If the Rock is Peter's faith

[mattp0625]

Hi g,

“He does not cite supremacy of Peter as above the other apostles, or his infallibility gifting, or man with the keys.” -me

Agree per CC, but Irenaeus does not mention the office and its exclusiveness, separate from other apostles and their successors.

Blessings

Irenaeus of Lyon, second century bishop, wrote the following:

(Note that Linus was the second pope after Peter, Cletus was third, and Clement of Rome was fourth).

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
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.
3. 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 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.

 

[benhur]

The office of being a successor of an Apostle is not “exclusive” to the successors of Peter.
All valid bishops can trace their line back through a successon of bishops.

Correct. Irenaeus makes this point. He does not differentiate Peter from the other apostles in this. . A bishop that Peter appoints is the same as bishop that Paul or John appoints.

I guess what you are saying is that the office of the successor of Peter, his keys and his gifts are not relevant to the combat of heresy, because if they were, Irenaeus would have mentioned them?

No, did not post that. I suggested that such an office did not get passed on with distinction with Peter’s successors in my opinion, that Irenaeus was silent on the matter. Proves nothing, just an evidence for my faith conviction on the matter.

Again Peter and Paul had successors, just that there successors were not popes, but bishops yes. And Peter and Paul were quite extraordinary apostles.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Irenaeus of Lyon, second century bishop, wrote the following:

(Note that Linus was the second pope after Peter, Cletus was third, and Clement of Rome was fourth).

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
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.
3. 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 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.

Hi m,
Yes thank you for quotes.

I think Jerome and Tertullian think Clement was just after Peter.

Irenaeus does not call them popes.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

So I take it, you believe in Congregationalism?

I find that this doctrine assumes that hierarchy demands coercion instead of wilful assent.

Hi rc,

No although some folks do, along with some that are episcopacy proponents. I tend to see more evidence for a presbytery. I would find it unlikely that the church in Rome did not appoint themselves presbyters/bishops before any apostolic visit, as other churches also did (even after apostolic visits).

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

Hi m,
Yes thank you for quotes.

I think Jerome and Tertullian think Clement was just after Peter.

Irenaeus does not call them popes.

Blessings

Friend, the office of the episcopate, the magisterium of the authoritative church, was handed to Linus from Peter and Paul. What else would that be?

 

[benhur]

Friend, the office of the episcopate, the magisterium of the authoritative church, was handed to Linus from Peter and Paul. What else would that be?

Hi m,

Well not sure what you mean by magisterium of the authoritative church . Not sure Iranaeus defines that in same way the CC does. Again, does not mention office of the pope. The other cities also had bishops/episcopates.

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

Hi m,

Well not sure what you mean by magisterium of the authoritative church . Not sure Iranaeus defines that in same way the CC does. Again, does not mention office of the pope. The other cities also had bishops/episcopates.

Blessings

He specifically said this happened in Rome.

He didn’t name another city. There isn’t another Rome.

What do you think the office of the episcopate handed down from Peter snd Paul is?

He also called it the church with preeminent authority. He also said every church should agree with this church. That’s what I mean by authoritative church.

 

[benhur]

He specifically said this happened in Rome.

He didn’t name another city. There isn’t another Rome.

What do you think the office of the episcopate handed down from Peter snd Paul is?

He also called it the church with preeminent authority. He also said every church should agree with this church. That’s what I mean by authoritative church.

Hi g,

“the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches,…delivering up their own place of government to these men,… however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,…”

So Irenaeus picked Rome as the prime example. All churches, by Irenaeus context, have bishops/epsicopates and are part of the church magisterium. And all churches should be in line with the example he gives of Rome (that is succession from respective apostles, and their faith and teaching).

It is an interpretive stretch to say Irenaeus is recording papal history, jus as it is to interpret “first amongst equals” as indicating papacy.

Never the less understand your (CC’s) interpretation, just kindly disagree.

Bl;essings

 

[mattp0625]

Hi g,

“the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches,…delivering up their own place of government to these men,… however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches,…”

So Irenaeus picked Rome as the prime example. All churches, by Irenaeus context, have bishops/epsicopates and are part of the church magisterium. And all churches should be in line with the example he gives of Rome (that is succession from respective apostles, and their faith and teaching).

It is an interpretive stretch to say Irenaeus is recording papal history, jus as it is to interpret “first amongst equals” as indicating papacy.

Never the less understand your (CC’s) interpretation, just kindly disagree.

Bl;essings

So Irenaeus just randomly picked a city as an example of the church with preeminent authority from Peter and Paul with which all others must agree?

Okay. Anything is possible.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

No although some folks do, along with some that are episcopacy proponents. I tend to see more evidence for a presbytery. I would find it unlikely that the church in Rome did not appoint themselves presbyters/bishops before any apostolic visit, as other churches also did (even after apostolic visits).

Blessings

If a church appoints presbyters/bishops for themselves, wouldn’t that be Congregationalism?

I think the group of believers were faithful. They were most likely doing well with what they had been taught. But over and beyond this, I am not going to assume. But Christ did lead Peter and Paul to this place! Do you suppose it was because they were able to overcome without their ministry and sacrifice?

 

[guanophore]

Correct. Irenaeus makes this point. He does not differentiate Peter from the other apostles in this. . A bishop that Peter appoints is the same as bishop that Paul or John appoints.

All things being equal, this would be true. But Peter had to pass the responsibility given to him by Christ to one particular bishop, who became the first among equals for that reason.

No, did not post that. I suggested that such an office did not get passed on with distinction with Peter’s successors in my opinion, that Irenaeus was silent on the matter. Proves nothing, just an evidence for my faith conviction on the matter.

It is curious that you can accept that the successor of Peter was accorded the status of “first among equals” and yet still deny that there was any distinction. The two positions seem contradictory.

Again Peter and Paul had successors, just that there successors were not popes, but bishops yes. And Peter and Paul were quite extraordinary apostles.

You have already admitted that they were popes/patriarchs in the other major sees. Are you backpedaling? In the East, the Patriarchs are held in higher esteem from the other bishops. When there is a dispute, it is settled by the Patriarch (pope) in the region.

I agree, it was the extraordinary nature of these two Apostles, laboring together in Rome to build the foundation of doctrine in the Church that made this See pre-eminent. No other See had this parting gift.

I think Jerome and Tertullian think Clement was just after Peter.

Irenaeus does not call them popes.

Blessings

Why would he? Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and “pope” is a later Latin word for “father”.

This argument is like saying the first football playoff between major divisions in football was not referred to as the “superbowl”. In fact it was years before it was called a “superbowl” but they begin numbering the “superbowls” with the first playoff game.

Or that since they did not use the word “Trinity” they did not believe in concept. It is a very weak argument.

Hi rc,

No although some folks do, along with some that are episcopacy proponents. I tend to see more evidence for a presbytery. I would find it unlikely that the church in Rome did not appoint themselves presbyters/bishops before any apostolic visit, as other churches also did (even after apostolic visits).

Blessings

Yes I am sure that leadership emerged and may have been present from the beginning (there were likely leaders of the Jewish community who went to Pentecost). And the Church has appointed presbyters in the absence of an Apostle/Bishop.

You seem to think that the Apostolic teaching did not change or improve their faith practice, which seems unlikely to me.

I agree with the implied point, though, that the role of the Bishops, as well as other ordained, developed over time, and changes were made in how authority was exercised. Nowadays all presbyters must be validly ordained by Bishops and this was not the case throughout history.

The Didache is a Liturgical document that gives guidance to the ordained, and indicates:

Didache 15.

Appoint therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are meek and not lovers of money, and true and approved ; for unto you they also perform the service of the prophets and teachers.

This was a practice that was later abandoned to reduce rampant heresies. The Church learned to gather around and under the Bishop and this is how a “valid” Eucharist and community were identified.

 

[benhur]

So Irenaeus just randomly picked a city as an example of the church with preeminent authority from Peter and Paul with which all others must agree?

Okay. Anything is possible.

Hi m,

No, who implied that ?

I am with you. I posted “So Irenaeus picked Rome as the prime example”

Nothing random about prime.

We just differ on why it was "prime’, the CC taking *the possibilities *a step too far, in my opinion.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

If a church appoints presbyters/bishops for themselves, wouldn’t that be Congregationalism?

I think the group of believers were faithful. They were most likely doing well with what they had been taught. But over and beyond this, I am not going to assume. But Christ did lead Peter and Paul to this place! Do you suppose it was because they were able to overcome without their ministry and sacrifice?

Hi rc,

I think Presbyterianism also elects elders. I think even Ignatius mentions in a letter for the city church to appoint themselves bishop(s), not sure.

The distinction between Cong. and Pres. maybe in affiliation , or connection to the rest of the church that is other cities, the universal church. The Cong. can be more independent than Pres.

Agree with making no assumptions , and stick to the few general details we have. The church existed before Peter or Paul’s arrival for at least 25 years or more. Paul writes of “establishing them” but building on another’s foundation. I also happen to believe the historians who believe Rome was not under a monarchal bishop till well into the 2nd century (lending me to believe in a presbytery form of governance for that time period).

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

Hi m,

No, who implied that ?

I am with you. I posted “So Irenaeus picked Rome as the prime example”

Nothing random about prime.

We just differ on why it was "prime’, the CC taking *the possibilities *a step too far, in my opinion.

Blessings

Which of the following is false?

The apostles of Christ founded the church
Peter and Paul started the church in Rome
Peter and Paul handed the office of the episcopate to Linus
Linus appointed Cletus who appointed Clement.
There is an unbroken line from Linus onward.
There is no other narrative or other evidence showing Peter and Paul handing the office of the episcopate to someone else.
There was not another city called Rome.
Irenaeus said the office commited to Linus pertained to the church located in Rome with preeminent authority

If none of these are false, you may want to rethink your stance.

 

[benhur]

All things being equal, this would be true. But Peter had to pass the responsibility given to him by Christ to one particular bishop, who became the first among equals for that reason.

It is curious that you can accept that the successor of Peter was accorded the status of “first among equals” and yet still deny that there was any distinction. The two positions seem contradictory.

Hi g,

We seem to have disconnect with phrase, “first amongst equals”. I thought the term applies to Peter only , regardless of succession. So I do not apply that to any of his appointed bishops.

You have already admitted that they were popes/patriarchs in the other major sees. Are you backpedaling? In the East, the Patriarchs are held in higher esteem from the other bishops. When there is a dispute, it is settled by the Patriarch (pope) in the region.

All I said was that all the apostles apparently appointed elders/bishops. I am saying Peter did not appoint to any other office (papal office) that the other apostles didn’t appoint also.

I have posted that history speaks of eventual patriarchs. Obviously if this later, then it is post apostolic, that is done past the lives of the apostles and their recorded Writ

Why would he? Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and “pope” is a later Latin word for “father”.

This argument is like saying the first football playoff between major divisions in football was not referred to as the “superbowl”. In fact it was years before it was called a “superbowl” but they begin numbering the “superbowls” with the first playoff game.

Or that since they did not use the word “Trinity” they did not believe in concept. It is a very weak argument.

“A rose is a rose by any other name”… A championship game is a championship game, pre super bowl days or there after. A pope is a pope , pre pope name or pre Vicar name or the many other titles to develop

I am saying Irenaeus does not give the “rose” (Peter’s successor) that same sweet smelling description that one would do today. Therefore Irenaeus does not describe a “rose”.

Thank you for the several agreements you did post. They are encouraging.

Blessings

 

[susanlo]

Which of the following is false?

The apostles of Christ founded the church
Peter and Paul started the church in Rome
Peter and Paul handed the office of the episcopate to Linus
Linus appointed Cletus who appointed Clement.
There is an unbroken line from Linus onward.
There is no other narrative or other evidence showing Peter and Paul handing the office of the episcopate to someone else.
There was not another city called Rome.
Irenaeus said the office commited to Linus pertained to the church located in Rome with preeminent authority

If none of these are false, you may want to rethink your stance.

I bolded one statement that is false.

Romans 15: 20 "And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; 21 but as it is written,
“They who had no news of Him shall see,
And they who have not heard shall understand.”
22 For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company [k]for a while—"

This writing does speak highly of Rome, but is an example of a church founded by apostles. It doesn’t go so far to say that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and describe attributes that are usually ascribed to the Pope.
It seems like if the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority as the Vicar of Christ that would have shown up somewhere in the early writings and not just be alluded to here and there.

 

[benhur]

Which of the following is false?

The apostles of Christ founded the church
Peter and Paul started the church in Rome
Peter and Paul handed the office of the episcopate to Linus
Linus appointed Cletus who appointed Clement.
There is an unbroken line from Linus onward.
There is no other narrative or other evidence showing Peter and Paul handing the office of the episcopate to someone else.
There was not another city called Rome.
Irenaeus said the office commited to Linus pertained to the church located in Rome with preeminent authority

If none of these are false, you may want to rethink your stance.

Him,

The only thing solidly for sure, with universal understanding is the first line, “the apostles of Christ founded the church” that is, Christ’s direct appointments.

The rest is one historians recording, of things before his time, of appointments made by man, yielding to the HG. And as any historian/theologian, open to interpretation, even fallible.

Blesings

 

[mattp0625]

Him,

The only thing solidly for sure, with universal understanding is the first line, “the apostles of Christ founded the church” that is, Christ’s direct appointments.

The rest is one historians recording, of things before his time, of appointments made by man, yielding to the HG. And as any historian/theologian, open to interpretation, even fallible.

Blesings

Irenaeus clearly stated Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome.

So, now we are questioning Irenaeus in favor of Protestant historians who came 1,500 to 1,900 years later, as though they have greater insight.

The words are there. Not only that, but the words are not complicated.

Or, as a certain president said, it depends what your definition of “is” is.

 

[mattp0625]

I bolded one statement that is false.

Romans 15: 20 “And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another man’s foundation; 21 but as it is written,
“They who had no news of Him shall see,
And they who have not heard shall understand.”
22 For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain—for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company [k]for a while—”

This writing does speak highly of Rome, but is an example of a church founded by apostles. It doesn’t go so far to say that the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ and describe attributes that are usually ascribed to the Pope.
It seems like if the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority as the Vicar of Christ that would have shown up somewhere in the early writings and not just be alluded to here and there.

You might also check Acts 19 and 27 that show Paul going to Rome

This is confirmed by Irenaeus of Lyon (posted above) in no uncertain terms

 

[Rohzek]

He is combating heresies. All of these concepts were accepted throughout the Church (except by heretics). There is no need to write in defense of things that are accepted by everyone.

It is the same principle we see about baptizing infants. The argument was not about whether they should be baptized, but whether it was proper to wait to the 8th day! Everyone understood that Baptism replaced circumcision as the entrance rite into the New Covenant.

And herein lies the rub, by your own admission Iraeneus’ quote isn’t as clear as one would like it to be. It is open to interpretation. So we are left with cobbling together other historical sources to help make the case for and against. Sadly many pre-Chalcedon Christian sources are generally difficult to come by or contextualize save for a few big names.