R
Religio71
Guest
Do you pray to Jesus Christ? There is a fundamental difference in how traditional Christians approach worship of Jesus Christ and how Mormons approach worship of Jesus Christ, beginning with prayer.
- Status
Do you pray to Jesus Christ? There is a fundamental difference in how traditional Christians approach worship of Jesus Christ and how Mormons approach worship of Jesus Christ, beginning with prayer.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The Apostles ordained bishops as their successors, to rule over the growing Church.
St. John did not interfere with Clement, this is apparent in Clement’s letters. He specifically sites his authority as a successor to the Apostles.The Apostles are the ones who ordained the bishops. They are their successors, not their rivals. Obviously, they were trusted by the Apostles. In the NT Christians were told to listen to their bishops.
Peter established the Church in Rome. He led it, as an Apostle.
1 Timothy describes the requirements and duties of a bishop in the early Church. This was in place very early on as St. Paul was martyred c.64-67. You would think if it were an incorrect practice, you would see exhortations against an error. You don’t.
Pope is a term of endearment, derived from ‘papa’. His official title is Bishop of Rome. He is a bishop.
Paul doesn’t mention a lot of things. He does not list the specifics to the liturgy and Sacraments. These are found in Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Tradition.
Who do you think compiled the NT? Don’t you think that if the Catholic Church felt it important to include many things of Sacred Tradition, they would. That is not the purpose of Scripture. It is not a manual for how to run a church. It contains the teachings of the Apostles.
He was an Apostle who ordained bishops.
It isn’t possible that it was broken. Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, to rule the church, in every way. When a vacancy in leadership was created by death or other reasons, a new bishop was voted into the vacancy. We have no historical account that the Church at Rome was left without a bishop to rule over it. Linus or Clement? While an interesting historical occurrence to study, it leaves no indications that there was not a successor to Peter, in Rome. Quite the contrary, the Church in Rome has always (in Christian timeline) existed, and as such, has always required a Bishop to rule over it.
One thing I think that you should be aware of, is that we believe that when the Apostles received anything from Jesus, they received it for the whole Church. When St. Peter received the keys, he received them as the Apostle who is the foundation of the Church, for the Church. You can see in modern succession. A Pope dies, and the successor to the Chair of Peter is prayerfully voted in by a college of Bishops. The Bishop of Rome is then instilled as the ruler over the whole Church, in communion with every Bishop. In the interim, the keys given to the Church are not lost. They are held by the Church, and the Bishop of Rome as the successor to Peter, is given the authority to exercise them.
(In contrast, the Orthodox churches believe every bishop is given the authority to exercise the keys that were given to the Church, through Peter.)
C
cothrige
Guest
Because the Apostles installed Bishops over the Church. It is well attested, both in the New Testament, and in the ECFs.
Do you mean St. Paul of Tarsus? He died about the same time that St. Peter did, and was almost certainly in prison for some time before he did die. Additionally, as St. Irenaeus makes clear “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.” Notice “apostles” referring to both St. Peter and St. Paul, the founders of the Church in Rome. As for the other Apostles, they had missions of their own and were obviously not in Rome.
Additionally, there was no “second in command” in the Church as Christ never said anything about that. The Church, very quickly, attested to the primacy of Rome, and that was confirmed over and over in the ECFs, and the councils. I would bet that immediately after the death of the Apostles in Rome there was little thought given to who might inherit St. Peter’s office as Prince of the Apostles, or even if somebody even might.
Why would you wonder about that? Rome has the primacy because it is the See of Peter and Paul. And what does the relationship of Rome and the death of our Lord have to do with it? Jerusalem was a very significant See in the Early Church and yet it was there that our Lord Died and many there were complicit.
Well, there you go. And who killed our Lord exactly? And yet you recognize that they were central in the early Church. So there goes your theory.
Well, why would he, given the context of his writings, ever list the bishops of Rome? And I doubt that there was any contention among Christians about who the bishop of Rome was at any given time. I think you are also presuming that the bishops of Rome had universal authority as early as when St. John was writing. If Apostles were still alive I would imagine that they would still be seen as pretty authoritative. More than likely the Church settled on primacy of this or that See after all the Apostles were dead, and only then would such questions have started being relevant.
How many verses should a future bishop have warranted? However, again, why would he list anyone anyway? While he was alive he had authority, and it was only when he died that such questions would be relevant.
Again, why would it be otherwise? Scriptures are not stereo instructions. You think that there should have been included a convenient FAQ for the Church. But, you forget that the Scriptures generally contain the Apostolic witness, and again while the Apostles were with us I doubt that there was little worry about which See was first in rank. That came later, and when it did the Church dealt with it as it dealt with all such questions. And during that time there is good witness to the role of St. Peter and the See of Rome, but many people just choose to reject that historical testimony.
Well, if St. Peter as an apostle carried out the local functions that were later carried out by the bishop then he could be called the first bishop, historically speaking. That is why he is called the first Pope. However, obviously his office, just like St. Paul’s, was given directly by our Lord and nobody else. He held the primacy in Rome, simply because he was there as Apostle, and in the Church, by the command of our Lord directly. Who exactly was going to come along and say “Hey, Peter, just because Christ said you were the leader I think Fred over here should be.”
Who was going to “break” it, and how? Who was the bishop of Paris in 845? Who cares? I am sure that there was one, but even there wasn’t sometime later there was, and I am confident that he was a real bishop. There is actually a very strong historical witness to the list of the very early Popes of Rome which includes St. Iranaeus, Eusebius, St. Hippolytus and others, but that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the Apostles left us bishops, and those bishops left us others to take their place down to today. Rome is no exception. And the Church, from very early on, attested to the primacy of Rome, and why it held this primacy, and that is authoritative because Holy Mother Church is authoritative. And if you reject the history of the existence of those early Popes, as given by those witnesses, or that Rome was given primacy from very early on, then you may as well reject that Julius Caesar ever lived. The facts about his life are also all established on the testimony of contemporary and near contemporary witnesses, as is the very life of Christ himself for that matter.
C
cothrige
Guest
Sorry Rebecca, you beat me in there. I was polishing my post, and so didn’t notice you had already dealt with these questions. If I had seen your post I would probably not have done so.
This is what I was trying to say, but you did it so much better than I.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
There are six main sources for the idea that St. Linus succeeded Peter as the second Pope, (at least that is what I found):
*]Iraneus (circa 130 - circa 202 AD)
*]Jerome (c. 347 – September 30, 420)
*]Eusebius (c. 263 – c. 339)
*]John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)
*]Liberian Catalogue (354 AD)
*]Liber Pontificalis (a record supposedly begun by Jerome)
I would say the only credible (unbiased) source here, would have to be Iraneus. He was the only one who pre-dated Constantine. Unfortunately, his reference to Papal succession is extremely obscure. He believed in the ultimate authority of Bishops in the church (since John was probably the last apostle), but this might have been because he himself was a bishop (of Lyon). Not the most reliable or explanatory source for such a critical point.
Eusebius was the next chronologically, but was a notorious supporter of Constantine even claiming to have baptized him. For those you who are not familiar with who Constantine was, he was the controversial Roman Emperor who first adopted Christianity and settled the violence between Christians and Rome. Constantine basically made the Roman empire a secular empire where previously persecuted religions would be used instead to unify the empire under his reign.
Constantine was extremely persistent that each religion develop an orthodoxy. He himself then enforced the orthodoxy after it was developed by each group. In fact, Constantine led the first inter-Christian war between “Orthodox Christians” and a smaller Christian sect known as the Donatists. Not following the orthodox decisions of the day was, as you see, very dangerous.
Because of the push for orthodoxy, I would have to say it was probably Eusebius (who was either close to Constantine or wanted to be) who decided what the official Papal history looked like. Other historians/scholars have relied on him ever since.
That is not to say he was wrong. I would just ask what his authority was to decide. I’ve gotta say that this “Papal Tradition” has weak beginnings.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
There is a fundamental difference between our churches anyway. What’s your point?
We do worship Jesus Christ in every meaningful way except praying directly to him. In the Book of Mormon it says that we could even do that if he were here with us.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
You got through the list, but I don’t think you answered all my questions. Here are the ones you seemed to have missed:
You never quite answer # 1.
So you may want to look at # 2 again.
So you don’t really answer # 3 or 4 either.
I don’t care whether there was a successor to the Bishops of Rome. What I am saying is who gave the Bishop of Rome the authority over the whole church? Where is the source of that “sacred tradition”?
So you really need to look at # 7 again, too.
Bishops always had authority to “rule” the church in their areas. I don’t dispute that. But other than Clement who claimed to be a successor, who witnessed that the apostles transferred their “rule” to “one Bishop” for the whole church? Irenaeus barely even hints at this later on. It wasn’t until the time of Constantine that it is even mentioned again.
You never quite answer # 1.
St.John did not interfere with Clement because Clement did not claim to be anything other than a Bishop. I think you misread the letters, because Clement never claims authority for the whole church. Only as a Bishop.
So you may want to look at # 2 again.
Again where is the source for this? During the reign of Claudius, Jews were not even allowed in Rome. Peter probably didn’t even go to Rome until after the death of Claudius.
So you don’t really answer # 3 or 4 either.
Following Bishops was not incorrect. Bishops were high ranking clergy members even then. That still doesn’t answer the question, “Why the Bishop of Rome?”
Understood.
He does mention Peter as the head of the church, though. (see Galatians 1 and 2)
Sacred tradition is not enough to provide evidence for how the Papacy succession began. You need a source for that tradition. Otherwise the tradition could be false.
You should be careful how you flaunt this information. One might think the Catholics had the power to reject or keep whatever they wanted in the scriptures…
I don’t care whether there was a successor to the Bishops of Rome. What I am saying is who gave the Bishop of Rome the authority over the whole church? Where is the source of that “sacred tradition”?
So you really need to look at # 7 again, too.
S
Scriptorian
Guest
A thoughtful response, cothrige. Thanks for taking the time.
Actually, though, the church from very early on did not attest to the primacy of Rome. It wasn’t until Eusebius (Constantine’s biographer) that Rome was even made the center of the Christian world at all. This probably had something to do with the new found protection of “Orthodoxy” that Constantine was providing.
Even Irenaeus, the oft quoted Bishop of Lyon from the 2nd century, gives only the most obscure of references to any authority had by the Bishop of Rome. He was more concerned by the authority of Bishops generally (as expected since he was one!).
As a side note, it was from Irenaeus that we have the canonical gospels chosen, most of the NT books quoted from (these were later chosen as canonical also), and general ideas of what doctrine in the church should look like. I think his writing may be one of the most important sources of “history” the Catholic Church has.
Also, I do not discount these early writers at all. But much more “Sacred Tradition” is credited to Irenaeus than he really established. Papal tradition probably goes to Eusebius who seemed to be trying to establish Rome as the center place to gratify his Roman protectors.
A
appaloosablue
Guest
Once again I ask this question.
Stephen168
New member
Because it is true.
Focus…the subject is ‘the true Church of Christ’ not the existence of Ra. If you claiming that Mormonism is as Christian as ancient Egyptians, then I agree.
History, Science and Reason support Catholicism. In the last 50 years they have shown Mormonism to be false; which is why historians, and scientist have been excommunicated for the Mormon Church in the last few years.
Reason supports the Christian understanding of God. Not the mythical creature god of Mormonism.
C
cothrige
Guest
I disagree about your use of “unbiased.” History is full of bias, and witnesses always have a bias in their view. History is not recorded in a lab with careful controls. However, you are at least as biased as those men were. Here you reflect your own anti-constantinian view and use that to disqualify the writings of people 1700 years closer to an event than you are as to what that event was. And I think your view of Constantine is unfounded. Nothing that I have read has ever established that he promoted a view of the Church established on authority in Old Rome. He may have supported it, but since he moved his seat from that city to Constantinople, and since that city very early on began arguing in the Councils for her own status, it certainly seems unlikely. If anything he would more likely be in support of New Rome not Old Rome.
I also think you make a switch in the above argument, from whether St. Linus was the first bishop of Rome to a general discussion of Papal primacy. Your list of six would more than likely relate only to the former than the latter. You seem to be starting with that specific topic and then generalizing your understanding and applying it to the whole tradition of the Papacy. They are not the same issue though. I think there is a very strong assortment of Fathers, councils and such for Roman primacy thoughout the Early Church period, including Igantius of Antioch if I recall correctly as well as Iranaeus again, and very few probably discussed St. Linus. Even the Eastern Churches universally accepted the primacy of Rome, though they argued about just what it entailed.
But, again, you have not demonstrated that he manipulated history for Rome over any other Church. Neither have you demonstrated that Constantine held such a position, and that is the entire keystone of this argument.
Yes he wanted orthodoxy, but you have not made a case that he selected what was orthodox. All indications seem to be that bishops, in council, decided that and Constantine accepted it and promulgated their decision with his authority. If you are saying that he determined what was orthodox then you would have to support that with something, and nobody else as ever seemed able to do so.
You have not established this though. Is it your bias about the “controversial” emperor, or is it real bias on the part of Eusebius? Eusebius is an excellent historical source very close to the periods we are discussing. Throwing him aside would be akin to ignoring Suetonius regarding the life of Caligula. And again the only thing you are casting doubt on here is whether it was St. Linus or St. Clement who succeeded to the papacy in Rome. That is an historical curiosity of some merit, but it hardly makes a case as to whether Rome had a primacy in the Early Church, which is certainly well attested.
I don’t see that at all. Whether Rome’s primacy was one of universal juridical authority or some other form is certainly arguable, but not that it had primacy. That has tremendously strong beginnings.
R
Religio71
Guest
LDS recognize Peter’s primacy, specifically seeing him as Prophet of the Church. Who was the next Prophet after Peter?
C
cothrige
Guest
I think you make too much of your case here. Especially in your insistence that the Church “did not attest to the primacy of Rome” early on. And your leaving aside Irenaeus as too vague is also, I think, too much. Consider this one brief passage for one.
I don’t find this very vague at all.
I think your main error in your understanding of all these things is in seeing two churches. You would have us accept the existence of pre-Constantine and post-Constantine Churches. That isn’t so however. The Church suffered two centuries, give or take, of intermittent and often horrendous persecution under the Roman emperors, continually refusing to give up her traditions. And yet, we are to believe, along comes Constantine and the entire Church casts everything aside and all out of a fear of not pleasing the Emperor. They just gave up, all at once, and adopted a new Roman form of faith and ritual. It’s absurd. It just doesn’t follow the facts or the evidence. There is simply nothing out there to suggest any of that is true, and actually the overwhelming voice of history is against it.
C
cothrige
Guest
Where did the Church ever describe a man at the top of the heirarchy who is “Prophet of the Church?” There are prophets, to be sure, but where are we introduced to this very novel idea? St. Peter is an Apostle, and foremost among them, but I am aware of no writing or tradition that he specifically excercised the particular charism of prophecy, though he may have. St. John certainly did, as would be evidenced by his Apocalypse, but I am not sure if St. Peter did. He is certainly never called “the Prophet of the Church” in a sense of some exclusive office of prophecy above anyone else. So, since it cannot be demonstrated that St. Peter was even a prophet, much less “the Prophet of the Church”, how can you even begin to ask who the next one was?
R
Religio71
Guest
I agree
Stephen168
New member
I agree. I’ve never understood the logic of that agrement either.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
You ask very good questions. I hope but tend to doubt you’ll find satisfactory responses to everything you ask here in this Thread or on these forums.
I think it’s hard to overestimate the influence and significance of Irenaeus, and easy to overestimate the same for Eusebius.
The authority of the Bishop of Rome evolved through history. Meaning, how that authority was universally understood, practiced, accepted, etc. The fact that it evolved and has been exercised in different ways at different times does not mean current Catholic understanding and practice of the Papacy is wrong (and I’d add that we Catholics have to be careful not to retroject our experience upon earlier centuries without a significant understanding of history). It also of course does not mean it’s perfect.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
you does see the other bishops referring to the all powerful Bishop of Rome Because the Papacy is not an absolute monarchy that non catholic try to paint it as It is the final voice if there is disagreement among the bishops that they are unable to work out themselves or if one is teaching an heresy. He is the only one that can call for bishop to be ordained and he alone can depose a sitting bishop. As it was Peter whom we read in Act’s that said to the other we need to select one from the others to replace Judas. and Paul in a couple different places said to seeing or going to see and talk to Peter and the other 11. If there are no problems arising then there would be no reason for Papal intercession in another bishops diocese. Thus for the most part each bishop can run things the way he wants as an example if for some reason the bishop here were I live decide that we should only receive the Eucharist under one form( the Body) then it is within his power to do so.
And I really do not know what any of this has to do with the OP.
And I really do not know what any of this has to do with the OP.
D
dianaiad
Guest
You keep SAYING that, but have yet to show us how it is true. Your argument by assertion (itself a fallacy) is rapidly becoming argument ad nauseum. I’m sorry, but simply repeating the same claim over and over again does not make it any more true the last time you claim it than it does the first time you do.
Ironic… The subject is your claim that Catholicism is the ‘true church of Christ’ because science, history and reason prove it to be so.I have shown that the ancient Egyptions have twice the history Catholics do, but that their length of existence does not prove THEM to be ‘true.’
How, then, can simply being around a long time prove that Catholicism is 'the true church of Christ?"
How? You have yet to support your assertion.
No, they haven’t. So there.
Ah HA!!!
Actually, Science, History and Reason have shown Mormonism to be the True Church of Christ.
Hey, if you can…
J
Jerusha
Guest
Excommunicated from the LDS church:
Simon Southerton, DNA scientist
D. Michael Quinn, historian
Paul Toscano, attorney, theologian
Maxine Hanks, feminist, theologian
Lavina Fielding Anderson, historian
Fawn Brodie, historian
Simon Southerton, DNA scientist
D. Michael Quinn, historian
Paul Toscano, attorney, theologian
Maxine Hanks, feminist, theologian
Lavina Fielding Anderson, historian
Fawn Brodie, historian
- Status