Bishop of Rome?

[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

True, but you are talking about two different things. The Church in Corinth appealled to Paul, who had started their Church. Their issue was factionalism (it’s funny, the more things change, the more they stay the same) and eating meat sacrificed to idols.

But the letter from Clement was around 90 AD and was addressing an altogether different issue. The Church in Corinth was replacing priests ordained by the established Church (Apostles, and then Bishops) with their own priesthood.

Again, with Paul deceased, they felt the need to appeal to someone with a higher authority.

This is a good illustration of the need for a bishop and a Magisterium. The Church in Corinth could easily have splintered into two churches, one following the priests established by the Apostles and the Bishop, and one following their own hand picked priests.

Wow, this sounds familiar to churches I’ve seen today.

Notworthy

 

[BrianH]

Semper
I am going to think that you quote “Ignatius” because you are not aware of how that looks to people who have studied up on this…

from this very site:

"The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians

of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (“Hist. eccl.”, III, xxxvi) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the “long recension”. This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius

 

[NotWorthy]

Theirs something else that’s being overlooked (at least I think it hasn’t been addressed).

Jesus established a kingdom. One from the House of David.“Seek first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness”. In the Old Testament, beginning with Joseph in Egypt, we see Kings and Pharaoh’s giving someone the power to run their kingdom’s in their absences. Pharaoh gave Joseph his Signet ring. f

In Isaiah 22, there was an office of Prime Minister. This office continues after the death of its inhabitant. The seal of the office was the “Keys to the Kingdom”. The Power to Bind and Loose (first given to Peter) was given to Prime Minister (“who shall be a father to his people”). There was also a Cabinet of Ministers, each with their own specialty (think of the Presidential Cabinet today). They also had the power to bind and loose (like the Apostles as a group and later the Bishops). But the ultimate power to bind and loose (OK, lock and unlock in Isaiah) was given to one man.

This office is the Papacy in the New Testament church, the Kingdom of God, here on earth. With the Pope given the Power to Bind and Loose here on earth until the time that Jesus, our True King and High Priest, returns.

Notworthy

 

[BrianH]

QUOTE=NotWorthy]True, but you are talking about two different things.

I am??? I thought I said:

T"he same church at Corinth…appealed…to them…"

The Church in Corinth appealled to Paul, who had started their Church. Their issue was factionalism (it’s funny, the more things change, the more they stay the same) and eating meat sacrificed to idols.

appealed to Paul…right I guess this is your long way of agreeing with me that they appealed to him??

But the letter from Clement was around 90 AD and was addressing an altogether different issue. The Church in Corinth was replacing priests ordained by the established Church (Apostles, and then Bishops) with their own priesthood.

I didnt realize I had said they were addressing the same issue…wait…I didnt…sigh

Again, with Paul deceased, they felt the need to appeal to someone with a higher authority.

and they picked a great person…who appeals to scripture, the apostles, and Christ I might add…

This is a good illustration of the need for a bishop and a Magisterium. The Church in Corinth could easily have splintered into two churches, one following the priests established by the Apostles and the Bishop, and one following their own hand picked priests.

Wow, this sounds familiar to churches I’ve seen today.

Notworthy

Lets get this back on track…cuz…you keeping working the logic angle…and I keep talking about scripture and early church tradition…
Brian

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’ll try to keep this brief.

1. That Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock), announced that He would built His Church on Peter, gave Peter the keys to the kingdom (as historically Jewish kings did to their prime ministers), and asked Peter to “feed his lambs” and “feed his sheep” if Peter loved Him. . .is right there in the Scriptures.
2. That Peter indeed acted as the authority in the early Church (though Paul does ASK Peter to consider his actions about Gentiles, Paul does NOT do so in a disrespectful way), and especially in matters of faith and morals (allowing “unclean foods” to have been judged as clean. . .and allowing “non-Jewish” men equality of stature with Jewish Christians thereby), is right there in the Scriptures. Neither James nor Paul set himself up as “above” Peter.
3. That Peter was the first Pope of Rome is authenticated by writers of the early Church. And considering the status of members of the church as being severely persecuted in areas like Rome, and that the gospel was being preached over vast land areas in those years, to many different tribes and cultures, in an era where life expectancies were much shorter than now, literacy much less than now, and life itself --no antibiotics, no AAA, no palm pilots, no cheap writing materials and Fed Ex–quite different, it is not surprising that something which would have been ORALLY so well known as Peter being the first “leader” in Rome, might not have been written down.

The gospels themselves were not written down for some time, and far more early Christians never SAW a WRITTEN gospel, or READ it themselves. Aren’t there thousands of FRAGMENTS around–because people who may have tried to copy something were arrested, or dispersed, etc.?

Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions we have received, whether by letter or WORD OF MOUTH. Sacred Tradition is as much a part of our faith as Sacred Scripture, because the two are complementary. One is not better than the other, one does not contradict the other.

 

[BrianH]

NotWorthy:

Theirs something else that’s being overlooked (at least I think it hasn’t been addressed).

Jesus established a kingdom. One from the House of David.“Seek first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness”. In the Old Testament, beginning with Joseph in Egypt, we see Kings and Pharaoh’s giving someone the power to run their kingdom’s in their absences. Pharaoh gave Joseph his Signet ring. f

In Isaiah 22, there was an office of Prime Minister. This office continues after the death of its inhabitant. The seal of the office was the “Keys to the Kingdom”. The Power to Bind and Loose (first given to Peter) was given to Prime Minister (“who shall be a father to his people”). There was also a Cabinet of Ministers, each with their own specialty (think of the Presidential Cabinet today). They also had the power to bind and loose (like the Apostles as a group and later the Bishops). But the ultimate power to bind and loose (OK, lock and unlock in Isaiah) was given to one man.

This office is the Papacy in the New Testament church, the Kingdom of God, here on earth. With the Pope given the Power to Bind and Loose here on earth until the time that Jesus, our True King and High Priest, returns.

Notworthy

Well…
that sounds…familiar actually…

is THIS the extent of the scriptural authority for Peter’s third job being so important…a reference to authority in one person at certain times during the first how ever many years of Judaism!!!
Guys this, by your definition, is the FOUNDATION of all of Christianity…and the fact that at certain times we had one person in charge.
Sure Christ uses this reference…you bet…this reference cannot be used to support the belief in the position of the Bishop of Rome…actually considering what happens in the history of Israel, it would support MY contention…
BH

 

[kleary]

BrianH:

You better believe it, no one is denying the importance of Peter.]

Jesus is saying He is going to build His Church on Peter here… I.E. he made Peter the earthly head of the Church.

I am looking for scriptural evidence or early church history which shows this applies to his third job.

Plenty of it at www.catholic.com

www.vatican.va www.ewtn.com

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

That is hillarious. Same way when I discuss things with a Fundamentalist. Your own personal interpretation of Scripture vs. the Church. The Bible indeed supports all I said and more:

Primacy of Peter -

**Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church

Mt 16:19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind &loose

**LK 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd

Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter

Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter

Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias

Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost

Acts 2:41 - received first converts

Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias &Saphira

Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, SimonMagnus

Acts 10:44-6 - received revelation to admit Gentilesinto church

Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem

Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision

Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle

Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10:1-4;Mk

3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13

“Peter and his companions” - Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7

Spoke for Apostles-Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45,12:41; Jn 6:69

Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

 

[BrianH]

Tantum ergo:

I’ll try to keep this brief.

1. That Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (rock), announced that He would built His Church on Peter, gave Peter the keys to the kingdom (as historically Jewish kings did to their prime ministers), and asked Peter to “feed his lambs” and “feed his sheep” if Peter loved Him. . .is right there in the Scriptures.

yes, we have other verses which speak to what Christ built his church on instead on just picking and chosing what supports the Catholic contention…but…lets go on

1. That Peter indeed acted as the authority in the early Church (though Paul does ASK Peter to consider his actions about Gentiles, Paul does NOT do so in a disrespectful way), and especially in matters of faith and morals (allowing “unclean foods” to have been judged as clean. . .and allowing “non-Jewish” men equality of stature with Jewish Christians thereby), is right there in the Scriptures. Neither James nor Paul set himself up as “above” Peter.

Ask…
Ask?
“I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned”
Ask?

1. That Peter was the first Pope of Rome is authenticated by writers of the early Church.

Let the early sources of this statement flow through this thread…cuz it aint happening yet…

The gospels themselves were not written down for some time, and far more early Christians never SAW a WRITTEN gospel, or READ it themselves. Aren’t there thousands of FRAGMENTS around–because people who may have tried to copy something were arrested, or dispersed, etc.?

Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions we have received, whether by letter or WORD OF MOUTH. Sacred Tradition is as much a part of our faith as Sacred Scripture, because the two are complementary. One is not better than the other, one does not contradict the other.

I know that Paul appeals to tradition they received prior to his letter…33 CE or so until the time of this letter…that is what I am looking for as well…or close enough to support the most important claim after the life of Christ…that authority rests witht he Bishop of Rome…
BH

 

[BrianH]

kleary:

BrianH:

You better believe it, no one is denying the importance of Peter.]

Jesus is saying He is going to build His Church on Peter here… I.E. he made Peter the earthly head of the Church.

I am looking for scriptural evidence or early church history which shows this applies to his third job.

Plenty of it at www.catholic.com

www.vatican.va www.ewtn.com

That is hillarious. Same way when I discuss things with a Fundamentalist. Your own personal interpretation of Scripture vs. the Church. The Bible indeed supports all I said and more:

Primacy of Peter -

**Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church

Mt 16:19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind &loose

**LK 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd

Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter

Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter

Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias

Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost

Acts 2:41 - received first converts

Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias &Saphira

Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, SimonMagnus

Acts 10:44-6 - received revelation to admit Gentilesinto church

Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem

Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision

Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle

Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10:1-4;Mk

3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13

“Peter and his companions” - Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7

Spoke for Apostles-Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45,12:41; Jn 6:69

Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

No one arguing with this…hey where is the scripture that says this authority was passed to his THIRD JOB…I await your answer
BH

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Where is the scripture that says “oh BTW Peter, this jazz, this “keys of the kingdom”, this “building the church on the rock” is ONLY for when you are being just who are just going to pretty much fall apart once I ascend to heaven. After all, you are all just supposed to spread my word, and nothing else. Oh, and if you go to be bishop somewhere, that , “keys of the kingdom” and the “building the church on the rock” goes pfft. And CERTAINLY if you go do a “THIRD JOB” like . . .well then you are REALLY sunk, because I am going to have James and this fellow Saul/Paul kick your behind good.”

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

I am looking for scriptural evidence or early church history which shows this applies to his third job.

No one arguing with this…hey where is the scripture that says this authority was passed to his THIRD JOB…I await your answer
BH

1. Peter has Primacy. I understand you agree with this point.
2. Peter has an Office - The Bishop of Rome.

Now, show me scripturally where the “Keys to the Kingdom” were rendered obsolete on someone’s death or loss of their office (as in our good friend, Shebna in Isaiah) in any of the Old Testament kingdoms. They were ALWAYS passed on. So the office that Peter had (his THIRD JOB) would have retained those keys or somehow they could have chosen a new Church Leader, maybe by lots as in Matthias.

The problem is, there is no indication of any other means. Just the Church Tradition that the Bishop of Rome retained the Keys.

Notworthy

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

1) Peter has Primacy. I understand you agree with this point.
2) Peter has an Office - The Bishop of Rome.

Now, show me scripturally where the “Keys to the Kingdom” were rendered obsolete on someone’s death or loss of their office (as in our good friend, Shebna in Isaiah) in any of the Old Testament kingdoms. They were ALWAYS passed on. So the office that Peter had (his THIRD JOB) would have retained those keys or somehow they could have chosen a new Church Leader, maybe by lots as in Matthias.

The problem is, there is no indication of any other means. Just the Church Tradition that the Bishop of Rome retained the Keys.

Notworthy

I would also like to mention that when a king went off to wage war or to attend to business outside of his kingdom, he would always appoint a trusted friend with those “keys of the kingdom”. Also, in monarchies it was usually the firstborn son who retained the rights to his father’s kingdom. However, as Jesus came to establish a hereditary kingdom of faith, not of secular nature, the keys are passed on to successors who are elected by the bishops which go back to Him.

One more thing I would like to ask you BrianH, since it says in your profile that you are an “Independent Christian”, is where in the New Testament there is anything that can show proof that there were “Independent Christians”. It is pretty obvious that the Christians were part of a community which was established by Christ beginning with the Apostles, and how do you receive the sacraments of the eucharist since I don’t believe you are a priest? You do believe the bread and wine, once consecrated, become the true Body and Blood of our Lord and savior, right?

 

[BrianH]

QUOTE=NotWorthy]1) Peter has Primacy. I understand you agree with this point.

Yep, although I think we this primacy appears based upon scripture to have its limitations

1. Peter has an Office - The Bishop of Rome.

that is his third job true, he was a Bishop before that

Now, show me scripturally where the “Keys to the Kingdom” were rendered obsolete on someone’s death or loss of their office (as in our good friend, Shebna in Isaiah) in any of the Old Testament kingdoms. They were ALWAYS passed on.

If they were always passed on…where were they for…uh…the 400 years before Peter? Do you see the problem? SOMEBODY lost the keys??? Im not trying to be offensive guys…I am saying Peter got the keys from Christ and obviously NO ONE had the keys before that for a very long time…

So the office that Peter had (his THIRD JOB) would have retained those keys or somehow they could have chosen a new Church Leader, maybe by lots as in Matthias.

Logic not worthy, you are good at it…no doubt…if I could accept logic as my final evidence, I would agree with you…I really would…Catholicism has services all weekend…very convient…great schools that I could send my kids to for the same price of my tithe to my other churches…and 1800 years of history…I know you will disagree with me on that one

The problem is, there is no indication of any other means. Just the Church Tradition that the Bishop of Rome retained the Keys.

I contend that scripture and early church history teaches something different but you right…your church tradition does not…but that really breaks off to another discussion.
BH

 

[BrianH]

Semper Fi:

I would also like to mention that when a king went off to wage war or to attend to business outside of his kingdom, he would always appoint a trusted friend with those “keys of the kingdom”. Also, in monarchies it was usually the firstborn son who retained the rights to his father’s kingdom. However, as Jesus came to establish a hereditary kingdom of faith, not of secular nature, the keys are passed on to successors who are elected by the bishops which go back to Him.

One more thing I would like to ask you BrianH, since it says in your profile that you are an “Independent Christian”, is where in the New Testament there is anything that can show proof that there were “Independent Christians”. It is pretty obvious that the Christians were part of a community which was established by Christ beginning with the Apostles, and how do you receive the sacraments of the eucharist since I don’t believe you are a priest? You do believe the bread and wine, once consecrated, become the true Body and Blood of our Lord and savior, right?

Im a free agent…no one has signed me up
I go to house church…I also take my children to Sunday School at a United Methodist church…I have been an official United Methodist for 15 or so years…obviously I am open to your contentions…you guys and the Orthodox have been around a long time…I have this problem though…I started reading the Bible a long time ago…and i know you would disagree but both of you guys dont look like what I read…and I know you would strenously disagree…
BH

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BrianH:

Im a free agent…no one has signed me up
I go to house church…I also take my children to Sunday School at a United Methodist church…I have been an official United Methodist for 15 or so years…obviously I am open to your contentions…you guys and the Orthodox have been around a long time…I have this problem though…I started reading the Bible a long time ago…and i know you would disagree but both of you guys dont look like what I read…and I know you would strenously disagree…
BH

I became anti-Catholic for a short period of time after not even reading the Bible, just by talking to a few of my friends. Once I started reading the Bible and remembering my Catechism classes, it all fell into place for me and I came home. Methodists also believe the bread and wine, once consecrated, become the true body and blood of the Lord, but we come to it by different conclusions. John Wesley prayed the rosary and did all sorts of other Catholic things. He was even accused of trying to reintroduce Catholicism to England. It is too bad that the followers of John Wesley didn’t come home, but started yet another offshoot of Catholicism. I might even say that Catholics and Methodists have the most in common from any protestant sect.

 

[BrianH]

Semper Fi:

I became anti-Catholic for a short period of time after not even reading the Bible, just by talking to a few of my friends. Once I started reading the Bible and remembering my Catechism classes, it all fell into place for me and I came home. Methodists also believe the bread and wine, once consecrated, become the true body and blood of the Lord, but we come to it by different conclusions. John Wesley prayed the rosary and did all sorts of other Catholic things. He was even accused of trying to reintroduce Catholicism to England. It is too bad that the followers of John Wesley didn’t come home, but started yet another offshoot of Catholicism. I might even say that Catholics and Methodists have the most in common from any protestant sect.

I would agree with everything you just said for the most part
accept I do not consider myself anti-catholic in any way shape or form…almost everyone i know is Catholic!!!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BrianH:

I would agree with everything you just said for the most part
accept I do not consider myself anti-catholic in any way shape or form…almost everyone i know is Catholic!!!

When you do not even consider the Catholic viewpoint, you become anti-Catholic. It doesn’t mean you hate Catholics.

God bless,

 

[BrianH]

Semper Fi:

When you do not even consider the Catholic viewpoint, you become anti-Catholic. It doesn’t mean you hate Catholics.

God bless,

Semper
Have you guys ever considered having a Catholic/English dictionary? Semantics drives me nuts.
BH

 

[NotWorthy]

BrianH:

If they were always passed on…where were they for…uh…the 400 years before Peter? Do you see the problem? SOMEBODY lost the keys??? Im not trying to be offensive guys…I am saying Peter got the keys from Christ and obviously NO ONE had the keys before that for a very long time…

Uhhhhhhh, I think the kingdom was lost. The Kingdom of David that Jesus restored. The Keys that Jesus gave to Peter are restored with the Kingdom.

BrianH:

Logic not worthy, you are good at it…no doubt…if I could accept logic as my final evidence, I would agree with you…I really would…Catholicism has services all weekend…very convient…great schools that I could send my kids to for the same price of my tithe to my other churches…and 1800 years of history…I know you will disagree with me on that one

I contend that scripture and early church history teaches something different but you right…your church tradition does not…but that really breaks off to another discussion.
BH

Obfuscation, Brian? Please keep the red herrings to a minimum.

Notworthy

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

BrianH:

Semper
Have you guys ever considered having a Catholic/English dictionary? Semantics drives me nuts.
BH

It isn’t an issue of semantics. I have friends who are anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, but they’re still my friends.