Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[SPH1]

I don’t, rather the RCC makes the claim that from the blessed Peter it was handed on and this was known all along.

This point is troubling so you say the church had the keys handed from both apostles, but Peter was the first pope? Yet Peter passed on his bishopric at antioch all by himself …
Eusebius
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

Why isn’t Antioch the See?

I don’t appreciate being misquoted. Peter had and passed on the keys. I didn’t say anything about Paul having and passing keys.

I said that Paul passed on what he had: apostleship to the gentiles. By apostolic agreement, Paul was apostle to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. That ended definitely with both passing the succession to their successor in Rome.

No other Church, including Antioch, took succession from both apostle to the Jews and apostle to the gentiles. What other See could lay claim over both Jews and Gentiles? A universal authority.

You do not see a great symbolism here?

---

PS: I think this is why Christ called Paul to Rome; that is Paul’s ultimate witness.

 

[SPH1]

I apologize, I just thought of that part of the scripture off the top of my head. It just seems to me that I would rather have someone like Paul as my primeminister than a hypocrite like Peter. That’s just not good politics. And if Peter was such a great leader, than why did Paul have to step up and correct him? Aren’t leaders supposed to be the example?

Then you are calling Christ a fool and denying Christ’s choice in choosing Peter.

Read John 21:15-19. With the full divine confidence, Christ chose Peter as pastor over the Church…the whole Church.

Especially note verse 19. Christ forsaw Peter’s faithful service unto Peter’s death. Peter’s faithful service was a done deal. Foreordained by Christ himself. Do you get that?

Nobody, NOBODY can take away Peter’s Christ-given authority. Not Paul. Not Luther & Calvin. Not you. Not for one second did Peter ever loose his Christ-given authority.

When you come to believe in Christ, you will accept this.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Because Peter didn’t die there. No doubt Rome being the capital also had something to do with it, of course. But that’s the rationale at least–apostles pass on their authority to the place where they were martyred. Bear in mind that one of the main claims of Rome to primacy was the presence of the bones of Peter and Paul. In a very real sense, the primacy of Rome was a primacy of the relics of St. Peter.
Edwin

Edwin my brother 2 questions.

Do you know for a fact Peter was deceased before Linus assumed bishopric from Peter AND Paul?

Do you know or does anyone for a fact that Peter was martyred in Rome?

 

[Eireann]

Show ECF’s prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognised that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop… (we know it happened in antioch) prove it happened in Rome… this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

Howdy !

Uh-huh. And you also see Clement appeal to oral Tradition* and the extra-Scriptural acts of Peter and Paul too. For example, he writes …

“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 (i.e., Spain), 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.”

None of this is recounted in Scripture. Likewise, Clement refers to various extra-Scriptural Traditions, such as Apostolic succession. He writes …

“Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Spirit, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripturea certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons(9) in faith.”

And he goes on to say:

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men

should succeed them in their ministry.”

Clement also refers to the Eucharist as a Sacrifice and to the priestly character of the presbyters, saying …

“Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the Divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master (Jesus) commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate Sacrifices and services (the Eucharist), and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons (the appointed presbyters) whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will.”

Where is this recorded in Scripture? When does Jesus (in Scripture) institute “Sacrifices and services” (aside from the Eucharist) or command WHEN these should be performed or maintain that only certain ordained people (i.e., priests) are to offer these Sacrifices??? This is all part of the ORAL Traditions of the Apostles (1 Corinth 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

YES when ??? I’d be interested to know.

 

[SoonerServant]

This is in response to SPH1’s last post.

If I’m not mistaken, the word pastor means shepherd, right. What about Psalms 23, Genesis 49:24, 1 Peter 5:4, John 10:11 and Hebrews 13:20. Are you saying all these were talking about Peter?

 

[Eireann]

And Clement goes on …

“So then those who offer their oblations (i.e., Sacrifices) at the appointed times are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin.”

He then draws a direct parallel between the Jewish priestly offices of the Temple and that of the Christian priesthood, writing …

“For to the high priest (e.g. the bishop) his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests (e.g. the presbyters/priests) the proper place has been appointed, and on the Levites (e.g. the deacons) their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity. …Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

Again, Clement shares ORAL Apostolic Traditions with us here; and these Traditions are the ancient faith of the CATHOLIC Church.

"So, because this letter, a very long letter to be sure, never mentions a Papacy. This is your strongest extrabiblical argument from the 1st century? The fact that Clement wrote a letter?? >>>>

No, our evidence is that Clement wrote a letter IN THE NAME of the church of Rome; and he wrote this letter IN RESPONSE to an APPEAL to Rome (as an AUTHORITY) on behalf of the church of Corinth. Read the very opening of the Epistle, which says …

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which YOU CONSULTED US and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (1 Clement Chapt. 1)

Notice that it was the Corinthians* who appealed to Rome. …Just as the early church of Antioch appealed to the Apostles at Jerusalem for a solution to their problems in Acts 15:2. But, why so in this case, since there were no living Apostles in Rome? …And since the churches of both Corinth and Rome were founded by Peter and Paul? Wouldn’t that make them “equal”? Evidently not.

Also, please note that 1 Clement to the Corinthians was written at a time when the Apostle John was still alive and presiding as bishop in nearby Ephesus --a city that was much closer to Corinth than Rome was. So, why did the Corinthians consult far-off Rome when St. John, or his representatives, were in Ephesus, just across the Aegean? And, indeed, the church of Corinth had precident for consulting the church of Ephesus, since it had already done so when St. Paul presided there: 1 Corinth 7:1, 1 Corinth 16:8 & 16:19.

So, what was so special about Rome that the Corinthians had to appeal to the Romans? It is clear from the context of 1 Clement that the Corinthian problem would not be solved until Rome gave its response (e.g. Jerusalem in Acts 15).

Clement also speaks of Rome’s “turning its attention” to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. Clement also praises the faith of the Corinthian church in a universal context --a context that could be invoked only if Rome had universal jurisdiction. Once again, he writes …

“…your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.”

As for 1 Clement “not mentioning a Papacy,” why would it need to? When the High Priest of Jerusalem (in Acts 9:1-2) sent Saul with letters to the synagogues in Damascus, do you think those letters had to tell these Damascus Jews what the High Priesthood was or explain to them that Jerusalem held primacy over all the Jews in the world?? If not, then why should you expect to see 1 Clement to the Corinthians recount what the ministry of Peter (then held by Peter’s successor at Rome) was all about?? Your demand is an unreasonable and unrealistic one, and it makes no sense.

When we know that letters from one person to another church were not exclusive to Rome? >>>>

Really? Would you care to show me one example of a church appealing to the authority of another church in the way that the Corinthians appeal to Rome. 1 Clement to the Corinthians is not merely a “friendly letter” as you’d like to depict it; it is a letter written IN RESPONSE TO A DESPERATE APPEAL and it asks for an AUTHORITATIVE SOLUTION to a crisis in Corinth —a crisis in which the laity of Corinth had overthrown and expelled their rightly presbyters --men ordained by the Apostles themselves! And, in writing to these Corinthians, Clement directly issues a COMMAND to them. He writes …

 

[Eireann]

“Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, SUBMIT YOURSELF TO THE PRESBYTERS, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. LEARN TO BE SUBJECT, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)

Now, we know from various early INDEPENDENT patristic witnesses (e.g. Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Corinth, etc.) that this letter from Clement solved the problem and healed the schism in Corinth. But, if that’s the case, here’s a simple question for you: WHY did these Corinthians listen to Clement (that is, to the Roman church) when they would not even listen to their own local presbyters --presbyters who were ordained by the Apostles, JUST LIKE Clement. Clearly, Clement (that is, the Roman church) held some authority that was greater than the local Corinthian presbyters.

Does Clement ever mention he is THE BISHOP OF ROME? >>>

Does he need to??? If you received a letter from George W. Bush, would he have to mention that he’s the current President of the United States? Of course not. What’s more, various other Church fathers independently tell us that Clement was the bishop of Rome at this time. In fact, Dionysius of Corinth, who would have been a child when Clement wrote his Epistle, writes to Pope Soter comparing a letter received from that Pope to “the earlier one written through Clement.”

 

[myfavoritmartin]

“

Now, we know from various early INDEPENDENT patristic witnesses (e.g. Ireneaus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Corinth, etc.) that this letter from Clement solved the problem and healed the schism in Corinth. "

Can you share with me proof from these witnesses?

 

[Eireann]

Can you share with me proof from these witnesses?

Can you share with me the proof that Jesus Christ existed ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

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

**My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith… **

Show ECF’s prior to the 3rd century 200 AD, etc, etc.

MFM-

This is not my “area” of apologetics so I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion. However, I’m wondering if you are not reading too much into the statement you quoted.

The passage reads in part: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, See that comma after “race”? That seems to be the end of the section that deals with “it was known in every age…”. it certainly stands to reason that men in every age would know of this Petrine story just as men in “every generation” call Mary “blessed”.

It does not seem logical that the next section could be true, however, for how could people living in the first few centuries have anticipated that the Church or even the world would survive until the time of Vatican I. Indeed, some in the early church thought Christ’s return was eminent. They stopped working! Paul had to correct them in one of his letters!

Let me parse this another way, and tell me what you think.For “no one can be in doubt,[comma] 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, [comma]and [additionally, no one reading this document can be in doubt] 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 I’ve inserted “additionally, no one reading this document can be in doubt” to illustrate that it ties back to the prepositional phrase begininning with “For”.

Seeing these two sections of the paragraph separated by the MyFavoriteMartinnine comma, illustrates that it would be possible for all ages to understand the Peter got the keys without necessarily understanding the fullness of the developed Papal doctrine.

I know you like to ask the tough questions, but this one seems like a bit of a stretch.

Thoughts?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

“Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, SUBMIT YOURSELF TO THE PRESBYTERS, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. LEARN TO BE SUBJECT, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)

Presbyter = councel of elders.
Am I missing something here?
This seems to solidify my argument .

 

[Randy_Carson]

Presbyter = councel of elders.
Am I missing something here?

Perhaps.

The modern English word, “Priest” is a derivative of the word, “Presbyter”.

Therefore, in the NT:

Overseers = Bishops
Presbyters or Elders = Priests
Deacons = Deacons

 

[JaneFrances]

Originally Posted by Eireann
“Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, SUBMIT YOURSELF TO THE PRESBYTERS, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. LEARN TO BE SUBJECT, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)

The authority of the presbyters does not disprove the authority of the Bishop of Rome, any more than the authority of St. Peter displaces the authority of our Head and Savior Jesus Christ.

It is widely accepted within Christian tradition that a council of elders is authoritative when approved by the Bishop of Rome. In his letter, Pope St. Clement of Rome is admonishing the church at Corinth to submit to the elders. He is clearly administering his authority to approve the presbyters’ shepherding.

I do not see that Clement’s admonishment disproves his papal authority. How do you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you share with me proof from these witnesses?

Could you show that the schism still exists? If it does not, then the problem was solved…

Okay, I know, this is an assertion or whatever…I TOLD you this is not my “area”!

 

[Eireann]

Can you share with me proof from these witnesses?

NO ! just like you can’t share proof of Jesus Christ.

**IRENEAUS OF LYON

"The Apostles (Peter & Paul), then, having founded and built up the church (of Rome), 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, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles." (Against the Heresies)

 

[DeFide]

Papal primacy is integral …

MFM,

I have a question that may or may not hasten the conclusion of this thread:

Do you accept or deny that Peter had a real primacy over the Church?

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend [govern] my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people of the church, even the apostles.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys

Matt. 16:18 - Christ bestows the name Kepha/Rock/Peter on Simon bar Jona, and says he will build his Church on this rock.

 

[Redbandito]

Yes, and MFM is attempting to do such and I am as well. When did the church fall into its current Papacy mindset…that is gradually. Pope Victor seems to me to be the first to overstate his role I would say. Clement’s letter, of course I see nothing wrong, but I certainly do not see the Papacy.

Okay, but that is just the Papacy. Even if you rejected the Papacy based on the “historical record”, that would not mean that you could reject Eastern Orthodoxy. Apostolic Succession is well-attested in the ECF’s. Further, a Catholic/Orthodox view of the sacraments was also very explicit in the ECF’s. Thus, simply rejecting the Papacy does not prove that the Church strayed from the Apostolic teaching. Do you agree?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Irenaues
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 – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere

Quite significant. Irenaues say’s Rome has authority, Though this it is controversial He felt this way as did others.
It isn’t that Peter had a specific successor but they adhered to the Apostles teachings (per the bible)
HMMM… Peter and Paul again.

 

[Redbandito]

Irenaues
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 – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere

Quite significant. Irenaues say’s Rome has authority, Though this it is controversial He felt this way as did others.
It isn’t that Peter had a specific successor but they adhered to the Apostles teachings (per the bible)
HMMM… Peter and Paul again.

So MFM, do you adhere to Rome as Irenaeus does?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

So MFM, do you adhere to Rome as Irenaeus does?

Thats not what the post is about…
But why do you ask?