A compelling non-Catholic argument

[guanophore]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Recently we’ve been having a discussion on authority. Now, I’ve read every article on the topic in the CA library, and in the past I’ve always been able to make a very effective argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. This guy take a novel approach, though, and he makes a very good case.

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome. I explained in the typical manner - Christ built the Church on Peter, and Peter was martyred in Rome, where the apostles passed authority to the next bishop of Rome.

He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus. I said that it’s stated in the writings of early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. Now here’s where he brought up a point I’ve never heard before - arguing from the texts of the early Church fathers is sort of begging the question. How do I know that authority lies is Rome? Because the early Church fathers say so. How do I know the early Church fathers were right? Because they were in communion with Rome.

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority. So why don’t we accept THEIR account of authority? Because they weren’t in communion with Rome. But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome? I definitely see the circular logic in this.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

It was not only the Petrine gift that survived in Rome, but because they had Peter and Paul teaching there, it was a reliable source of right doctrine. Whenever there was a question about right doctrine, everyone appealed to Rome. The Bishops that were not in communion with Rome were not because they wanted to teach another doctrine (such as Arianism) that was not right doctrine.

 

[dacoobob]

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.

Why would that be pointless? Consider a 2008 Volvo and a 1969 Dodge Dart. Now, it’s obvious that neither of these cars is 100% safe; get in an accident in either one and you have a good chance of being injured or killed. However, the modern Volvo is certainly safer than the 60’s Dart-- the grass is somewhat greener on the Volvo side, as it were. If I were choosing a vehicle to transport my familly in, should I just pick one at random? Is it “pointless” to choose one over the other, since both “have problems”?

 

[Mintaka]

If you’re not going to believe the early Church Fathers – and St. Irenaeus was a disciple of a disciple of St. John himself – then there’s no point believing that today’s Christianity, in any church, is really Christianity. (And as was pointed out, the NT is Right Out.) Obviously, oral traditions among small groups must be less trustworthy than manuscripts, and we don’t trust manuscripts, so there.

Real Christianity was probably all about eating babies. All the pagan sources said so. (Except Pliny, the wuss. Probably bribed to hide the truth.)

Also, there’s not much point believing in the Roman Empire’s secular sources, since we only have most of them in manuscripts copied by others – and in far fewer surviving iterations than the Church Fathers.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

This is what I’m looking for:

Irenaeus wasn’t an eyewitness though! He missed the event by a hundred years!

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:

1. The apostles would pass authority to Linus and not leave a written record of the event
2. Linus would have authority over the entire church and not have a single document or action verifiably attached to his name
3. There would be difference in opinion just a hundred years later about who (historically) rose to take the office in Rome

 

[guanophore]

His argument is that there is no evidence that Peter’s office continued after his death (though his “ministry” did)

They are one and the same.

All the Apostles were replaced by bishops. Their authority (office) was passed on to them through the laying on of hands. We see this in Acts and in the Pauline letters. The Petrine gift to strengthen the brethren was unique to Peter.

and furthermore that there is no evidence that the apostles transferred Peter’s authority to that of the Roman See.

What more evidence than the existence of the Papacy could one require?!

He is not saying that all the bishops weren’t supportive of union with Peter, simply that they were no supportive of union with Rome.

Rome just happened to be where Peter and Paul ended up to be martyrd. If they had been in Constantinople, or Antioch (where they both were also at one time) then the center of right doctrine would have been there with them.

What about Eastern and African churches who believed in the equal authority of bishops? More specifically, what about those who subscribed to heresies such as Arianism?

These are good questions. All the bishops appreciated the primacy of Peter. Peter was considered “first among equals”. Just as today, the Pope signs his letters “servant of the servants of God”. In fact, it was Athanasius who saved Christendom from Arianism.

I brought up that point, but he argued that it isn’t particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not the Roman church held higher authority than the rest of the churches.

No, and in fact, the Roman See did not emerge into the limelight for centuries. All of the first five Sees were equal.

But in the pre-Constantine era, what really IS the church? Because a great deal of bishops didn’t see it as headquartered in Rome.

No, they saw that, where the Bishop was, there was the Church.

They were legitimate bishops in their regions, but they simply didn’t buy into the notion that the Roman bishop was their superior.

I think this is the wrong way to think about authority. Jesus taught His Apostles that they should lead by serving, and wash one another’s feet. Peter is a humble man, as can be seen by his letters (or at least became so later in life). His ability to Divinely perceive and proclaim right doctrine was a gift God gave him to build the Church. He never saw himself as superior to others, and neither did his successors. The authority rests in the appointment to ministry, to strengthen the brethren, and in the defining of right doctrine, all naysayers to the contrary.

He’s not making any such claim, in fact he claims to be neither Protestant nor Catholic, but rather, simply Christian.

Jesus appointed Peter to feed the sheep. If he does not accept the successor of Peter, he is a Protestant, whether he knows it or not.

I suppose this is because he’s not into the idea of apostolic succession to begin with. He argues that to fulfill the OFFICE of the apostles, one must have personally been a witness to Christ. [/qutoe]

This is correct, and is recorded in scripture. The Apostles were succeeded by Bishops.
OnlyAmbrose;3195179:

Therefore, he says, the writings of the apostles are what we should look to for guidance, and nothing more.

He is saying that Jesus is a liar or a weakling, since he promised to guide the Church into all truth, and failed to do so. Scripture makes it very clear that understanding of the truths was very gradual.

He disagrees that it’s up to him to disprove our historical take. And I see where he’s coming from. If something didn’t happen, the only way to disprove it is really to search all the evidence, and if there isn’t any, make the reasonable assumption that it didn’t. He says he’s done that, and asked me to look for evidence based on the writings of the apostles that authority was transferred to Rome. I’m at a loss there.

As well you should be. The city of Rome has no authority in the Church of Christ. The Authority was given to a person, not a city. That person happened to be in Rome, as did another powerful Apostle, Paul. Authority of the Apostles continues to be handed down through the bishops.

 

[dacoobob]

Some more quotes for you, OnlyAmbrose:

“Therefore shall you [Hermas]
write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty” (The Shepherd 2:4:3 A.D. 80]).

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (ibid., 3:1).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 A.D. 189]).

What do you think? Certainly this is evidence of an early appreciation of proto-papal primacy. Obviously it’s not conclusive (or everyone would be Catholic, including me), but there is evidence.

 

[anthony022071]

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

You may as well say the same thing about the Bible itself and the individual books of the Bible. There was not even a canon of scripture until 382 when Pope Damasus pronounced upon it.
And the books of the Old Testament are all redacted and the histories written long after the events took place. What sources from antiquity can be used to back up the Genesis stories or the Resurrection? Do we need any? We’re either going to trust the ecclesiastical and scriptural traditions that have come down to us or we can doubt everything,looking for weak links in the historical chain until there’s nothing left to take seriously except for original documents.

We may not have ancient sources from the time of Linus,but that shouldn’t be suprising,when you consider that the Church of Rome was a small,persecuted,illegal and underground institution.
We shouldn’t expect there to be official documentation from that time like that which exists from after the Edict of Toleration.

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.

If the Church fathers knew that Linus was a bishop and had his authority from Peter,why should we doubt it?

“And do ye also reverence your bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you. He that is within the altar is pure, wherefore also he is obedient to the bishop and presbyters: but he that is without is one that does anything apart from the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons. Such a person is defiled in his conscience, and is worse than an infidel. For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as the holy Stephen did to the blessed James, Timothy and Linus to Paul, Anencletus and Clement to Peter? He, therefore, that will not yield obedience to such, must needs be one utterly without God, an impious man who despises Christ, and depreciates His appointments.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, 7 (c. A.D. 110).

"At Rome. the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul; then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul, whom Paul remembers in his Epistle to the Romans … The succession of the bishops of Rome is as follows: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, whom I have already mentioned above in my enumerating of the bishops. (St. Epiphanius,The Panacea against All Heresies 27,6)

 

[anthony022071]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a80.htm

< To begin, let me take a moment to re-present my position on the monarchical episcopate, which is the position of orthodox Catholic Christianity itself. Simply stated, it is a historical fact that the three-fold office of the Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) ministerial priesthood (i.e. bishop, presbyter [priest], and deacon) has existed in the Church since earliest times and was established by the Apostles themselves. Now, in opposition to this historical fact (and as Mr. White himself points out), numerous Protestant and liberal Catholic historians have tried to suggest that the earliest Apostolic city-churches were not governed by monarchical bishops (in which one man served as the chief shepherd of the city-church), but were rather governed by colleges of supposedly-equal (“democratic” ?) presbyters. And, indeed given a first-glance, pedestrian, and modernist reading of the earliest patristic evidence, it is not surprising that some might come to such a conclusion. Case in point, as seen in the New Testament literature itself, it is an indisputable fact that the earliest Christians used the terms “bishop” (“overseer”) and “presbyter” (“elder” / “senior”) interchangeably:

Titus 1:5-7: “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless, not arrogant, etc.” (compare to 1 Tim 3:1-7 & 5:17-22)

Acts 20:17-28: “From Miletus he (Paul) had the presbyters of the church of Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, ’ …Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (i.e. “bishops”), in which you tend the Church of God…”

What’s more, in the earliest patristic literature (especially when it applies to the Western city-churches, such as the church of Rome), we see several references to “the presbyters” (plural), and not to a monarchical bishop per se. Indeed, it is not until the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 A.D. about 10 years after the death of the last Apostle) that we see someone clearly distinguishing between “the bishop” (which, for Ignatius, is always the one-man leader of a city-church) and “the presbyters” who assist him in governing the city-church. However, even here, Ignatius only speaks of monarchical bishops when writing to several city-churches in the province of Asia (in the East); yet when he writes to Rome, Ignatius does not mention a “bishop” for that city-church at all. “Therefore,” conclude the Protestant and liberal-modernist historians, “this must mean that the office of monarchical bishop was an Eastern novelty that developed in the days of Ignatius, and that Rome and the West were still governed by colleges of (equal?) presbyters at this time.” Yet, is this a reasonable conclusion? Not at all, as we will see in a moment. >

 

[YADA]

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.

So your friend has [essentially] made himself the arbiter of all thing authentically Christian? He has made himself the Pope? Where do we find that [independently] asserted from the first century

From Scripture:

1. We have Jesus directly quoting Issiah in granting a unique authority upon Peter … the “Office” of Prime Minister upon whom the ‘keys’ are bestowed; who can Open and Shut with authority and whom the people call Father [Abba, Daddy, Papa, Pope] … but your friend will say, Jesus was not quoting Issiah it is just a wierd coincidence … and He [Jesus] did not realize that the hearers would think of Issiah … You buy that right? After all he is the new authority …
2. Jesus gives Peter the instruction to feed His [Jesus’] sheep … I’m sure your friend has a response for this too…
3. Peter quotes the Hebrew text “Let another, his office take’…”] when he [Peter] calls for a replacement for Judas … but ony Judas the ‘betrayer’ held an ‘office’ that needed to be filled… Not any of the other apostle, even though the scriptures clearly show develoment of offices [Deacon being necessary because the bishops were becoming too busy to ensure the care of widows and orphans directly] …

Personnally, I find your friends arguements very thin… one needs to throw common sense to the four winds to argue from the silence of writings that would be 2000 years old today …

After all, except for the Hebrew writings found at Qumran, we have no ‘scriptural’ originals that are 2000 years old … yet he accepts the New Testament … correct? We have lost much from antiquity and yet we know much about the ealry Christian Church. We have its beliefs, teachings, organization, and a record of the many struggles … Perhaps the Role of Linus as Pope was not as noteworthy at the time as your friend thinks it should have been … I guess Linis should have consulted your friend …

Personally, I will trust the Chruch, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and the scriptures … I’ll look to Pope Benedict XVI the Magisterium of the Church and the Bishops for guidance… not your friend…

 

[Chancellare]

Irenaeus wasn’t an eyewitness though! He missed the event by a hundred years!

I already said that. And the answer is:
Therefore Irenaeus is lying? Unfounded?

It just strikes me as unlikely that:

1. The apostles would pass authority to Linus and not leave a written record of the event

Then let me use the same argument used by protestants:
During the time of Apostolic ministry, there was no written form but only oral form to pass on their works. The NT you are holding was not written until about 100 years after the Apostles were all gone. Do you now claim that Scriptures is not reliable because of the lapse of time before they were written? Or it is only Irenaeus who suffer from this infirmity?
So even the fundamentalists already accepted this reality - are your evidentiary standards higher than theirs?

1. Linus would have authority over the entire work and not have a single document or action verifiably attached to his name

Same explanations.

1. There would be difference in opinion just a hundred years later about who (historically) rose to take the office in Rome

Don’t you read the Early Fathers or presume to have greater access to information or authority than them?

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

I already said that. And the answer is:
Therefore Irenaeus is lying? Unfounded?

I’m not saying he was lying, but that doesn’t mean that he was necessarily correct. By Irenaeus’ time the Roman church had begun to assert itself as an authority, so obviously said Roman church would have a case for itself - and their case is that authority passed from Linus to Anacletus to Clement, etc. I just don’t see how that case can be correct given the total lack of evidence.

Then let me use the same argument used by protestants:
During the time of Apostolic ministry, there was no written form but only oral form to pass on their works. The NT you are holding was not written until about 100 years after the Apostles were all gone. Do you now claim that Scriptures is not reliable because of the lapse of time before they were written? Or it is only Irenaeus who suffer from this infirmity?
So even the fundamentalists already accepted this reality - are your evidentiary standards higher than theirs?

What? The NT was written by the apostles and their contemporaries. The apostles did a great deal of writing, and there are written records of this time period in the church history. It’s clear from the writings of this time that Peter was in charge.

This is in stark contrast with the next generation, when the few writings we have certainly don’t come out of Rome, and there is no record whatsoever of authority being passed to Linus. You’d think that if he was in charge of all the bishops, there would be some sort of correspondence between bishops announcing or discussing his authority. Again, more compellingly, there is no evidence that even HE thought he had authority. In the 12 year period of his reign, I see it as highly unlikely that he would be silent.

Same with Anacletus. Once again, there is no correspondence to indicate that he rose to power. If it was believed that he was an authority over the whole church, there would have had to be some sort of communication between bishops announcing this rise to power. Such communication between bishops about a new bishop in Rome never came to pass until MUCH later.

Don’t you read the Early Fathers or presume to have greater access to information or authority than them?

No, which is why it baffles me that, if Linus truly was the leader of the entire Christian Church, there could possibly be disagreement among the ECFs just a HUNDRED YEARS after the fact about this historical information.

 

[PC_Master]

Here’s the first set of posts…

Pardon my butting in, but where in the Bible do you find the passage that Christ’s promise “does not necessitate the papacy”?

Where do you find an explicit passage saying that Peter’s office is not only unique and to lead the whole church (as I said, I don’t wish to dispute that point right now), but that it was to be passed to successors?

Peter’s papal role and papal successions all have Scriptural references. So where is your citation for your negative claim?

Papal succession has not a single reference in scripture. Possibly a succession of pastors (local leaders) such as Timothy, but certainly not anything specific to the pope.

It seems that if the affirmative claim has no support, the negative need not be demonstrated…yet. (This is why many people say that the burden of proof lies with the affirmative claimant.)

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.

Well, that was certainly the criteria used for selecting the successor to Judas. (Which is why some Protestant ministers I know insist there are no apostles any more.)

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.

That certainly is odd. They take great effort to write combating heresies, but they don’t take the time, early on, to affirm who has the authority to determine what is heresy and what is not? If it’s all about having a visible church, that really doesn’t make sense – the first concern should have been to make sure that the authority they had was very clear. We should have seen letters since the very beginning of the church which show the clear authority that was supposedly held by the bishop of Rome. But we don’t even know for sure that Linus ever held the office!

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?

It only matters if you demonstrate that a visible church is not only necessary (rather than just beneficial), but also what Christ said he was setting up. By the way, the very point of this thread is questioning whether or not the bishop of Rome actually was leader of the church in Linus’ day. It’s being disputed whether or not the RCC has always had the same teachings. And this is only one of many issues that can be raised to question this – with no one providing a decent response.

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.

Not comparable. To say that it is comparable is cheap rhetoric. We have hundreds of eye-witness accounts to the holocaust. Literally thousands of pages of text exist, written within one single generation of the people who endured it (or died from it). If you asked “can you show me evidence (written in the same era as the holocaust, that the events actually happened?” I could provide you with page after page of reference material. I could probably even rustle up an eye-witness or two for you to talk to. I have no doubt that virtually every person reading this thread could do the same.

Here, we have a thread asking for similar evidence regarding Linus’ papacy. I personally would be happy to start with even a single document making the claim – just one. And yet none has been presented.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

“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).

And I’ll bet that when Paul had trained new leaders at Antioch, or Corinth, or any other church which he had set up, it could have been written…

“The blessed apostle, Paul, having founded and built up the church of XYZ, handed over the office of the episcopate [leader, pastor, overseer, bishop] to ABC.”

The “episcopate” was not, at that time, a reference to the papacy. It was rather a reference to the pastoral leadership position in a given church.

And since Irenaeus actually says that Peter and Paul were alive when it happened, if Linus had actually been a pope, this convinces me even further that it certainly would have had written evidence that survived.

Of course, since Irenaeus was not there during the hand over, he must by lying!

Not necessarily – perhaps you’re just misinterpreting his words, adding meaning to them which would not be appropriate.

It was not only the Petrine gift that survived in Rome, but because they had Peter and Paul teaching there, it was a reliable source of right doctrine. Whenever there was a question about right doctrine, everyone appealed to Rome. The Bishops that were not in communion with Rome were not because they wanted to teach another doctrine (such as Arianism) that was not right doctrine.

This fits well with my theory, that Rome simply was a source of sound doctrine at the beginning, giving it a place of respect. However, for that reliability to continue, there must be new sources known to give reliable doctrine. This is what you claim the pope is, but you provide no source stating that succession actually happened in the early church.

Why would that be pointless? Consider a 2008 Volvo and a 1969 Dodge Dart. Now, it’s obvious that neither of these cars is 100% safe; – If I were choosing a vehicle to transport my familly in, should I just pick one at random? Is it “pointless” to choose one over the other, since both “have problems”?

No – but you’re likening one of them to a vehicle that is much, much safer (in our analogy, much more correct) than the other. If what you were saying is “I know the RCC isn’t totally right, but it’s better than Protestantism, so I’ll stick with it for now, until a better option comes along”, that would be one thing. However, what you’re saying is “The RCC is right, and even if it isn’t, it’s still better than Protestantism, so it’s fine.”

That’d be like…cars holding up to emissions testing. Car A fails horribly. Car B fails badly, but not quite as horribly as Car A. The law says you can’t drive either – neither is quite up to snuff. This is where I see the comparison between most Protestants and most Roman Catholics – neither is quite up to snuff. Picking one flawed religion over another flawed religion seems useless.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Recently we’ve been having a discussion on authority. Now, I’ve read every article on the topic in the CA library, and in the past I’ve always been able to make a very effective argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. This guy take a novel approach, though, and he makes a very good case.

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome. I explained in the typical manner - Christ built the Church on Peter, and Peter was martyred in Rome, where the apostles passed authority to the next bishop of Rome.

He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus. I said that it’s stated in the writings of early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. Now here’s where he brought up a point I’ve never heard before - arguing from the texts of the early Church fathers is sort of begging the question. How do I know that authority lies is Rome? Because the early Church fathers say so. How do I know the early Church fathers were right? Because they were in communion with Rome.

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority. So why don’t we accept THEIR account of authority? Because they weren’t in communion with Rome. But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome? I definitely see the circular logic in this.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

His logic is an illusion and is hardly worthy of any thought or consideration. He is just trying to market to a new special interest “gap” of protestant thinking that lies somewhere above pure fundamentalism and a universe below The Church’s infallible authority and teaching. Like so many other Protestants this is a businessman looking to feed his own family and not a man of God.

He may be eloquent in words and and be able to impress with a force of rhetorical argument but at face value we see that this nondenominational pastor is insincere in his rationale, motives and personal goals. I’ll show you.

The tale tale marker is seen in his trying to establish a moral precedent for creating his new cult. It’s absurd for him to use the Church’s own early history and high reputation as the standard by which to attack the Church and transfer that standard unspoiled to himself. The man tries to sully the very standard he wants to hijack! The insincerity is profound since if he makes his case (in the eyes of men) he undermines the very standard of the thing he seeks to use as basis for promoting himself. But therein lies the corruption of the matter since he then defeats the very authority of the thing that he seeks to use to justify self assigning an authority to himself. Authority must come from God (e.g. through an apostolic succession) and not hijacked through an artifact of circular reasoning. What original apostle layed hands on him to give him his authority?

This is theological insanity and disordered. Does this man really think he has something new and profound to bring to the table? Of course not. Its just the same ol’ vanity and human pride that The Church has always declared anathema and heretical.

So this tells me this man is not only irrational, morally bankrupt and dillussional it also tells me he is a heretic and stands against The Church. He offers nothing new to The Church and the body of Christ. He thus only adds yet another smoke colored shard of broken glass to the legion of fractional truths embraced by the general rebellion of Protestantism. Thus he seeks to serve only himself not God. Woe to him and to all others like him.

James

 

[MarcoPolo]

I’m not saying he was lying, but that doesn’t mean that he was necessarily correct. By Irenaeus’ time the Roman church had begun to assert itself as an authority, so obviously said Roman church would have a case for itself - and their case is that authority passed from Linus to Anacletus to Clement, etc. I just don’t see how that case can be correct given the total lack of evidence.

You are willing to assert that Iranaeus was not “necessarily correct” based on your own musings that he had some unsubstantiated bias. But you are not willing to accept the historical record of Linus as Pope and the ad nauseum testament of the ECFs to the role of the Roman Bishop.

Unless I am completely misreading you, as to the “total lack of evidence”…at this point, I can only conclude you aren’t interested in seeing it.

 

[Ignatius]

I find this much more compelling:

Thomas Babbington Macauley, in Critical and Historical Essays, 1843 vol.II, Foriegn History: (a review of The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. By Leopold Ranke, Professor in the University of Berlin: Translated from the German, by Sarah Austin. 3 vols. 8vo. [octavo] London: 1840. wrote of the Catholic Church

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

 

[PC_Master]

If you’re not going to believe the early Church Fathers – and St. Irenaeus was a disciple of a disciple of St. John himself – then there’s no point believing that today’s Christianity, in any church, is really Christianity. (And as was pointed out, the NT is Right Out.) Obviously, oral traditions among small groups must be less trustworthy than manuscripts, and we don’t trust manuscripts, so there.

Real Christianity was probably all about eating babies. All the pagan sources said so. (Except Pliny, the wuss. Probably bribed to hide the truth.)

This is empty rhetoric. Nothing more need be said.

Also, there’s not much point believing in the Roman Empire’s secular sources, since we only have most of them in manuscripts copied by others – and in far fewer surviving iterations than the Church Fathers.

So we should ignore them because you dislike them?

His logic is an illusion and is hardly worthy of any thought or consideration. He is just trying to market to a new special interest “gap” of protestant thinking that lies somewhere above pure fundamentalism and a universe below The Church’s infallible authority and teaching. Like so many other Protestants this is a businessman looking to feed his own family and not a man of God.

You’ve started with the assumption that he’s intentionally trying to destroy God’s church, and thus your analysis of his views is quite tainted. You claim insincerity, but how do you substantiate that?

You say things that make no sense, like “he’s trying to destroy the very thing he’s trying to hijack”. You overwhelming bias that the RCC is correct completely undermines your analysis of his views to the point it’s almost not worth reading. Get some perspective, and try to see things from his point of view, instead of a hate-filled “Oh my gosh, they’re attacking the RCC! I must defend it!” Why not try “okay, someone’s raised a rational and logical objection to the RCC – so I’d best go find out if there’s historical proof to substantiate the claims, one way or the other”? The latter will make you appear far more reasonable, and it might even have a chance at convincing others that your point of view is correct.

He may be eloquent in words and and be able to impress with a force of rhetorical argument but at face value we see that this nondenominational pastor is insincere in his rationale, motives and personal goals.

Actually, I see no rhetoric in his argument. The argument effectively is “If Linus was pope and held authority over the whole church, why don’t we see any reference to him believing or doing this in his own day?”

This is neither rhetorical, nor insincere. It’s rational, and reasonable.

The man tries to sully the very standard he wants to hijack! The insincerity is profound since if he makes his case (in the eyes of men) he undermines the very standard of the thing he seeks to use as basis for promoting himself.

Wait a second – I thought he was attacking the authority of Rome. Surely, you’re not suggesting that he’s using the authority of Rome to promote himself?

Authority must come from God (e.g. through an apostolic succession) and not hijacked through an artifact of circular reasoning. What original apostle layed hands on him to give him his authority?

Okay, I’m not sure why you guys aren’t getting this, so I’ll put it in bold text…

How do you know that apostolic succession (possibly including the laying on of hands) is required for validity as a teacher of God’s truth? Certainly it’s a plus to receive acknowledgment from those who are themselves spiritually astute, but how do you know it’s necessary?

Thus he seeks to serve only himself not God. Woe to him and to all others like him.

This is purely hateful. I don’t see how you can possibly know this to be true, seeing as you don’t even know the man.

You are willing to assert that Iranaeus was not “necessarily correct” based on your own musings that he had some unsubstantiated bias.

It is my experience that human beings can and do make mistakes, even in matters of history.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

But you are not willing to accept the historical record of Linus as Pope and the ad nauseum testament of the ECFs to the role of the Roman Bishop.

That Linus was bishop of Rome doesn’t establish that he was pope, or that any such office really existed in Linus’ day. This is what the OP is looking for.

Let me give you an example. Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States just under 150 years ago. What if I wrote a book saying that there was a man behind the presidency – we’ll call him Larry – pulling all the strings, who actually masterminded the assassination of Lincoln after Lincoln stopped doing what Larry wanted. Perhaps I’ve heard this story told from my grandfather, who heard it from his grandfather, who heard it from his grandfather…and this particular ancestor of mine claimed to know Larry personally.

If someone were to read my book 500, or perhaps 2,000 years from today, what might they think? “It’s a written work that’s only 150 years after the fact – it’s got to be right!”

Now, what if my book said that Lincoln wasn’t even the president. How are you to know that falsehood from the truth? The only thing we have available to us is historical data.

Or for something even more recent – Pearl Harbor. Less than 70 years ago, it happened. That’s even closer to the source than Irenaeus was. Even today we have argument over whether or not the president knew the attack was going to happen beforehand. We’re talking a little over half a century! Obviously, at the time, the question had not been raised – it was assumed that the government didn’t know about it beforehand.

Now, after the fact, the question comes up. What do we do? Some people write down what they think was the case. Some people claim their opinions as fact, but there’s very little, if any, real evidence presented.

Notice that in the above examples, the important details are remembered and recorded. Abraham Lincoln was president. Will we ever really know all the details about the assassination? Perhaps not. We do know he was assassinated, however. We know that the Pearl Harbor attack happened, but the minuscule detail and conspiracy theory regarding foreknowledge of the attack…speculative at best.

In the case of the papacy, it’s incomprehensible to me to think that it would not have been considered extremely important to record the actions and authority of the leader of the church. Even Irenaeus doesn’t say he was “leader of the church” or some term similar to pope. He says he was the bishop of Rome. It’s only through reading history backwards and assuming things were then as they are now, that we can think Linus was a pope.

There’s simply no written record that says it was true. Mistakes are common among historians. These mistakes are usually minor when dealing with current events (at least on the larger details – they still goof on the smaller ones), but they can get huge when you talk about the distant past.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

We know that it was intended, because when Christ conferred upon Simon bar Jonah the title “Peter” (meaning “Rock”) He quoted from Isaiah 22:22, which is part of a list of regulations regarding the succession of authority in the Davidic kingdom (David is understood to have been a “type” of Jesus - a predictive model of the coming reality).

The letter of Clement, which makes reference to the succession of Bishops in the Church, was written in 80 AD - most of the Apostles (apart from James, Peter, and Paul) were still alive, and the New Testament was still being written.

If Clement were speaking out of turn, or claiming an authority not his own, why do they not speak up and depose him from his self-appointed throne at that very moment? Obviously, they didn’t.

 

[PC_Master]

And where is it that Clement actually claimed authority over the whole church?

As for the Isaiah reference – it’s an interpretation that Jesus meant that. The difference is it’s the one you’ve chosen to embrace.