If the Rock is Peter's faith

[susanlo]

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

It seems he did go to Rome, but the church was established by someone else before he got there. I don’t think anyone knows who actually established the church there. This quote by Irenaeus seems to have at least one historical error.

 

[mattp0625]

It seems he did go to Rome, but the church was established by someone else before he got there. I don’t think anyone knows who actually established the church there. This quote by Irenaeus seems to have at least one historical error.

Irenaeus has an error in his history- according to whom?

I hope you’re not going to tell me someone who came along 1,800 years later.

 

[susanlo]

Irenaeus has an error in his history- according to whom?

I hope you’re not going to tell me someone who came along 1,800 years later.

Irenaeus ca 175-185AD: “…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**;…”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

Found means to “1. to take the first steps in building 2. to set or ground on something solid 3. to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance” - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founded
(I don’t know what the original Greek word used, but this is the translation we have).

Letter to the Romans ca.50 AD
Here Paul is writing to the Romans and stating that he has never been to the church in Rome that was already founded by others, but that he would like to come there soon:
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—”

 

[benhur]

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.

Hi m,

Yes Irenaeus clearly states “founded”. That is why many historians say he is wrong on *that *point.

Yet, ironically it depends on how you define “found”. It is quite ppossible Irenaeus meant it another way . I came to agreement somewhat with guanaphore on this: -post #159

"And most feel Peter and Paul did not “found’ the church at Rome . Certainly Paul in Writ say he did not”-me

“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…”

Clearly Paul wanted to go to Rome not to found it but to strengthen them (King James has “be established” , " I do not intend to bring any new doctrine to you, but to confirm and establish you in that which you have already heard and received"-Poole commentary.)

So g and I agree that the church was already there , but only strengthening would come by apostolic visits. We might differ if indeed there was any new doctrine taught, or just how that strengthening occurred/meant.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Irenaeus has an error in his history- according to whom?

I hope you’re not going to tell me someone who came along 1,800 years later.

Hi m,

What about someone within a couple hundred years? Not sure but I read that Tertullian and Jerome had a slightly different account of succession, that Clement was right after Peter. Not sure, have to research it further.

Anyways, do you feel there were no Christians, no “ecclesia”, in Rome till they (Peter and Paul) arrived, some 25 or so years after Pentecost ?

Remember, “all roads lead to Rome”, and that Christianity is Jewish, and there were Jews In Rome before Christ, and many foreign Jews did go to Jerusalem for religious feasts, etc., etc…

But for further discussion that might help explain what you think on the matter, and not just if Irenaeus is right or wrong.

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

Irenaeus ca 175-185AD: “…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**;…”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

Found means to “1. to take the first steps in building 2. to set or ground on something solid 3. to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance” - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founded
(I don’t know what the original Greek word used, but this is the translation we have).

Letter to the Romans ca.50 AD
Here Paul is writing to the Romans and stating that he has never been to the church in Rome that was already founded by others, but that he would like to come there soon:
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—”

Two people used the word foundation !! Two people used the same word, so you can link them? Ok.

Now compare to Acts 19, 27, and 28 to see he wasn’t prevented from going to Rome.

 

[mattp0625]

Hi m,

What about someone within a couple hundred years? Not sure but I read that Tertullian and Jerome had a slightly different account of succession, that Clement was right after Peter. Not sure, have to research it further.

Anyways, do you feel there were no Christians, no “ecclesia”, in Rome till they (Peter and Paul) arrived, some 25 or so years after Pentecost ?

Remember, “all roads lead to Rome”, and that Christianity is Jewish, and there were Jews In Rome before Christ, and many foreign Jews did go to Jerusalem for religious feasts, etc., etc…

But for further discussion that might help explain what you think on the matter, and not just if Irenaeus is right or wrong.

Blessings

You should try reading Tertullian, rather than just hearing, because he puts Peter and Paul in Rome and writes of their martyrdom there.

At worst, he might have a difference in the order of popes number 3 and 4 (e.g. involving Clement of Rome).

Protestant historians try to point to this as a huge point of confusion, which seems like an attempt to avoid the larger point.

Tertullian, overall, had similar accounts as Irenaeus.

 

[benhur]

You should try reading Tertullian, rather than just hearing, because he puts Peter and Paul in Rome and writes of their martyrdom there.

At worst, he might have a difference in the order of popes number 3 and 4 (e.g. involving Clement of Rome).

Protestant historians try to point to this as a huge point of confusion, which seems like an attempt to avoid the larger point.

Tertullian, overall, had similar accounts as Irenaeus.

Hi m,

Most agree that Paul and Peter were in Rome. So now what is the larger point ? ( for Tertullian refuted Petrine succession) ?

Thank you for conferring a slight difference in successors in T. Did Jerome also ?

And was there a church in Rome before a Peter and Paul ?

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

Hi m,

Most agree that Paul and Peter were in Rome. So now what is the larger point ? ( for Tertullian refuted Petrine succession) ?

Thank you for conferring a slight difference in successors in T. Did Jerome also ?

And was there a church in Rome before a Peter and Paul ?

Blessings

I know of no record of the church in Rome without Peter.

The larger point is that by looking at both Tertullian and Irenaeus, there is very strong and early evidence that Peter and Paul were in Rome, founded the church there, and handed authority to Linus before they were martyred.

Then again, it’s impossible to predate the apostles. They were the original disciples.
If there were Christian leaders in Rome, which seems like speculation, I know of no prior bishop.

I can tell you that Acts 11 says the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.

The people of Antioch claim Peter was there before he came to Rome.

They have a stone chapel where they claim Peter said mass.

Many believe Bishop Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by Peter. Ignatius was also martyred in Rome approximately 107 AD.

 

[mattp0625]

I forgot about Galatians 2 that puts Peter and Paul in Antioch before Rome.

Acts 11-15 put Paul in Antioch before Rome.

If the original Christians were in Antioch, who went to Rome before Peter?

It seems rather unlikely there was a prior Roman bishop.

 

[guanophore]

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.

How do you explain that the whole of Christendom believed otherwise until the Reformation? Even the Schism between East and West did not discount that the successor of Peter in Rome was the recipient of the Petrine Gifts and ministry.

How was it that Jesus was so weak and ineffectual as the Head of the Church that He was unable to communicate through the prophets and councils that this was not the case?

 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

Are you saying that, because the monarchial bishopric developed later it was not valid? I guess that is like saying the concept of the hypstatic union is not valid,because it was a later development…

 "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 glad we can agree on something. While the role of the successor of Peter has developed over the years, it developed upon a unique foundation that was found in no other place in Christendom.

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”.

I think he does, but the “rose” he describes is the fruit of Peter and Paul laboring together to build the doctrinal foundation of the Church in Rome. Peter then passed his unique responsibility to his successor, and this was recognized by the whole Church. The only ones who disputed it were schismatics and heretics.

Although I am Roman Catholic, my theology is really more Eastern Catholic (closer to Orthodox) in many ways. Truthfully, I find many of the Papal statements throwing their weight around quite offensive.

 

[benhur]

I forgot about Galatians 2 that puts Peter and Paul in Antioch before Rome.

Acts 11-15 put Paul in Antioch before Rome.

If the original Christians were in Antioch, who went to Rome before Peter?

It seems rather unlikely there was a prior Roman bishop.

Hi m,

OK. I would think they had elders/presbyters/bishops before the apostles arrived. Bishop however is of the earliest sense, before you had dichotomy of or separation of roles. It is more a “Jewish” thing , where they are used to having a congregation, a synagogue, with “elders”. And elders is sometimes interchangeable with bishop in its earliest usage (not later). I would agree with you it was probably not a monarchal bishop, however.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

How do you explain that the whole of Christendom believed otherwise until the Reformation? Even the Schism between East and West did not discount that the successor of Peter in Rome was the recipient of the Petrine Gifts and ministry.

Hi g,

The whole of Christendom , or even east west differences certainly had beliefs at reformation time. Just that as stated before, don’t like to assume that what the CC or Orthodox church believed did not evolve or that it was monolithic from the start.

Not totally sure of the gradations the Orthodox have on Petrine gifts as you say. I mean they are not Catholic for a reason on this.

How was it that Jesus was so weak and ineffectual as the Head of the Church that He was unable to communicate through the prophets and councils that this was not the case?

That is you paradigm. Still, that is like saying God was weak for He could not keep God’s man from being deceived by an old foe, or that Cain could not do as Abel etc…

Are you saying that, because the monarchial bishopric developed later it was not valid? I guess that is like saying the concept of the hypstatic union is not valid,because it was a later development…

Not quite apples to oranges. I mean the nature of God is monolithic from the beginning, unlike our understanding . I mean the best one can say is that the apostles were kind of monarchal , so why not bishops? But then others say well then why not like Rome, and have the best results when two (or more) rule, guide, feed like Peter and Paul did together ?

As far later development and validity, that is something else. To this point I think all I have been trying to point out is that it indeed did develop. Resistance to that is understandable. For sure Christ is infallible when he chose the twelve . For sure the apostles laid our foundation. From there on forward it is not unconditional infallible evolving. It is /was quite conditional that Christ the man be one with the Father, as the apostles one in Christ, and successors one in the Holy Ghost.

So if the episcopate developed out of the presbytery, one can question its apostolicity or divine decree. I mean Israel had a king , but not by Divine origins.

Any form of church governance has its good, bad and ugly . Yet I would pursue what hath God really desired on this matter. If things develop we need be careful before saying thus it has been since the beginning.

I think he does, but the “rose” he describes is the fruit of Peter and Paul laboring together to build the doctrinal foundation of the Church in Rome

Yes, this is what apostles do. Now is one apostle a pope, a rose?.

Peter then passed his unique responsibility to his successor, and this was recognized by the whole Church

Well, that is the question, just how unique was Peter, from Paul from the others on this…

The only ones who disputed it were schismatics and heretics

From Rome’s point of view , yes. Was Cyprian a schismatic when from time to time he alluded to equalness of all episcopal bishops ?

Although I am Roman Catholic, my theology is really more Eastern Catholic (closer to Orthodox) in many ways. Truthfully, I find many of the Papal statements throwing their weight around quite offensive

Quite a statement, appreciate the candor and any agreements we have come to. It pains me also to see any leader have some “bad and ugly”, especially when he has some “good”. “…only let God be true”!

Blessings

 

[guanophore]

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.

I am confused. ARe you saying that the Church in Rome was founded by an apostle? this seems to contradict your previous position.

Do you think that Peter was already in Rome when Paul wrote this letter? If so, what makes you think so?

I am not sure what type of “showing up” you are expecting. The whole church everywhere knew, understood,a nd accepted the role of Peter. It is clearly stated in the Gospels. You seem to be extrapolating later terms used to describe his role back into history. It makes no sense that you would find such terms. Peter was given the Keys, He was given the charge to strengthen the brethren. He was given the care and feeding of His flock. There is nothing to dispute, so no need to write about it. Paul had a dispute about Peters behavior (acting hypocritcally) and we see that it was included in the writing. There is no reason to write about something that everyone accepted.

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

Truthfully benhur, I can’t imagine you working this hard, and spinning so vigorously to deny the historical accounts of something you wanted to believe. One has to reject a lot of history to deny Peter’s role in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Matt, these words have to be integrated with other testimonies, the book of Romans being the main one. This book was written most likely during Paul’s 3rd missionary journey, 56-57 AD. In it Paul praises the faith of the Roman Christians whose “faith is known throughout the world”. He explains why he has not come there, and indicates it is unlikely that they have had any Apostolic teaching yet at that time.

The NEXT REFERENCE, in order of time, is the Epistle of Clement to James. Although many historians have placed this letter in the last ten years of the 1st century, there are some objections to this. The largest objection, of course, is that James could not have possibly been alive at that late a date. All indications are that James was killed during the interfactional warfare that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.

We also must reconcile the epistle of Clement to James. Clement was appointed to replace Linus, and evidently, his first item of business as overseer was to inform James of Peter’s death:

Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. -- Epistle of Clement to James.

Now we know that James was most likely killed during the conflicts between Jews and Christians that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.

When Irenaeus writes that Peter and Paul “founded” the Church in Rome, he is referring to the doctrinal foundation laid there by their teaching, which could have been as much as 27 years after the church there began. If it was formed by those who were pilgrims in Jerusalem at Pentecost, then they returned home newly baptized, likely with very little instruction in the faith.We have no record of an Apostle visiting Rome prior to the Letter of Romans, and Peter and Paul did not arrive there until as much as a decade after it was written.

The date of Clement’s letter to James is much later than the book of Romans, and puts Peter in Rome preaching and teaching and ordaining bishops/presbyters, but clearly the Book of Romans attests that the Church existed already when Peter, Clement, Linus and others arrived there.

 

[guanophore]

It seems he did go to Rome, but the church was established by someone else before he got there. I don’t think anyone knows who actually established the church there. This quote by Irenaeus seems to have at least one historical error.

I don’t think it is an error. Irenaeus knew his scriptures, and knew, as we do, that Romans was written prior to an Apostolic visit to Rome. I think he is using the word “founded” he is speaking of the tremendous doctrinal foundation that resulted from Peter and Paul teaching there together before they were both martyred.

Irenaeus has an error in his history- according to whom?

I hope you’re not going to tell me someone who came along 1,800 years later.

Let us not be contentious, Matt. All the documents must be reconciled to one another.

**Irenaeus ca 175-185AD**: "...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**;..."

earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

Found means to “1. to take the first steps in building 2. to set or ground on something solid 3. to establish (as an institution) often with provision for future maintenance” - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founded
(I don’t know what the original Greek word used, but this is the translation we have).

We can project our definitions back through history, but we cannot know Irenaeus’ mind. He was well acquainted with his scriptures, so it is likely he was referring to establishing the solid doctrinal base which would serve as the lamp of the world.

  **Letter to the Romans ca.50 AD**

Here Paul is writing to the Romans and stating that he has never been to the church in Rome that was already founded by others, but that he would like to come there soon:
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—”

A Christian Community, without question, very strong in faith, but perhaps not exposed to any Apostolic teaching prior to Peter and Paul arriving there.

“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…”

So g and I agree that the church was already there , but only strengthening would come by apostolic visits. We might differ if indeed there was any new doctrine taught, or just how that strengthening occurred/meant.

Blessings

One has to wonder! By the way, I am looking for the mp3’s of Paul’s two years of preaching in the temple of Tyrannus, and Jesus’ teaching the 40 days from resurrection to ascension. If you know where I can find them, I will pay premium!

What about someone within a couple hundred years? Not sure but I read that Tertullian and Jerome had a slightly different account of succession, that Clement was right after Peter.

This might actually be some support of your presbyterial theory benhur. If Peter ordained both Linus and Clement, then chose to pass his duties on to Clement after Linus was killed, it supports that there was a plurality of leadership. I also think it supports that Peter gave his special charge to only one Bishop to succeed him, though there were many persons ordained in various roles.

Two people used the word foundation !! Two people used the same word, so you can link them? Ok.

Now compare to Acts 19, 27, and 28 to see he wasn’t prevented from going to Rome.

I am not sure what your point is here. Romans is clear that Paul had been prevented. Acts is clear that Jesus wanted him to end up in Rome. The two are not contradictory, but the relative dates make it clear that a body of believers existed in Rome prior to the arrival of Peter and Paul.

 

[guanophore]

You should try reading Tertullian, rather than just hearing, because he puts Peter and Paul in Rome and writes of their martyrdom there.

At worst, he might have a difference in the order of popes number 3 and 4 (e.g. involving Clement of Rome).

Protestant historians try to point to this as a huge point of confusion, which seems like an attempt to avoid the larger point.

Tertullian, overall, had similar accounts as Irenaeus.

I don’t think anyone here is disputing that Peter and Paul were in Rome, and were martyred there. It is true that Protestants have sometimes tried to avoid this, or claim that Peter was never in Rome, to discount the role of the Papacy, but historically it is ludicrous to attempt this.

I know of no record of the church in Rome without Peter.

In that case, perhaps it is you that will need to read some history! Do you honestly believe that Rome had NO believers travel there for 25-30 years?!

Paul’s letter is clear that there was a strong community there by 56-57 AD.

6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you,** because your faith is being reported all over the world. **9 God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10 in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you. Epistle to the Romans Chapter 1

Can you read this and not accept there is a thriving Catholic community? What evidence do you have that Peter went there before this date?

The larger point is that by looking at both Tertullian and Irenaeus, there is very strong and early evidence that Peter and Paul were in Rome, founded the church there, and handed authority to Linus before they were martyred.

Keep reading…:coffeeread:

Then again, it's impossible to predate the apostles.  They were the original disciples.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The earliest Christians that may have been in Rome would have to have been present at Pentecost. If there were 3000 baptized at that time, it is quite possible that some among them were pilgrims from Rome.

 If there were Christian leaders in Rome,  which seems like speculation, I know of no prior bishop.

This is the point that benhur has been making. The first Christians were all Jews. As Jesus stated “salvation is of the Jews”. The structure of the Jewish community was a plurality of elders.

I can tell you that Acts 11 says the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.

How does this relate?

The people of Antioch claim Peter was there before he came to Rome.

Yes. The line of bishops from Peter in Antioch is older than the one in Rome. They too can trace their succession back to him.

They have a stone chapel where they claim Peter said mass.

Many believe Bishop Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by Peter. Ignatius was also martyred in Rome approximately 107 AD.

While these are important points, I don’t see that they support your dispute.

 

[susanlo]

I am confused. ARe you saying that the Church in Rome was founded by an apostle? this seems to contradict your previous position.

Do you think that Peter was already in Rome when Paul wrote this letter? If so, what makes you think so?

I was stating that Irenaeus was giving Rome as an example of a church founded by an apostle. I do not know who the first leader was, but it was not Paul. Irenaeus states it was founded by apostles - whatever he is meaning by that.

I am not sure what type of “showing up” you are expecting. The whole church everywhere knew, understood,a nd accepted the role of Peter. It is clearly stated in the Gospels. You seem to be extrapolating later terms used to describe his role back into history. It makes no sense that you would find such terms. Peter was given the Keys, He was given the charge to strengthen the brethren. He was given the care and feeding of His flock. There is nothing to dispute, so no need to write about it. Paul had a dispute about Peters behavior (acting hypocritcally) and we see that it was included in the writing. There is no reason to write about something that everyone accepted.

I would expect writings to reflect that all decisions and conflicts (many are written about) were settled by the Bishop of Rome. I would expect formal (infallible) teaching proclamations by the Bishop of Rome to be issued and sent to all churches. I would expect Eusebius’ 4th century Church History to state a special role for the Bishop of Rome and set this bishop apart in some way. These are a few examples of things that I do not see.

Tertullian did not think that the keys were something passed to successors. Why would we think that everyone else thought this? Do others refer to the keys being passed with a special role from bishop to bishop?
““On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church; “and,” I will give to thee the keys,”** not to the Church**; and, “Whatsoever thou shall have based or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are “loosed” the sins that were beforetime “bound;” and those which have not been “loosed” are “bound,” in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he “bound” with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he “absolved” from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, “And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved m the same way as they.” This sentence both “loosed” those parts of the law which were abandoned, and “bound” those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even “seventy times sevenfold,” of course He would have commanded him to “bind”–that is, to “retain”–nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.” - earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian32.html

 

[susanlo]

Matt, these words have to be integrated with other testimonies, the book of Romans being the main one. This book was written most likely during Paul’s 3rd missionary journey, 56-57 AD. In it Paul praises the faith of the Roman Christians whose “faith is known throughout the world”. He explains why he has not come there, and indicates it is unlikely that they have had any Apostolic teaching yet at that time.

The NEXT REFERENCE, in order of time, is the Epistle of Clement to James. Although many historians have placed this letter in the last ten years of the 1st century, there are some objections to this. The largest objection, of course, is that James could not have possibly been alive at that late a date. All indications are that James was killed during the interfactional warfare that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.

We also must reconcile the epistle of Clement to James. Clement was appointed to replace Linus, and evidently, his first item of business as overseer was to inform James of Peter’s death:

Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. -- Epistle of Clement to James.

Now we know that James was most likely killed during the conflicts between Jews and Christians that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter’s martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.

When Irenaeus writes that Peter and Paul “founded” the Church in Rome, he is referring to the doctrinal foundation laid there by their teaching, which could have been as much as 27 years after the church there began. If it was formed by those who were pilgrims in Jerusalem at Pentecost, then they returned home newly baptized, likely with very little instruction in the faith.We have no record of an Apostle visiting Rome prior to the Letter of Romans, and Peter and Paul did not arrive there until as much as a decade after it was written.

The date of Clement’s letter to James is much later than the book of Romans, and puts Peter in Rome preaching and teaching and ordaining bishops/presbyters, but clearly the Book of Romans attests that the Church existed already when Peter, Clement, Linus and others arrived there.

In post #32 you cited a reference from the Letter of Clement to James and gave the date of 221AD.

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221])

I am not sure where that date came from, but I think most scholars think this letter is spurious. Do some believe it is authentic? I don’t know a lot about it, but the timeline seems off with Peter laying hands on Clement to ordain him before his martyrdom.
"3.At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many manuscripts of the “Recognitions”. The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore "
newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

 

[mattp0625]

I don’t think anyone here is disputing that Peter and Paul were in Rome, and were martyred there. It is true that Protestants have sometimes tried to avoid this, or claim that Peter was never in Rome, to discount the role of the Papacy, but historically it is ludicrous to attempt this.

In that case, perhaps it is you that will need to read some history! Do you honestly believe that Rome had NO believers travel there for 25-30 years?!

Paul’s letter is clear that there was a strong community there by 56-57 AD.

6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.
7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you,** because your faith is being reported all over the world. **9 God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10 in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you. Epistle to the Romans Chapter 1

Can you read this and not accept there is a thriving Catholic community? What evidence do you have that Peter went there before this date?

Keep reading…:coffeeread:

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The earliest Christians that may have been in Rome would have to have been present at Pentecost. If there were 3000 baptized at that time, it is quite possible that some among them were pilgrims from Rome.

This is the point that benhur has been making. The first Christians were all Jews. As Jesus stated “salvation is of the Jews”. The structure of the Jewish community was a plurality of elders.

How does this relate?

Yes. The line of bishops from Peter in Antioch is older than the one in Rome. They too can trace their succession back to him.

While these are important points, I don’t see that they support your dispute.

I am not using the “invisible church” concept linked to a church without the magisterium and I don’t think Irenaeus did either when he said Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome.

To be fair, I did clarify regarding the bishops coming from Antioch, but more to follow.