M
mr.fidelium
Guest
Is there any biblical or historical proof you have to disprove Peter as being the apostle Jesus chose to head his Church as pope?
- Status
Z
Zaccheus
Guest
Or one may have been raised to believe the Catholic Church is wrong, in which case one may be, not ignoring the evidence but unaware of it.
A
Augustine
Guest
Historically, St. Peter never appointed any apostle (St. Matthias was elected by a synod) or bishop; he never affirmed any doctrine dogmatically; he never overrode other Apostles or bishops in their leading their local Churches; etc. The papal prerogatives would fall under “development of doctrine”.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I would disagree on all those points.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Rome appoints a Pope by election. Peter appointed Bishops in Antioch and Alexandria. He affirmed that Gentiles should be received into the Church while elders were disputing. He received personal revelation about that, and it silenced those Apostles and elders debating.
And I do agree that definitions of the office developed.
And I do agree that definitions of the office developed.
po18guy
Well-known member
Are you limiting yourself to what is written - or not written? What you have asserted one must take on faith, based on personal beliefs or preferences. As affirmed in the Didache, the early Church was not a paper/papyrus Church. It was a Church of the preached Gospel rather than one of record.
In ancient artwork in caves and catacombs, our Lord is depicted some 400 times. Next is Peter, with 200-somthing depictions. All of the others, including (and especially Paul) are way behind that. And so it is in the NT, with Peter being named 195 times, John second at 29 times and the rest even less.
In ancient artwork in caves and catacombs, our Lord is depicted some 400 times. Next is Peter, with 200-somthing depictions. All of the others, including (and especially Paul) are way behind that. And so it is in the NT, with Peter being named 195 times, John second at 29 times and the rest even less.
G
gazelam
Guest
I have no argument against Peter as the head of the Church after Christ’s crucifixion. The question is how to you arrive at the current situation from Peter. Here’s what a couple of Catholic historians say regarding apostolic succession…
No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help." (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)
If Rome’s position is closely tied to the importance of its bishop, what would be the result of the discovery that there was a time when it did not have a bishop? I do not refer to some “sede vacante” period between the death of one bishop and the election of a new one but to the possibility that in the late first and early second century the ministerial offices of the local church Rome had not yet attained the distinction and clarity seen in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. In other words, the leadership role in the local church of Rome was still being exercised collectively before the emergence of a monarchical bishop in Rome.
Such a view is becoming increasingly widespread. The evidence here, as with most subjects of this period, is fragmentary and the issue can be debated in both ways. But the evidence available seems to point predominately if not decisively in the direction of the collective leadership. Dogmatic a priori theses should not force us into presuming or requiring something that the evidence leans against.
What then is the evidence from those writings or authors known as the Apostolic Fathers? Two are of Roman origin, the Shepherd of Hermas and the letter of Clement, one of non-Roman origin, the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to Rome. Ignatius wrote his letters ostensibly to thank the local communities in Asia Minor for their kind assistance to him as a prisoner for Christ but more precisely to warn them against dangers to unity and, as we have seen, to urgent the importance of a single strong authoritative leader of the local community. Throughout these six letters, he broadcasts his theological views of the central importance of the bishop. But he also wrote one letter ahead, to a place which he has never visited personally but where he was to end his life as a martyr - Rome. His purpose here was quite different–to ask the Roman Christians not to interfere on his behalf to try to stop his trial and suffering. The letter is interesting because, unlike all the other letters, it contains no ecclesiological doctrine about the importance of the bishop. Of course, as he himself says, he did not presume to give the Roman Christians instructions as the Apostles had. Nevertheless it is strange that while other letters all make frequent mention of the bishop of the community being addressed, he does not greet a bishop in Rome nor does he ever mention such a person in this letter. One might object that since Ignatius had never been in Rome, he did not know the bishop’s name. He could have spoken to or of a bishop even if he had not known his name. More importantly, if one should presume from his other letters that a strong individual bishop-leader existed everywhere in the Church of his time, then he would have known that there was such a leader in the Roman community. But we have only silence, which leads to many to conclude that Ignatius did not address such a person because the Roman community of the time had no such leader. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, pp 26, 27)
I hope this helps…
No doubt proving that bishops were the successors of the apostles by divine institution would be easier if the New Testament clearly stated that before they died the apostles had appointed a single bishop to lead each of the churches they had founded. Likewise, it would have been very helpful had Clement, in writing to the Corinthians, said that the apostles had put one bishop in charge of each church and had arranged for a regular succession in that office. We would also be grateful to Ignatius of Antioch if he had spoken of himself not only as bishop, but as a successor to the apostles, and had explained how he understood that succession. Unfortunately, the documents available to us do not provide such help." (Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops, pg 223)
If Rome’s position is closely tied to the importance of its bishop, what would be the result of the discovery that there was a time when it did not have a bishop? I do not refer to some “sede vacante” period between the death of one bishop and the election of a new one but to the possibility that in the late first and early second century the ministerial offices of the local church Rome had not yet attained the distinction and clarity seen in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. In other words, the leadership role in the local church of Rome was still being exercised collectively before the emergence of a monarchical bishop in Rome.
Such a view is becoming increasingly widespread. The evidence here, as with most subjects of this period, is fragmentary and the issue can be debated in both ways. But the evidence available seems to point predominately if not decisively in the direction of the collective leadership. Dogmatic a priori theses should not force us into presuming or requiring something that the evidence leans against.
What then is the evidence from those writings or authors known as the Apostolic Fathers? Two are of Roman origin, the Shepherd of Hermas and the letter of Clement, one of non-Roman origin, the letter of Ignatius of Antioch to Rome. Ignatius wrote his letters ostensibly to thank the local communities in Asia Minor for their kind assistance to him as a prisoner for Christ but more precisely to warn them against dangers to unity and, as we have seen, to urgent the importance of a single strong authoritative leader of the local community. Throughout these six letters, he broadcasts his theological views of the central importance of the bishop. But he also wrote one letter ahead, to a place which he has never visited personally but where he was to end his life as a martyr - Rome. His purpose here was quite different–to ask the Roman Christians not to interfere on his behalf to try to stop his trial and suffering. The letter is interesting because, unlike all the other letters, it contains no ecclesiological doctrine about the importance of the bishop. Of course, as he himself says, he did not presume to give the Roman Christians instructions as the Apostles had. Nevertheless it is strange that while other letters all make frequent mention of the bishop of the community being addressed, he does not greet a bishop in Rome nor does he ever mention such a person in this letter. One might object that since Ignatius had never been in Rome, he did not know the bishop’s name. He could have spoken to or of a bishop even if he had not known his name. More importantly, if one should presume from his other letters that a strong individual bishop-leader existed everywhere in the Church of his time, then he would have known that there was such a leader in the Roman community. But we have only silence, which leads to many to conclude that Ignatius did not address such a person because the Roman community of the time had no such leader. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, pp 26, 27)
I hope this helps…
M
mr.fidelium
Guest
Thank you gazelum for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
A
Anonymous1
Guest
Creating an international hierarchy which is illegitimate and amounts to recognition of the Roman Empire as legitmate, which is hypocritical considering the persecutions of christians by the Roman Empire.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
When ever the Persecuted Catholic Christian Church is silent, we learn from Pagans, heretics, Jews. and Pagan Rome historical records. Who place a bishop in Rome, for example in 52 a.d the Roman Empereor writes to his delegate Pliny, “for I would rather hear of a rival to throne of Rome then hear of another Bishop of Rome”. The New Testament has the apostles appointing overseer’s=Episcopates=bishops when they walked the earth. As early in the apostolic period we can conclude bishops being ordained by apostles. For the record history records the first 30+ bishops of Rome were all martyrs since Peter. Which places the apostolic see of Peter well into the late second early third century.
Last edited:
A
Augustine
Guest
Peter didn’t appoint, but ordained other bishops. The first one, St. Mark, in Byblos. But they had been acclaimed by the people and the clergy. And there was anything but silence after St. Peter spoke in Jerusalem. Rather, St. Paul went on to expand the point the made by St. Peter to persuade the Council Fathers, among whom St. James, who made the final decision.
The scriptural and historical records support only St. Peter’s primacy, not the later papal prerogatives that amount to supremacy. This is purely development of doctrine and cannot be defended by the record that we have available.
The scriptural and historical records support only St. Peter’s primacy, not the later papal prerogatives that amount to supremacy. This is purely development of doctrine and cannot be defended by the record that we have available.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Augustine,
Sorry, I meant Peter appointed Bishops in Antioch and Rome, not Alexandria. And Peter silenced the debate at the Council. No one contested after him.
I am struggling to learn this new forum format! It seems more restrictive.
Sorry, I meant Peter appointed Bishops in Antioch and Rome, not Alexandria. And Peter silenced the debate at the Council. No one contested after him.
I am struggling to learn this new forum format! It seems more restrictive.
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
Hi rcwitness, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome all owe their primacy to St. Peter. One is hard pressed, by any Orthodox Church to try and disprove. Peter who appointed Mark as bishop of Alexandria,
What needs to be said here about these apostolic sees including Jerusalem. All of them fell into heresy, or fell in and out of heresy and found to teach error.
Peter’s apostolic see in Rome is the only apostolic see which has NEVER fallen officially into error.
Thus the Lord’s Words hold true to Peter today. “You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock, I will build my Church…the gates of hell will come against you, but they will never prevail”.
Peace be with you
What needs to be said here about these apostolic sees including Jerusalem. All of them fell into heresy, or fell in and out of heresy and found to teach error.
Peter’s apostolic see in Rome is the only apostolic see which has NEVER fallen officially into error.
Thus the Lord’s Words hold true to Peter today. “You are Peter (Rock) and on this Rock, I will build my Church…the gates of hell will come against you, but they will never prevail”.
Peace be with you
G
gazelam
Guest
How do you reconcile your statement:
Peter’s apostolic see in Rome is the only apostolic see which has NEVER fallen officially into error.
With the statement by Pope Adrian XI in 1522?
“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)
Peter’s apostolic see in Rome is the only apostolic see which has NEVER fallen officially into error.
With the statement by Pope Adrian XI in 1522?
“We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)
G
gazelam
Guest
Here’s one more tidbit that may be of interest to you.
The the book “Rise of the Papacy”, the author includes this letter from Firmilian to Pope Steven I:
He who so glories in the place of his episcopate and contends that he has the succession from Peter on whom the foundation of the church was established, should introduce many other rocks and constitute new buildings of many churches while he maintains by his authority that baptism is there. (Ep. 75.17) (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)
The author then goes on to say:
Since we do not have Steven’s own letters, such a comment, however sarcastic, is precious insofar as it indicates Steven’s own view of the source of his authority, the authority by which he directs not only Carthage but far distant Cappadocia to change their basic customs and conform to Roman ways. This is the first known appeal of a Roman bishop to Peter’s authority, indeed to the classical Petrine gospel texts. But we must note as well that Firmilian not only does not except the claim, he seems never to have heard of it before. He notes for example that in many liturgical customs. Rome differs from Jerusalem. There are variations from one church to another. “And yet, on account of this, there has been no withdrawal at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church”. “How can you live in communion with such a person?” Rome insists on uniformity but other bishops, such as Irenaeus and Firmilian note that all have gotten along well up until now with varying customs. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)
The the book “Rise of the Papacy”, the author includes this letter from Firmilian to Pope Steven I:
He who so glories in the place of his episcopate and contends that he has the succession from Peter on whom the foundation of the church was established, should introduce many other rocks and constitute new buildings of many churches while he maintains by his authority that baptism is there. (Ep. 75.17) (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)
The author then goes on to say:
Since we do not have Steven’s own letters, such a comment, however sarcastic, is precious insofar as it indicates Steven’s own view of the source of his authority, the authority by which he directs not only Carthage but far distant Cappadocia to change their basic customs and conform to Roman ways. This is the first known appeal of a Roman bishop to Peter’s authority, indeed to the classical Petrine gospel texts. But we must note as well that Firmilian not only does not except the claim, he seems never to have heard of it before. He notes for example that in many liturgical customs. Rome differs from Jerusalem. There are variations from one church to another. “And yet, on account of this, there has been no withdrawal at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church”. “How can you live in communion with such a person?” Rome insists on uniformity but other bishops, such as Irenaeus and Firmilian note that all have gotten along well up until now with varying customs. (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy, WIPF and Stock Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1990, p. 64)
O
OriginalGabrielof12
Guest
Hello gazelam; Let me first address the misconception by non-catholics that the bishop’s of Rome are never impeccable. For example our first bishop of Rome, Peter himself denied Jesus three times. A sin no bishop of Rome has ever repeated, although these are not without sin as Pope Adrian VI in 1522 not XI addressed.
Like St. Pius X, Pope Pius XI were seen as blunt-spoken, a no-nonsense pontiff, Pope Adrian is in good company here.
Secondly these Popes including Adrian VI, addressed the disciplines of not only towards the clergy of their times, but how these “abhorrence” disciplines have gathered around the Holy See. Pope Adrian VI is cleaning house.
Pope Adrian VI does not address the Bishop’s of Rome as teaching error to the faithful, nor does Pope Adrian VI apply his discipline from the Chair of Peter as speaking ex-Cathedra, which means a discipline for ALL the faithful to follow. Nor does Pope Adrian VI ever make the claim that the bishop’s of Rome ever taught officially error from the Chair of Peter.
Every Pope including Pope Adrian VI have given their opinions and commentaries that addressed their contemporaries, but the latter are never an official teaching ex-Cathedra an infallible teaching from the Chair of Peter.
Officially No bishop of Rome has ever taught error from the Chair of Peter. This is never the same as if and when a Pope committed a personal sin, albeit from a disciplined personal sin.
The bishop’s of Rome have gone under many disciplinary reforms throughout the ages, which are subject to change. But, the bishop’s of Rome cannot, has not and will not teach error in faith and morals. Nor do the bishop’s of Rome have the authority to change or add to sacred Scripture, nor change and add to Sacred Apostolic Tradition.
In hindsight, Some historical Popes (bishops of Rome) have done much more worse than Pope Adrian VI tenure
Peace be with you
A
Augustine
Guest
Two popes, Virgilius and Honorius, were anathematized by two Ecumenical Councils. How more official does it have to be the falls of the Roman Church into heresy?
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
It won’t happen. Regardless of how much wrong is done, they have taken the position that the Roman Catholic Church cannot fall into heresy. So whatever is taught is true. They cannot admit error, due to a basic statement of ‘I believe the Catholic Church’. Which includes everything that is taught. They simply refuse to look at the evidence to the contrary, and have already determined that it is not compelling, regardless of how compelling it is.
- Status