F
- Status
F
Fredricks
Guest
Thanks for the link!
Eusebius HE
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul. *
**
Polycrates to Victor*
So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord’s service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scriptures(gotta love that), am not scared of threats, Better people than I have said: ‘We must obey God rather than man.’
Eusebius HE
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul. *
**
Polycrates to Victor*
So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord’s service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scriptures(gotta love that), am not scared of threats, Better people than I have said: ‘We must obey God rather than man.’
D
DeFide
Guest
MFM,
Do you think Pope John Paul II “HIMSELF” put Cardinal Ratzinger into the office of the Papacy?
Just checking.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Well according to Ireneaus Peter AND Paul did hand the episcopate to Linus…MFM,
Do you think Pope John Paul II “HIMSELF” put Cardinal Ratzinger into the office of the Papacy?
Just checking.
E
Eireann
Guest
Welcome back Fredricks, I see were still flogging that old horse,
where have you been ?
F
Fredricks
Guest
What else would an old man flog BUT an old horse!!!Welcome back Fredricks, I see were still flogging that old horse,
I just got a new computer, old one broke. Hanging out in this nursing home!
D
DeFide
Guest
And MFM,
To keep from rehashing the same stuff, you might want to check out this thread first:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1426538&mode=linear
This page also has some links that may be germane to your question if you are interested:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html
It has articles that disprove the only alternative explanation you might have in mind.
To keep from rehashing the same stuff, you might want to check out this thread first:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1426538&mode=linear
This page also has some links that may be germane to your question if you are interested:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html
It has articles that disprove the only alternative explanation you might have in mind.
E
Eireann
Guest
Yep, we’ve been this road before, I’m no expert on the ECF’s, any participation in this thread from me will be copy and paste.
Have to give Mark a shout.
M
mercygate
Guest
The Catholic Church commemorates the Feasts of Peter and Paul on the same day. We have no problem with Paul’s role in the early development of the Church at Rome: none at all.
Has anyone cited Irenaeus of Lyons on this thread yet? *Adversus Haeresis, book iii. *Around 185-190 A.D.
Irenaeus first makes the case for the primacy of the Church at Rome based on its founding by both Peter and Paul, then goes on to list the first bishops, showing that Rome had maintained its purity and authority:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. . . . 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. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, . . . From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood . . .
Note that the letter of Clement was written within the lifetime of Apostle John. Catholics understand apostolic tradition from both Scripture and the actual practice of the early Church.
I recommend not only the passages of Scripture that demonstrate Peter’s primacy (Luke 18:31-320, Mt. 16:18-19, Jn 21) but also the third letter of John. It is all about: who are you? where did you get your authority? The early Church depended on knowing who preached the Gospel to you. Anyone not attached to an apostolic source was considered unreliable, and likely a heretic.
F
Fredricks
Guest
We can get into Ireneaus again, certainly we have done that. But just so you know, we do not have a PRECISE date for Clements letter and Johns death, because of that, your statement is not accurate with certainity. That they occured within just a few short years of one another, yes.
M
mercygate
Guest
Not only within a few years of each other but although most have held that Clement’s letter dates from the late 90’s others cite credible reasons for dating it from the early '80s.
F
Fredricks
Guest
Well…since Catholics usually date his Papacy around 88 AD, I will agree with the earlier date and agree that it is not an example of the Papacy! Either way…
P
ProdigalSonOfOz
Guest
I’m a little confused as to how this supports your possition.
Firstly there is the primary assumption here is that Pope Victor had the authority to make such decisions, the context of Polycrates letter is that Victor is in the process of making such a ruling. How would it have even have come to this point if it wasn’t largely believed that Victor had the authority to make such a decision?
Secondly, Polycrates was later excommunicated, guess who communicated him
. It is quite clear from Eusebius’s work that at least within the Roman church it was accepted that Victor held supreme authority.Perhaps the more pertinent question with regards to this issue is whether or not the Roman Church has authority over the other Churches.
F
Fredricks
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Lots of things, such as the Petrine passages in the NT, the frequent identification of Rome with Peter and Paul in early patristic literature (Irenaeus being the best example), the development of lists of successors to Peter, and perhaps most tellingly in the admission of the Orthodox (the only people with much standing to contest the matter) that Rome has always exercised some kind of primacy.
BTW, I was dubious about making the statement “I have no doubt,” since I’m the sort of person who doubts everything. But I do not seriously question it.
Every time Rome is mentioned, it’s mentioned in a way that is consonant with some kind of primacy being exercised, though not with the absolute monarchy later claimed. The Quartodeciman controversy is a wonderful example–it shows both that the Pope was the one responsible for cutting local churches off from the communion of the Universal Church, *and *that he could be challenged if he made a mistake. [Yes, I know that there are alternate interpretations of what happened both from those who grant more to the Papacy than I do and those who grant less.]
Sure, just as it’s the scholarly consensus that David was nothing more than a tribal chieftain and that Solomon’s Temple never existed. Why trust the scholarly consensus implicitly in one case and not in another? I think there are sound arguments to indicate that Rome did not have a monarchical bishop in the Ignatian sense until late in the 2nd century. But these arguments are not foolproof–one archaeological discovery could unsettle them easily. And they don’t affect the essentials of the RC argument. Even if Clement functioned as the leading presbyter, he could still be the primary successor of Peter and Paul. Or perhaps all the presbyters at Rome fulfilled this role until late in the 2nd century. What we do know is that Peter and Paul were widely held to have passed on their authority to the leaders of the Church at Rome. All the evidence we have supports this idea, and none of it contradicts it.
Probably because you’ve seen me arguing against over-enthusiastic RC apologists who try to prove too much, just as you and martin and mozart are doing now. I tend to attack whoever seems to be using history incautiously, both because of my training as a church historian and because of my indecisive and contrarian temperament
In Christ,
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Arguments from silence are extremely weak. Certainly any primacy Clement was exercising was very rudimentary. You’re expecting him to write in the pompous style of a late medieval Pontiff. This is unfair. What matters is that we do see him intervenine authoritatively in the affairs of another church. As I said to Fredericks, I don’t think this proves primacy. But if you are going to argue that the RCC must be wrong because there’s no example of primacy from the beginning, then Clement stands in your way. He might have been only doing what any bishop would have done. Or he might have felt a special responsibility to intervene because he was the leading presbyter of the church to which Peter and Paul had given their authority. That Peter had primacy among the apostles is clear from the NT, and it’s also clear that Paul was an extremely revered figure. Why on earth you think that the linkage of Rome with Paul as well as Peter somehow *weakens *Rome’s claim to primacy is utterly beyond me. It’s as if you should say that my claims to expertise in church history should be denied because besides my major field in the study of the Reformation I also took classes in patristics!
In Christ,
Edwin
R
Redbandito
Guest
So Fred, since you acknowledge that succession was a concept passed down (at least in the eyes of the Fathers), are you Catholic or Orthodox?
R
Redbandito
Guest
What in the world does that prove? We SHOULD assume that the bishops would be in “unity” with each other. Christ himself prayed for it. Yet, this does not take away from primacy. All the bishops in union share the power to “bind and loose.” Yet, it is clear that Peter was given this authority separately and in a unique way.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Okay myfavoritmartin. Does that mean you are part of the Orthodox Church then? Clearly the Fathers refer to a lineage. The only two churches that can claim succession are the Orthodox and RC Churches. Thus, which one do you follow?
- Status