No early records?

[tomarin]

It’s not historic if you have no record. That is the point of this thread.

Look, if you look at what records we do have it’s clear that the early Christians were closer to Catholicism today than evangelical Protestantism. Many of the doctrines you are selling here didn’t exist until the 16th century.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Look, if you look at what records we do have it’s clear that the early Christians were closer to Catholicism today than evangelical Protestantism. Many of the doctrines you are selling here didn’t exist until the 16th century.

Like what? I am a Christian just like Paul and Peter and John and Polycarp and Clement and the Shepherd of Hermes…

Can’t defend yourself so go after me…You don’t even know what my beliefs are…

 

[tomarin]

Like what? I am a Christian just like Paul and Peter and John and Polycarp and Clement and the Shepherd of Hermes…

Can’t defend yourself so go after me…You don’t even know what my beliefs are…

I think I defended myself adequately. It’s common knowledge that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the historic branches of Christianity; the reformers came much later. I know that they believe they were restoring Christianity to its foundations but that’s simply not historically true. They were coming up with new ideas which did not see the light of day until the 16th century – quite late in the game.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I think I defended myself adequately. It’s common knowledge that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the historic branches of Christianity; the reformers came much later. I know that they believe they were restoring Christianity to its foundations but that’s simply not historically true. They were coming up with new ideas which did not see the light of day until the 16th century – quite late in the game.

Quite the illogical leap from known for all ages with NO proof to “it’s common knowledge” i’ll wait here for some heavier hitters to come around and put up some sort of defense if it were possible…
This is a key tenet of the Roman Catholic faith, i am thoroughly surprised there is such a minimal defense.

 

[achmafooma]

It is true that there is little documentation from the very early Church to concretely establish the Bishop of Rome as the head of the whole Church…though there is plenty of circumstantial evidence from the early Church (incl. all that cited by others), combined with the Scripture accounts of Peter’s clear authority given to him by Christ (Matthew 16:19) and apostolic succession (Acts 1:16-26). These things point to the truth of the doctrine. We can’t always expect everything to be spelled out in crystal clarity.

It’s worth noting that while Peter and his successors were identified for special authority – this has, indeed, been known from the foundation of the Church (Matthew 16:19, as referenced) – the exact nature and breadth of that authority became clearer over time. The moral teachings of the Church are, and should be, unchanging, but its actual structure and mechanisms have evolved as circumstances have led it through the ages. This structure will continue evolving to meet present needs as required until the end of time.

Even if you were correct and the Papacy was a late, novel invention by us diabolical Catholics (;-)), it still serves a very important practical purpose. It is through the Pope that we are united as one Church. Without a single leader at the head, the body fractures and breaks apart – as we have seen among our Orthodox and Protestant brethren. If we are to truly profess belief in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a profession we see in the very earliest creeds, it can only be through our unity under the successors of Peter.

Lastly, please, let’s all maintain a level of good humor and kindness. There is no need for the conversation to get heated or insulting, on either side.

“Fight all error, but do it with good humor, patience, kindness, and love. Harshness will damage your own soul and spoil the best cause.” – Saint John of Kanty

God bless you.

 

[Nita]

It is being the successor of Peter that determines who is Pope. Jesus gave the keys to a particular person, not to a city.
Linus succeeded Peter.

 

[Nita]

It’s not historic if you have no record. That is the point of this thread.

Do you really mean you’ve never heard of history being passed down orally? – oral history which was written down by a later generation?
Are you really asserting when something is not recorded at the time it occurs, any later records can no longer be considered historic?

How early does the record have to be in order for you to accept it as historic?

 

[Philthy]

We have hundreds upon hundreds of writings…
You are going to bet your salvation on something not recorded in the libraries of early writings?
Seems a tad gutsy to me.

:yawn:

Riveting dialogue and intellectual exercise…

 

[Nita]

Authoritative? sure but there where many early letters with this same authority not from Rome. This seems simply like a comment to stay the course lest ye be in spiritual eternal danger, not a threat of condemnation to come from Clement.
…

Cite some references for these letters please.

You claim Peter’s successor was not recognized as head of the Church. Please present your evidence – from early Christian writings of course, where it states that the successor did not exercise authority over churches other that the one in Rome over which he presided.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

It is being the successor of Peter that determines who is Pope. Jesus gave the keys to a particular person, not to a city.
Linus succeeded Peter.

Your church declares that it has been known for all ages…and attaches that claim to Rome…
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this…
For “no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors”** the bishops of the Holy Roman See**, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

 

[davidv]

Your church declares that it has been known for all ages…and attaches that claim to Rome…
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this…
For “no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors”** the bishops of the Holy Roman See**, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

Proving that you are both right.

The Pope is a successor of Peter and,
The Pope is the bishop of Rome, and,
The Pope has primacy of the whole church

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Cite some references for these letters please.

You claim Peter’s successor was not recognized as head of the Church. Please present your evidence – from early Christian writings of course, where it states that the successor did not exercise authority over churches other that the one in Rome over which he presided.

Clement doesn’t ever assert the primacy of his office. He has ample opportunity, but does not.

His writings hammer home a tone that is contradictory to monarchial or single headed leadership, the plurality of leadership is repeated over and over and over.

At the following link you can read the epistle in whole.
HERE
I’ve gone through to share with yourself and the readers what I mean by Clements insistence of a plurality of elders

1Clem 1:3
For ye did all things without respect of persons, and ye walked after
the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your rulers and
rendering to the older men among you the honor which is their due.

rulers plural,​

Please see how Clement refers to Peter, his supposed successor and then Paul please.

Quote:
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 6:1
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims
of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.

I do not see where Clement gives Peter a prominent role over Paul

---

1Clem 21:6
Let us fear the Lord Jesus [Christ], whose blood was given for us.
Let us reverence our rulers; let us honor our elders; let us instruct
our young men in the lesson of the fear of God. Let us guide our
women toward that which is good:

elders plural​

1Clem 42:2
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

No special mention of Peter​

1Clem 43:1
And what marvel, if they which were entrusted in Christ with such a
work by God appointed the aforesaid persons?

persons no mention of a Papacy​

1Clem 44:1
And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would
be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.

No mention of Peter or Rome​

1Clem 44:4
Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their
departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one
should remove them from their appointed place.
1Clem 44:5
For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were
living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by
them blamelessly.

persons
no evidence of a monarchial authority

 

[BernadetteM]

I think they do!

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate…” Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.” Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius’ Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

“Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons.” Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret’s EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

“We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry…Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church…I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body…And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons.” Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

Hi Fighting Fat,

Wonderful quotes, may I ask where I can find a book with all this information. I do have a book on the ECF, but it isn’t as complete as what you have written.

I just don’t understand how anyone can belong to another Church, once they have read the ECF. The OP mentioned what about earlier written statements, I wonder how he then accepts the Bible, since it was even later that it was in the written form of a book.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hi Fighting Fat,

Wonderful quotes, may I ask where I can find a book with all this information. I do have a book on the ECF, but it isn’t as complete as what you have written.

I just don’t understand how anyone can belong to another Church, once they have read the ECF. The OP mentioned what about earlier written statements, I wonder how he then accepts the Bible, since it was even later that it was in the written form of a book.

God Bless

Bernadette

Though I man not sure where FF got his quotes I have always found the Faith of the Early Fathers series by William Jurgens to be great.

God bless you

 

[BernadetteM]

Though I man not sure where FF got his quotes I have always found the Faith of the Early Fathers series by William Jurgens to be great.

God bless you

I have two of his books, however I would like to purchase others with all the great writings of the ECF. They would help me to explain to even my own family some of the questions they ask, that I can’t answer.

Thanks for the response.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Bernadette,

Snippets like that are intellectually deceptive. Try to read ecf’s in their full context…ccel.org has most all of them for example

 

[Nita]

Your church declares that it has been known for all ages…and attaches that claim to Rome…
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this…
For “no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors”** the bishops of the Holy Roman See**, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore** whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.**So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

Read it carefully. The determining factor is that it is the successor of Peter. Rome comes into the picture only because that is where Peter’s successors have been the bishops.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Read it carefully. The determining factor is that it is the successor of Peter. Rome comes into the picture only because that is where Peter’s successors have been the bishops.

LOL there is no period in there friend.

 

[Nita]

Clement doesn’t ever assert the primacy of his office. He has ample opportunity, but does not.

I didn’t ask for what early Church fathers didn’t say; I asked for citations of what they did say – specifically, for citations that support your assertion. In other words, statements by early fathers that state the successor/s of Peter did not exercise authority over the Church.

His writings hammer home a tone that is contradictory to monarchial or single headed leadership, the plurality of leadership is repeated over and over and over.

At the following link you can read the epistle in whole.
HERE
I’ve gone through to share with yourself and the readers what I mean by Clements insistence of a plurality of elders

1Clem 1:3
For ye did all things without respect of persons, and ye walked after
the ordinances of God, submitting yourselves to your rulers

and
rendering to the older men among you the honor which is their due.

rulers plural,

The pope still expects us to “submit” to our local bishop; also to our pastors. Has nothing to do with whether the Pope exercises authority over the Church.​

Please see how Clement refers to Peter, his supposed successor and then Paul please.

Quote:
1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,
1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 6:1
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the
elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims
of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.

I do not see where Clement gives Peter a prominent role over Paul

??? What on earth does this have to do with papal supremacy. Clement is talking about martyrdom. Clement mentions Peter first, then Paul, and then "a vast multitude of the elect who underwent martyrdom. Perhaps you missed the chapter heading and initial sentences in that chapter. Here’s a more complete quote.
**Chapter 5. No Less Evils Have Arisen from the Same Source in the Most Recent Times. The Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.**But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

---

1Clem 21:6
Let us fear the Lord Jesus [Christ], whose blood was given for us.
Let us reverence our rulers; let us honor our elders; let us instruct
our young men in the lesson of the fear of God. Let us guide our
women toward that which is good:

elders plural

Same sort of advice the pope would send to us today – same as Clement did to those in Corinth.​

 

[Nita]

LOL there is no period in there friend.

Never saId there was friend. I said that the successor of Peter has traditionally been Bishop of Rome.
And there is no mention of Rome in this sentence - "“Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.”