Bishop of Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tiny_smommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
NotWorthy:
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.

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

Notworthy
Click to expand...
WHat you term obfuscation, I consider friendly banter…but …

in reality I have found almost all of the responses to my contentions obfuscafied 😃 …most everyone is arguing about how important Peter was…to a guy…who never has said otherwise.
What we still lack is biblical or early proof that the position of Bishop of Rome(ie Peters third job) is head of the church…lets rephrase the question and see if anybody bites
 
Semper Fi:
It isn’t an issue of semantics. I have friends who are anti-Catholic Fundamentalists, but they’re still my friends.
Click to expand...
Semper
We are arguing about the defintion of a prefix. THATS SEMANTICS. Arguing if we are arguing…IS SEMANTICS.
Lets get back to the one, if not the, central tenet of the Catholic faith please…or not…
BH
 
40.png
BrianH:
WHat you term obfuscation, I consider friendly banter…but …

in reality I have found almost all of the responses to my contentions obfuscafied 😃 …most everyone is arguing about how important Peter was…to a guy…who never has said otherwise.
What we still lack is biblical or early proof that the position of Bishop of Rome(ie Peters third job) is head of the church…lets rephrase the question and see if anybody bites
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I’ve just been trying to find a way to use the word “obfuscation” in a sentence!!!

What I’m confused is, here’s what’s been established:
  1. The Prime Minister, in ancient Israel, which is the House of David, is an office. It gives the office-holder the authority to run the kingdom in the kings’ absence.
  2. Peter has Primacy - Head of the Church, the reconstitued Israel, which Jesus re-established from the House of David. This Primacy is necessary until Jesus’ 2nd coming.
  3. Peter establishes in Acts, that the Apostles, soon to become the Bishops, are an office. For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ And: 'May another take his office.’ (Acts 1:20).
  4. Clement certainly assumed the authority to tell the Church of Corinth what to do.
Is this what you are looking for?

By the way, We see another instance around 190AD, where Victor I excommunicated some of the Churches in Asia Minor over the Easter celebration. Although St. Ireneaus questioned the wisdom of this edict, he didn’t question the authority behind it.

Notworthy
 
Irenaeus…the same guy who described this:

"St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, *"while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church…

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus.”*
Who is holding the key here…how can “they”

Of course Irenaeus is a reliable historian one could argue…he did have Jesus living to be an old man… :rolleyes:
I will fully address the issue from the Hebrew Bible tomorrow, I can provide an indepth reply because it keeps coming up, which is fair of course, albeit non-applicable we will see.
BH
 
I may not be able to post tomorrow so I better briefly hit the

point that Not Worthy was making about Shebna earlier…remember Shebna gets the key taken away!! Then what happens after that…? God takes the key away! It is obvious…this IS A PROPHECY SUPPORTING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 😃
Ok no…but it sure aint a prophecy for the Bishop of Rome…unless you think it is going to fail…more later sorry

Isaiah 22

15 Furthermore, the Lord, the Lord Almighty, told me to confront Shebna, the palace administrator, and to give him this message: 16 "Who do you think you are, building a beautiful tomb for yourself in the rock? 17 For the Lord is about to seize you and hurl you away. He is going to send you into captivity, you strong man! 18 He will crumple you up into a ball and toss you away into a distant, barren land. There you will die, and there your glorious chariots will remain, broken and useless. You are a disgrace to your master.
19 “Yes, I will drive you out of office,” says the Lord. “I will pull you down from your high position. 20 And then I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah to replace you. 21 He will have your royal robes, your title, and your authority. And he will be a father to the people of Jerusalem and Judah. 22 I will give him the key to the house of David-the highest position in the royal court. He will open doors, and no one will be able to shut them; he will close doors, and no one will be able to open them. 23 He will bring honor to his family name, for I will drive him firmly in place like a tent stake. 24 He will be loaded down with responsibility, and he will bring honor to even the lowliest members of his family.”
25 The Lord Almighty says: “When that time comes, I will pull out the stake that seemed so firm. It will come out and fall to the ground. Everything it supports will fall with it. I, the Lord, have spoken!”
 
Enough of this “Peter’s Third Job” junk. Is that the latest way they teach you to attack the papacy and Peter’s office? :rotfl: You need to understand the Bible. You need to understand the early church.

First let’s take a quick look at the Book Of Matthew (Matt from now on). I won’t go too deeply into, but just mention some things that people might not know. Matt is the first book of the Gospels, even though it was not written first. This is considered by many to be a deliberate move to show primacy, and to show the extremely important connectedness between Matt and the OT. Matthew was a Jew and an apostle of Jesus, writing in Aramaic to Jews. (that may sound obvious but it’s not—Matt was the only Gospel written directly to Jews).

So, which you’re well aware of, in Matt 16 we get:

13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 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, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

So, Jesus is asking these guys “Who does everyone say that I am?” and then “Who do you guys say that I am?”

Peter is the one who says “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Then a strange kind of moment. Peter doesn’t get credit for the answer, he gets credit for being blessed:
“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father”

then Jesus says: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

(Interesting thing: This is the first of only two times that Jesus mentions the word church.)

And what about the "keys to the kingdom and power to bind and loose etc? This terminology would have profound meaning for Jews of that time.
They all knew exactly where he was coming from.

Governments all over the east at that time were based on the Egyptian monarchical form of government and all the heirarchy and positions were well understood. The Rabbinic terms “binding and loosing” were clear and meaningful as well, commonly used to describe religious, judicial, and legal authority. No mix up for these guys following Jesus.

Because of the Old Testament history, the prophetic words of Isaiah, and the teaching of the rabbis, all the Jews at that time knew exactly what Jesus and Matt are referring to: Royal authority, judicial authority.

Jesus refers to prophecy of Isaiah quite intentionally and everyone Jew in the land knew exactly what he was talking about.

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
23
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

Jesus doesn’t refer to stuff just out of a whim, I’d sure you’d agree.

Remember, David was the King of Israel and Judah and like all kings of Israel, Judah and the entire area appointed a royal steward who he handed the keys of the kingdom.

This person, the royal steward, who was handed the keys to the kingdom, was the second most person in charge and ruled the kingdom (over every other person incl the king’s relatives) in the king’s absence.
They actually used to use huge sets of keys to hand to this person in front of everyone in the palace to show the authority transfer.

Now the very, very cool thing is that the parallel goes a lot deeper than even what I’m referring to.

It actually goes back to Genesis and Joseph.
 
So Joseph, the jewish guy in Egypt, remember him? Sold into slavery by his brothers etc. Became Pharoah’s right hand man, his chief steward.

How did he become Pharoah’s chief steward?
**He was asked a question—the answer to which was given to him by God. Because of the answer, he was given the keys to the kingdom. **

Joseph’s name was changed (sound familiar?) to Zaphenath-paneah, which means “God lives, God speaks” because Joseph was given the gift of…infallible interpretation.

Everyone in those days knew without a doubt what Jesus was doing and saying with Peter. It just gets more and more interesting the deeper you look into it.

As far as the office of Royal Steward is concerned, it is a position of succession, not a one-time deal. By that I mean it was a position for life for that person, no matter if the king died or whatever. Sometimes that person would serve 2, 3 or even 4 Kings. Then when that person finally died (so to speak ) a new royal steward would be appointed.

Now let’s get to the important connection to Moses.
Moses was the official teacher of Israel,— lawgiver, interpreter, judge.
Moses sat at his “seat”, or chair. This does not refer to some old chair that he liked, but rather his position of final authority for Israel. This is where the apostles got the “chair” of Peter you hear about. Kathedra in the greek.

Moses was infallible in his teaching and judgements. His seat, or teaching authority lasted along after he died. For over 2000 years.

(if that seems a bit familiar to you, it does to others too—2000 years of Moses chair ruling and it has now been almost 2000 years of Peter’s chair ruling—“hmmmm” say some scholars)

Remember Jesus saying:

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

This is what he’s talking about. Please definately note that he says “do whatever they tell you.” This is because they sit on the chair of Moses and the teachings are infallible from the ruling chair of Moses.

Of course he goes on to say basically that they ignore their own rules and teachings. But he is saying listen to them because the God-appointed position or seat gives them the truth from God----but do not follow their example which are two very different things.

There is a direct succession of teachers going back 2000 years to Moses at that point. The chair was never empty.

Moses was given the seat of authority after being given a revelation by God while standing at a large rock, Mt Sinai. Peter was given the seat of authority after being given a revelation by God while standing at a large rock, Caesarea Philippi.

Caesarea Philippi is pretty much out of the way for Jesus to go while doing all this stuff, which raises the question of— Why go to that particular place to hand over the keys of the kingdom to Peter?

Interesting place. Basically a big rocky place, almost a mountain, where the town of Pan was located in ancient times. You may remember Pan
as the site of the ancient greek cult of the pagan God named Pan who is the pagan god of shepherds and flocks.

The true Shepherd surely had that in mind.

There was at the time of Jesus a temple to Caeser Augustus at the top of the rock wall where Jesus took his guys and where he appointed Peter as “Rock.” They walked all the way out there to stand right below this spot so Jesus could ask his questions and peter could get his revelation from God.

One more interesting thing about Caesarea Phillipi:
Guess where the River Jordan begins? Yep, right there.
The water of of truth and life flows from the “Rock” of Caesarea Phillipi!
Now that is beautiful.
 
So I won’t go into the part about the great importance of when a person’s name is changed in the bible and the whole thing about Kepha etc. because everyone should know that by now.

Except to point out that Jesus calls Peter “Simon Bar Jonah” after Peter gives him the right answer, which, again, was given to him by God.
“Bar” means son. “Jonah” means dove. i.e. he’s calling Peter “Son of the Holy Spirit.”

Anyway, to sum up a bit about where we are, the Jews of that day had no problem whatsoever understanding the significance of all this.

I’d like to just give a bunch of info here before I make a point.

Jesus separated out Peter, James, and John for intimate times of prayer and special instruction, with the first being Peter.

Every list of the twelve apostles in the NT has Peter placed at the top of the list. (and Judas is listed last)

Peter is repeatedly mentioned by name when the others are referred to as “disciples” or “the eleven.”

The names Peter, Simon, or Cephas are used almost 200 times in the New Testament, by far the most outside of Jesus.

Now to get back to the idea of so much going into introducing Peter as the leader and the background of the chair of Moses, the Royal Steward etc etc. -----

The point that people usually miss on this whole big subject is not that Peter is so danged great or whatever. IT’S NOT ABOUT PETER.

It’s about the office which Peter has now taken.

Which is not to say that Peter himself wasn’t important or remarkable. It’s just that people tend to miss out on the most important point in the whole discussion about Peter: That Jesus was leaving for awhile and he established a supreme pastorate, a position of authority, to watch over things for him.

Certainly the Jews to which Matthew was writing knew exactly what the situation was because, as we have seen, the very obvious parallels to Jewish culture and history thus far. Remember—for the first 10-12 years the only people evangelized to were Jews, and these had to know everything in context with the Jewish Tradition, both oral and written, that is to say they know the oral traditions, prophecies and the Old Testament.
Everything Jesus did and everything his disciples taught had to “click” in regards to what had gone before.

Incidentally, please remember that ALL teaching was done orally for a long while. In fact, the Gospel of Matthew was another 37-42 years down the road. Imagine that—the only gospel written directly to Jews was still 37-42 years away!!! And Matthew was an apostle of Jesus!!!
That should tell us something about the oral tradition of teaching in the church, I’d say.
I’ll remind you that the first Gospel written was Mark—again, it’s quite a long wait until a written Gospel— around 35-40 years after Christ. Mark was a jew, not an Apostle of Jesus, but an eyewitness, writing the very first Gospel…IN ROME to ROMANS!
 
It is assumed, BTW, that Peter instructed Mark to write that Gospel.

The Apostles refer to Jesus as “Rabbi, rabbi…” Every rabbi has disciples.
And Jesus could of course certainly be considered the “Ultra-Rabbi” and as Rabbi he took three years to exhaustively instruct the “disciples” in his teaching to pass it down to and expected them to pass it down and so on.
Completely on par with Jewish religious history and instruction.
And while the disciples were not perfect men, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would come upon them to protect their correct passing on of the teachings.

It is clear from the bible and Jewish tradition that these positions of apostle/disciple were just that—positions. When Judas of Iscariot went down (so to speak) Peter quotes the OT to show the need to fill the “office” which Judas held, which shows us Apostolic Succession, which is not only biblical but of course common sense. We also later learn from Paul about Timothy, who became Bishop of Ephesus. It important to note that Apostolic Succession is virtually completely accepted and considered obvious and true by all churches throughout history.

In that context let’s look at just a couple more things regarding Peter.
At the Last Supper, when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, all these guys were saying…“This saying is hard” They just couldn’t accept it–it blew their minds. Who was the one who spoke up for the twelve?

*66
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
68
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” *

Whose boat did Jesus get into?

Whose nets hauled in all those fish?

For whose faith does Jesus pray for directly in Luke?

*31
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Which Apostle did Jesus appear to first?

At the end of John we have the final sealing of Peter into the position of Supreme Pastor in the stead of Jesus:

15
When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.” *
So it’s obvious Peter is the leader of the twelve Apostles, which is not to say that anything is taken away from the others. They all have an extremely important office, but one office is more important than the others out of organizational necessity.

After Jesus’ ascension, they set up the church in Jerusalem. Get it organized as you would probably expect—jurisdictions, teachings, areas of authority. Not hard to imagine, really. Fairly small groups of people (although they did add 3000 in one day, you’ll recall), in fact they met at Solomon’s Portico (Acts) but soon moved into “house-churches” in groups. Incidentally the House of Peter became the first house-church, even before Jesus left.
 
Ten years on they accepted their first non-Jews. Soon they grew to cities in other countries. As those churches grew and the apostles moved on to preach in other places, they had to set up some kind of structure obviously. Deacons and bishops were appointed. Remember that all teaching and traditions were handed down orally.
Circumstances would later arise where there would occasssionally be a letter sent from one apostle to a certain church for a certain reason. These reasons varied. As time went on, some letters were often used in addition to oral teachings during the “services.” Much later, available letters and Gospels would be put together in one book, (something we don’t that Jesus told anyone to do, let alone people 300 years later.)

So the church spread big time, even taking on an adjective— catholic
(small c) which means universal because she was with all people in all lands for all times.

Increasing size, theological deviations, and persecution force more organization.

So we’re pretty spread out now, churches in cities: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Ephesus, and towns: Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth. They basically organized it into sections with “The Church at Antioch” or “The Church at Jerusalem” etc being the overseers of areas with Christian towns and communities.

Not hard to see the organizational situation, right? Christians pretty much far and wide, with main churches overseeing their own area. Some apostles travelled back and forth between churches; some left others in charge and went to form churches elsewhere; some stayed put and oversaw the developments.

Remember this is all taking place, to a large degree, orally, that is to say, without written instructions, contracts etc., or at least none that have survived to come down to us. You have to look at three main factors there: the time in history re: availability of writing instruments, literacy etc. ; and the oral tradition of the jewish religious culture; and without a doubt most importantly that at that time things were written on papyrus, which was the ordinary writing material:

Made out of strips of pith taken from the stem of the Egyptian water-plant of the same name, papyrus was very fragile, became brittle in air, crumbled with use, could not resist the disintegrating force of moisture and was quite impracticable for book-form. All papyrus manuscripts of every sort are lost to us save such as were buried in exceedingly dry soil, like that of Upper and Middle Egypt.

It wasn’t until the 300s that vellum (made from calfskin, lambskin) was widely used for writing and record purposes.

Obviously disputes happen. Questions on teaching arise. Disputes and questions were always decided by texts of the Old Testament, sayings of Our Lord, and the authority of the Apostles. Simple logic would assume correctly that if there was anything that couldn’t be reconciled, Apostolic Authority would be the ultimate judge on a matter, and any type of “appeal” or even a misunderstanding between Apostles would be handled by Peter. Indeed it was Peter who made the first checkup/visitation round on all the churches.

What could be more important in the early church, indeed for the first few hundred years, of a persecuted church, a growing church, than unity? The church was, like it’s Jewish forebears, hierarchical, not democratic and unorganized. It was governed and taught by the apostles and their appointed successors in office.

Which is not to say at all that it was exactly as it is now. That’s not the point and it’s the basis for another huge discussion. The point is that the church had a visible hierarchy with a trackable development into a necessary structure of ecclesial (sp?) governance and further theological understanding.
 
The questions at this point are usually:

1-How do we know Peter was at the top of the hierarchy for all these spread out churches?

1a-Wouldn’t the Apostles be in charge of their own areas, not Peter?

2-Okay, I agree that Peter was what you Catholics might call “Pope”, but how do we know that his position was one of succession?

I’ll take the second part of that first.
The significant part was not the succession of Peter by Linus. The significant thing by far was the establishment, or more accurately, the re-establishment of the office of Royal Steward by the new and final Davidic King, Jesus. Your assumption is that when Linus succeeded Peter (or later) is when the Catholic Church began. The Catholic Church was started with Peter, not after Peter. The reference to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution wouldn’t match the transition from Peter to Linus. You might say the Catholic Church’s Declaration of Independence AND Constitution are the Old and New Testament.

Was the succession of Peter by Linus an important event? Undoubtedly–a huge thing. Where is that jewel-encrusted book of succession one might certainly expect? As we’ve seen the church was largely an oral organization, and when it wasn’t it, like everyone else, the church relied on papyrus until the 300’s.
Undoubtedly there were some kind of records of things such as that but they have been lost to time. Just as any records which describe ANY apostolic succession throughout Christendom in those earliest years. Although there is no surviving official church record of Linus succeeding Peter, there must have been one at some point. Tertullian (160-225) speaks of unscrolling and reading the list of apostolic succession and of Linus, Clement and others being ordained by Peter. It is thought that Peter chose an order of successors and planned that out for the church before he died.

No, it’s not quite the Holy Grail of exact, written, display-it-at-the-Vatican
undisputable proof some look for. But one must look at the circumstances.
What would you say is more important to the church—A written gospel or a written record of the transition of office? The Gospel of course.
And remember that the first written Gospel was not until 70AD.

Were Gospels, Apostolic Letters, records, transactions recorded on papyrus and lost? It’s a very good bet, I’d say.

Let’s take a look at where we are now:

We know that there is an office Peter has been appointed to by Jesus himself which has been shown to be a successional office, as were the other positions which the other Apostles held. How do we know that an actual succession took place between Peter and Linus without a specific surviving 2000 year-old document that says: Peter OUT Linus IN ???
Very Fair Question.
 
40.png
BrianH:
I may not be able to post tomorrow so I better briefly hit the

point that Not Worthy was making about Shebna earlier…remember Shebna gets the key taken away!! Then what happens after that…? God takes the key away! It is obvious…this IS A PROPHECY SUPPORTING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION 😃
Ok no…but it sure aint a prophecy for the Bishop of Rome…unless you think it is going to fail…more later sorry

Isaiah 22*
25 The Lord Almighty says: “When that time comes, I will pull out the stake that seemed so firm. It will come out and fall to the ground. Everything it supports will fall with it*. I, the Lord, have spoken!”
Click to expand...
No, the stake that falls, and everything with it, probably means Ancient Judah. This happened when Babylonia overran Judah and sent them into exile.

Let’s contrast that with Matthew 16:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So, whereas Jesus re-established the Kingdom of David, He promised to remain with it for all time. He doesn’t mention pulling any more pegs, just that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Notworthy
 
Let’s look first at a document from Clement of Rome. Clement was the Bishop of Rome, third in succession after Peter.

[the dispute in question is not that Peter was Bishop of Rome, or that there were other Bishops of Rome. The dispute comes as a question of authority of the Bishop of Rome over the rest of the church]
Clement was Bishop of Rome from the year 88 to the year 97.
We have a surviving letter from Clement called The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians written in the name of the Roman Church in the year 96, right around the time John was writing his Gospel. Corinth is in Greece. The Church in Corinth was having a lot of trouble. There was a sort of mutiny at hand where a big group of Christians had basically taken over from the ordained clergy. Clement wrote a lengthy letter castigating the offenders and exhorting the church to unity. He called on them to make peace, renew their faith, and “declare the tradition” which it had received from the Apostles.The letter was well-received. Corinth did not contest the letter, nor did they challenge the tone of authority woven throughout. We know from later writers that it accomplished the intended goal and was read regularly in the Corinthian Church for centuries, and in many other churches as well.
Please note that the Apostle John was still living at the time and he was only 200 miles away while ruling over that area’s churches.

So we have the Bishop of Rome being asked by other churches not involved to settle a dispute all the way away in Greece. Not the Alexandrian Church. Not the living Apostle John. But the Bishop of Rome. And they accept his authority without hesitation. Before we take a closer look at it, know that the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians almost made it into the bible. It was considered by many to be “inspired” writing until late third/early fourth centuries.
Let’s take a closer look at the letter. (I will summarize)
1-Clement actually apologizes for not settling the dispute sooner.
2-Clement reminds them of Apostolic Succession and of Roman Primacy in settling disputes and questions.
3-He say he and the other apostolic leaders speak with authority from God.
4-Clement requires obedience to his letter.
5-He sends legates (personal representatives) to Corinth with the letter so he can be informed of the news.

Amazing when you think about it. There are many historical references to the letter which refer to the fact that the Church at Corinth received the letter as the ultimate Christian authority over them.

There aren’t any historical documents that contradict the letter or the authority of the Roman Bishop over that Church so far away. **To repeat–the letter was actually read “on the Lord’s Day” for centuries to come by that church and many others!!! **

Next we will look at The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans
Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch personally trained by the Apostle John.
Antioch is in Syria. All the letters of Ignatius are considered invaluable to historians for their clear look at the early church. He lays out the structure and heirarchy for the churches-- Bishop, priests, deacons. He stresses that the teaching is Christ-centered and stresses the importance of the Roman church. Historians call the Letters of Ignatius a blueprint for the Catholic faith. John Henry Newman said of the letters “the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered in the course of his seven epistles.”

**What year was Ignatius writing? 106. Just 35 years after the first Gospel and probably 16 years after the last Gospel was written. And remember–Ignatius was personally trained by the Apostle John. **

There are numerous references over hundreds of years from early Christian times from areas all over Christendom–East, West, North, South; Syria, Turkey, Greece, Jerusalem, Egypt, Northern Europe, Africa all referring to the primacy of Rome in decisions.
Sometimes churches even begged the Roman Bishop to help them by making a binding decision on a matter regarding heresies or theological disputes. Many times an apostolic church would vehemently insist that it is right about something…but still defer to the decision made by the Roman church.

What’s more----even the heretics would appeal to Rome for decisions!
A group of Christians would get an idea that wouldn’t quite fit with accepted teaching, engendering a dispute and they would appeal to Rome over their regional Apostolic church for a ruling.
 
Did anyone else of any other church in church history claim this authority of the office of Royal Steward, or supreme pastorate?
No.

Is there a surviving 2000 year old document that records the transition of the office of Bishop of Rome from Peter to Linus? No. There are later records that mark the transfers of that office, but that one is either lost to disentegration like almost every single papyrus record of that time or was never recorded.

Is there any evidence that there indeed was a succession from Peter onwards? Mountains of it.

I look at it this way: Either what the Catholic Church and all of Christendom for hundreds upon hundreds of years say is correct

or

An incredible fraud of the most un-humanly gigantic proportions has taken place stretching from one end of the christian world to another, where it took months just to go from one church to another, and no one questioned it for hundreds and hundreds of years.

And if the latter is the case----the big conspirators in the case surely would have thought of making a tiny little letter saying:
Peter=OUT Linus=IN
That would seem to be the least of their problems.

Adolf Harnack, a German Protestant who is considered by most to be the pre-eminent Protestant theologian and historian of modern times (go ahead–google him) had this to say about this whole subject:
  • “In my capacity as a Protestant historian, I exposed the fact that Roman equals Catholic in my Manual of the History of Christian Dogmas, albeit with certain reservations. But since then this thesis has been strengthened, and Protestant historians should no longer be shocked by this proposition: that the basic elements of Catholicism go back to the Apostolic Age. Thus the link appears to be complete, and the concept which Catholics have of their history is triumphant” *
 
40.png
NPS:
**What year was Ignatius writing? 106. Just 35 years after the first Gospel and probably 16 years after the last Gospel was written. And remember–Ignatius was personally trained by the Apostle John. **
Click to expand...
It may also help to note that Ignatius was a successor of St. Peter to the See of Antioch (after Evodius). Yet, he notes that Rome still presides in [over] charity. He claimed no primacy for himself, instead, he gives that honor to Rome.
 
NPS
This discussion has taken an interesting turn. you liberally cut and pasted from sources without citing them. Liberally. Which is
disgusting .

Worse yet, some of the sources, contradict other CAtholic sources which I DID show to be sources. Lets recall once again what this site says about Ignatius and his letters, and consequently, hundreds of other books and sites as well…

newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

"*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 " *

bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

let me cut and paste as well

"*Fraudulent forgeries of Ignatius:

The real Ignatius, lived about 110 AD. A total of 15 letters were allegedly written by Ignatius. We take the view that all 15 of Ignatius’s letters are forgeries. The fact that neither Eusebius (300 AD) nor Jerome (495 AD) make reference to the first 8 Ignatian letters (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary) makes it likely that they were composed as late as 300-500 AD. It is this reason that all scholars reject these first 8 letters as forgeries. Some scholars, however accept that the “7 Ignatian letters” are genuine. These 7 Ignatian letters are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. We feel these scholars are in error and that even the 7 Ignatian letters are forgeries. (We have colour coded the quotes below.)
We take the view that all of Ignatius’ writings are forgeries and unreliable. There are fifteen books attributed to Ignatius. Eight are surely forgeries and spurious. Seven are considered by some as genuine, although many scholars also believe they are all forgeries. Again, we view all Ignatius’ writings as forgeries. They purport to be written by Ignatius, who lived about 110 AD. We believe it is clear, however, that they are all no earlier than 220 AD, more likely 250 AD. Although they are forgeries, they do represent the views of the author in time of 250 AD. We see a clear change from the Bible pattern, from a plurality of Elders (also called bishops) , deacons and saints, to a single Bishop who ruled the congregations and under him were a plurality of elders, then deacons and saints…

We therefore date the 8 letters of Ignatius at 300-500 AD and the 7 letters of Ignatius at about 250 AD.
“It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.” (Philip Schaff, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians)
"*
 
40.png
NotWorthy:
No, the stake that falls, and everything with it, probably means Ancient Judah. This happened when Babylonia overran Judah and sent them into exile.

Let’s contrast that with Matthew 16:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So, whereas Jesus re-established the Kingdom of David, He promised to remain with it for all time. He doesn’t mention pulling any more pegs, just that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Notworthy
Click to expand...
yes, yes yes Can this or can this NOT be used as verse which supports that Peters third job is as important as claimed?
BH
 
40.png
BrianH:
yes, yes yes Can this or can this NOT be used as verse which supports that Peters third job is as important as claimed?
BH
Click to expand...
OK…Yes!

Notworthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top