How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[qui_est_ce]

Continued from below

Protestants reject the notion that a universal bishop existed in the early church, so we see no need for one now.

Please read the history that was provided you earlier from a brilliant historian and theologian and Church Father:

*St. Irenaeus: Against HeresiesBook III, Chapter 2-3 (180 AD)

1. 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 apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
2. 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. 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 despatched 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, 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. Soter having 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.*

 

[Mickey]

St. Irenaeus: Against HeresiesBook III, Chapter 2-3 (180 AD)

St Irenaeus refers to the “glorious Apostles Peter and Paul”.
And he also talks about “instructions received from the Apostles.” Rome was the captial city of Christianity and the pre-eminent Church of early times. But nothing is said here about all popes of Rome being supreme/infallible pontiffs…

of course until the ultramontanists began preaching it hunderds of years later.

 

[qui_est_ce]

St Irenaeus refers to the “glorious Apostles Peter and Paul”.
And he also talks about “instructions received from the Apostles.” Rome was the captial city of Christianity and the pre-eminent Church of early times. But nothing is said here about all popes of Rome being supreme/infallible pontiffs…

of course until the ultramontanists began preaching it hunderds of years later.

That’s like saying George Washington was the first president, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the presidents have the same power.

Iranaeus 180 AD
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. Soter having 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.

 

[Mickey]

That’s like saying George Washington was the first president, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the presidents have the same power.

That is not a good analogy. Presidents of the United States do not claim supreme authority and infallibility (the congress usually shuts him down).

Iranaeus 180 AD
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. Soter having 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.

Yes. Apostolic succession is a wonderful thing. What is your point?

 

[catholic1seeks]

Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

more info: HERE

 

[Mickey]

Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Peter and Paul.

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

Again, Apostolic succession is an awesome thing. What is your point?

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius also talks about Peter and Paul. And you will never see him write about such things as supreme pontiff or infallibility.

St John Chrysostom
Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38)

 

[catholic1seeks]

…What is your point?..

MY POINT: “CLEMENT WAS ORDAINED BY PETER”

I thought you were the one who had trouble understanding Peter’s successors. Were you not?

 

[Mickey]

MY POINT: “PETER ORDAINED CLEMENT”

While the Apostle St John was still alive? Did St Peter resign the papacy? Was there a such thing as a papacy at this time? Was St Peter the first bishop of Rome? Was he a bishop of Rome at all?

St Peter was bishop of Antioch–we know this.

Let us say that St Peter did ordain St Clement in Rome. What is your point?

 

[Mickey]

I thought you were the one who had trouble understanding Peter’s successors. Were you not?

No. As a member of the Holy Orthodox Church, we believe all bishops are successors of St Peter and all the Apostles.

 

[JRKH]

Let us try to extract from the various viewpoints a couple of commonalities.

1. It is possible to read both the Bible passages and the ECF’s as either confirming or not-confirming true apostolic succession and supremacy of the see of Peter at Rome. Each side is adamant as to their understanding.
2. In order to truly convince those who do not hold to the authority of Rome, there seems to need to be something more, - The “Smoking Gun” as it were.
3. The writings of the ECF’s allude to this but really do not “Spell it out” in unequivical language - Like a business plan or organization chart.

Based on the above, we need another way of demonstrating how and why the Church developed the way it did. To me the answer lies more in “Development”, or organic growth of the Church Structure than in “Granted Authority”, although that certainly played a major role. In other words the Church Authority and Heirarchy developed into the Papacy, Magesterium, College of Cardinals etc. that we know today because these structures seemed good to the Leaders of the Church at the time and seen as necessary for the maintenance of unity in beliefs and teachings.

Why did the Church develop this way? The answer simple yet confusing. God granted the Apostles Authority and gave them the mission of building the Church, but he did not tell them how to do it. Christ Confirmed Peter (Rock) in a leadership position, and gave him the Keys to the Kingdom, which are clearly authoritative. So how are the Apostles and their successors to deal with this mission. What structure is best. Remember, that nobody even knows how long the Church must be on it’s own.

Let us consider a couple of different “Models” for authority that were available and understood at the time. First would be the Kingdom. That would be a King with absolute authority. Isreal had such a kingdom for a time, and many other nations governed the same way. The other model is the Greek/Roman concept of the Senate. Not an elected body such as we know, but not an Absolute Monarchy as a Kingdom would be.

The Church initially opted for something of a combination of these two. On the one hand, each Church, or Bishopric was guided by a single Bishop with complete authority within his Bishopric. On the other hand the Universal Church was governed by the Bishops talking, writing, and meeting with each other. Rome played a prominent role in this for two reasons. First, it was the Capital of the Empire and thus had very good communications. Secondly, is the fact that the Church was Founded by Peter and Paul, and Peter was the First Bishop of Rome. Therefore all the succeeding Bishops were seen as Successors to Peter, and the Church at Rome enjoyed a reverent status among many, if not all, of the other Church centers such as Corinth, or Alexandria.

As time progressed the Church, growing by leaps and bounds, faced constantly new and more complex challenges in both the Spiritual and Temporal areas. The idea of having a center, a capital as it were, can easily be seen to make sense. This capital would be recognized as the leader of the Church where scholars, teachers, learned men of all types could be called upon by the Church for study and answers to various issues. The ability to assure a True and consistant teaching would be greatly simplified. Here again, Rome becomes the natural Choice for most people. Rome is already seen by many as the natural heir to Peter and thus Rome “Becomes” the Capital of the Church on Earth, with the Bishop of Rome as the “First among equals”, the Servant of the servants of God.

I would ask anyone - Catholic or Non-Catholic - to consider the above carefully. My intent is to demonstrate, in a general way, that the development of Rome as the “Capital of the Church” can easily be seen as an organic development in both the temporal and the theological sense.

Peace
James

 

[catholic1seeks]

No. As a member of the Holy Orthodox Church, we believe all bishops are successors of St Peter and all the Apostles.

Well, as a member of the
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
I believe the Church of Christ would have kept the same structure that Jesus intended. The fact that Peter(one person) had primacy over the other Apostles lays stress on the authority of the pope today.

 

[Mickey]

Well, as a member of the
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,
I believe the Church of Christ would have kept the same structure that Jesus intended: Peter(one person) had primacy over the other Apostles.

The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church–the Holy Orthodox Church–does not confuse primacy with supremacy.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The New Testament provides indisputable evidence that Peter had a preeminent position among Jesus’ disciples and in the early Church. Now’s not the time to get into too much detail with this direction, but, rather, the succession of this primary position.

Of course, the New Testament does not report any words of Jesus that explicitly instruct the apostles, including Peter, to hand on their roles of leadership. So, although Jesus never explicitly mentioned “successors to the apostles,” the later N.T. writings tell us that the offices of bishop and deacon were recognized and accepted by Christians, with the bishops functioning as successors to the apostles(Mickey, you know this)

It does not surprise us Catholics that the Holy Spirit eventually directed the Church an authority structure closely resembling the pattern Jesus created among his apostles. The Holy Spirit led the Church to recognize the need for one bishop to exercise a special role of leadership among all of the bishops - like Peter had done for the apostles.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church–the Holy Orthodox Church–does not confuse primacy with supremacy.

The one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church. I see popes for 2000 years. Orthodox-:tsktsk:

 

[mercygate]

The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church–the Holy Orthodox Church–does not confuse primacy with supremacy.

It doesn’t seem to confuse primacy with primacy either.

 

[Mickey]

The one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church.

Yes. The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church is THE Catholic Church.

I see popes for 2000 years.

I think there was not the term “pope” for the first 300 years or so–he was known as the bishop of Rome.

Sadly, after the first millenium, Rome separated from the other four Patriarchates.

 

[Mickey]

It doesn’t seem to confuse primacy with primacy either.

Whatever that means? I am not good with a play on words.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Mickey, read all of it:

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

 

[mercygate]

Whatever that means? I am not good with a play on words.

That’s cuz you haven’t been Orthodox very long. The Orthodox tout “primacy” but only as long as it doesn’t mean anything more than being the last person in a procession – and they would probably reject even that.

 

[Mickey]

the later N.T. writings tell us that the offices of bishop and deacon were recognized and accepted by Christians, with the bishops functioning as successors to the apostles(Mickey, you know this)

I have never disputed Apostolic succession.

The Holy Spirit led the Church to recognize the need for one bishop to exercise a special role of leadership among all of the bishops - like Peter had done for the apostles.

All bishops are created equal. I think St Peter would have agreed.