Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[steve_b]

I can’t start another thread, I can barely keep up with these 2.

I understand. I’ve been on these forums for 10+ yrs and I have yet to start 1 thread.
I:

So when a Governor has also been a Governor in another State — he has two successors, does he not?

In the case of Peter his office goes with him where he goes.
I:

His-] last/-] successor is determined by his last office. In this case, Peter’s last office is Rome. -]How can one office take away from the other?/-]

I used emphasis to your comment to make the point. Peter’s successor succeeds him in the last see Peter is in, which is Rome…
I:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

As Paul said, people who divide from the Church Our Lord established, don’t serve Our Lord but themselves.
I:

Herein lies the problem steve. Can you actually point out when, where and how the East and West separated?

Others I think have given an answer to this question for you. Due to time, I’ll look at their posts later. In the meantime here is what I would say

From my reading, I think the seperation came slowly, in steps, beginning with

• The East trying to equalize authority between 5 sees, Rome being one of the sees.
• The East inventing the term 1st among equals

Re: 1st among equals, & the pentarchy (patriarchal system)

"3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity."

taken from
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

Also I would add

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
I:

So the only way the Church can be one is by submitting to the Chair of Peter?

That’s the way Jesus established His Church. On Peter the Rock. I’m sure you’ve seen all the evidence by now supporting that. If you want to see it again I’ll be happy to provide it
I:

Orthodox is not a denomination anymore than Catholic is a denomination. Orthodox means “right teaching” whereas Catholic means “universal”.

Catholic = [834 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 834) Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

That’s a composit quote from Bp’s Ignatius & Irenaeus. If you want the direct link to those quotes from those Fathers, just ask
I:

I don’t know, when was the first time the term “Orthodox Church” was used.

Allow me to simplify by saying it this way.

The Catholic Church , is there in writing, from the beginning., #[34 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11997086&postcount=34)

The “Orthodox Church” is NOT.
I:

This would make a lot more sense if Peter alone had the power of binding and losing. It is also absent in the first millennium.

not so. here’s an example

As of the council of Rome 382 a.d. Pope Damasus decreed the canon of scripture that we have today. No changes were made to the canon either OT or NT from 382 a.d…

[snip for space]

 

[daddyd]

No that’s not what I mean That’s not what I said

This is the line:

I know that’s not what you said. It’s what I said. Isn’t the pope the vicar of Christ. Which means he takes the place of Christ on earth. So wouldn’t you seek a relationship with him as the one who takes the place of Christ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know that’s not what you said. It’s what I said. Isn’t the pope the vicar of Christ. Which means he takes the place of Christ on earth. So wouldn’t you seek a relationship with him as the one who takes the place of Christ?

It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

Jesus is God, so we seek to be united with Him in His Body, the Church. (cf. Rom. 6:5, 1 Co 6:17)

The Pope is the vicarious shepherd of Jesus’ flock, so we are in communion with him.

You, btw, are in partial communion with the pope:

“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (Lumen gentium 15). Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Unitatis redintegratio 3). With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist” (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; cf. Unitatis redintegratio 13-18).[2]

 

[Isaiah45_9]

From my reading, I think the seperation came slowly, in steps, beginning with

• The East trying to equalize authority between 5 sees, Rome being one of the sees.
• The East inventing the term 1st among equals

Steve,

This is not an invention.

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople - 381

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

Canon 28 of The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

*[in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session but rejected by the Pope]

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome – we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.*

Notice that it passed, it was confirmed at Trullo and later also recognized at the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215AD with the caveats added after the Great Schism in regards to Rome.

[Canon 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#The dignity of the patriarchal sees)
Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord’s cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.

These are not opinions, these are **decrees **of the Catholic Church during the first millennium.

 

[daddyd]

It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

Jesus is God, so we seek to be united with Him in His Body, the Church. (cf. Rom. 6:5, 1 Co 6:17)

The Pope is the vicarious shepherd of Jesus’ flock, so we are in communion with him.

You, btw, are in partial communion with the pope:

“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (Lumen gentium 15). Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Unitatis redintegratio 3). With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist” (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; cf. Unitatis redintegratio 13-18).[2]

You give bible verses for our communion, unity with Christ, which I am happy to affirm. Could you provide the bible verses that show our communion with the “vicarious shepherd of Jesus’ flock”?

 

[joe371]

So when you are filling out forms that ask about your denomination you answer:

None?

I’ve never filled one out. However, if that was the word they were using, as opposed to which church do you belong to - I would say: the Catholic Church. I have no problem calling the Catholic Church a denomination today, given the fact that that does not reduce the Catholic Church to just another man-made church unless we are talking about the God-Man Jesus Christ. However, prior to the Protestant Reformation, no one would have called the CC a denomination.

 

[joe371]

You give bible verses for our communion, unity with Christ, which I am happy to affirm. Could you provide the bible verses that show our communion with the “vicarious shepherd of Jesus’ flock”?

If Jesus came as the son of David to reign upon the throne of David, and if one of the key institutions of the Davidic Covenant Kingdom was that of the Prime Minister (See Isaiah 22:19-23) then wouldn’t it seem reasonable and biblical for Jesus, upon leaving this world, to have appointed Peter as His Prime Minister, i.e. the papacy? (See Matthew 16:16-19, and the inherent typology).

 

[guanophore]

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

So the only way the Church can be one is by submitting to the Chair of Peter?

I think the Fathers said it was necessary to be in UNITY with the Chair of Peter.

And Jesus was clear that He expected those in leadership to have an attitude of service, not of “lording it over” their brethren.

**

Isaiah45_9:
This would make a lot more sense if Peter alone had the power of binding and losing. It is also absent in the first millennium. **

Clearly there is a difference between the Keys, and the power to bind and loose.

 

[prodromos]

To our Orthodox brethren …I ask [as did Cyprian]

Q] If you desert the chair of Peter upon whom Jesus - our Lord and King - our God decided was the foundation upon which His Church was built, how can you still be confident that you are in His Church?

Cyprian believes, as do the Orthodox, that every bishop sits on Peter’s chair. He does not equate Peter’s chair with Rome. You would know this if you read more of St Cyprian than the quote mines of Catholic apologists.

 

[prodromos]

I think the Fathers said it was necessary to be in UNITY with the Chair of Peter.

Which of those Fathers equated Peter’s chair with Rome? St Cyprian didn’t.

And Jesus was clear that He expected those in leadership to have an attitude of service, not of “lording it over” their brethren.

How well do you think Pope Gregory VII’s claims fit that mold?

Clearly there is a difference between the Keys, and the power to bind and loose.

How so? St Cyprian certainly didn’t believe that was the case.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Return to the topic and please observe the forum rules while discussing,

 

[Peter_J]

The passages and ECF’s quotes have been given ad nauseum.

Thank you, steve. Sometimes I feel like I’m the only person to notice that!

Again I ask, when is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see the name “Orthodox Church”? Please give the reference(s)

This question raises a significant issue – and one that I have brought up several times in conversation with Orthodox. However, I’m also a bit torn on this because I recognize that it is a great curtesy to us that they call us “Catholics” (or “Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics” or similar) rather than “Roman Catholics”.

 

[sudy]

I’d like to ask my questions again, please, as I didn’t see any answers to them.

1 If the succession of Peter was not important, why did the Apostles appoint Linus?

2 Considering that Paul did most of the evangelizing to the Gentiles in the Bible, why did Jesus appoint Peter to feed His sheep?

3 What purpose did it serve Jesus to give the keys to the kingdom of Heaven to Peter?

4 Why did Peter declare at the Council of Jerusalem that God had made a choice among us, that Peter should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers?

I haven’t come here to look for an argument, I’m just curious about all of your differing views. Thanks.

 

[KathleenGee]

Have to assert Randy again…

There is no superlative case in Hebrew as we have in English. To make up for it, they would repeat the phrase 3 times…as Christ did in naming Simon Peter.

Again…people have to pray to assent to the truth.

 

[steve_b]

1 If the succession of Peter was not important, why did the Apostles appoint Linus?

It IS important. From “Against Heresies”

Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 2-3
2. “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with** this Church**, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Comment:

• this is tradition from the apostles,
• "this Church" has pre-eminent authority, and every Church everywhere must agree with it
• he names 12 bishops of Rome, from Peter and Paul down to his day.

1. “the apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soterhaving succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

Just a note about 3 bishops in this thread

• Bp Polycarp and Bp Irenaeus are from Smyrna, which is in today Turkey.
• Bp Polycarp and Bp Ignatius were both disciples of St John the apostle.
• Irenaeus heard Polycarp preach and teach making Irenaeus one man away from an apostle. So we know where Irenaeus got his information that he writes down in “Against Heresies”
• Irenaeus was made Bp of Lyon which is in France.

[snip for space]

 

[spina1953]

It IS important. From “Against Heresies”

Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 2-3
2. “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with** this Church**, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Comment:

• this is tradition from the apostles,
• "this Church" has pre-eminent authority, and every Church everywhere must agree with it
• he names 12 bishops of Rome, from Peter and Paul down to his day.

1. “the apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soterhaving succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

Just a note about 3 bishops in this thread

• Bp Polycarp and Bp Irenaeus are from Smyrna, which is in today Turkey.
• Bp Polycarp and Bp Ignatius were both disciples of St John the apostle.
• Irenaeus heard Polycarp preach and teach making Irenaeus one man away from an apostle. So we know where Irenaeus got his information that he writes down in “Against Heresies”
• Irenaeus was made Bp of Lyon which is in France.

[snip for space]

Hi Steve B: One thing I would like to point out is the fact that St. Paul did not have a successor in Rome, only Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Steve B: One thing I would like to point out is the fact that St. Paul did not have a successor in Rome, only Peter.

Peter and Paul labored together in Rome, and very likely ordained Linus together.

Anyway, Peter had successors from his time in Antioch, but those did not carry the Petrine responsibilities that were passed on to Linus.

Paul had successors all over the empire, but none of them ever claimed the Keys given to Peter either.

 

[KathleenGee]

Guan…great points.

Linus was first bishop of Rome.