”) passed to Linus. This premise needs to be substantiated – there is no record of reasonable antiquity which states this to have been true. We only see something pop up about a century later, and even that’s reliant on a pro-Roman interpretation.
Conclusion: Linus was the leader of the church during his term as bishop of Rome. This conclusion cannot be agreed upon because one or more of the premises are unsubstantiated.
You’re looking for someone to set up a codified denomination that has combated against Rome in every century. That’s not going to happen – such a thing is against the very notion of Protestantism, and I believe, against the teachings of scripture, and of Christ himself. If there was not intended to be a visible earthly church authority in the first place, then it would make sense that one would not exist. Keep that in mind.
Woah there – you assert this based on the succession of the papacy, do you not? If so, then it stands to reason that you need to support the claim that Linus actually received the authority and unique office that Peter supposedly held. This is what the OP was asking for, and what you need to focus on providing.
I agree – he did promise that. But that does not necessitate the papacy, so using it as though it does is rhetorical at best.
Then surely you can demonstrate the visible authority of the Roman church during the first century, can you not? This is the main question the OP has been driving at, and everyone has been side-stepping. At the least, have the dignity to say that you don’t know of a historical proof that Linus was considered the pope (not using that term, of course, but holding that office) during Linus’ own time. There is no shame in being unable to prove something, so long as it’s cause for you to search for an answer yourself. (Actually, I have great respect for those who will go searching when they don’t have a good answer.)
The EO can do that. There are others that can do that. In the end, you’re going to come back and say that “well, they weren’t in union with Rome”. The key point among Roman Catholics is that they’re in union with Rome (because the pope is in Rome), so let’s focus on that, shall we?
Premise 1: Peter held a unique leadership position over the whole church, and exercised that position from Rome. This point is contested, but let’s not argue it yet – for the moment, consider it conceded.
Premise 2: When Peter died, that office (“the papacy”) passed to Linus. This premise needs to be substantiated – there is no record of reasonable antiquity which states this to have been true. We only see something pop up about a century later, and even that’s reliant on a pro-Roman interpretation.
Conclusion: Linus was the leader of the church during his term as bishop of Rome. This conclusion cannot be agreed upon because one or more of the premises are unsubstantiated.
C
Chancellare
Guest
Pardon my butting in, but where in the Bible do you find the passage that Christ’s promise “does not necessitate the papacy”?
Peter’s papal role and papal successions all have Scriptural references. So where is your citation for your negative claim?
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
Well, I don’t intend to speak for PC Master, but I’d have to say that there don’t seem to be any scriptural references to succession of an authoritative office, and the one instance in which succession is evident, it’s explicitly stated that the successor must have personally witnessed Christ.
But PC hit it right on the dot… I’m searching through all sorts of books and internet sources right now for evidence that:
a) Linus was considered the leader of the church during his time in Rome
and
b) That authority was explicitly passed to him by the apostles.
Thus far I can’t find any texts of the time which would support this event’s occurence. Which is frustrating because it seems like it would be an important event. Once again, the first time I see Linus even mentioned as an authority is by Irenaeus some hundred years later.
J
justinthemartyr
Guest
Well then let’s say that Linus were not the successor of Peter, or that we cannot prove this.
What other church has a visible existence with the same teachings from the time of Jesus and the apostles to this very day on matters of faith and morals?
C
Chancellare
Guest
In the same way that Ahmedinajad couldn’t find any evidence of the holocaust, many people will swear they can’t find evidences about Linus.
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
In the same way that Ahmedinajad couldn’t find any evidence of the holocaust, many people will swear they can’t find evidences about Linus.
I hope you’re not being serious. There are eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust. There are no such eyewitness accounts of Linus’ papacy.
C
Chancellare
Guest
Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3).
Of course, since Irenaeus was not there during the hand over, he must by lying!
And so were the rest of the Early Fathers!
O
OnlyAmbrose
Guest
Irenaeus wasn’t an eyewitness though! He missed the event by a hundred years!Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3).
Of course, since Irenaeus was not there during the hand over, he must by lying!
And so were the rest of the Early Fathers!
I see almost no information whatsoever on Linus himself! If he were to succeed Peter, I’d expect a great deal more would be written about/by him, but as it stands there is almost nothing known about him or his life. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that what details are rumored about his life and apparent martyrdom are sketchy at best and possibly completely unreliable.
Indeed, there was even controversy in the early church about WHO SUCCEEDED PETER! Tertullian wrote that Clement was the direct successor of Peter, at around the same time that Irenaeus wrote that Linus did, then Anacletus, and THEN Clement!
It just strikes me as unlikely that:
- The apostles would pass authority to Linus and not leave a written record of the event
- Linus would have authority over the entire work and not have a single document or action verifiably attached to his name
- There would be difference in opinion just a hundred years later about who (historically) rose to take the office in Rome
- Status