Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[John_Henry]

1 Peter 2 says Christ is the Rock, but the RCC ignores everything that shows its claim to be false.

That works out well then, because the Catholic Church also says that Christ is the rock. John Paul II said it himself, in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. But the Church does not use scripture against scripture. If one scripture says Jesus is the rock and another says Peter is the rock, the Church doesn’t think it is “common sense” to therefore conclude that Peter isn’t the rock.

So it can be seen that the Church does not ignore this little tid-bit of info. The question is, how can Jesus and Peter both be the rock?

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

The Church wasn’t organised to be under the authority of any of the Apostles, see Christ’s original ruling.

None of the bishops of the Church in any other place ever made such a claim, not even Ignatius who had the pre-eminent right to claim succession from Peter. ***They considered the couple of bishops in Rome who first tried to use this claim to be arrogant as well as wrong. ***

1.Read the salutation in Ignatius letter to Rome? Compare that with his salutations to the other Church’s he writes on his way to Rome

1. Corinth appealed to Rome for help of which we have Clement’s letter as proof. Remember, St John is still alive over on Patmos. As long as an apostle is still alive, ask yourself, why not go to him? Yet they appealed to Rome for a solution. If everyone is of equal claim to power, why not go somewhere else in the empire for a solution? Why Rome?

Myhrr:

A list of out of context quotes don’t really help to understand this situation. Have you even read Tertullian’s? If you do please note that he says anyone who makes the same confession as Peter is granted those same keys.

Please offer the quote.

If you’ve read Tertullian, you know rather early on, He became a montanist which was a heresy.

Myhrr:

if you do enquire further you’ll find that the discussion about Peter’s role was never in conjunction with claims to Rome having sole succession and anyway you’ll find more fathers saying the rock is Peter’s revelation From God the Father. Even Origen says this, for all the use of him in this list.

Even as a montanist, Tertullian wrote,

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church,"278 "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; "279 or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,"280 you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “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 loosed 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; you see what (key): "Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears:

Myhrr:

Antioch is still the See of Peter - so how do you explain your claim to ‘sole succession’?

Peter didn’t stay there.

 

[Myhrr]

John_Henry:

That works out well then, because the Catholic Church also says that Christ is the rock. John Paul II said it himself, in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. But the Church does not use scripture against scripture. If one scripture says Jesus is the rock and another says Peter is the rock, the Church doesn’t think it is “common sense” to therefore conclude that Peter isn’t the rock.

So it can be seen that the Church does not ignore this little tid-bit of info. The question is, how can Jesus and Peter both be the rock?

The RCC has only relatively recently being saying that, and not too loudly. Just as only recently, since Vatican II, the laity are being allowed to share in the cup after 800 years of being denied the blood of Christ in his actual injunction “to drink”. Not even all of you, it’s still up to the individual bishop and in the RCC parish here the bishop doesn’t allow it.

Peter’s revelation, confession and faithfulness in the face of his own weaknesses has always been understood as the rock for the Church. Common sense can tell the difference and both meanings are honoured by the Church, but the primary meaning is Christ on whom the revelation, confession and faithfulness rest.

 

[Myhrr]

1.Read the salutation in Ignatius letter to Rome? Compare that with his salutations to the other Church’s he writes on his way to Rome.

Let’s compare it. What about with the one to Polycarp? There he names him, the Bishop of Smyrna. Where is the name of the Bishop of Rome in this letter to Rome if the Pope is supposedly so important in the early Church because he is the sole successor of Peter which you claim gives supreme undisputed authority over every other bishop?

This is a letter from St Ignatius, himself successor to Peter and Paul, as he tells us, writing to the Church in Rome who is also established on the teachings of Peter and Paul.

Where are the salutations to this great Bishop of Rome sole successor of Peter? They don’t exist. Instead with the utmost humility Ignatius teaches the Church by reminding them that they too have been built on the same foundation of Peter and Paul’s teaching as has he. This old man honoured by all the Church wherever it has been established, tradition in the Orthodox Church says he is the same child that Christ put in the midst of his disciples to teach them.

Do you really think it likely that any bishop in rome would have had the audacity to claim he was the sole successor of Peter to Ignatius’ face? This was what, some fifty, sixty years after Peter and Paul’s martyrdom? This claim of yours is shown to be false here, none of the early letters between the Churches show any special consideration of Rome because of ‘sole Petrine succession’, none. And if you find any it will be one of the later forgeries which the RCC produced several centuries on.

So let’s look at the letter to Polycarp. Again with great humility the elder brother honours him, but slips in a warning anyway, can you spot it?

Why didn’t he say ‘the sole successor of Peter in rome above you’ if there was at this time a sole successor of Peter in rome that had authority even over St Ignatius, legitimate, valid and licit successor of Peter?

1. Corinth appealed to Rome for help of which we have Clement’s letter as proof. Remember, St John is still alive over on Patmos. As long as an apostle is still alive, ask yourself, why not go to him? Yet they appealed to Rome for a solution. If everyone is of equal claim to power, why not go somewhere else in the empire for a solution? Why Rome?".

Proof of what? The letter was written before the destruction of the Temple, it was some twenty years later that the RCC dates Clement as Bishop of Rome.

Remember, St John is still alive over on Patmos. As long as an apostle is still alive, ask yourself, why not go to him?

I remember it, you think John insignificant and of no account compared with your idea of Peterandromesupremacy.

The RCC insults the man who was still there at the Cross when all the others including Peter had run away, the only witness of the 12 Disciples to the bitter end, the one to whom Jesus entrusted his mother, and if we’re talking symbolism here then you known that means the Church.

Do you really think it makes sense that a bishop, any bishop, ordained by any of the Apostles would consider himself with authority over John? Would you?

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued
steve b:

As long as an apostle is still alive, ask yourself, why not go to him? Yet they appealed to Rome for a solution. If everyone is of equal claim to power, why not go somewhere else in the empire for a solution? Why Rome?".

Clement worked with Paul among the Corinthians, who better to write to them than someone they knew well and loved?

And Clement was not Bishop of Rome at the time according to RCC dates, he was the third bishop, the previous two mentioned Linus and name escapes me were ordained by Paul. So much then for the RCC claim of unbroken succession from Peter. Anacletus.

Please offer the quote.

I was referring to Tertullian’s quote from the list Dr Colossus posted:

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

My point being that you don’t even read the quotes you’re given for your apologetics weapons.

Tertullian says the keys are left to Peter here and through him to the Church, which Church did Tertullian mean? He meant the body of believers which was how the Church was understood then as it still is by some like the Orthodox. And he makes that clear, because everyone who confesses as did Peter will carry those keys. So he’d say the RCC has no right to claim the keys belong solely to the Bishop of Rome, isn’t that theft?

If you’ve read Tertullian, you know rather early on, He became a montanist which was a heresy.

Even as a montanist, Tertullian wrote,

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church,"278 "to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; "279 or, "Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,"280 you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “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 loosed 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; you see what (key): "Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears:

He contradicts himself, that’s obvious, one extreme to the other, everyone who confesses gets the keys to no one but Peter not even the Church akin to Peter, i.e. those in succession. So he’s saying not Rome either.

Why do you use this?

Peter didn’t stay there.

I’m sorry, but this one really gets me. Peter travelled around ordaining bishops here there and everywhere and then he died and fell out of his chair and the nearest bishop scrambled on and claimed it his, and it happened to be in Rome…

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to steve b

That’s some game of musical chairs Peter was playing, of course you say that was then, now you say more logically that if a bishop of Rome dies on his travels the chair stays in Rome.

Using your current logic the Antiochian Church says it is the successor of Peter because he established his first see in Antioch, don’t you think your chair argument a bit wooden as a logical reason for your claim to sole Petrine succession against Antioch?

So what have we got so far? The tortuous reasoning can’t even get past Ignatius who was still alive in the early one hundreds who said he was successor to both Peter and Paul and he didn’t write to a named bishop of Rome who called himself the sole Petrine successor, but to the Church in rome which was also honoured to have been taught by Peter and Paul. Actually no mention of a successor to either of them in rome…

I think you should write to your bishop and complain.

Good luck

 

[RBushlow]

francisca:

The problem is : our New Testament is not written in Aramaic.
The gospel original text is in GREEK. So most likely the word “Cephas” is translation from “PetroV”, not the other way round.

Actually, Our Lord would have spoken in Aramaic, not Greek. Therefore, the Evangelist would have had to do the translation from the Aramaic into Greek.

 

[RBushlow]

Myhrr:

QUOTE]

Seems pretty clear to me (see Matthew 16:18-19)

**Matthew 16
**18 "I also say to you that you are (1) Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (2) Hades will not overpower it.
19 “I will give you (3) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (4) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

 

[Myhrr]

RBushlow:

Seems pretty clear to me (see Matthew 16:18-19)

Matthew 16
18 "I also say to you that you are (1) Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of (2) Hades will not overpower it.

Have you looked at the Valentine page I posted? Since it was written in Greek it should be translated according to the Greek rules of grammar and it says that the demonstrative pronoun in Greek in such a sentence refers back to the subject, suggesting that Christ figuratively or otherwise pointed at himself while saying this. But you’ll have to argue grammar and language with someone else, I’m not up to it.

19 “I will give you (3) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and (4) whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

As for the gates of Hades, I think of that as the Church following Christ, where he goes we follow and Christ remember is the Prince of Peace.

He also gave it to the other disciples when they understood as Peter did, so it’s not Peter’s only.

What’s the context of this? Isn’t it about forgiveness? As we forgive we loose others from hell. Why would anyone want to read it as authority to use over others to keep them enslaved and in fear? Christ said he didn’t come to destroy but to save.

 

[mark_a]

With respect I ask: Why are some protestants so obsessed with disproving Catholics’ interperetation of scripture of Peter as 'the rock"?

Imagine for a moment that it’s true. Now what? Will you all convert to Catholicism? Hardly! Your faith must be built on more than “Peter wasn’t a Catholic”.

Isn’t it?

 

[Myhrr]

mark a:

With respect I ask: Why are some protestants so obsessed with disproving Catholics’ interperetation of scripture of Peter as 'the rock"?

Some are more obsessed than others, you’d need to take the history of the various arguments into consideration if you really want an answer to this.

For example the Anglican Church reclaimed some of her own history by rejecting domination from Rome which came in finally with William the Conqueror, and, as history so often relates it came in by massacre of all the bishops and priests who wouldn’t agree to this domination, that can make some people a bit obsessive. The Orthodox have never agreed to it. You’re the protestants here since you claim something none of the Church, even then spread over such a large area in the first centuries, had ever known. The various spontaneously created Christian groups around see the RCC claim things against Christ’s own words and it doesn’t make sense to them.

Many have lost the understanding of the importance of the Mother of God because they’re so removed from the early tradition kept for us by John, but on the subject here it’s actually pretty obvious that Christ never intended the Church to be where one person has authority over another.

The first canon on this is Christ’s specific teaching on the organisation, that the Apostles are not to think of themselves as the Gentile lords with authority* over* the others, no matter that these Gentile lords consider themselves benign carers. So what if your Bishops of Rome call themselves servant of the servants or whatever, they demand absolute submission of intellect and will from you. Christ didn’t demand any such thing of himself. Yes, some spontaneous Christians can get obsessive about that, but Christ told the Church he was organising that there were Christians not of the same flock they knew nothing about so its not for us to judge their relationship with Him. If authority over another member was forbidden, and it is a definite “you shall not” from Christ, then claiming authority over any other Christian not of the same flock, even if the Church could recognise him, is forbidden. I know the infallible statement in Unam Sanctum is downplayed now, but until the RCC actually positively renounces that idea then she is acting against Christ’s own instructions.

His arrangement was to send the Holy Spirit from the Father to lead into truth and everyone baptised was baptised into that relationship with the Holy Spirit and remember some had received the Holy Spirit even before baptism. Even here your baptism is different from the Orthodox, your baptism connects you to the bishop and through him to the supreme bishop over him before the rest of your Church. You accept that the Pope is the supreme head over that, you even now say that your Bishop of Rome is Christ on earth for the Church. But the Church has the Holy Spirit sent from the Father she rejects anyone else claiming authority over her, she has Christ as her head. The Orthodox baptism is the individual’s connection directly to Pentecost so the arguments from them will always be that only Christ is the head of the Church. A bishop is first and always an equally baptised member within that Church, no more no less. That’s what laity means for the Orthodox, the bishops are not separate from the laity, nor over them.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued
mark a:

Imagine for a moment that it’s true. Now what? Will you all convert to Catholicism? Hardly! Your faith must be built on more than “Peter wasn’t a Catholic”.

Isn’t it?

As you might get from the above I’d find it rather difficult to imagine that…

The important thing for me and I can imagine important for any other Christian arguing about your organisation is my belief in Christ himself. When my mother was dying I stayed with a close friend of hers and of the family who still lived nearby, rather than with other friends or family who had moved out of the area, and we talked a lot, she told me more of her own history, a Ukrainian Catholic. When the Germans invaded in the second world war she and her family tried to escape from them, her father was old and frail and said he wouldn’t make the attempt with them, heartbroken to leave him behind he told her to remember wherever she saw a cross she would find friends. That’s what’s important about Christianity me.

She loves Pope JohnPaul II, years ago she even made me buy a commemorative cup of his visit, and if you’re happy with the way your Church is organised I have no right to object, and I don’t, what I object to is your Church’s imposition of its organisation onto other Christians not of your flock while claiming that it is the only true Church which by its organisation she shows its not.

The arguments about Peter are actually irrelevant, the nitty gritty is that you can’t show your tradition of organisation to be anything but what Christ specifically forbade the Church to be, so perhaps you are one of the other flocks the Church knows nothing about…

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Myrhh, to put it simply, you have no faith,

remember, we have no original documents in the context that we can’t prove that they were original documents, we only have the words and writings of men to testify down through the centuries about any of christianity, thus it means that we must ultiamtely rely on the traditions of men to affirm that what the Church teaches is true complete Christianity, As we are relying on men we must assume that God ensured that the correct teaching came through, God must have guarded it, if he has not guarded it, then there is no way to know if any of the New Testament, is true or not, let alone whether or not any one can interpret it or practice even remotely correctly.

As the New testament is the last revelation so to speak before judgement it can not be a matter of another chance occuring that can allow people to come to the true teaching.

In fact there is no doubt that from 300AD on the Church taught “real presence” in the eucharist for eg., let alone numerous other doctrines exactly the same as practices up until the time of the reformation and through to today.

Basically any christian between 300AD and 1600Ad was catholic and practiced catholic beliefs. If those beliefs are wrong then those people are damned, if they are not damned then either Christianity as taught and practiced by the CAtholic Church is right, or at the very least Christianity as taught by Catholicism and protestants groups is completely wrong.

Thus it makes a lie of the scriptures.

Ultimately Christianity lives or dies on the truth of catholicism, either God has ensured that his teachings have continued correctly from the time of Christ or he has not.

You can’t have it both ways Myrhh, logic and reasoning prevent this. Go and have an argument with an athiest of sound mind and watch him throw up the argument I have just made, if you are non catholic you cannot defeat his argument because he will use catholicism against you and make the position similar to what I have and based on anything you try to argue you cannot win.

You cannot revert to faith as your answer which is the standard reply by Protestants becasue the athiest will simply come back and say that all religeons of the world have faith and they are all different and none of them have any evidence of the truth of their faith except for writings, which ultimatley have to be interpreted by men. the arguement continues that if God has not ensured that his teachings are taught and have always been taught as ensured and guarded by him, then we are back to the beginning.

One other thing I want you to think of, prior to the Lambeth conference in the early 1900’s all forms of Christianity taught that contraception was wrong and it up til this time has always been taught as sinful.

Now here is the preposition which no one can doubt without destroying christianity. As all forms of christianity as far back as can be found believed contraception was wrong we can be left in no doubt that it is the correct teaching.

Basically since the lambeth conference more and more so called christian churches have taught that contraception is acceptable, to the point that essentailly at this point in time only the CAtholic Church teaches that it is sinful, as it was for all christian denominations prior to the Lambeth conference.

Now either contraception was always right or it was always wrong. If it was always wrong, it makes a mockery of catholic infalliable teaching on doctrine, but what it also does is say that God was with none of the Christians. If we allow that then your faith and my faith in christianity is in complete in vain.

Either catholicism is truly the Church of God, or christianity is a forgerly and false.

In Christ

Tim

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Myrhh, just a correction in my sentence structure.

Either contraceptions was always sinful or it was not, if it is sinful then basically catholicism is the only Christian group that teaches so. We are at a point where basically all protestant type Christians say that contraception is not sinful.

The choice is yours, either God was with all Christianity prior to the lambeth conference and thus with catholicism now, or God was with no Christian prior to the Lambeth conference, if we accept tht God was with no Christian organisation prior to that then we are left with nothing but the empty shell of a hoax.;

Catholicism is the true faith, or Christianity is a lie.

In Christ

Tim

 

[mercygate]

bernmutt:

Personally, I don’t like saying the Bible is infallible-- only God is (but the Bible is our Authority and the best that we have to go by; I believe it is inspired.). I understand the need for wanting it to be infallible, but that doesn’t make it so.

Dr. R. C. Sproul, – a thoroughgoing, card-carrying Sola fide/Sola Scriptura Protestant of deep honesty with impeccable academic credentials – has an excellent summary of the canonicity of Scripture (you might be able to locate it on the Ligonier Ministries web site). He he concludes that for Protestants the Bible is a fallible collection of **infallible **books, but for Catholics the Bible is an *infallible *collection of *infallible *books.

 

[mercygate]

mark a:

With respect I ask: Why are some protestants so obsessed with disproving Catholics’ interperetation of scripture of Peter as 'the rock"?

The obsession comes from the fact that accepting Peter-and-the-keys requires union with the Bishop of Rome. Protestants, constrained by their Sola Scriptura position, **must **interpret the Scripture in a way that precludes the primacy of Peter.

Other Apostolic Churches (e.g., Orthodox & Anglicans) claim Peter as only first among equals. Many who struggle against the primacy of Peter confuse imperial power and paternal leadership. (History makes this confusion understandable.)

For me, the conversion point came with one simple recognition: Any church with Apostolic Succession that does not have Peter in its episcopal college is missing the centerpiece.

 

[Myhrr]

Tim Hayes:

Myrhh, to put it simply, you have no faith,

remember, we have no original documents in the context that we can’t prove that they were original documents, we only have the words and writings of men to testify down through the centuries about any of christianity, thus it means that we must ultiamtely rely on the traditions of men to affirm that what the Church teaches is true complete Christianity, As we are relying on men we must assume that God ensured that the correct teaching came through, God must have guarded it, if he has not guarded it, then there is no way to know if any of the New Testament, is true or not, let alone whether or not any one can interpret it or practice even remotely correctly.

Paul said to hold to the traditions as handed down, are we supposed to have blind faith in anyone who says that they are the only holders of this tradition? Why?

If we see someone claiming this who is doing something quite contrary to Christ’s own words as recorded by the early Church, which it claims it still is, what should we do?

If it bothers us we might then make enquiries and if we find that there are some also with unbroken connection to the early Church but teaching something different then a conflict arises in us, who should we believe?

Christ didn’t say anything about contraception that was recorded in the Gospels and anyway that’s a whole different subject for another thread, but he was quite clear on the subject here, that none of the Apostles were to have authority over any other member of the Church. The extant documents from the first three centuries show that’s how the Church was organised. The Orthodox still have this organisation, though there are some trying to change it, the RCC don’t.

Which Church is telling the truth?

Ultimately Christianity lives or dies on the truth of catholicism, either God has ensured that his teachings have continued correctly from the time of Christ or he has not.

If a particular teaching hasn’t continued correctly in one Church but it has in another doesn’t that mean that Christ has ensured his teaching continued correctly?

Perhaps we should all sit around a table and really find out who’s kept what instead of all the different Churches claiming they have all of the truth and then having to bluster or fib or devise new doctrine to account for the changes they’ve made…

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

Let’s compare it. What about with the one to Polycarp? There he names him, the Bishop of Smyrna. Where is the name of the Bishop of Rome in this letter to Rome if the Pope is supposedly so important in the early Church because he is the sole successor of Peter which you claim gives supreme undisputed authority over every other bishop?

Because we weren’t talking about Polycarp. Here is Ignatius salutation to Rome.

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,1* and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God."*

1. some translations say holds the presidency. Ignatius writes 7 church’s. The Church of Rome holds the presidency.

2. Named presidency from Christ and from the Father. Why? Because this is in defference to Peter who holds the keys to the kingdom, and because Jesus only did what He saw His Father doing. That’s why Jesus named Peter head of the Church. Because that is what His Father wanted.

3. There would be no strange doctrine coming from the pillar and foundation of truth, the Church built on Peter.

Compare his salutations to the other church’s.

Myhrr:

Do you really think it likely that any bishop in rome would have had the audacity to claim he was the sole successor of Peter to Ignatius’ face?

Before Ignatius wrote the letters we’re speaking of, Clement had already settled the insurrection in Corinth. Why didn’t Corinth go to Antioch and Ignatius for resolution, they’re closer geographically?

Myhrr:

This was what, some fifty, sixty years after Peter and Paul’s martyrdom? This claim of yours is shown to be false here, none of the early letters between the Churches show any special consideration of Rome because of ‘sole Petrine succession’, none. And if you find any it will be one of the later forgeries which the RCC produced several centuries on.

You must not have read Clements letter to the Corinthians

Myhrr:

Proof of what? The letter was written before the destruction of the Temple, it was some twenty years later that the RCC dates Clement as Bishop of Rome.

Your dates are incorrect. The letter of Clement to the Corinthians is dated between 80 & 90 A.D.

Myhrr:

I remember it, you think John insignificant and of no account compared with your idea of Peterandromesupremacy.

The RCC insults the man who was still there at the Cross when all the others including Peter had run away, the only witness of the 12 Disciples to the bitter end, the one to whom Jesus entrusted his mother, and if we’re talking symbolism here then you known that means the Church.

Do you really think it makes sense that a bishop, any bishop, ordained by any of the Apostles would consider himself with authority over John? Would you?

continued

You didn’t answer the question. John is still alive on Patmos. In Greek territory. Why didn’t Corinth appeal to John, to settle the matter, why did they go to Rome?*

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

continued

Clement worked with Paul among the Corinthians, who better to write to them than someone they knew well and loved?

And Clement was not Bishop of Rome at the time according to RCC dates, he was the third bishop, the previous two mentioned Linus and name escapes me were ordained by Paul. So much then for the RCC claim of unbroken succession from Peter. Anacletus.

1. Linus and Clement were both bishops, and both were mentioned by Paul.
2. Both were martyred, both respectively ascended to the office of pope.

Myhrr:
I was referring to Tertullian’s quote from the list Dr Colossus posted:

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 A.D. 211]).

By this time in Tertullian’s life, he had passed from orthodoxy to a montanist heretic.

Myhrr:
My point being that you don’t even read the quotes you’re given for your apologetics weapons.

I politely asked for the quote. Why be snippy?

Myhrr:
Tertullian says the keys are left to Peter here and through him to the Church, which Church did Tertullian mean? He meant the body of believers which was how the Church was understood then as it still is by some like the Orthodox. And he makes that clear, because everyone who confesses as did Peter will carry those keys. So he’d say the RCC has no right to claim the keys belong solely to the Bishop of Rome, isn’t that theft?

Tertullian was up to his eyeballs in heresy at this point in his life. Prior to 200 A.D., he was orthodox in his thinking.

Myhrr:
He contradicts himself, that’s obvious, one extreme to the other, everyone who confesses gets the keys to no one but Peter not even the Church akin to Peter, i.e. those in succession. So he’s saying not Rome either.

Why do you use this?

To merely show you how a heretic of his day thinks.

Myhrr:

I’m sorry, but this one really gets me. Peter travelled around ordaining bishops here there and everywhere and then he died and fell out of his chair and the nearest bishop scrambled on and claimed it his, and it happened to be in Rome…

continued

Don’t be silly.

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

continued to steve b

That’s some game of musical chairs Peter was playing, of course you say that was then, now you say more logically that if a bishop of Rome dies on his travels the chair stays in Rome.

Using your current logic the Antiochian Church says it is the successor of Peter because he established his first see in Antioch, don’t you think your chair argument a bit wooden as a logical reason for your claim to sole Petrine succession against Antioch?

So what have we got so far? The tortuous reasoning can’t even get past Ignatius who was still alive in the early one hundreds who said he was successor to both Peter and Paul and he didn’t write to a named bishop of Rome who called himself the sole Petrine successor, but to the Church in rome which was also honoured to have been taught by Peter and Paul. Actually no mention of a successor to either of them in rome…

Ignatius says Rome holds the presidency. Not Antioch. There’s no tortuous logic here. Paul says some interesting things about the Church of Rome as well. Read Roman 1:7-12. The Church is there before Paul writes Romans, their faith has been heard about all over the world, and he looks forward to being encouraged by the faith of the Church of Rome. .

Myhrr:

I think you should write to your bishop and complain.

Good luck

No need to. There is no problem.