Early Church Fathers that confirm the Catholic view of the Papacy?

[ComeHome2Rome]

Different as in how, could you please communicate your thinking and in relation to the early church fathers as you suggest?

As in, do the EFC indicate they understood St. Peter to have a different “higher”, superior, Office than the rest of the Apostles (each of who also held Offices as someone above referenced in the beginning of Acts when Judas’ Office was filled with his replacement)?

Or do the EFC indicate they understood St. Peter’s Office to be equal, yet with primacy, with the Offices the other Apostles held?

 

[R_C]

As in, do the EFC indicate they understood St. Peter to have a different “higher”, superior, Office than the rest of the Apostles (each of who also held Offices as someone above referenced in the beginning of Acts when Judas’ Office was filled with his replacement)?

Or do the EFC indicate they understood St. Peter’s Office to be equal, yet with primacy, with the Offices the other Apostles held?

As far as we can see, they understood that Peter’s office was something to which ultimately they were to profess some sort of obedience that went beyond the concept of primus inter pares. Peter was a bishop, his successors are bishops, and there is nothing higher than a bishop. In that sense, that is, with regards to the Holy Orders, the episcopal ordination of the bishop of Rome is not different from that of any other bishop. However, what we find is that in a short period of time, first Peter and then the Episcopal See of Rome were understood to have a primacy over the others (which is why in time the latter became known as the Apostolic See or the Holy See).

Clement of Alexandria speaks of “the blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute”; Tertullian clearly states: “remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church …] Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church”; Origen speaks of the “great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]”; Cyprian of Carthage clarifies that “on him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair”; Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of Peter as “both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; Jerome also describes Peter as “chief of the apostles”.

More generally, regarding the bishop of Rome, Iraeneus states: “With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”; and in the Council of Chalcedon (accepted by the Orthodox Church) we read in Session 1: “We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, who is the head of all the churches …] This instruction we must carry out.”

 

[MartinJordan]

Cyprian of Carthage clarifies that "on him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair

My favourite quote from a Church Father

MJ

 

[aidanbradypop]

americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm A few quotes from the CFs

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

 

[aidanbradypop]

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 pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (3,3,2), 180 A.D.)

 

[shaky]

As far as we can see, they understood that Peter’s office was something to which ultimately they were to profess some sort of obedience that went beyond the concept of primus inter pares. Peter was a bishop, his successors are bishops, and there is nothing higher than a bishop. In that sense, that is, with regards to the Holy Orders, the episcopal ordination of the bishop of Rome is not different from that of any other bishop. However, what we find is that in a short period of time, first Peter and then the Episcopal See of Rome were understood to have a primacy over the others (which is why in time the latter became known as the Apostolic See or the Holy See).

Clement of Alexandria speaks of “the blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute”; Tertullian clearly states: “remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church …] Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church”; Origen speaks of the “great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]”; Cyprian of Carthage clarifies that “on him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair”; Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of Peter as “both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven”; Jerome also describes Peter as “chief of the apostles”.

More generally, regarding the bishop of Rome, Iraeneus states: “With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”; and in the Council of Chalcedon (accepted by the Orthodox Church) we read in Session 1: “We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, who is the head of all the churches …] This instruction we must carry out.”

Can you give me a link ref on Iraeneus where he states> With that Church because of its ‘‘Superior’’ origin ?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Can you give me a link ref on Iraeneus where he states> With that Church because of its ‘‘Superior’’ origin ?

earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

If you scroll down to Chapter III, Point ii, that is the paragraph in question, and it is in its full context. He also elevates the status of Peter and Paul as “the most glorious” of the apostles, which does indeed indicate some sort of hierarchy among the apostles, or, at the very least, a* leadership*.

 

[Schism_hater]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

Actually to me Acts 15 is a much greater difficulty for universal Petrine (and by extension, papal) jurisdiction and supremacy.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Actually to me Acts 15 is a much greater difficulty for universal Petrine (and by extension, papal) jurisdiction and supremacy.

Me, too!

But I know we’re not supposed to interpret Scripture on our own. Perhaps we share a lack of understanding & therefore are misinterpreting that passage?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm A few quotes from the CFs

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Wonderful, thank you!

 

[Reuben_J]

Me, too!

But I know we’re not supposed to interpret Scripture on our own. Perhaps we share a lack of understanding & therefore are misinterpreting that passage?

More importantly is about understanding scripture. Of course you can interpret Scripture on your own. It is only natural however, that we examine our interpretation against certain reference, and which is what most of us are doing. We would compare our interpretation against the teaching of our church respectively.

Act 15 is not a single basis for the primacy of Peter. The most that we can see from it is that Paul and Barnabas referred to the church (apostles and elders) about a decision on a teaching. It was obvious James was the leader of the church in Jerusalem and from the way Peter spoke at least as recorded in the Bible, he seemed to be the main spokesman that often consistent with leadership.

 

[R_C]

Actually to me Acts 15 is a much greater difficulty for universal Petrine (and by extension, papal) jurisdiction and supremacy.

I wonder why the Council of Jerusalem gathered in first place…

I’d like to add a few things in terms of the solidity of the Catholic view of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

• In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles (Mt19:27, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, 12:41, Jn 6:69)
• When describing the Apostles, the Gospels writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 3:37)
• When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter’s name heads every single list, even though he was not the first to become an apostle of the Lord (Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13)
• When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who leads the congregation
• The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – but Peter’s name appears 195 times.
• In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.)
• In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that the devil will strike but that He has prayed specifically for Peter so that his faith may not fail and he may return and confirm the other Apostles.
• When Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus’ followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter, and no other name is mentioned.
• In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning.
• In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter leading the early Church:

• leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14)
• receives the first converts (Acts 2:41)
• performes the first miracle at Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7)
• inflicts the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
• excommunicates the first heretic (Acts 8:21)
• leads the first council (Acts 15:7)
• pronounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:9)

• Peter is given divine revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46, a revelation that has a major impact on the Church and leads to the first Council.
• In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem. He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him).

As for the exercise of the Petrine primacy, let us consider what Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote in 80 AD in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgressions and in no small danger

Why did Pope Clement think that he had the authority to write and tell a remote Church – which had its own bishop, and one of the twelve living nearby – how to behave?

I don’t want to move too forward in time, or we reach the times of the first dissents between East and West…I just want to point out that the Catholic view of the papacy is not a novelty and that in the early Church there was a certain level of universality in the view of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, a figure greater than a mere “first among equals”.

This is not to say: Catholics are right and everyone else is flatly wrong and should cover their head in ashes and come to Canossa…lots of things have happened, and lots of interests beyond those that should have been the sole concerns of the pastors of Christ’s flock were present in the operate of many bishops in East and West. Christ teaches us to not get stuck with the past, but to forgive and be reconciled. Both sides need to work in this and to work towards reunification. This is being done. But I wonder if both sides realize that Christ calls for one flock with one shepherd rather than many separate independent churches - or, God forbid, an “invisible church” à la protestante (which, as Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky once said, would be a “Nestorian ecclesiology” for it “divides the Church into distinct beings: on the one hand a heavenly and invisible Church, alone true and absolute; on the other, the earthly Church (or rather ‘the churches’), imperfect and relative”).

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Thank you I’m reading John Salza’s The Biblical Basis for the Papacy & during my work commute listening to Tim Staples’ CD set something about the Church Fathers & the Papacy.

I wonder why the Council of Jerusalem gathered in first place…

I’d like to add a few things in terms of the solidity of the Catholic view of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

• In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles (Mt19:27, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, 12:41, Jn 6:69)
• When describing the Apostles, the Gospels writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 3:37)
• When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter’s name heads every single list, even though he was not the first to become an apostle of the Lord (Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13)
• When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who leads the congregation
• The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – but Peter’s name appears 195 times.
• In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.)
• In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that the devil will strike but that He has prayed specifically for Peter so that his faith may not fail and he may return and confirm the other Apostles.
• When Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus’ followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter, and no other name is mentioned.
• In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning.
• In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter leading the early Church:

• leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14)
• receives the first converts (Acts 2:41)
• performes the first miracle at Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7)
• inflicts the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
• excommunicates the first heretic (Acts 8:21)
• leads the first council (Acts 15:7)
• pronounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:9)

• Peter is given divine revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46, a revelation that has a major impact on the Church and leads to the first Council.
• In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem. He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him).

As for the exercise of the Petrine primacy, let us consider what Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote in 80 AD in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

Why did Pope Clement think that he had the authority to write and tell a remote Church – which had its own bishop, and one of the twelve living nearby – how to behave?

I don’t want to move too forward in time, or we reach the times of the first dissents between East and West…I just want to point out that the Catholic view of the papacy is not a novelty and that in the early Church there was a certain level of universality in the view of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, a figure greater than a mere “first among equals”.

This is not to say: Catholics are right and everyone else is flatly wrong and should cover their head in ashes and come to Canossa…lots of things have happened, and lots of interests beyond those that should have been the sole concerns of the pastors of Christ’s flock were present in the operate of many bishops in East and West. Christ teaches us to not get stuck with the past, but to forgive and be reconciled. Both sides need to work in this and to work towards reunification. This is being done. But I wonder if both sides realize that Christ calls for one flock with one shepherd rather than many separate independent churches - or, God forbid, an “invisible church” à la protestante (which, as Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky once said, would be a “Nestorian ecclesiology” for it “divides the Church into distinct beings: on the one hand a heavenly and invisible Church, alone true and absolute; on the other, the earthly Church (or rather ‘the churches’), imperfect and relative”).

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

Hi shaky,

That is a very interesting confrontation between Paul and Peter in the Book of Galatians. As you have time and interest, read this homily on Galatians chapter 2 by St. John Chrysostom. He presents a thought that Peter was not being hypocritical and Paul knew that he was not being hypocritical, based on Paul’s approach to Peter and Peter’s response. St. Chrysostom states that it was care for the souls of the Jewish converts and Gentiles that Paul and Peter had this meeting and that all aspects of this meeting were directed to the care of the new converts and not crushing them in any way.

Anyway, here is the link to that homily. I would be interested in your, or any others, thoughts regarding this. It caused me to consider this meeting in a new light.

Homily 2 on the Book of Galatians by Saint John Chrysostom

God bless all!!!

 

[rinnie]

I can understand Peter being first amongst equals and is in a Primary Position to speak for the whole church along as All the Apostles are in agreement about with what Peter Speaks, But how can Peter have [Supremacy] over the rest of the Apostles When Paul stood Peter to his face for his Hypocrisy over they way he acted Regarding the Gentiles when Jews were around ?
If Peter came out with some teachings that the rest of the Apostles disagreed with. Does that mean the Word of Peter is supreme over the rest of the Apostles even though they disagree ?

So think about what you are truly saying. Are you saying that what Peter taught was not the truth? Or are you saying Peter did not practice what he preached.

Peter was promised to be led by the Holy Spirit when he spoke or taught in the name of Christ in the Catholic Church.

We have that promise from God. When he said you are Peter and to you I give the keys to the kingdom. So when Peter speaks in the Name of God, it is honored on earth and in heaven also.

But here is what you need to think about. Where did God say to Peter you will now be forever without sin and will be a leader who is Perfect as I am perfect?? Don’t believe we heard that did we.

We are taught to strive to be perfect and without sin, and we are told it is possible with the help of our Lord. But we all pretty much fall short, Not because we are human, but because we use our own Free Will to sin. Adan abd Eve were human, and free from sin. It is when they sinned that we had sin enter into human natrure.

But just how they choose to sin, they could have not sinned also. The same as us.

Peter is human. Peter did many things he should not have. Like the rest of us. The Pope is human, he makes mistakes. But when he teaches in the name of God he can’t be wrong. Why?? Because he speaks in the voice of the Holy Spirit.

 

[rinnie]

earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

If you scroll down to Chapter III, Point ii, that is the paragraph in question, and it is in its full context. He also elevates the status of Peter and Paul as “the most glorious” of the apostles, which does indeed indicate some sort of hierarchy among the apostles, or, at the very least, a* leadership*.

If you read the O.T. the one who held the keys to the kingdom were in a higher rank, Jesus was speaking to Jews who understood what the keys to the kingdom meant. It was like a Prime Minister. The other Apostles knew and understood quite clear what the keys to the kingdom were, and what Peters position was to be in the Church.

If you look all through scripture it was indeed Peter who made all of the decisions.

Think back to scripture, you see where Peter was called on his actions, but where did you ever see any Apostle call him on a teaching?

Peter said quite clear that The Lord made his decision, that it would be through MY Mouth that the gentiles would be taught.

Now why did the other not call him on that? Simple, they knew it was the word of God.

 

[Classicist]

More Church Fathers confirm the Confession of Peter (“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”) as the rock than confirm the person of Peter as the rock.

Thankfully, the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in A.D. 431, contains very strong statements from Rome, and from all the bishops in agreement with Rome, such as this:
*
There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.*

Exarchos - exarch referred to an imperial governor with authority over other governors in a given area. Celestine I held the place, judgment, reign, and rule of Peter. That was that.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I wonder why the Council of Jerusalem gathered in first place…

I’d like to add a few things in terms of the solidity of the Catholic view of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

• In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles (Mt19:27, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, 12:41, Jn 6:69)
• When describing the Apostles, the Gospels writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 3:37)
• When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter’s name heads every single list, even though he was not the first to become an apostle of the Lord (Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13)
• When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who leads the congregation
• The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – but Peter’s name appears 195 times.
• In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.)
• In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that the devil will strike but that He has prayed specifically for Peter so that his faith may not fail and he may return and confirm the other Apostles.
• When Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus’ followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter, and no other name is mentioned.
• In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning.
• In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter leading the early Church:

• leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14)
• receives the first converts (Acts 2:41)
• performes the first miracle at Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7)
• inflicts the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)
• excommunicates the first heretic (Acts 8:21)
• leads the first council (Acts 15:7)
• pronounces the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:9)

• Peter is given divine revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46, a revelation that has a major impact on the Church and leads to the first Council.
• In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem. He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him).

As for the exercise of the Petrine primacy, let us consider what Clement, bishop of Rome, wrote in 80 AD in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

Why did Pope Clement think that he had the authority to write and tell a remote Church – which had its own bishop, and one of the twelve living nearby – how to behave?

I don’t want to move too forward in time, or we reach the times of the first dissents between East and West…I just want to point out that the Catholic view of the papacy is not a novelty and that in the early Church there was a certain level of universality in the view of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, a figure greater than a mere “first among equals”.

This is not to say: Catholics are right and everyone else is flatly wrong and should cover their head in ashes and come to Canossa…lots of things have happened, and lots of interests beyond those that should have been the sole concerns of the pastors of Christ’s flock were present in the operate of many bishops in East and West. Christ teaches us to not get stuck with the past, but to forgive and be reconciled. Both sides need to work in this and to work towards reunification. This is being done. But I wonder if both sides realize that Christ calls for one flock with one shepherd rather than many separate independent churches - or, God forbid, an “invisible church” à la protestante (which, as Eastern Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky once said, would be a “Nestorian ecclesiology” for it “divides the Church into distinct beings: on the one hand a heavenly and invisible Church, alone true and absolute; on the other, the earthly Church (or rather ‘the churches’), imperfect and relative”).

This has to be one the most well structured and informative posts I’ve read on Peter’s leadership. Well done and thanks for taking the time!

YBiC,

Jose

 

[CopticChristian]

If so, who are they & where & what did they say?

Get…

Jesus, Peter and The Keys

Scott Butler
Norman Dahlgren
David Hess

"…this veritable compendium is simply staggering ", Dr. Scott Hahn

Has lots of Scripture and Patristics…

and Scott Butler is my daughters God Father…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually to me Acts 15 is a much greater difficulty for universal Petrine (and by extension, papal) jurisdiction and supremacy.

Acts 15 seems to confirm the papacy, in my opinion. When the question of circumcision arose, the Church determined that some elders accompany Paul and Barnabas should go to the Apostles in Jerusalem to ask the question.

After much disputing, Peter rose up and spoke, causing all to hold their peace. Then Paul and Barnabas gave their (name removed by moderator)ut, of how great things had happened among the Gentiles; confirming what Peter had said. Then James, bishop of Jerusalem, spoke of what Peter, Simon, had said and how it was applicable to what the prophets said.

None disputed what Peter said, but confirmed what he had spoken.