If the Rock is Peter's faith

[benhur]

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.

HI g,

Well, everybody is rejecting something. You reject the role of councils and later evolving patriarchs, including Rome’s. You reject the equality of the apostles as related in Writ(Revelations). See what I mean?

Now of course you do not deny any of the above, but certainly deny some of the gradations, or qualifications on those remarks. I too believe in Peter’s historical role, just “differently”. We both do not deny or run from Writ, nor history in this matter.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

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!

Hi g,

I am not dogmatic on it, but not sure they taught new doctrine, but maybe some. Doesn’t say.

Do you think Paul for two years at the temple only taught new doctrine, or the Lord’s forty days , each day filled with new doctrine? Could not He strengthen and establish the disciples for forty days without any new doctrine ? Do you or I get strengthened only from hearing new doctrine ? I would think Peter or Paul or the Lord expounding on old doctrine for years to come would certainly suffice for “establishing” us .

Blessings

PS- Maybe I misread you. You were certainly humorous, and maybe you agreed with my original statement and even this one. Sorry if I misread you.

 

[benhur]

Just heard this teaching from John MacArthur (conservative protestant) where he talks about leadership in the first church. He cites Peter as being “chief” apostle. Says apostles equal but not in function. (no 12 people are equally “functional”). oneplace.com/ministries/grace-to-you/

Blessings

 

[mattp0625]

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.

If Irenaeus meant that Peter and Paul only laid doctrinal foundation in Rome, why did he also mention they handed the office of the episcopate to Linus? It’s because they also established apostolic succession in Rome.

There were people who helped evangelize similar to Priscilla and Aquila, who Paul described as helpers, that were in Rome at one point before meeting Paul in Corinth. I do not know of any previous bishops, such as Timothy, who preceded Peter and Paul in Rome. Maybe there were, I just haven’t seen it.

To me, the believers in Rome were precursors of the Church in Rome during a unique period of time.

Ignatius tells us they needed a bishop to administer the proper Eucharist. The bishops, as far as I can tell, were still making their way over from Antioch.

In any event this does not change the fact that apostolic succession was established in Rome, for what Irenaeus described as the Church with preeminent authority with which all others must agree. No invisible church here.

 

[guanophore]

If Irenaeus meant that Peter and Paul only laid doctrinal foundation in Rome, why did he also mention they handed the office of the episcopate to Linus? It’s because they also established apostolic succession in Rome.

Yes, of course, but there was a church present for some time before either of them came to Rome. They had natural leaders that had emerged that no doubt served the community before the Apostles arrived.

When I say that Irenaeus meant “founded” in the sense of doctrinal underpinnings, I am just meaning that there was an active Church present when Paul wrote the epistle, and they had not yet had an Apostolic visit.

The Apostolic succession can only be established with an Apostle, so they may not have had any episcopate before that time, but as benhur has pointed out, a plurality of elders that served to shepherd the community.

I agree with you that establishing the apostolic succession is a foundation of the Church. But the Body of Believers existed prior to that.

There were people who helped evangelize similar to  Priscilla and Aquila, who Paul described as helpers, that were in Rome at one point before meeting Paul in Corinth.  I do not know of any previous bishops, such as Timothy, who preceded Peter and Paul in Rome.  Maybe there were, I just haven't seen it.

God sent whoever was necessary to that community to result in them having the reputation they did for faith. I am certain that any Christian who went to Rome would look for the community of faith. No doubt Prisca and Aquila would have been very beneficial when they visited.

 To me, the believers in Rome were precursors of the Church in Rome during a unique period of time.

Then you need to read Paul’s greeting to them in Romans again.

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.Rom 1

Paul addressed them as the holy people, as he does in all his letters to the Churches.

4 I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another.Rom 15.

He considered whoever was there already to be competent to provide catechesis, even without an Apostolic visit.

3 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, Rom 15

The Church had been established “for many years”.

Greet Priscilla[c] and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. 4 They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

5 Greet also the church that meets at their house. Rom 16

Paul specifically greets the church that meets at the house of Priscilla and Aquila. If he considered this gathering/group “church” then who are we to dispute him?

Yes, it was a fledgling community that had not yet benefitted from Apsostolic instruction, but it was vibrant, valid, and renowned for faith.

Ignatius tells us they needed a bishop to administer the proper Eucharist. The bishops, as far as I can tell, were still making their way over from Antioch.

Yes, or his designee. But there were many Bishops closer than Antioch, as Paul left a trail wherever he went.

If the first converts celebrated Eucharist with the Apostles while they were in Jerusalem at Pentecost, they may have continued this practice on their own. Or perhaps they did not. The Mass closely parallels the synagogue service, which was the original structure for the Liturgy.

  In any event this does not change the fact that apostolic succession was established in Rome, for what Irenaeus described as the Church with preeminent authority with which all others must agree.  No invisible church here.

No one was claiming that there was not apostolic succession, or that the Church was “invisible”. You seem to be having an argument/disagreement with something or someone other than what has been said on the thread.

 

[mattp0625]

Just saying it makes sense that Irenaeus used the visible church concept with the magisterium.

If you apply the invisible church concept, then he would seem to be off.

Paul, while important to establishing the church, didn’t have the keys as we know. Perhaps his terminology was not as well defined at that point?

We know the Catholic definition of the Church, and we know Ignatius knew it too. The bishop, apostolic succession, and the Eucharist were central.

 

[mattp0625]

Either way, we know that Peter and Paul collectively oversaw the Church in Rome, and due to their arrival, the church there had preeminent authority. They commited this office into the hands of Linus and established apostolic succession there. That’s the primary point.

 

[guanophore]

The whole of Christendom , or even east west differences certainly had beliefs at reformation time.

Yes, but the problems were not related to Peter’s role - they were about how his successor exercised it. There were a number of corrupt popes, and some popes who had more interest in material/political/secular/economic matters than spiritual. In the last hundred years we have been blessed by very holy persons in the successor of Peter, but it has not always been so.

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.

You and I will be in agreement that it was certainly not monolithic at the start. We are looking at a mustard seed in the NT, and a large tree now.

We will also agree that the monarchial bishop was a later development. The roles evolved with the needs of the Church, just as the roles of presbyters and deacons have done.

This is also true of monks and nuns, of which we only see seeds in the NT but large communities now that own property (monasteries) and have particular rules that govern their communities. We see only small seeds of this in the NT.

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.

Actually my point is that they are Catholic on this. They have choked on the bad behavior of individuals in that office, and the development of doctrine, but not the nature of the role.

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…

Of course men have free will, and can go against God, but if Jesus is able to keep His promise that HIs church will not fall, then surely He could have found SOMEONE SOMEWHERE He could use to communicate to the Church that there was a mistake being made. We see powerful guidance in the NT, of God preventing Paul from going in a wrong direction. Do you think He lost the ability to do this? If not, what prevented Him from making it clear that Peter and/or his successors were making a mistake?

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 ?

Perhaps you imagine that this is not how it works? You may have little understanding of the Curia, which is really the organ that drives the Church (from the human standpoint).

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.

Actually, I don’t understand it well. I think a failure to acknowledge this is a reflection of some Fundamentalism and ignorance of history.

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.

Perhaps we differ on this because we have a different concept of the Church. The Apostles taught that the Church is incarnational, just like Christ, with a divine nature, and a human nature. The Holy spirit is her soul, and Christ is her Head. It is these divine elements that make her infallible, not the human aspects.

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.

I see your point, but I don’t think it has much merit. The Church has always considered Timothy and Titus Bishops appointed by Paul with Apostolic Authority, and that they were instructed to ordain others. One has to set aside significant portions of Scripture and history to reject this.

Also God did allow and support Israel having a King. It was not his “perfect” will, but He worked divinely within what people had chosen, ultimately using that monarchial system to send His Redeemer.

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.

Yes I agree. At the same time, we can sift through the historical record and the constant practice of the Church to get some guidance about how it was from the beginnning.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, this is what apostles do. Now is one apostle a pope, a rose?. Well, that is the question, just how unique was Peter, from Paul from the others on this… From Rome’s point of view , yes. Was Cyprian a schismatic when from time to time he alluded to equalness of all episcopal bishops ?

The Petrine gifts and responsibilities do not make the successor of Peter unequal to the other bishops. The same ordination liturgy is used for all Bishops. The successor of Peter takes on certain responsibities that others do not. Not every part of the body is an hand, ,or an eye. But there is only one belly button. yes::yup:

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

We will not be able to move forward into unity with a myopic and imaginal concept of history.

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church -** for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame**.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

I have run into many Catholics on these threads that are unwilling to accept what our own Catechism teaches, that the persons in the office of the successor of Peter are not without their faults, and their bad behavior at times has contributed to the separations.

Had I lived during the time of the Reformation I may have become Lutheran myself!

 

[guanophore]

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

You are right it was a typo or some artifact in my cutting and pasting. The authentic letter would have to have been written prior to the Martyrdom of James recorded in Acts.

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.

Yes, the later date (221) is considered spurious. I have not read any scholars that think it is an authentic product of Clement, like the Epistle to James. That being said, it has some interesting historical significance. The contents do coincide with events that are authentically documented (possibly used for sources). It is also interesting that there was no outcry against the content, as there was for the Gnostic writings. One would expect that one of the apologists would have slammed it like other spurious documents. The fact that it was not the subject of such controversy indicates that the contents were not contrary to what the Church believed and taught.

Other evidence of this is the absence of any survived writings of most of the heretics. The Church was vociferous about burning things, and we can only speculate about the content of some of these writings based on the apologies written against them that have survived.

Clearly the Church did not find the contents of these Clementine writings offensive, because they allowed them to be preserved even though they knew they were not authored by the successor of Peter.

"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

So spurious only means that they cannot be connected to the stated author, not that the entire contents is spurious or false.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I thought you were saying that a “Church” did not exist in Rome prior to Peter and Paul coming there, because of the practice of defining the valid “church” by the bishop, and unity with the Bishop. This may, in fact, be one reason Paul wrote to the believers in Rome, to validate them, since they had not yet had an apostolic visit, or perhaps no bishop ordained by an Apostle.

Well, everybody is rejecting something. You reject the role of councils and later evolving patriarchs, including Rome’s. You reject the equality of the apostles as related in Writ(Revelations). See what I mean?

No, I do not. I think if you read my posts it is clear that I have stated repeatedly that the role of the Patriarchs/bishops (in fact all the ordained) have developed over time, and that the teaching of the CC is that the products of the Councils are infallible, beginning with the first Council in Jerusalem written about in Acts. Maybe you are throwing out a strawman, or maybe you have me confused with someone else. I don’t see how that could happen with that snotty troll above, but I guess anything is possible.

I am not dogmatic on it, but not sure they taught new doctrine, but maybe some. Doesn’t say.

Do you think Paul for two years at the temple only taught new doctrine, or the Lord’s forty days , each day filled with new doctrine? Could not He strengthen and establish the disciples for forty days without any new doctrine ? Do you or I get strengthened only from hearing new doctrine ? I would think Peter or Paul or the Lord expounding on old doctrine for years to come would certainly suffice for “establishing” us .

Blessings

PS- Maybe I misread you. You were certainly humorous, and maybe you agreed with my original statement and even this one. Sorry if I misread you.

No I believe what the Church teaches, that all that is needed for salvation (the fullness of faith) was deposited with the Church. But it seems to me that any expounding would create more clarity. As dense as Romans is, I can imagine what kind of material would shed so much light. Think of all the things that are unclear in Scripture?! Scripture was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith, yet it is often used that way.

I agree with you that expounding on the doctrines already covered would continue to establish us, and this is how I imagine it was at the Church in Rome. They received some part of the faith, but Paul knew they needed more.

If Irenaeus meant that Peter and Paul only laid doctrinal foundation in Rome, why did he also mention they handed the office of the episcopate to Linus?

Don’t you think this is part of the doctrine of the faith?

Either way, we know that Peter and Paul collectively oversaw the Church in Rome, and due to their arrival, the church there had preeminent authority.

I think not just their “arrival”, as the Church in Rome already had notoriety for their faith, as Paul attests in his letter. If both Peter and Paul had arrived and were immediately martyred, it might have been different. It was the two of them laboring there together for possibly some years that built the doctrinal “foundation” of the Church there. I often wonder what it was like for them to learn to get along with each other.

They commited this office into the hands of Linus and established apostolic succession there.  That's the primary point.

Yes.

 

[guanophore]

I would expect writings to reflect that all decisions and conflicts (many are written about) were settled by the Bishop of Rome.

:bigyikes:

I find that shocking! Why would the early church go against what Jesus taught?!

I would expect formal (infallible) teaching proclamations by the Bishop of Rome to be issued and sent to all churches.

You mean, in the same way they are today? There were some of these sent but it sounds like you think there was a need for a routine supply of them?

Perhaps you are looking for the types of interventions done by Pope St. Leo the great to happen earlier? Leo used his authority, in both doctrinal and disciplinary matters, against a number of heresies troubling the Western church – including Pelagianism (involving the denial of Original Sin) and Manichaeanism (a gnostic system that saw matter as evil). In this same period, many Eastern Christians had begun arguing about the relationship between Jesus’ humanity and divinity.

As early as 445, Leo had intervened in this dispute in the East, which threatened to split the churches of Alexandria and Constantinople. Its eventual resolution was, in fact, rejected in some quarters – leading to the present-day split between Eastern Orthodoxy and the so-called “non-Chalcedonian churches” which accept only three ecumenical councils.

As the fifth-century Christological controversy continued, the Pope urged the gathering of an ecumenical council to resolve the matter. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Pope’s teaching was received as authoritative by the Eastern bishops, who proclaimed: “Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo.”

This was and accepted saying at the time, which indicates that the successor of Peter in Rome was considered to carry the authority of Peter.

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?

This is a good point. Despite the authority being passed to the successor to strengthen the brethren, feed and care for the sheep, Peter has always been represented in art, poetry and history available as still holding the keys, even from the first century.

"“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;

At that time, just as now in modern times, there are believers who think that the keys were given to everyone. They are given to the “Church” in the sense that Peter is in service to the Church,a nd all those in unity with Peter can benefit from the Keys.

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

I don’t find this section consistent with other patristic references on this topic. Tertullian did have some heretical ideas, and it is difficult to tell which parts of his writings are Orthodox without comparing them to other writings and the Teachings that are preserved. He has some interesting opinions about things, as any preacher does.

The Church did interpret the binding and loosing to be in regard to capital sins, so his thought here lies outside the boundaries of orthodoxy. One very important point on this passage is about confession. The 7 x 70 was if the brother asks for forgiveness. Those who did not confess (as now) are not absolved.

 

[benhur]

had i lived during the time of the reformation i may have become lutheran myself!

LOL

PS- I was thinking today, wondering if some would espouse unity so much if it meant lack of freedom and separation of state and church that we all now enjoy. That is, many critique freedom by it’s then natural differences (even referencing 30,000 denoms). Yet many good souls might see the foulness that can occur when everyone must be under one magisterium, by civil enforcement, as was for a millennia plus.

 

[benhur]

Originally Posted by benhur View Post

Well, everybody is rejecting something. You reject the role of councils and later evolving patriarchs, including Rome’s. You reject the equality of the apostles as related in Writ(Revelations). See what I mean?

No, I do not. I think if you read my posts it is clear that I have stated repeatedly that the role of the Patriarchs/bishops (in fact all the ordained) have developed over time, and that the teaching of the CC is that the products of the Councils are infallible, beginning with the first Council in Jerusalem written about in Acts. Maybe you are throwing out a strawman, or maybe you have me confused with someone else. I don’t see how that could happen with that snotty troll above, but I guess anything is possible.

Hi g,

OOPs .My booo boo. I meant to say of course you do deny my above quote above,
It was like a rhetorical question for my next sentence was :" Now of course you do not deny any of the above, but certainly deny some of the gradations, or qualifications on those remarks. I too believe in Peter’s historical role, just “differently”. We both do not deny or run from Writ, nor history in this matter."

.I put a “do not” instead of just “do” by mistake/typo.

Sorry. it was a rebuttal to what I found "negative’’, that I deny a lot of history. I said we both do not do that.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

LOL

PS- I was thinking today, wondering if some would espouse unity so much if it meant lack of freedom and separation of state and church that we all now enjoy.

That’s placing an “if” that implies political coersion.

That is, many critique freedom by it’s then natural differences (even referencing 30,000 denoms). Yet many good souls might see the foulness that can occur when everyone must be under one magisterium, by civil enforcement, as was for a millennia plus.

i believe we (all Christians) are under One Magisterium no matter what. Freedom of religion is a good thing because it defends free will, and limits religious coersion. The reality that some Christian’s can be separate from complete obedience to Jesus in His Visible Church does not invalidate the Supreme office of Peter and his successors.

Jesus prayed for unity very deeply! I am not obsessed with convincing other Christians that the Bishop of Rome is a rock of unity that Jesus intended. I need to follow Jesus wherever He is. Sometimes He speaks through my six yr old daughter! And sometimes He speaks through the Bishop of Rome. Either way, i need His Holy Spirit to help me discern and understand, to listen and follow with respect and humility.

Coersion is never good. When our children are in the age of reason, they must be ministered to with love and respect, because their willfull belief is absolutely imperative! “Without faith, it is impossible to please Him.”

 

[josie_L]

The Petrine gifts and responsibilities do not make the successor of Peter unequal to the other bishops. The same ordination liturgy is used for all Bishops. The successor of Peter takes on certain responsibities that others do not. Not every part of the body is an hand, ,or an eye. But there is only one belly button. yes::yup:

All bishops are equal in dignity, in that, no bishop can be more a bishop than another, because as you stated the same ordination liturgy is used for all bishops, but with regards to authority not all bishops exude the same responsibilities, and therefore some bishops have more authority than others, and in this sense, they are not equal.

Quoting from Fortesque’s book “The Early Papacy”:

“But all bishops are not equal, in the sense that none has authority over any other. In this sense the statement is false and can be proved to be false from the very beginning of Church history. It can be proved false by other examples than that of Rome. From the beginning there have been cases of bishops who had extradiocesan authority, that is, jurisdiction, real jurisdiction, over their fellow bishops. To this day the Anglican must be familiar with the idea of an archbishop, who has authority outside his own diocese over other bishops, though these do not thereby cease to be real ordinaries and do not become merely his auxiliaries. Over archbishops there were still, in some cases, primates, sometimes over primates such great people as exarchs. It is true that most of this extradiocesan jurisdiction has worn thin, in modern times, in the Catholic Church. In the first six centuries it was a very solid authority. Over archbishops, primates, and exarchs stand those greatest bishops of all: the five patriarchs. Their authority was always, is still, very great indeed. It is seen only in the East, because there is but one patriarch in the West, who is the Pope himself. But the principle is there; **it should help anyone who has difficulties to understand at least the possibility of the Pope’s jurisdiction over other bishops. The point that seems to make all the difference in appreciating the Pope’s position is that this is not an isolated fact. The papacy is the topmost point of a regularly graduated hierarchy of bishops, in which each has authority over those under him.” **

 

[susanlo]

You are right it was a typo or some artifact in my cutting and pasting. The authentic letter would have to have been written prior to the Martyrdom of James recorded in Acts.

Yes, the later date (221) is considered spurious. I have not read any scholars that think it is an authentic product of Clement, like the Epistle to James. That being said, it has some interesting historical significance. The contents do coincide with events that are authentically documented (possibly used for sources). It is also interesting that there was no outcry against the content, as there was for the Gnostic writings. One would expect that one of the apologists would have slammed it like other spurious documents. The fact that it was not the subject of such controversy indicates that the contents were not contrary to what the Church believed and taught.

Other evidence of this is the absence of any survived writings of most of the heretics. The Church was vociferous about burning things, and we can only speculate about the content of some of these writings based on the apologies written against them that have survived.

Clearly the Church did not find the contents of these Clementine writings offensive, because they allowed them to be preserved even though they knew they were not authored by the successor of Peter.

So spurious only means that they cannot be connected to the stated author, not that the entire contents is spurious or false.

Is this the letter you are speaking of? tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-43.htm

This is the quote from post #32:

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])

And this exact quote is in chapter I of this letter.

It claims to be written by Clement to James of Jerusalem (who pre-deceased Peter by a few years?) “Clement to James, the lord,1 and the* bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere *excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always.”

The letter from ‘Clement’ goes on to explain that right before Peter died, Peter gave his chair and authority to bind and loose to Clement and told him to notify James in Jerusalem of this fact. “I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse,…Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church.”

So, if Clement was the 4th Bishop of Rome and took on the “Pope” duties upon Peter’s death, when were Popes 2 and 3 in this role? I think there has to be some historical errors with this letter. I don’t know when it was actually written.

 

[guanophore]

Is this the letter you are speaking of? [tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-43.htm](http://tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-43.htm)

No, this one is part of the pseudoclementine collection dated much later. But it is wth one about which I commented that there was not dispute about how the role of Peter was described in it.

Here is another link to the ante-nicean collection.

This is the quote from post #32:

And this exact quote is in chapter I of this letter.

It claims to be written by Clement to James of Jerusalem (who pre-deceased Peter by a few years?) “Clement to James, the lord,1 and the** bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere **excellently rounded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always.”

The letter from ‘Clement’ goes on to explain that right before Peter died, Peter gave his chair and authority to bind and loose to Clement and told him to notify James in Jerusalem of this fact. “I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse,…Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church.”

So, if Clement was the 4th Bishop of Rome and took on the “Pope” duties upon Peter’s death, when were Popes 2 and 3 in this role? I think there has to be some historical errors with this letter. I don’t know when it was actually written.

The authentic Epistle to James is clearly lacking the floral additions contained in the later spurious text.

 

[benhur]

That’s placing an “if” that implies political coersion.

Hi rc,

Yes as I stated in the post ,“by civil enforcement”

That began at the council of Nicea (325 AD) to roughly just before1800.

Blessings

PS- Sorry to say a negative outcome when the “rock” is an office, and not Christ or faith in Christ. I appreciate your candor and faith in that office , just as I have in Christ and professed faith in him as our unifying factor, despite any other negative outcomes, even 30,000 denoms.

 

[benhur]

Not every part of the body is an hand, ,or an eye. But there is only one belly button. yes::yup:

Hi g,

And there are not two heads, or an invisible belly button and an invisible one.

Blessings