Bishop of Rome?

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

Bishop yes yes yes of course
Papacy no no no…
The Bible does not support the importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Early church history does not.
Jesus did not.
BH

Bishop yes yes yes of course
Papacy yes yes yes of course
The Bible does support the importance of Peter in the Church.
Early church history does support the importance of Peter and his successors…
Jesus did.

Why is it so important for you to deny what Christ did?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BrianH:

Bishop yes yes yes of course
Papacy no no no…
The Bible does not support the importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Early church history does not.
Jesus did not.
BH

Early Church History and the Early Church Fathers do indeed support the position of the Primacy of Peter as well as of the See of Rome. Read Ignatius of Antioch, Cyril, Basil, etc… And most importantly, Our Lord Jesus, when He changes Simon’s name to Peter. The Jews were looking for the Messiah to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel, from King David who was the “Keeper of the Keys” of the Old Covenant. He did this when He made Peter the “Prime Minister” of His Church on Earth. To see the foreshadowings of the Office of the Papacy, we must, of course, turn to the Old Testament and look at the Divinely Instituted Kingdom of Israel which is alive today in the Apostolic See of Rome. Jesus Christ made Saint Peter “Keeper of the Keys”, and in Acts Chapter 1 we see how authority is passed on, and how it was only Peter who called for the election of an Apostle to replace Judas. Because of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, we can know that this authority is present in the Bishop of Rome – the Holy Father, our Pope.

 

[BrianH]

QUOTE=kleary]The Bible does indeed support the Papacy as taught to us in Matthew 16:18 and other passages.

Good deal, I look forward to your proof

Early Church history also does because it is the Pope, Clement I, Bishop of Rome, not Corinth, who writes to the Corinthians to re-address the problems St. Paul addressed in his Epistles to them.

Well, Paul wrote letters to churches…and he was not a Pope
Uh…have you READ Clement?
No primacy of Bishop of Rome here:
1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

Primacy of Rome let me look some more

*1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

1Clem 42:5
And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written
concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus
saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their
bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.*

Nope, not there either.

Maybe he appeals to his authority as Bishop of Rome in the beginning:

1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.

*1Clem 1:1
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, *

Who is this WE? I thought he had the “keys”?

Jesus most certainly did as shown in John 21:15-18.
Jesus most certainly did because He said He was going to build His Church on him: Matt 16:18
Ok…uh…nothing about the Bishop of Rome, his third job, just more stuff about the importance of Peter…which no one is denying on this thread.
BH

 

[BrianH]

vern humphrey:

Bishop yes yes yes of course
Papacy yes yes yes of course
The Bible does support the importance of Peter in the Church.
Early church history does support the importance of Peter and his successors…
Jesus did.

Why is it so important for you to deny what Christ did?

Not finding any scriptures or quotes here…so gonna move to the next

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

*1Clem 1:1
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, *

Ah, but theres the rub. Why would the Church in Corinth appeal to Rome to solve their problems, unless they recognized the authority of Rome? Why would the Church in Corinth read this in their Liturgical Services for up to 100 years after the letter if it carried no wieight?

Notworthy

 

[BrianH]

QUOTE=Semper Fi]Early Church History and the Early Church Fathers do indeed support the position of the Primacy of Peter as well as of the See of Rome.

Ok let me see…

Read Ignatius of Antioch

Tell you what, just give the quote from him that applies to the Bishop of Rome and I will not have to read the whole thing…again

,

Cyril,

300 CE! ? Ok…

And most importantly, Our Lord Jesus, when He changes Simon’s name to Peter.

Everything to do with Peter, nothing to do with the importance of his third job

The Jews were looking for the Messiah to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel, from King David who was the “Keeper of the Keys” of the Old Covenant. He did this when He made Peter the “Prime Minister” of His Church on Earth. To see the foreshadowings of the Office of the Papacy, we must, of course, turn to the Old Testament and look at the Divinely Instituted Kingdom of Israel which is alive today in the Apostolic See of Rome. Jesus Christ made Saint Peter “Keeper of the Keys”, and in Acts Chapter 1 we see how authority is passed on, and how it was only Peter who called for the election of an Apostle to replace Judas. Because of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, we can know that this authority is present in the Bishop of Rome – the Holy Father, our Pope.

So the Tanakh supports this…lets get some verses going…

BH

 

[BrianH]

NotWorthy:

Ah, but theres the rub. Why would the Church in Corinth appeal to Rome to solve their problems, unless they recognized the authority of Rome? Why would the Church in Corinth read this in their Liturgical Services for up to 100 years after the letter if it carried no wieight?

Notworthy

Notworthy

They appealed to Paul…who was not a Pope.
Clement undoubtedly carried a great deal of weight…as he should…I find him to be an extraordinary individual from his writing…
Why would MOST of the churches read Paul…or James…or the Book of Hebrews…I think it carried a great deal of weight…never said it did not…people need to read what I am saying and not their own biases, no offence…its not just you…Clement appeals to scripture, Christ, and “BISHOPS”…

 

[kleary]

BrianH:

Good deal, I look forward to your proof

Matthew 16:18. “Thou art Peter (Cephas = rock) and upon this rock I will build my Church…”

BrianH:

Well, Paul wrote letters to churches…and he was not a Pope.

Makes no difference. Paul established and wrote also to the Church in Galatia and moved on, the same way as Corinth I believe. As James Akin says; “Paul had a personal relationship with the Galatians and had converted many of them himself (4:12-16). He felt it as a personal betrayal when some of his converts abandoned his gospel of justification through faith in Christ and began embracing a false gospel that said Christians must embrace the Mosaic Law to be saved. As a result, he wrote to them almost in a fury of holy anger.”

BrianH:

Uh…have you READ Clement?
No primacy of Bishop of Rome here:
1Clem 42:1 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

1Clem 42:2
*So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both *therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

[NO] Primacy of Rome let me look some more [parentheses added]

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

1Clem 42:5
And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written
concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus
saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their
bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

Nope, not there either.

Maybe he appeals to his authority as Bishop of Rome in the beginning:

1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.

1Clem 1:1
By reason of the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which
are befalling us, brethren, we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
*you, *

Who is this WE? I thought he had the “keys”?

Says nothing about “the keys”. This sounds exactly as all Ecumenical Councils up through Vatican I to where the Pope says “US” or “WE” to designate the Holy See - speaking for the Holy See as Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter and earthly Head of the Church.

 

[BrianH]

Matthew 16:18. “Thou art Peter (Cephas = rock) and upon this rock I will build my Church…”

You better believe it, no one is denying the importance of Peter…deja vu…I am looking for scriptural evidence or early church history which shows this applies to his third job.

This sounds exactly as all Ecumenical Councils up through Vatican I to where the Pope says “US” or “WE” to designate the Holy See - speaking for the Holy See as Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter and earthly Head of the Church.

All good and well, funny how Peter and Clement never say a word supporting anything you just said…or the rest of the Bible…

BH

 

[BrianH]

Before I have to leave for awhile…lets recall this verse which granted…may have occured before Peter started his third job:

**Gal 2:11 ** *But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. *
Gal 2:12 *For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he {began} to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. *
I understand that Peter would be concerned about the authority of the brother of Jesus…from Jerusalem…but that is another story…

Gal 2:13 *The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. *
**Gal 2:14 ** *But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how {is it that} you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? *

BH

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

Notworthy

They appealed to Paul…who was not a Pope.

I’m sorry, I thought Paul was long dead by the time of Clement’s letter - wasn’t it around 90AD?

Notworthy

 

[vern_humphrey]

BrianH:

You better believe it, no one is denying the importance of Peter…deja vu…I am looking for scriptural evidence or early church history which shows this applies to his third job.

What “third job?” Peter was commissioned by Jesus, made head of the Church on earth. That was his job.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

BrianH:

All good and well, funny how Peter and Clement never say a word supporting anything you just said…or the rest of the Bible…

BH

They don’t? Are you telling me Peter did NOT lead the Apostles? That he did not teach athoritatively? That he did not do such astonishing things as set aside the dietary laws?

1 Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles too had accepted the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem the circumcised believers confronted him, 3 saying, “You entered the house of uncircumcised people and ate with them.” 4 Peter began and explained it to them step by step, saying, 5 “I was at prayer in the city of Joppa when in a trance I had a vision, something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered from the sky by its four corners, and it came to me. 6 Looking intently into it, I observed and saw the four-legged animals of the earth, the wild beasts, the reptiles, and the birds of the sky. 7 I also heard a voice say to me, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ 8 But I said, ‘Certainly not, sir, because nothing profane or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9 But a second time a voice from heaven answered, ‘What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.’ 10 This happened three times, and then everything was drawn up again into the sky. 11 Just then three men appeared at the house where we were, who had been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 The Spirit told me to accompany them without discriminating. These six brothers 3 also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13 He related to us how he had seen (the) angel standing in his house, saying, ‘Send someone to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, 14 who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.’ 15 As I began to speak, the holy Spirit fell upon them as it had upon us at the beginning, 16 and I remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said, ‘John baptized with water but you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.’ 17 If then God gave them the same gift he gave to us when we came to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to hinder God?” 18 When they heard this, they stopped objecting and glorified God, saying, “God has then granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too.”

There, in Acts 11, 1-18 is the infallibility of the Papacy in action. Because if Peter was NOT infallible, then YOU are not a Christian!! (Unless you were born of a Jewish mother, or formally converted to Judaism before becoming Christian!!)

And if you eat with gentiles – or ever had a ham sandwich, you sinned!!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

**Gal 2:11 ** *But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. *
Gal 2:12 *For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he {began} to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. *
I understand that Peter would be concerned about the authority of the brother of Jesus…from Jerusalem…but that is another story…

Gal 2:13 *The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. *
**Gal 2:14 ** *But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how {is it that} you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? *

BH

This is a good illustration of Paul chastising Peter for not “practicing what he preached”, not for what he taught, which was no longer in question in this instance.

Peter (and the Popes) taught infallibly, but they were not infallible, as Peter demonstrated here and numerous times in the Gospel.

Notworthy

 

[BrianH]

NotWorthy:

I’m sorry, I thought Paul was long dead by the time of Clement’s letter - wasn’t it around 90AD?

Notworthy

1st and second Corinthians…uh…40 years earlier
The same church at Corinth…appealed…to them…you are scaring me NotWorthy…You know about that…I would think…
BH

 

[kleary]

BrianH:

Before I have to leave for awhile…lets recall this verse which granted…may have occured before Peter started his third job:

**Gal 2:11 ***But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. *
Gal 2:12 *For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he {began} to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. *
I understand that Peter would be concerned about the authority of the brother of Jesus…from Jerusalem…but that is another story…

Gal 2:13 *The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. *
**Gal 2:14 ***But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how {is it that} you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? *

BH

This shows nothing Brian. It does not show anything against Peter being the first Pope / earthly head of the Church. The fact of Paul rebuking Peter and Peter even being wrong on such occasion means nothing against the Catholic teaching on the Papacy. The Pope can be wrong, just cannot teach wrongly regarding the Christian faith or morals when he defines such to the entire Church as decreed in Vatican Council I.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BrianH:

So the Tanakh supports this…lets get some verses going…

BH

Of course it does, the Jews were looking for the Messiah to reestablish a secular kingdom. He reestablished a kingdom, but not a secular one. One that is only found in the Catholic Church.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his epistle to the Romans:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also presides in the chief place of the Roman territory; a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name: her do I therefore salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. Heartiest good wishes for unimpaired joy in Jesus Christ our God, to those who are united in flesh and spirit by every commandment of His; who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God’s grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them.

1. By prayer to God I have obtained the favor of seeing your venerable faces; in fact, I have been pleading for an even greater favor: as a prisoner in Christ Jesus I hope to embrace you, provided it is His will that I should be privileged to reach the goal. An auspicious beginning has certainly been made–if only I obtain the grace of taking due possession of my inheritance without hindrance. The truth is, I am afraid it is your love that will do me wrong. For you, of course, it is easy to achieve your object; but for me it is difficult to win my way to God, should you be wanting in consideration for me.

1. Surely, I do not want you to court the good pleasure of men, but to please God, as indeed you do please Him. Yes, I shall never again have such an opportunity of winning my way to God, nor can you, if you remain quiet, ever have your name inscribed on a more glorious achievement. For, if you quietly ignore me, I am the word of God; but if you fall in love with my human nature, I shall, on the contrary, be a mere sound. Grant me no more than that you let my blood be spilled in sacrifice to God, while yet there is an altar ready. You should form a choir of love and sing a song to the Father through Jesus Christ, because God has graciously summoned the bishop of Syria to come from the rising of the sun to the setting. How glorious to be a setting sun–away from the world, on to God! May I rise in His presence!

1. You have never grudged any man. You have taught others. All I want is that the lessons you inculcate in initiating disciples remain in force. Only beg for me strength within and without, that I may be a man not merely of words, but also of resolution. In this way I shall not only be called a Christian, but also prove to be one. For if I prove to be one, I can also be called a true believer even then when I am no longer seen by the world. Nothing that is seen is good. Our God Jesus Christ certainly is the more clearly seen now that He is in the Father. Whenever Christianity is hated by the world, what counts is not power of persuasion, but greatness.

cont’d…

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1. I am writing to all the Churches and state emphatically to all that I die willingly for God, provided you do not interfere. I beg you, do not show me unseasonable kindness. Suffer me to be the food of wild beasts, which are the means of my making my way to God. God’s wheat I am, and by the teeth of wild beasts I am to be ground that I may prove Christ’s pure bread. Better still, coax the wild beasts to become my tomb and to leave no part of my person behind: once I have fallen asleep, I do not wish to be a burden to anyone. Then only shall I be a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ when the world will not see even my body. Petition Christ in my behalf that through these instruments I may prove God’s sacrifice. Not like Peter and Paul do I issue any orders to you. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, I am until this moment a slave. But once I have suffered, I shall become a freedman of Jesus Christ, and, united with Him, I shall rise a free man. Just now I learn, being in chains, to desire nothing.

1. All the way from Syria to Rome I am fighting wild beasts, on land and sea, by day and night, chained as I am to ten leopards, that is, a detachment of soldiers, who prove themselves the more malevolent for kindnesses shown them. Yet in the school of this abuse I am more and more trained in discipleship, although I am not therefore justified. Oh, may the beasts prepared for me be my joy! And I pray that they may be found to be ready for me. I will even coax them to make short work of me, not as has happened to some whom they were too timid to touch. And should they be unwilling to attack me who am willing, I will myself compel them. Pardon me–I know very well where my advantage lies. At last I am well on the way to being a disciple. May nothing seen or unseen, fascinate me, so that I may happily make my way to Jesus Christ! Fire, cross, struggles with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, mangling of limbs, crunching of the whole body, cruel tortures inflicted by the devil–let them come upon me, provided only I make my way to Jesus Christ.

1. Of no use to me will be the farthest reaches of the universe or the kingdoms of this world. I would rather die and come to Jesus Christ than be king over the entire earth. Him I seek who died for us; Him I love who rose again because of us. The birth pangs are upon me. Forgive me, brethren; do not obstruct my coming to life–do not wish me to die; do not make a gift to the world of one who wants to be God’s. Beware of seducing me with matter; suffer me to receive pure light. Once arrived there, I shall be a man. Permit me to be an imitator of my suffering God. If anyone holds Him in his heart, let him understand what I am aspiring to; and then let him sympathize with me, knowing in what distress I am.

1. The Prince of this world is resolved to abduct me, and to corrupt my Godward aspirations. Let none of you, therefore, who will then be present, assist him. Rather, side with me, that is, with God. Do not have Jesus Christ on your lips, and the world in your hearts. Give envy no place among you. And should I upon my arrival plead for your intervention, do not listen to me. Rather, give heed to what I write to you. I am writing while still alive, but my yearning is for death. My Love has been crucified, and I am not on fire with the love of earthly things. But there is in me a Living Water, which is eloquent and within me says: “Come to the Father.” I have no taste for corruptible food or for the delights of this life. Bread of God is what I desire; that is, the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for my drink I desire His Blood, that is, incorruptible love.

 

[BrianH]

QUOTE=vern humphrey]What “third job?” Peter was commissioned by Jesus, made head of the Church on earth. That was his job.

His third job was Bishop of Rome, his second job was Bishop of Antioch…he was a fisherman before that we all know
I am not denying what Christ said, I am contending you have placed an importance on his third job that is not biblical or supported by early church tradition

They don’t? Are you telling me Peter did NOT lead the Apostles? That he did not teach athoritatively? That he did not do such astonishing things as set aside the dietary laws?

Led apostles…well we know that he changed his behavior because of James and Paul

The early church led by Peter…and the rest of the Apostles…did change Jewish law…can we get back to the importance of his third job again?
BH

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1. No longer do I wish to live after the manner of men; and this is what will happen if you wish it so. Wish it, that your own wishes, too, may be fulfilled. By this short letter I beseech you: do believe me! Jesus Christ will make it clear to you that I speak the truth–He on whose lips there are no lies, through whom the Father has spoken truthfully. Pray for me that I may succeed. What I write to you does not please the appetites of the flesh, but it pleases the mind of God. If I suffer, you have loved me; if I am rejected, you have hated me!

1. Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria which now has God for her Shepherd in my stead. Jesus Christ alone will be her Bishop, together with your love. For myself, I am ashamed to be counted as one of her members. I certainly do not deserve to be one, being the least of them and one that came to birth unexpectedly. However, if I but make my way to God, then by His mercy I shall be someone. My spirit salutes you, and so does the affection of the Churches that offered their hospitality to me, not as to a chance visitor, but in deference to Jesus Christ. Why, even those not adjoining my route–the route by which my body traveledhastened in advance from town after town to meet me.

1. I am sending you this letter from Smyrna through the kindness of the Ephesians, who deserve so much praise. Among many others Crocus is here with me–a dearly beloved name to me! As to the men from Syria who for the glory of God have gone to Rome to meet you there, you have, I trust, made their acquaintance. Please, inform them also that I am near. One and all they are men of God and will be an honor to you. You will do well to give them every comfort. I am writing this to you on the 24th of August. Farewell to the end in the patient endurance of Jesus Christ.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BrianH:

Led apostles…well we know that he changed his behavior because of James and Paul

Key word here is: BEHAVIOR. He did not change his doctrine. Paul was not condemning Peter for the doctrine that he taught, he was condemning Peter for not acting like an authority figure, and for being hypocritical.