If the Rock is Peter's faith

[guanophore]

Nope, just the foundation. WE are now the current “living stones” being laid down , as they once were (As Peter’s Writ tell us).

And yes we all still need strengthening today. in all its facets (some with a pope, others without).

Acutally, members of the flock who refuse to be strengthened by the successor of Peter are only less impacted by that strength for themselves, as he was given care of the whole flock, and there are none of His sheep for whom he is not charged with the care and feeding.

Iraneus was slightly in error declaring Peter and Paul as founders of the Roman Church.,

No, he was not. He is using the term “laying the foundation” to talk about laying down docrine, and building the disciplies in the fullness of the faith. No other Church had the benefit of these two great apostles laboring together, and between them, they build such a foundation that Rome became the doctrinal compass.

So was Jerome and Tertullian wrong in asserting Clement to be first ? No. There was a line of Bishops from all the apostles. It is interpretive history that says that once Peter ordained presbyters , that he later further ordained a "pope/successor, and in what order they should follow (Peter may have known the first three succeeding “popes”).

Yes , it is quite possible that he did, since he was imprisioned and unable to minister to the flock, he may have sent others in his stead.

I think "first amongst equals’’ says it all.

If this were true, how has this not changed your relationship with the Bishop of Rome?

Thereafter  came the presbytery form of governance.  After that a patriarchal system (Rome included). That would be a very general answer.

Blessings

Throughout history there have been long periods and many geographical areas that have been without a bishop, just as was the Church of Rome before the Apostles’ came . They made do with what they had.

I think what you are saying is that what Ignatius wrote about ones attitude toward the Bishop was not how God intended to organize His Church.

 

[benhur]

think you are suggesting that Jesus constructed a Church that was “democratic” rather than a monarchy that is hierarchical. Certainly the Bishops do represent Christ. This does not mean the system is “democratic”.

Hi g,

No, not democratic.

The bishops and apostles and especially Peter represent what we are to be in Christ, in faith, in teaching. We are to identify with his faith etc. Just as Peter spoke for the apostles on many occasions, a sort of unifying representation of the whole group.

16Whoever listens to you listens to Me; whoever rejects you rejects Me; and whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”Luke 10:16

How is this “representational” unity?

Again, accept Peter and his confession of faith and his teaching, and that represents what we are to be.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that unity exists in a “multi patriarchal system”? What does that look like?

No. You said pope strengthens the spiritual formation of hierarchy of bishops. I said a multi patriarch system does the same. The Patriarch shepherds, watches over, strengthens his bishops.

Yes, clearly the Church in Rome existed as a body of believers before they had a visit from an Apostle. In the end, Peter and Paul labored together to build the foundation of the Church by grounding her in solid doctrine. This is why Rome became a compass for the faith.

Not sure they labored less than other cities. Not sure they coexisted at the same time in Rome. Paul in Romans suggests no apostle visited yet as of 56 AD. He does want to visit , impart spiritual gifts to “establish” them.

I don’t know about most non-papists, but you certainly seem to be one, yet you are asserting that Peters role died with him, so I don’t know how you can consider him first among equals.

I think the foundation was laid with Peter and the other eleven. I think first amongst equals deals with that particular apostolic time.

Not all of the ordained would, certainly, only those who were chosen for that role. Just as anyone in the college of cardinals could become a pope, but most of them don’t

OK. Just that there is not mention of this in Writ (Acts).

It is not a “dubious statement”. It does not mean “founded” in the sense that others were, planted by Apostles. It formed without an Apostle. The apostolic foundation came later, when Peter and Paul came there and formed the disciples in the faith.

Sounds reasonable. They did this in more cities than just Rome however.

I am not sure how later persecutions nullify that the successors of Peter in Rome had a short tenure, especially in the beginning.

Well was the short tenure because of persecutions that went beyond Rome? Were only Roman bishops persecuted ? for a time ?

Actually, you have disputed it. But I understand you are primarily denying that his duties were to be passed on , to continue to benefit the Church.

Jesus established some temporal esteem for Peter, I guess, without intending his ministry to continue to benefit the Church.

Esteem? I would not go to the other extreme either of institutionalizing every “esteeming’’ of God. That there may be a God’s “man for all seasons” does not mean it will always come from the same"hat”. That is that God will raise shepherds and prophets for the church , with and without institutional boundaries. Jesus was a boundary breaker. We (Jesus) are priests not after Aron nor Levi. So leaders, even head spokesperson for a “season” need not come from a head bishop in Rome (pope).

Luther coined this conception at the Reformation, and it has survived into the Evangelical communites to this day. One must deny that Jesus intended Peter’s role to continue to have support for this concept.

And was Luther quoting Pope Gregory first use of the term (anti-Christ) for anyone supposing to be a type of head bishop ?

Not even sure if it (pope=anti Christ) has survived in the Lutheran community, much less many Evangelical communities.(but some for sure).

One can deny papal succession from Peter and not claim pope as anti Christ.

cont.

 

[benhur]

Yes. They became distinguished as heretics because of the foundation that Peter and Paul had founded in Rome.

They established a foundation as they did at Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus etc. They did not state Rome would be center and head of all Church -Peter and Paul did not write that.

"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. who exist everywhere". Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3

What is an “unauthorized meeting”?

What “tradition derived from the Apostles” could this be?

What “organization” did Peter and Paul establish in Rome?

Irenaeus does not settle the matter. The reformers met this patristic writing head on, and just as scripture on Peter is seen differently, so is this writing. (and both sides have claimed, “to the other’s destruction”- do you do the same today? I only partially do, but not necessarily).

An unauthorized meeting would be that of the Gnostics, of heresy meetings, and not because they were identical in apostolic faith, save the office of papacy.

The tradition of the apostles , as in apostolic faith". Still begs the question if papacy and Rome’s headship being part of said faith.

The church was established. Still begs the question of just what that means institutionally, except that everywhere they went , the apostles appointed bishops/presbyters, but no mention of head bishop, to be only from Rome.

No one denies that all churches should agree with the foundation and faith of Peter and Paul, as even found in Rome and every other city church with apostlolic tradtion.

I have no problem with Iraneus telling a Gnostic to comply with Rome’s faith, for in that you comply with all ‘‘Catholic" churches everywhere. So not a dictatorial role but an exemplary/represenative role. Pre eminence can come from the fact the the two most famous and influential apostles laid foundation there, not because of "papacy’’ (unless Paul is a pope also). Irenaeus does not mention this, Certainly seemed like a perfect occasion to pitch it, but he does not. He does not cite supremacy of Peter as above the other apostles, or his infallibility gifting, or man with the keys.

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

I’ll take Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian and Jerome, 2nd century, 2nd century and 4th century, respectively, over Protestant historians who came at least 1,200 years later.

I don’t think the people who came along over a millennium later somehow got a more accurate story.

 

[benhur]

So when did the gifts Jesus gave to Peter fade into uselessness? You said he only needed them up until Pentecost?

Hi g,

No. You said I said that .I did not .

If this were true, then why did he appoint Timothy and Titus as bishops, then charge them to ordain presbyters?

Timothy is never called a bishop (apostle,deacon maybe). Is Titus ever called bishop ?

Certainly presbyters serve to extend the presence of the Bishop, and are under his authority. That does not make the roles the same

No not today. But we are discussing the first church and biblical terms.

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ Ignatius Epistle to the Trallians

Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Ignatius Epistl to the Ephesians

This image of strings attached to the harp is very descriptive and poetic. Most of all, in all the writings of the early fathers, unity with the Bishop was always the key.

yes, the distinction is made by Ignatius of the three offices. Some still debate the meaning of this. It still does not deny the church as run by a presbytery in the very first churches (or in Rome), especially Jewish churches.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

If this were true, how has this not changed your relationship with the Bishop of Rome?

Hi g,

Not sure that being first amongst equals requires any particular succession view.

Throughout history there have been long periods and many geographical areas that have been without a bishop, just as was the Church of Rome before the Apostles’ came . They made do with what they had.

Very strange, like what does that mean ? What, they had was Jewish roots, and synagogues were run by presbytery. You think they had no pastors, elders, teachers. Did the Holy Ghost fail to gift the congregation, even with offices, even if “informally”? But I agree with you that Paul wrote of “establishing them”. I would think that be more in doctrine and practice and some teaching on structure.

Blessings

 

[susanlo]

I’ll take Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian and Jerome, 2nd century, 2nd century and 4th century, respectively, over Protestant historians who came at least 1,200 years later.

I don’t think the people who came along over a millennium later somehow got a more accurate story.

I don’t think the question is whether to take seriously the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome and others. The question is what exactly their writings are saying. That was an area of disagreement in the 16th century as it is now.

 

[guanophore]

No, not democratic.

The bishops and apostles and especially Peter represent what we are to be in Christ, in faith, in teaching. We are to identify with his faith etc. Just as Peter spoke for the apostles on many occasions, a sort of unifying representation of the whole group.
Again, accept Peter and his confession of faith and his teaching, and that represents what we are to be.

While I agree that all these things are true, you seem to have left out authority. If it is not a democracy, and the structure put in place by Christ was no longer needed after Pentecost, then what is left?

No. You said pope strengthens the spiritual formation of hierarchy of bishops. I said a multi patriarch system does the same. The Patriarch shepherds, watches over, strengthens his bishops.

Yes. It seems you are saying that the charge Jesus gave to Peter was only mean to last until Pentecost.

Or until the other Patriarchies were in place, at which time they no longer needed the successor of Peter to strengthen them, or to feed and care for the flock. Perhaps you mean that the gifts Jesus gave were not totally irrelevant window dressing for Peter during his lifetime, but just relevant for a short period of time?

Not sure they labored less than other cities. Not sure they coexisted at the same time in Rome.

Certainly Paul ministered in other cities for some time,b ut Rome is the only place where the two taught together. If you were to accept that both Peter and Paul labored together to build the foundation of the Church in Rome, would that change anything?

Paul in  Romans suggests no apostle visited yet  as of 56 AD. He does want to visit , impart spiritual gifts to "establish" them.

Yes. This seems to have been written before Jesus told Paul He would send him to Rome.

I think the foundation was laid with Peter and the other eleven. I think first amongst equals deals with that particular apostolic time.

Can you explain why the church has continued to believe this for two millenia? How is it that Jesus has been so week and incapable to correct this misunderstanding?

OK. Just that there is not mention of this in Writ (Acts).
Sounds reasonable. They did this in more cities than just Rome however.

What makes you think this? In fact, it seems the opposite may be true. They two agreed that Peter would go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles…

Well was the short tenure because of persecutions that went beyond Rome? Were only Roman bishops persecuted ? for a time ?

The persecution was widespread. There were more casualties in Rome because it was where the persecution began.

Esteem? I would not go to the other extreme either of institutionalizing every “esteeming’’ of God. That there may be a God’s “man for all seasons” does not mean it will always come from the same"hat”. That is that God will raise shepherds and prophets for the church , with and without institutional boundaries. Jesus was a boundary breaker. We (Jesus) are priests not after Aron nor Levi. So leaders, even head spokesperson for a “season” need not come from a head bishop in Rome (pope).

Certainly we all have gifts and callings in the Church. You seem to be working very hard to minimize that of Peter. This is actually a strawman, because no one is claiming that the successor of Peter is the source of all the gifts in the Church.

And was Luther quoting Pope Gregory first use of the term (anti-Christ) for anyone supposing to be a type of head bishop ?

Perhaps. Grasping at straws to make strawmen is nothing new!

Gregory was Pope, and knew that he was Pope. Far from refusing the title, he showed that he was universal Bishop by excommunicating John the Faster, over whom he could not have had such jurisdiction had he not the privilege of being universal Bishop. In his 21st Epistle Gregory writes, “As to what they say of the Church of Christ, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See * ?”

Not even sure if it (pope=anti Christ) has survived in the Lutheran community, much less many Evangelical communities.(but some for sure).

Certainly there are many Lutherans who have fallen away from the foundations of their faith, just as there are Catholics. But this is an essential element of the Lutheran faith, even if there are many that don’t embrace it.

One can deny papal succession from Peter and not claim pope as anti Christ.

Why separate them? If something has occurred against Christ’s plan for His Church, better not to mince words.

They established a foundation as they did at Jerusalem and Antioch and Ephesus etc. They did not state Rome would be center and head of all Church -Peter and Paul did not write that.

What happened in Jerusalem was private, and the overlap in other cities was temporary and not always collegial. This changed by the time they both arrived in Rome.

Irenaeus does not settle the matter. The reformers met this patristic writing head on, and just as scripture on Peter is seen differently, so is this writing. (and both sides have

claimed, “to the other’s destruction”- do you do the same today? I only partially do, but not necessarily).

It seems that you are hung up on the meaning of the word “foundation” to the exclusion of appreciating that Peter and Paul labored together to deposit a firm doctrinal foundaton for the Church.*

 

[guanophore]

An unauthorized meeting would be that of the Gnostics, of heresy meetings, and not because they were identical in apostolic faith, save the office of papacy.

Yes, Gnosticism was rampant, as Arianism was later. The early fathers, were clear that the authentic Church would be known by unity with the Bishop. This has never changed.

The tradition of the apostles , as in apostolic faith".  Still begs the question if papacy and Rome's headship being part of said faith.

Clearly so, as there are so many such as yourself that reject it. The faith was torn from the foundations during the Reformation, and unity with the Bishops was lost.

The church was established. Still begs the question of just what that means institutionally, except that everywhere they went , the apostles appointed bishops/presbyters, but no mention of head bishop, to be only from Rome.

This is another Strawman. No one has claimed that there were not valid bishops and Presbyters appointed everywhere churches were planted by Apostles. There is mention of Cephas, but you do not want to believe that these references mean what the early church believed them to mean. This happens when faith communities are separated from the foundations. It has happened with other docrtrines like baptism, Eucharist and other sacraments.

No one denies that all churches should agree with the foundation and faith of Peter and Paul, as even found in Rome and every other city church with apostlolic tradtion.

Actually, I think there are a great many that deny it. Some teach that the faith of Roman Christians represents the “whore of Babylon” and other such things.

 I have no problem with Iraneus telling a Gnostic to comply with Rome's faith, for in that you comply with all ''Catholic" churches everywhere. So not a dictatorial role but an exemplary/represenative role. Pre eminence can come from the fact the the two most famous and influential apostles laid foundation there, not because of "papacy'' (unless Paul is a pope also).

Clearly Irenaeus is referring to the foundation of solid doctrine put in place by the two laboring together. Peter’s role as the one to strengthen the brethren and feed and care for the flock is not separated from that doctrinal pre-eminence. Rather, it is a reflection of Jesus’ charge to him.

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

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.

 

[mattp0625]

I don’t think the question is whether to take seriously the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Jerome and others. The question is what exactly their writings are saying. That was an area of disagreement in the 16th century as it is now.

I didn’t think it was confusing, but I can see why they would disagree during that time frame.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

No. You said I said that .I did not .

Perhaps I misunderstood you. It seemed like you were saying that the other Apostles needed strengthening between Ascension and Pentecost, but not so much after that.

I think they needed strengthening most , and especially before Pentecost. The first moments of any undertaking are the most crucial. When a jet takes off, or a rocket launches , or when your car first starts , it is the most crucial, dangerous. Remember , the apostles had all left Jesus (save john) and even denied Him. Not sure they did any “public” ministry prior to Pentecost. They were as it were untested since Calvary. When Jesus ascended they again were in need of obedience and cohesiveness.

But after Pentecost…

You seem to see less need of Peter’s charge to strengthen the Brethren, or to feed and care for the flock…as if his gifts and charge by Jesus became obsolete.

 Timothy is never called a bishop (apostle,deacon maybe).

Are you suggesting he did not exercise the role of a bishop?

From Eusebius’ The History of the Church, book 3, chapter 4:

For he [Paul] had innumerable fellow-workers or --- as he himself called them --- fellow-soldiers. Most of these he has honoured with an imperishable memory, paying them constant tribute in his own letters. Again Luke in the Acts, in listing Paul's disciples, mentions them by name. We may instance Timothy, stated to have been the first bishop appointed to the see of Ephesus, as was Titus to the churches of Crete

The Church and East and West have celebrated him as a Bishop in the martyrology. Do you think this would have been done if he was not believed to be a bishop? Only Bishops appoint presbyters.

Is Titus ever called bishop ?

Titus 1:5-7: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you;

15Speak these things as you encourage and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you. Tit 2

How did Titus get “all authority”?

yes, the distinction is made by Ignatius of the three offices. Some still debate the meaning of this. It still does not deny the church as run by a presbytery in the very first churches (or in Rome), especially Jewish churches.

Our faith came from Judiasm, so it makes sense that this pattern was followed.

Hi g,

Not sure that being first amongst equals requires any particular succession view.

I suppose it is possible to redesign new and modern definitions for such things. A lot of this happened during the Reformation. Prior to that time, particular succession was standnard. Self appointed persons were considered to be fraudulant.

Very strange, like what does that mean ? What, they had was Jewish roots, and synagogues were run by presbytery. You think they had no pastors, elders, teachers. Did the Holy Ghost fail to gift the congregation, even with offices, even if “informally”? But I agree with you that Paul wrote of “establishing them”. I would think that be more in doctrine and practice and some teaching on structure.

it means that the community grew and functioned the best they could not having had any Apostolic foundation. It is clear from Paul’s letter that the community was quite gifted.

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi g,

Disagree. Then why did he write about succession of bishops from apostles as the protection of and validation of genuine doctrine , for everyone believed that too?

It seems to CC that Peter’s role is the pinnacle of doctrinal validation, and doctrinal validation was the main thrust of Irenaeus’s argument. Yet he mentions zero aspects of Peter’s “papacy”, or holding keys, or *any differentiating role *that Christ is alleged to have given him in this regard.

The papacy developed into a trump card in combatting heresy and schism , yet Iraneus did not use it. Why? I believe because that development had not blossomed yet enough to be mentioned in such a critical work of Irenaeus

Blessings.

 

[benhur]

Our faith came from Judiasm, so it makes sense that this pattern was followed.

Hi g,

Well that was my point . They are more closely related to a presbytery type of synagogue .The church in Rome seemed to be just fine without any monarchal bishop, before the apostles arrived. Many say this even continued much past the turn of the first century.

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

Disagree. Then why did he write about succession of bishops from apostles as the protection of and validation of genuine doctrine , for everyone believed that too?

Clearly the heretics did not! But as always, the Church defines and clarifies for the faithful how to determine the Truth. This is her duty, as embracing error will result in passing through the Gates of Hell.

As it is, the Apostolic succession was jettisoned during the Reformation, resulting in the very splintering and disconnection against which the Fathers fought with such writings.

It seems to CC that Peter’s role is the pinnacle of doctrinal validation, and doctrinal validation was the main thrust of Irenaeus’s argument.

I am not sure what this means. I have never heard Peter’s role spoken of in this manner.

I do agree that doctrinal validation is the main thrust of Irenaeus’ argument. He holds up the Church in Rome as the pinnacle of doctrinal validation, because Peter and Paul labored there together to lay that doctrinal foundation.

Yet he mentions zero aspects of Peter’s “papacy”, or holding keys, or *any differentiating role *that Christ is alleged to have given him in this regard.

How is this relevant to the context of the polemic? It seems you are wanting him to write about something other than his subject?

It reminds me of how people say “if X was so important, it would have been mentioned in the Scripture” as if the Bible were intended to be some full compendium of the faith.

It is an argument from absence.

The papacy developed into a trump card in combatting heresy and schism , yet Iraneus did not use it. Why? I believe because that development had not blossomed yet enough to be mentioned in such a critical work of Irenaeus/quote\

The papacy was then, and is now, a visible sign of unity on earth of the Church. It has become a litmus test for combating heresy and schism becuase of the role of the successor of Peter to strengthen the brethren and feed and care for the flock. Those who refuse his strenghtening, feeding, and care have become separated from the Gifts that Jesus intended to keep His Church unified until He comes again.

 

[guanophore]

Hi g,

Well that was my point . They are more closely related to a presbytery type of synagogue .The church in Rome seemed to be just fine without any monarchal bishop, before the apostles arrived. Many say this even continued much past the turn of the first century.

Blessings

These seems like a modern defense projected into antiquity. Modern ecclesial communities seem to be “just fine without any monarcial bishop”, so it was so from the beginning?

If this were true, then Paul would not have felt such a strong need to write his most dense doctrinal treatise to them, and God would not have found it necessary to send those two aposltes there at the end of their long ministries to lay that solid foundation.

There were many communities that lacked appropriate instruction. Paul even found a group that had been baptized by John but never knew of baptism of Jesus. The fact that they were faithful to what little they knew does not equate to “just fine”.

 

[rcwitness]

These seems like a modern defense projected into antiquity. Modern ecclesial communities seem to be “just fine without any monarcial bishop”, so it was so from the beginning?

If this were true, then Paul would not have felt such a strong need to write his most dense doctrinal treatise to them, and God would not have found it necessary to send those two aposltes there at the end of their long ministries to lay that solid foundation.

There were many communities that lacked appropriate instruction. Paul even found a group that had been baptized by John but never knew of baptism of Jesus. The fact that they were faithful to what little they knew does not equate to “just fine”.

Acts 18:25-27

25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately. 27 And when he wished to cross to Acha′ia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed,

 

[benhur]

Clearly the heretics did not!

Hi g,

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

“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”- you

“Clearly the heretics did not!”- you

So which is it , the heretics believed in primacy/office of Peter or did they not?

But as always, the Church defines and clarifies for the faithful how to determine the Truth. This is her duty, as embracing error will result in passing through the Gates of Hell.

right ,and Irenaeus has zero mention of this and that Peter holds the keys, and gave the office to successors as such *exclusively
*.

I do agree that doctrinal validation is the main thrust of Irenaeus’ argument. He holds up the Church in Rome as the pinnacle of doctrinal validation, because Peter and Paul labored there together to lay that doctrinal foundation.

Agreed , apart from any exclusive papacy office or key holding etc.

It is an argument from absence.

Absolutely. Total absence.

The papacy was then, and is now, a visible sign of unity on earth of the Church. It has become a litmus test for combating heresy and schism becuase of the role of the successor of Peter to strengthen the brethren and feed and care for the flock. Those who refuse his strenghtening, feeding, and care have become separated from the Gifts that Jesus intended to keep His Church unified until He comes again.

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

Blessings

 

[benhur]

These seems like a modern defense projected into antiquity. Modern ecclesial communities seem to be “just fine without any monarcial bishop”, so it was so from the beginning?

If this were true, then Paul would not have felt such a strong need to write his most dense doctrinal treatise to them, and God would not have found it necessary to send those two aposltes there at the end of their long ministries to lay that solid foundation.

There were many communities that lacked appropriate instruction. Paul even found a group that had been baptized by John but never knew of baptism of Jesus. The fact that they were faithful to what little they knew does not equate to “just fine”.

We agree actually .“Just fine” is as succinct or unsuccint as “making due with what they had”.

I had posted-“But I agree with you that Paul wrote of “establishing them”. I would think that be more in doctrine and practice and some teaching on structure”

We differ on that structure. I do not think a monarchal bishop was established by Peter and Paul. In that regard, they were “just fine” with a presbytery.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

We agree actually .“Just fine” is as succinct or unsuccint as “making due with what they had”.

I had posted-“But I agree with you that Paul wrote of “establishing them”. I would think that be more in doctrine and practice and some teaching on structure”

We differ on that structure. I do not think a monarchal bishop was established by Peter and Paul. In that regard, they were “just fine” with a presbytery.

Blessings

So I take it, you believe in Congregationalism?

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

 

[guanophore]

So which is it , the heretics believed in primacy/office of Peter or did they not?

The heretics believed, just as ecclesial communities today believe that it was appropriate to set up and “illicit” gathering, and by using the Scriptures, concoct their own ideas of the faith. The Gnostics tried to use the Scriptures to prove their own views, rejecting the tradition of the early church to be in unity with the Apostolic faith and unity with the Bishop. This happened all across the empire, not just in Rome.

right ,and Irenaeus has zero mention of this and that Peter holds the keys, and gave the office to successors as such exclusively.

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.

Agreed , apart from any exclusive papacy office or key holding etc.

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?

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

I guess I am failing to see the relevance.