Creating the Pope

[johnnyprc]

OK, my next post will contain issues with what specifically Irenaeus said. However, I posted a comment that there were over 20 (key) early writers (including bible writers), and he is 1 of those. This is not to mention towards the outside of my timetable (but he is in there).

SO - the church has 1 of 20 something writers to back its claim of papal existence in the early church?

My next post will be direct about Irenaeus’ comments - but can someone acknowledge the ratio issue…?

 

[johnnyprc]

Barbkw:

Yes, but we have to assume today that the Holy Spirit made clearly evident what needed to be made evident. Contrary to what you have been taught in church, our only inspired direct instruction was to follow the apostles - not some office of the Pope.

Every christian was in that situation, yet many were able to write great works (with obvious help of the Spirit). As I sit here today, 2000 years later, trying to deconstruct what was really taught by the apostles and early church fathers, I have to call to question the Pope. There is no basis for its existence until Irenaeus…and Ireneaus said the bishop of Rome was a heretic!!

 

[Sante]

Clearly, “St. Peter” is a mythical character. There is no hard evidence for his historical existence. None.

 

[Barbkw]

How then, out there at the headwaters of the Jordan, at Caesarea Philippi, do you interpret Jesus’ statement to Simon?

Why did He rename Simon with the name Rock?

I have employees, I have a business which has doors, I have about a million dollars in inventory that I want to safeguard.

I have one employee, who I trust above all other. He holds the office of my creation.

I only entrust him with the master key.

 

[Sarpedon]

My next post will be direct about Irenaeus’ comments - but can someone acknowledge the ratio issue…?

The list I linked has 7 different individuals who said something relating to the primacy of Rome. Compared to your 19, that’s 35% mentioning something about Roman primacy.

If you are basing your conception of Christianity wholly upon history, you might as well first historically prove that Jesus was the son of God, and that Jesus taught things in line with what we have today. It would make sense to prove that before worrying about the Papacy. Nevertheless, I still don’t understand your argument against the papacy- is 35% too small a percent for an illiterate age?

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I agree, 35% is too few. I also think God made too many stars. I hope the next time He builds a universe ex nihilo, he consults me and johnny. We’ll set him straight.

 

[johnnyprc]

Your list showing 35% is mostly after the Council of Nicaea. I make this line in history since many Christians view this as the the time a great apostasy began.

Please view this logic: Once the Papacy was put in place, writers henceforth would seek to create history for its logic and tradition. So, in 300-500 AD, writers would seek to link their new doctrine or theology to the start of Christianity.

Therefore, in defining the timeframe of 33-300 AD, 1 in 20 or so is the ratio. That is not good.

 

[johnnyprc]

So here is my post regarding Irenaeus - who appears to be the only writing mentioning the Church of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome.

Irenaeus on several occasions points to the collection of traditions passed down by the apostles as the “authority” of the Church of Rome. In fact, a noted Latin translator said:

"Had the views of the modern Papacy ever entered the head of Irenæus, what an absurdity would be this whole argument. He would have said, “It is no matter what may be gathered elsewhere; for the Bishop of Rome is the infallible oracle of all Catholic truth, and you will always find it by his mouth.”

Philip Schaff
__

There is nothing in the writings of Irenaeus which suggests the Holy See had the sort of authority claimed today.

 

[Sarpedon]

Your list showing 35% is mostly after the Council of Nicaea. I make this line in history since many Christians view this as the the time a great apostasy began.

Granted, but not all of it. Can you provide a similar calculation?

Please view this logic: Once the Papacy was put in place, writers henceforth would seek to create history for its logic and tradition. So, in 300-500 AD, writers would seek to link their new doctrine or theology to the start of Christianity.

Possible. It’s also entirely possible that an illiterate society wrote very little down. It’s also possible certain writings were suppressed by local authorities afraid of a centralized religious power. It’s also possible that papal writings were considered so obvious that not as much effort was extended trying to preserve them. It’s also possible later heresies suppressed certain writings to bolster their own position. It’s also possible that there really is no dearth of papal writings per the total volume when you calculate the individual preferences, personalities, and preferred writing topics that the people in question had. Maybe all the records were in a library that burned down. Perhaps the Papacy was so obvious that few felt a need to dwell upon it.

Therefore, in defining the timeframe of 33-300 AD, 1 in 20 or so is the ratio. That is not good.

Can you provide the details of this calculation? Who is involved?

 

[Sarpedon]

So here is my post regarding Irenaeus - who appears to be the only writing mentioning the Church of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome.

Irenaeus on several occasions points to the collection of traditions passed down by the apostles as the “authority” of the Church of Rome. In fact, a noted Latin translator said:

"Had the views of the modern Papacy ever entered the head of Irenæus, what an absurdity would be this whole argument. He would have said, “It is no matter what may be gathered elsewhere; for the Bishop of Rome is the infallible oracle of all Catholic truth, and you will always find it by his mouth.”

Philip Schaff

Of course the Pope is under the authority of sacred Tradition. In fact, that’s a distinctly Catholic view, since Protestants reject such “collections of traditions.” The fact that Irenaeus mentions these traditions only helps our case.

Papal infallibility has been invoked a handful of times. Therefore, Schaff’s characterization is grossly off the mark. No Catholic would say what he says in jest- reason can provide truth, and the Church as a whole has authority as well. Remember that infallibility is not just a trait of the Pope- it also encompasses ecumenical councils and the ordinary collection of the bishops- i.e. what the bishops as a whole teach in unison.

Is your objection to Irenaeus that he holds distinctly Catholic views on tradition?

There is nothing in the writings of Irenaeus which suggests the Holy See had the sort of authority claimed today.

“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.” (3:3:2)

 

[Apollos]

Y’all’r wasting y’all’s time responding to someone whose beef is, “I want evidence of the modern papacy right now”.

 

[johnnyprc]

Apollos:

I guess you need to learn to read before you write. You quote me as saying I want “modern” evidence - can you please tell me where you see me say that?? “Stupid says what stupid does” is the quote I attribute to you.

JP

 

[johnnyprc]

“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.” (3:3:2)

---

This is the point exactly. He states the authority is in the “faithful everywhere”, and “tradition”, he SAYS NOTHING about the Bishop of Rome or Pope!!?? This would have been an excellent time to put that in there WITH the other elements. Again, the lack thereof is VERY telling.

Imagine such an important work like this were created today. Do you imagine no reference to the Pope would be made when speaking about why the church has authority? Hardly. The Pope would be the first authority mentioned.

JP

 

[davidv]

johnnyprc:

This is the point exactly. He states the authority is in the “faithful everywhere”, and “tradition”, he SAYS NOTHING about the Bishop of Rome or Pope!!?? This would have been an excellent time to put that in there WITH the other elements. Again, the lack thereof is VERY telling.

Imagine such an important work like this were created today. Do you imagine no reference to the Pope would be made when speaking about why the church has authority? Hardly. The Pope would be the first authority mentioned.

JP

Why?

One of the Pope’s titles is Servant of the Servants of God. Why should the Pope be in the limelight?

 

[Sarpedon]

This is the point exactly. He states the authority is in the “faithful everywhere”, and “tradition”, he SAYS NOTHING about the Bishop of Rome or Pope!!?? This would have been an excellent time to put that in there WITH the other elements. Again, the lack thereof is VERY telling.

No, he directly mentions the Church at Rome as having preeminent authority:

“the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome…For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority…”

It is true that he does not directly say “the Pope” but the office of the Papacy does not depend on the name used for it. Irenaeus states that the Church of Rome has preeminent authority, and he goes on to say:

“The blessed 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.” (etc.)

So, Irenaeus establishes a single line of succession when he recounts the succession of the Roman See. If the papacy did not exist, why give all the credit to one person at each time period? Not only does Irenaeus state that the Roman Church has preeminent authority, but he also gives the linear succession to the apostles as individual men, not groups of men. This is very telling. When giving the succession of the Roman Church (since “it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches”), Irenaeus does not give us a generic Church of Rome. He gives us individual chronological men. What is the significance of these men, and what made them stand out from the members of the other Churches and their contemporaries in the preeminent Church of Rome?

Of course, you will say that this is 1 out of 20 again. Can you provide the details for your calculation of this ratio?

 

[johnnyprc]

Here you go. I guess it is 1 in 19 (sorry)

1. St. John
2. St. James
3. St. Peter
4. St. Paul
5. St. Timothy
6. St. Mark
7. St. Mathew
8. St. Jude
9. St. Luke
10. St. Clement (Rome)
11. St. Mathetes
12. St. Polycarp
13. St. Barnabas
14. St. Papias
15. St. Justin Martyr
16. St. Irenaeus
17. St. Origen
18. St. Ignatius
19. St. Clement (Alexandria)

 

[johnnyprc]

Davidv and Sarpedon:

Besides Jesus, the Pope is a cornerstone part of the church today. The question is: Was it in 33-300 AD. I dont think you could have ANY writer of the Church today not mention the Pope’s significance in pages and pages of documents written to congregations etc.

So, can it be said that in the most significant time of Christianity (as far as foothold and doctrine development), the importance of the “Chair of Peter” is nowhere to be found?? At this point anyone looking at the evidence would say - YES.

That should be troubling to Catholics, since you are building a 100’ tree on a toothpick.

 

[Sarpedon]

I’m not sure using Biblical authors as early Church fathers is really a fair way to do it. After all, if we are going to do that, then St. Matthew provides us with support for the Papacy in Matthew 16:18! Considering that the Canon of scripture was determined by the Catholic Church, you are basically using Catholic Church-sanctioned documents as supposed evidence against the Papacy. That seems somewhat circular.

Furthermore, do saints like St. James have any known extra-Biblical writings? If not, then you run into the same problem of trying to disprove the Papacy by appealing to Catholic Church-sanctioned documents.

If we adjust for this issue, your list has 10 people in it. Both Clement of Rome and Irenaeus said something about the authority of Rome.

That’s not all, however. Quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia article (newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm):

"Firmilian of Caesarea

Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.

Tertullian

In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

Hippolytus

About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the “Liberian Catalogue” — “Clement of Rome”, 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.

“Adversus Marcionem”

We have moreover a poem, “Adversus Marcionem”, written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus “the chair on which he himself had sat” (P.L., II 1077).

So, that’s 6 in favor of the Papacy. That leaves 8 who say nothing on the matter, if your characterization is correct, and adjusting for sources known only through the Catholic Church. That’s 43% of non-scriptural church fathers during the 2nd century who mentioned the Papacy and the authority of Rome to some degree. It seems to me like your generalizations may be off the mark a bit…

 

[Sarpedon]

So, can it be said that in the most significant time of Christianity (as far as foothold and doctrine development), the importance of the “Chair of Peter” is nowhere to be found?? At this point anyone looking at the evidence would say - YES.

Nowhere to be found? Now that you have finally given us the method by which you determine the percentage of historical support for the Papacy, I can use it to find 43% support!

 

[Barbkw]

In salvation history, when God the Father renamed Abrahm, He created an “office” which was held throughout the generations by the Jews.

When God the Son, renamed Simon, He also created an “office”, which today is being held throughout the generations of Christians.