Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[Church_Militant]

If you say so Nancie…after all, it’s not our fault Peter’s bones are right where Christian history says they’d be. Right there in Rome.

Oh…and Luther…he’s no source since he invented the heretical doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Even going so far as to tamper with the German text of Romans 3:28 in order to mislead people.

He removed the Deuterocanonicals from the Word of God and outright stated that he wanted to remove Esther and James and Jude and even Revelation.

So, it looks like you are the one following the new winds of doctrines of men. What is it the New Testament says about that?

2nd Timothy 4:3 For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. and then …Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. 15 But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ:

 

[1ke]

For a serious study of the issue, I recommend you obtain the book Upon This Rock by Steven Ray. It is well documented with footnotes.

 

[Church_Militant]

For a serious study of the issue, I recommend you obtain the book Upon This Rock by Steven Ray. It is well documented with footnotes.

Here.
http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/0/book_rock_t_01.jpg

 

[A_Pac]

Nita,

Appreciate the post—thank you.

Unless things were different in the very beginning, a successor is not appointed until the pope dies. As you know, today the pope neither chooses, and obviously does not install, his successor!

Right…I’m aware.

I’m not sure why you consider it so important to determine whether Peter or Paul was the “bishop of Rome”. There’s no doubt they were both bishops and that they were both in Rome - but only Peter was Pope - not because he was in Rome, but because he was appointed by Jesus. It appears Linus was also ordained a bishop in Rome, but it is generally held that he did not become pope until after the death of Peter. (Source: Catholic Encyclopedia newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm )

The claim is that the RCC sits in the chair of Peter, and my point is that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. That would have been Linus. Peter was something greater than that—an Apostle. But that’s not the particular point that makes this history interesting.

Christ GAVE authority to Peter to continue the church. I believe that and I think most of you RCCers believe that. Now, the question becomes, where’s the connect from Peter to the latter Popes? If Peter didn’t make the assignment, what in the world empowered Linus, Cletus, etc., to continue as “Pope,” when there were other Apostles and Bishops alive. What gave Linus authority over living Apostles when nothing was ever stated by Peter or Christ that that should be what would happen? If Christ passed the authority (keys) to Peter, why needn’t Peter pass the authority on in like manner? What separated Linus from Ignatius, Clement, or for that matter…John the Apostle? For a Bishop to assume power over that of a living Apostle would have been ridiculous.

Genesis315:

I’m not sure what you’re saying here, he did have to perpetuate it. His “chair” has been occupied until this day.

On the contrary (as it has been pointed out), Peter didn’t choose his successor and thus HE didn’t perpetuate his chair.

Because St. Peter was still alive when he left Antioch, he retained the primacy until he died.

So the location of death was the deciding factor to whom the keys should be passed?

Amd yet, St. Clement I writes when St. John was still alive, and yet he writes as if he has authority over the universal Church. The fact that St. John didn’t take over says a lot.

And yes, he did write AS IF he had authority. But let’s put the letter in context: The Corinthians ASKED for his advice, and ironic enough, the subject of inquiry were legitimate Bishops—the Corinthians rejected these “new” men as unauthorized. But why? Because, they weren’t chosen by the Apostles, but chosen by men whom were chosen by the Apostles…kind of like Clement. If Clement agreed with the Corinthians, he’d only be hurting himself. There was a blatant conflict of interest, for the Clement was likely perpetuating the same practice as being held in Corinth.

Just like today, the successor of the Pope is not chosen by current Pope. He is usually elected after the Pope’s death.

Here’s the problem with the paradigm…Linus wasn’t elected. This election was likely a foreign idea, and Irenaeus and others later went back and bashed the pieces to make them seem like they fit. I say that because no such process was ever mapped out by Christ, nor Peter. Moreover, when we look at Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, he speaks of “our opinion…” Certainly Clement may have felt he had authority, but it wasn’t because he alone was in charge, but may have had the populist vote of those IN ROME.

Church Militant,

Now, you bring up an very interesting verse of scripture:

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ; 14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive.

So…if we are clearly NOT united in faith, nor do we all have a knowledge of the Son of God, doesn’t it make scriptural sense that He still give apostles, and some prophets, etc.?

I’d be interested in how you juxtapose this scripture.

P.S. I’m sure Steven Ray’s book is interesting (and FYI…I think the posters here are much better then at the Catholic Defender forum that Steve runs. People here are much kinder, and not nearly as inflammatory)…but I’m not willing to risk the few bucks if it is indeed, nothing new. But, if you send it to me, I’ll read it.

A Pac

 

[1ke]

.

P.S. I’m sure Steven Ray’s book is interesting (and FYI…I think the posters here are much better then at the Catholic Defender forum that Steve runs. People here are much kinder, and not nearly as inflammatory)…but I’m not willing to risk the few bucks if it is indeed, nothing new. But, if you send it to me, I’ll read it.

A Pac

Why don’t you obtain it for free on inter-library loan? Contact your local public library.

 

[A_Pac]

Why don’t you obtain it for free on inter-library loan? Contact your local public library.

Honestly, because I doubt it’s worth my time. No one’s given me a compelling reason to think that the volume includes anything that will illuminate any particular concept that I’ve questioned. If it’s so good, I would half expect that someone cite it…but alas, they have not.

 

[Nita]

Nita,

Appreciate the post—thank you.

Right…I’m aware.

The claim is that the RCC sits in the chair of Peter, and my point is that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. That would have been Linus. Peter was something greater than that—an Apostle. But that’s not the particular point that makes this history interesting.

Christ GAVE authority to Peter to continue the church. I believe that and I think most of you RCCers believe that. Now, the question becomes, where’s the connect from Peter to the latter Popes? If Peter didn’t make the assignment, what in the world empowered Linus, Cletus, etc., to continue as “Pope,” when there were other Apostles and Bishops alive. What gave Linus authority over living Apostles when nothing was ever stated by Peter or Christ that that should be what would happen? If Christ passed the authority (keys) to Peter, why needn’t Peter pass the authority on in like manner? What separated Linus from Ignatius, Clement, or for that matter…John the Apostle? For a Bishop to assume power over that of a living Apostle would have been ridiculous.

…

A Pac

re: “why needn’t Peter pass the authority on in like manner?” Because while Peter was still alive, there was no vacancy. Until he died, he was the pope. As to how Linus got appointed pope, I don’t think there are any historical records from the actual date of his appointment that spell out the procedure that was followed. (As you noted earlier, Irenaeus (180 AD) attests Peter and Paul appointed him bishop of Rome. But that appointment was not the equivalent of being installed as pope.) After Peter’s death I would imagine it was the remaining apostles and other bishops and leaders who decided on who would take over the chair of Peter. It may even have been “common knowledge” that upon Peter’s death, Linus would succeed. Who knows?

I don’t know how it came about that the Papacy became connected to the bishop of Rome office, but there is no doubt that it did - as can be seen from the ECF. My guess is that it had something to do with Rome being where Peter and Paul spent their last years and where they died. As the two main missionary leaders - Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles - where they were must have seemed to be the central point of the Church. Would be interested if anyone has more info from an acceptable source.

Regarding the handing on of the keys. It was Jesus who handed on the keys to His Church. I believe it is He who has continued to do it - through whatever group the Church has entrusted to make the choice/appointment. I believe God oversees the process, has veto power, so to speak. Jesus promised the apostles that hell would not prevail, and He definitely has the power to carry out His promise.

Nita

 

[A_Pac]

Nita,

I don’t think there are any historical records from the actual date of his appointment that spell out the procedure that was followed.

And I think that’s the objective, responsible response. I think some believe that I’m here to prove that it didn’t happen. On the contrary, that is pretty much impossible. Surely, I reject the RCC history, but what I suggest is that the authoritative claim is untenable because this connection is missing–there isn’t even a germane claim. There’s nothing that addresses the passing of authority from Peter to Linus…it’s just assumed to have happened.

After Peter’s death I would imagine it was the remaining apostles and other bishops and leaders who decided on who would take over the chair of Peter. It may even have been “common knowledge” that upon Peter’s death, Linus would succeed. Who knows?

And your speculation is plausible, certainly. My point is, however, that speculation is all we have to go off of. I believe that concerning such a critical link, speculation is not exactly the most useful of things in considering the authoritative claims of the RCC. I hope you can see where I’m coming from.

Regarding the handing on of the keys. It was Jesus who handed on the keys to His Church.

Hold on…that’s the Protestant claim, that the keys were given to the church and not just Peter. Are you a protestant?

I believe God oversees the process, has veto power, so to speak. Jesus promised the apostles that hell would not prevail…

Clearly, you would need to believe it. My belief is similar…that hell did not prevail because John the Beloved never died (that’s a whole other discussion). If that’s true, then John would have held these keys until…well, they were given to someone else.

On that note, it is well assumed that John was alive and on Patmos when Peter died. Exiled or not, wouldn’t he as an Apostle take control of the church, being the most senior of Apostles? I don’t understand how a Bishop could assume a position beyond a living Apostle, without being an Apostle himself with Peter nor Christ ever having mentioned it.

A Pac

 

[1ke]

Honestly, because I doubt it’s worth my time. No one’s given me a compelling reason to think that the volume includes anything that will illuminate any particular concept that I’ve questioned. If it’s so good, I would half expect that someone cite it…but alas, they have not.

I see… we’ve moved from “I’ll read it if it’s free” to “I don’t want to read it, but now if someone quotes on here for me…”

That tells me all I need to know. The book is several hundred pages long, and I have no desire to retype it here for you.

I’m done here.

 

[A_Pac]

Yeah…if someone buys it for me, I’ll show the decency to read it. Else, I’d expect someone to quote from it if it’s so useful.

Glad you’re done…don’t know what you did, but glad you’re done!

Have a good one,
A Pac

 

[RobNY]

Non sequitur. Please explain…

I’m not exactly sure where he’s taking this, so I won’t follow up his argument for him. However, speaking of the logical form, he’s right.

Non sequitur means, “it does not follow,” and I would have to disagree.

If one tries to take an A proposition, and from that tries to make an A proposition out of its converse, well, that is truly a non sequitur.

Let me explain:

A: All is [P].

That’s known as an “A” proposition, that’s the underlying logical form.

For example, let’s take:

All [golden retrievers] are [dogs].

Assuming that this proposition is true, we can make inferences about other propositions.

For instance, an I proposition can validly be inferred from an A.

I: Some is [P].

So we can validly infer from the above, if it is true that it is also true that, “Some [golden retrievers] are [dogs].”

Perhaps that doesn’t seem very helpful.

Anyway, back to what matters for explaining this:

In an A proposition the subject has a universal modifier, i.e., “all.” Hence all of is being referred to. Since all is a universal modifier, is, “distributed.” In the same proposition the predicate [P], only some of [P] is being referred to. We know this because of the copula (is). Hence [P] is undistibuted (we are only speaking of some of [P], not all).

A: All is [P].

So if we do a, “conversion” on an A statement (i.e., we switch the subject and predicate), we would get:

A: All [P] is .

This clearly violates the rules of logic because [P] which was once undistrubted is now distributed. Colloquially, we can’t get more, “out” of the proposition than we put it. If we refer only to part of P originally, we can’t make a valid inference about all of P. Hence, strictly speaking, an A proposition cannot be converted.

It may help to look at our original proposition:

All [golden retrievers] are [dogs].

Quite clearly cannot be validly converted to:

All [dogs] are [golden retrievers].

If one does want to convert an A proposition, one can sort of do it, by making it into an I proposition.

So,

I: Some [P] is .

is a valid inference from an A proposition.

i.e., Some [dogs] are [golden retrievers].

So, when examining the original proposition logically.

S= popes
P= bishops of rome

All [popes] are [bishops of Rome].

reduced to logical form:

All are [P].

Which is an A proposition, i.e., it cannot be converted to another A proposition.

Which means we cannot validly infer that:

All [P] are .

Or, colloquially:

All [bishops of Rome] are [popes].

As per the laws of logic, because, “bishops of Rome” is undistributed in the original proposition, and in the (falsely) converted second proposition, it is distributed. Truly, as per the laws of logic, to conclude this, would be a, “non sequitur”-- quite simply, it does not follow.

The valid inference, instead, would be:

Some [bishops of Rome] are [popes].

Note: this doesn’t mean that the proposition,

All [bishops of Rome] are [popes].

is false. It only means that we cannot validly infer its truth by knowing the other proposition.

God bless.

-Rob

 

[A_Pac]

RobyNY,

'm not exactly sure where he’s taking this, so I won’t follow up his argument for him. However, speaking of the logical form, he’s right.

Non sequitur means, “it does not follow,” and I would have to disagree.

So…you don’t know where he’s taking this, yet it somehow follows? I understand the logic (if you’ve never taken the LSAT before, you should-it’s a lot of fun), I just don’t know what the heck it’s intended to prove.

A: All is [P].

So if we do a, “conversion” on an A statement (i.e., we switch the subject and predicate), we would get:

A: All [P] is .

It’s called affirming the consequent.

All [popes] are [bishops of Rome].

That’s what I challenge. Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. To thus assume it to prove the same is very circular logic.

Logic is fun though, isn’t it?

A Pac

 

[Caesar]

According to the Golden Legend of Jaques de Voragne, Peter arrived in Rome, followed by Paul. In Rome Peter forsaw his death approaching and ordained Linus.

 

[LSK]

Because you obviously didn’t understand the question. I believe that Peter was in Rome. I also believe he was a Bishop (obviously). But it was Paul that founded Rome and ordained Linus. Linus was the Bishop of Rome when Peter came and when he died. As an apostle, he was more than a bishop…but he was not the Bishop of Rome. That was Linus and Antecleus.

A Pac

I have never heard - outside of your writing this now - that St. Paul FOUNDED Rome. DO you mean that you think St. Paul founded the See of Rome? Again, this is the first time I have ever seen this so would you please produce your evidence to show that St. Paul FOUNDED the See of Rome.

 

[mercygate]

Here is what Luther says about Peter:

That Caiaphas, Pilate, and St Peter came to Rome, and appeared before the emperor, is mere fable; the histories touching that point do not accord. Christ died in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, who governed five years after his death. All histories unanimously agree, that St Peter and St Paul died under the emperor Nero, whose last year was the five and twentieth year after the death of Christ. But St Peter was eighteen years at Jerusalem after Christ’s death, as the Epistle to the Galatians witnesses; and after that, he was seven years at Antioch. Then, as they fable, he ruled afterwards five and twenty years at Rome.

No pope among them all yet ruled five and twenty years; and, according to this reckoning, St Peter was not crucified under Nero. St Luke writes, that St Paul was two whole years at liberty in Rome, and went abroad; he mentions nothing at all of St Peter. It is a thing not to be believed that St Peter ever was at Rome.

Eusebius of Caesarea says Peter arrived in Rome in 32 A.D.

 

[RobNY]

RobyNY,

So…you don’t know where he’s taking this, yet it somehow follows? I understand the logic (if you’ve never taken the LSAT before, you should-it’s a lot of fun), I just don’t know what the heck it’s intended to prove.

I don’t know what he intends to argue by denying the truth of the proposition, “all bishops of rome are popes.” However, I am saying that I disagree with your assement as regards that proposition-- you say his reasoning about it, “does not follow” and I disagree with that. His reasoning concerning the proposition is thus: we cannot validly infer because “all popes are bishops of rome” that, “all bishops of rome are popes” and here he is exactly right.

It’s called affirming the consequent.

I’m not familiar with this language as refers to (common) syllogisms.

I’ve only encountered it as regarding compound syllogisms, i.e., conditional syllogisms.

For instance:

If p then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

Affirming the consequent as regards compound syllogisms is strictly fallacious.

i.e.,

If p then q.
q.
Therefore p.

That’s invalid-- it involves fallacious reasoning.

Please explain yourself if by this you mean something different, especially what you mean by, “affirming the consequent.”

That’s what I challenge. Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. To thus assume it to prove the same is very circular logic.

Well, then that’s a different question altogether.

Logic is fun though, isn’t it?

A Pac

Absolutely.

-Rob

 

[A_Pac]

Caesar,

Great. And what germane source does Jaques site?

LSK,

Do I mean the “See” of Rome? I don’t think they called it the “See of Rome,” back then anyway, so no. I believe that Paul simply ordained the first Bishop that was located in Rome—Linus (that’s in the Clementine Recognitions). That’s all I’m saying. To speak of the “See” is simply anachronistic.

we cannot validly infer because “all popes are bishops of rome” that, “all bishops of rome are popes” and here he is exactly right.

OK…I’m fine with that.

Affirming the consequent as regards complex syllogisms is strictly fallacious.

Yes…affirming the consequent (along with denying the antecedent) are both logical fallacies. Those are the names to the logical “flip-flops” that you were illustrating.

Well, then that’s a different question altogether.

That’s why I said non sequitur….he’s logical “proof” didn’t follow anything that I was saying. It was like asking you how you are today, and you shouting at me “Tomorrow I’ll buy a guitar!” Sure…it’s correct enough, but…huh?

A Pac

 

[SPH1]

I’m curious…where does the notion that Peter was the Bishop of Rome come from? The Clementine Recognitions state that it was Paul whom ordained Linus, before Peter even got there. So how is the Bishop of Rome able to hold the seat of Peter, if Peter never actually held the seat?

A Pac

I’m not familiar with this source, so can you please post a link?

I’m wondering if Paul’s ordination of Linus was as Bishop or just a Priest?

 

[SPH1]

Did a quick search, not sure if this is what the OP is referring to, but if it is, doesn’t look like Paul’s ordination of Linus was as a BISHOP.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.viii.x.i.html

Author (Clement) lists Clement as Bishop after Peter.

 

[A_Pac]

I need to apologize to everyone…I mis-sited the reference. The Paul/Linus connection wasn’t the Recognitions but in the Apostolic Constitutions…

Peter writes: “Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these: … Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.”

I apologize for that.

A Pac