Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[tdgesq]

So much for not conversing with me anymore A Pac.

See folks, A Pac here doesn’t want to tell anybody where he obtained his infamous quote for a reason. He now tells me to google it because it’s so easy to find, but for some reason he just couldn’t manage to link to it. So I had to do his work for him here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2411621&postcount=44. And guess what we found out? It’s likely a post-Nicene work of doubtful authenticity. What a surprise.

Here’s something else for you to ponder. Why is it that A Pac is so reticent to disclose his original source - this “book” that we now hear about? Perhaps there is something about this book that he doesn’t want us to know. What’s the name of your book A Pac and who is the author?

 

[Nita]

No…I can’t accept that. If he was the head Bishop in Rome, what Bishop would come out against him? And if the Apostles in Rome had died and John was at Patmos, how would he spoken out against him?

Says who? To PRESUME it is plausible, but there’s certainly no record, and that makes it an untenable claim.
You’re PRESUMING he wasn’t - with far fewer records. Which makes your claim more untenable.

Since the Lord past the keys to the Apostles, why wouldn’t the Apostles need to pass them to the Bishops? Moreover, obviously John received them by Matthew 18 as you point out…so why wasn’t he in charge since he was alive?

There is no giving of the keys by Jesus in this passage. He gave that power/office only once - to Peter. However, He does give all the apostles legislative authority here - but not the final authority of the keys.

Quote:
I don’t think so. God Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, was willing to submit Himself to the authority of Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51). They (apostles and other bishops) learned humility from Our Lord.

That makes no sense. Luke 2:51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them;

To go down the path you are suggesting is to thus assume that ANYONE can assume authority because that authority should be humble and submit himself. Read that again…it makes very, little sense…particularly since Jesus outlined that they were first apostles, prophets, etc.

For heaven’s sake, A Pac, the last thing a Catholic believes is that ANYONE CAN ASSUME authority. That is one of the big differences between Catholicism and many other denominations. We believe in apostolic succession through the “laying on of hands” (sacrament of ordination). One cannot assume the office; the Church requires those in office to make the decision whether or not to ordain someone.

Long past my bed time. Good night.
Nita

[/QUOTE]

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s something else for you to ponder. Why is it that A Pac is so reticent to disclose his original source - this “book” that we now hear about? Perhaps there is something about this book that he doesn’t want us to know. What’s the name of your book A Pac and who is the author?

OOOH, I know!! Pick me!! I bet the author’s name starts with a “B,” right?

 

[MilesXpisti]

Miles,

No…I recognize that’s the problem with pretty much ALL of the apocrypha…the question of legitimacy. While you call it a fabrication, that’s presumptuous. Scholars simply and honestly don’t know.

Noooo…that’s pretty much all it can be. Historians do not agree on precisely when it was written, but the details in it alone (the feast of Christmas among them) make it impossible to have been written during the lifetime of the Apostles, or even within a hundred years of the death of the last Apostle, let alone all of them. Yet, it claims to be just that. There is a word for that: fraud. Do I deny that there are some legitimate kernels of truth in it? Of course not, because there are a great many passages from Scripture (which alone makes me question the veracity of the document, given that at the time of the purported publishing, many portions of Scripture were not in wide circulation or even existed), but anyone with eyes and a pen can do that.
A Pac:

Except, no one actually SAYS this. The may list it, but no one makes the claim! That’s the hole. The history is ASSUMED, but not mentioned.

So you’re saying we’re taking it on faith? Kind of like taking it on faith that Joseph Smith was visited by the angel Moroni, and found gold plates engraved with the Book of Mormon? Sorry, but lack of a formal declaration is a dog that won’t hunt. We’re talking about a time when being a Christian in Rome, let alone a prelate there, would land you in the Colosseum to be a snack for lions. Prudence doesn’t allow one to parade a newly elected Linus through the streets screaming Habemus Papam!

 

[SPH1]

SPH1,

Frankly, to use terms such as “full Bishops,” etc. is anachronistic. Terms were not likely used expressly the same as today.

A Pac

Actually, my link and quote to an ancient source (the Clementine source you originally referred to) pretty much say what I’m getting at. Let’s look at it again:

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

Linus and Cletus could not have been Bishops of Rome, for they were merely coadjutors of the Apostles during their lifetime.

So the concept of coadjutor bishops isn’t out of the question, and during the lifetimes of Peter and Paul, that’s what they would have to have been … at best.

No…I can’t accept that. If he was the head Bishop in Rome, what Bishop would come out against him? And if the Apostles in Rome had died and John was at Patmos, how would he spoken out against him? I reject this assumption.

Look at your cited source in the Apostolic Constitutions again:

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.”

Both Peter and Paul were still alive when the “ordinations” supposedly occurred. In fact, Linus was dead, then Peter “ordained” Clement. So the Apostles Peter and Paul were there and could have spoken out.

Returning to your original post:

I’m curious…where does the notion that Peter was the Bishop of Rome come from?

From a slew of ECF’s, of which you must be aware.

The Clementine Recognitions (changed to Apostolic Constitutions) state that it was Paul whom ordained Linus, before Peter even got there.

False assumption that Peter was not in Rome.

So how is the Bishop of Rome able to hold the seat of Peter, if Peter never actually held the seat?

Peter held the seat, as I think you eventually stated that Peter was in Rome, as does your source. Additionally, your source specifically states that Peter ordained one Bishop of Rome - Clemens - so the Papal “keys” would pass at that point. The only issue in this scenario is whether Linus was a “Pope.”

But Paul did have something to pass on to the Church at Rome: his Apostleship to the Gentiles. The whole Church recognizes both Peter and Paul as co-founders of the Church at Rome (today is their Saints day). Peter passed on the “keys” and Apostleship to the Jews. Paul passed on his Apostleship to the Gentiles.

In the Church at Rome, the sub-apostleships to Jews and Gentiles ended, with one consolidated, universal apostleship to the world.

And finally, the Apostolic Constitutions is apparently a pseudo work that may have some value as a historical source, but not binding in any way as establishing Papal lineage.

 

[SPH1]

A Pac:

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.

I tend to agree, especially with Peter and Paul alive and in Rome during Linus’ supposed reign. That’s why my source called Linus a coadjutor. The Papal succession begins when Peter (and Paul) are both dead in Rome.

 

[A_Pac]

Tdesq,

Perhaps there is something about this book that he doesn’t want us to know. What’s the name of your book A Pac and who is the author?

Are you a conspiracy theorist? As far as what’s on my shelf, let me tell you the honest truth. Right now I’m recovering from surgery and only get out of bed once or twice a day. I have a number of documents on my computer—mostly excerpts for personal notes. Some of these come from hardcopy sources, and others are available on the internet. Either way, I’m not going to get up just to check my shelves for such a ridiculous conversation—sorry. Honestly, the Apostolic Constitutions that I have read and noted was copy pasted from the Catholic Encyclopedia website. I didn’t have a link, and think it might be on the shelves… but I had the source and quoted it. If that’s insufficient for you…well, I don’t really care.

Nita,

Same way he managed to write the Book of Revelation on Patmos.

I don’t know that turnaround for publishing was really that fast. The issue is, he might have. But it would have sat there with him on Patmos until he was freed…and by the time he was, everyone was erroneously following the Bishops in a new, apostate church. I’m not saying that accusatory, just illustrating the other side of the coin.

You’re PRESUMING he wasn’t - with far fewer records. Which makes your claim more untenable.

On the contrary. Considering Christ GAVE Peter the keys, it follows that Peter would also need to give the keys to Linus. The example was set that keys existed, and that one needed to hold them. I believe that you likely think that Linus DID hold those keys, so my question is HOW. Now, if my claim was that Catholicism is provably false…you’d be right. THAT would be untenable. My claim that the authoritative claim of the RCC is untenable, is certainly not itself untenable. The dearth of information to its support, itself proves the lack of tenability.

He gave that power/office only once - to Peter. However, He does give all the apostles legislative authority here - but not the final authority of the keys.

Hold on-let me back up so I’m not talking past you. In Matthew 16 the keys and binding powers are promised. We know the disciples receive the binding power by Matthew 18. Thus, the “keys” were given to Peter and never received by the others. Is this what you are suggesting? Going with that assumption, it illustrates the issue that Linus didn’t have the keys, for he certainly didn’t get them from Paul. There needs be a process for Linus to have picked up Peter’s mantle, and there is none recorded. That is why the claim is untenable. There’s nothing to even examine.

Luke 2:51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them;

Again, to use this as some proof that the Apostles would subject themselves to the Bishops is nonsense. The Bishops were always, in fact, subject to the Apostles.

We believe in apostolic succession through the “laying on of hands” (sacrament of ordination).

OK…so who put their hands on Linus’s head? How can a non-Apostle give another non-Apostle the power of an Apostle? It doesn’t make sense. If you don’t have such authority, you certainly can’t perpetuate it.

the Church requires those in office to make the decision whether or not to ordain someone.

So with regard to Linus, who made that decision?

Jmcrae,

OOOH, I know!! Pick me!! I bet the author’s name starts with a “B,” right?

Sorry. Catholic Encyclopedia. But I am curious about the ‘B’

Miles,

but the details in it alone (the feast of Christmas among them) make it impossible to have been written during the lifetime of the Apostles…

I don’t hold to the argument that they were. In fact, everything we have…even the texts of the NT were written after the Apostles, passed on by disciples of the apostles. Even so, the Constitutions is the only piece that deals with Linus’s ordination. If there was another contradictory account, then we’d have something to go off of…but we don’t.

So you’re saying we’re taking it on faith?

No. You can exercise faith in something that’s false…but that’s semantic.

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

SPH1,

I don’t remember Peter nor Paul ever talking about a “coadjutor bishop.” It’s anachoronistic.

False assumption that Peter was not in Rome.

I believe that Peter WAS in Rome. Get that right. I just believe that he got there after, and separate from Paul.

The only issue in this scenario is whether Linus was a “Pope.”

And the official history of the RCC is that Linus WAS the Pope.

In the Church at Rome, the sub-apostleships to Jews and Gentiles ended, with one consolidated, universal apostleship to the world.

Well, why didn’t that happen in Antioch, or any other place that Peter or Paul may have gone? To separate Paul and Peter’s missionary purposes is fallacious. It was Peter that brought baptism to the Gentiles. I don’ know where you’re going with this.

Do we also all agree that John was still alive once Peter died?

A Pac

 

[jmcrae]

I believe that Peter WAS in Rome. Get that right. I just believe that he got there after, and separate from Paul.

And if so, what of it?

And the official history of the RCC is that Linus WAS the Pope.

Yes, that’s true. He succeeded Peter as chief shepherd of the Church. (See John 21:15-19, for how Peter came to be chief shepherd of the Church.)

He could have done so in any number of ways - keep in mind, he need not ever have met Peter - the remaining Apostles could have appointed him as Peter’s successor by vote, by general consensus, by random pick (Hey, he’s the Bishop of Rome; why not make him Successor to Peter?), or even by casting bones, as they did when they appointed Matthias to succeed Judas.

 

[A_Pac]

Jmcrae,

And if so, what of it?

Repeating things is getting really old. Because, then there’s no evidence that he ever had any association of Linus…begging the question, where’d Linus get the keys from.

He could have done so in any number of ways - keep in mind, he need not ever have met Peter - the remaining Apostles could have appointed him as Peter’s successor by vote, by general consensus, by random pick (Hey, he’s the Bishop of Rome; why not make him Successor to Peter?), or even by casting bones, as they did when they appointed Matthias to succeed Judas.

OK…if the APOSTLES did it, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the fact is that on this tremendously important issue, there is NO EVIDENCE that Peter thought about it, Christ thought about, nor any of the Apostles thought about it. That’s why it’s untenable…the subject of passing the keys was never discussed and there’s nothing to substantiate it.

A Pac

 

[mercygate]

Jmcrae,

Repeating things is getting really old. Because, then there’s no evidence that he ever had any association of Linus…begging the question, where’d Linus get the keys from.

OK…if the APOSTLES did it, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the fact is that on this tremendously important issue, there is NO EVIDENCE that Peter thought about it, Christ thought about, nor any of the Apostles thought about it. That’s why it’s untenable…the subject of passing the keys was never discussed and there’s nothing to substantiate it.

A Pac

A Pac,

You speak as if there was a set of bronze keys. Do you mean that? The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus promised to Peter are the figurative keys to authoritatively bind and loose concerning teaching and discipline. They inhere in the office of the prime minister – Peter or his successor. When there is no one seated in the Chair of Peter (during the interregnum), no decisions requiring papal authorization are taken. Had the Chair of Peter been vacant for a decade, the office would resume its function the minute the next Bishop of Rome was consecrated.

Apostolic authority is more like a net than a chain. All the apostles share in the apostolic powers of binding and loosing and teaching and baptizing. Only to Peter were the keys promised. He “speaks for all of them” when he promulgates doctrinal clarifications.

 

[A_Pac]

Mercygate,

You speak as if there was a set of bronze keys. Do you mean that?

No. Silver…maybe gold. But not bronze.
Just kidding. I promise I understand the concept of keys…we hold the same concept. They are metaphoric for authority.

The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus promised to Peter are the figurative keys to authoritatively bind and loose concerning teaching and discipline.

Not exactly…only Peter received the keys, yet the disciples received the power to bind and loosen. They’re mutually exclusive.

As far as the rest of your post, I don’t have much of an issue. The question still remains how Linus became Pope after Peter. One with authority needs to give it…so who was it that had that authority?

A Pac

 

[Nita]

On the contrary. Considering Christ GAVE Peter the keys, it follows that Peter would also need to give the keys to Linus.

 

[mercygate]

Mercygate,

No. Silver…maybe gold. But not bronze.
Just kidding. I promise I understand the concept of keys…we hold the same concept. They are metaphoric for authority.

Not exactly…only Peter received the keys, yet the disciples received the power to bind and loosen. They’re mutually exclusive.

As far as the rest of your post, I don’t have much of an issue. The question still remains how Linus became Pope after Peter. One with authority needs to give it…so who was it that had that authority?

A Pac

In the early Church, bishops (even the bishop of Rome) were often selected/elected by popular acclamation: AXIOS, AXIOS, AXIOS! Ambrose of Milan was acclaimed bishop by the people, even before he was ordained! He had to be rushed through the Orders in order to be consecrated bishop.

The “authority” is the Holy Spirit and the bishop’s authority begins when the candidate receives the laying on of hands by the proper authority: other bishops.

It would not have been unreasonable (as is the reported case with Ignatius of Antioch) for the incumbent to nominate his successor, who would be consecrated upon his death. John the Evangelist is said to have named Ignatius as his successor in Antioch.

 

[tdgesq]

Now it’s from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Then you conveniently neglected to mention that it clearly states the date of the Apostolic Constitutions as c. 400. Here’s a link in case anybody wants to check it out: newadvent.org/fathers/ It’s under the miscellaneous category at the very bottom.

On the other hand, we have Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in 313 A.D. His works range from 300-325 A.D.

“9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy 2 Timothy 4:21 as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.” Church History, Book III, Ch. 4. newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm

So Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and Linus was chosen as his successor. Any questions?

 

[FCEGM]

. . . Why did Christ give Peter authority, if Peter didn’t have to perpetuate that authority? Peter was there first, and DID ordain that Bishop.

Who says he didn’t? See 2 Peter 1:13-15, where Peter makes it very clear that he has made arrangements in the event of his death. See also Acts 1:15-22, where Peter, before the coming of the Holy Spirit, personally initiates the election of a successor for Judas. If he was concerned about preserving Judas’ ministry, does it not make sense that he would have a similar concern for his own??

The ministry that Christ entrusted to Peter in Matt. 16:18-19 is that of the prime minister of Christ’s Messianic Kingdom, a ministry that existed under the old Davidic kings of Israel (see Isaiah 22:20-24). IOW, it was, by nature, an ongoing ministry, which would be passed on to successors. An early Jewish Christian would have understood this without question. So for this reason, and because not all Apostolic teaching is preserved in the form of Scripture, but some of it from oral Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15), the Bible itself does not need to specifically address the fact that Peter passed his ministry on to the Bishop of Rome.

Or, why didn’t the Bishop of Antioch become Pope?

Actually, Peter was not in Antioch first. He was in Rome first. According to both Sacred Tradition and the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter flees Judea in Acts 12:17, the “other place” that he fled to was Rome. This makes sense if one considers the geography and political situation at the time. Peter has escaped the authority of King Herod Agrippa who, for the first time in a generation, ruled the entire territory of his grandfather, Herod the Great; so, Peter could not go home to Galilee, since Herod’s authority extended there. He also could not go to Antioch, since that was ruled by the Roman proconsul of Syria, who was a close associate and the immediate superior to King Herod Agrippa, and who could have easily permitted Herod’s officials to arrest Peter there. Therefore, Peter had no choice but to flee that part of the world. And so, where did he go? Well, as we know from Acts 2:10 and Romans 16:7, there was a Jewish-Christian community in Rome that was established on the feast of Pentecost, and which kept in very close contact with the Apostles.

As we also know, one of Peter’s most important and influential disciples was a Roman Gentile named Cornelius, a centurion in the Roman army who belonged (as Acts 10:1 tells us) to the “cohort Italica,” which was a battalion of archers recruited from central Italy, near Rome itself. So, Cornelius was not merely an ethnic Roman; he was a native of Rome. When King Herod Agrippa took over Judea, the Roman troops were withdrawn; and it is reasonable to believe that Cornelius went home, and even if he didn’t, he would have had family and associates who could help Peter escape to Italy. This is what Tradition says happened. Indeed, the silence of Acts about Peter from this point on screams the fact that Peter was in Rome for, in Acts 12:17, Peter disappears from the Acts narrative. It says nothing more about him until Acts 15:7, where Peter inexplicably re-appears at the Jerusalem council. So, how did Peter get back to Jerusalem?? Acts never explains this; and it never explains this because it does not need to. This is because the original, contemporary readers of Acts would know, for Acts 12:17 took place in A.D. 42. Acts 15:7 (the Jerusalem council) took place in A.D. 49, that is, seven years later. Why was Peter back in Jerusalem in A.D. 49? It was because, in that SAME year (according to both Acts 18:2 and the Roman historian Suetonius), Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome over a riot over someone named “Chrestus” - that is, a mishearing of “Christus” (“Christ”). For example, Suetonius writes:

“At the instigation of one Chrestus [Christ], Claudius expelled Jews from Rome.” (eutonius, On Claudius 25.4; cf Acts 18:2).

So, there was some great conflict between the Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians in Rome and all of the Jews were expelled because of this. This would include Peter, which explains why he is suddenly back in Jerusalem at this very time. The author of Acts had no need to explain this because all of his contemporary readers would have taken it for granted.

continued. . .

 

[A_Pac]

Nita,

The underlined statement is in error. If you go back to the origin of giving the keys, it is the king, not the keyholder who gives the keys; the keyholder did not pass them on or decide who they should go to after his death. If the keyholder died, the king decided who the next keyholder would be.

So where did Jesus give them to Linus? It’s the same conundrum. There’s no such document, and that’s what makes it untenable.

Jesus is our king. He has chosen to exercise His will through the apostles and their successors, the shepherds of His Church. They (bishops, which includes the pope) have the authority not only to choose the successor, but to determine the process.

Circular reasoning. It only works if they actually were such authorized, which this is trying to prove. Non sequitur.

I’m not “suggesting” it, I’m stating it as a fact on the basis of what the Scripture passages say. One set of keys; one person holding them.

I only ask because Catholics have given me both interepretation. Let’s be sure, however, that the scriptures doesn’t say that there’s “one set of keys,” nor that “one person hold them.” The were promised to Peter…and that doesn’t suggest they weren’t also given to other Apostles.

But that’s not important for this discussion. Using your definition, the keys then die with Peter. Where else were they passed? If they were given Peter, the process need be determined before he died by someone with authority to do so, not after by someone without it.

If Paul was alive at the time, he would have been one of the bishops with the authority to determine process of selection.

And why would Paul promote a Bishop over an Apostle? That doesn’t make sense…and there’s no documentation for it. Moreover, if Paul didn’t have the keys, what authority does he have to decide who gets them?

Just because it wasn’t written down doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I agree. That’s not my argument. But it IS an untenable claim.

Plural “Bishops” is an error. It should be singular. They were subject only to one bishop - the one appointed by them to be Peter’s successor as the holder of the keys.

This is anachronistic. No Bishop previously was superior to an Apostle, lest he himself was also an Apostle. The standard was completely different.

It just requires being chosen by those who have been given legitimate authority to choose.

And nothing substantiates that they have the legitimate authority to choose.

Mercygate,

Ambrose of Milan was acclaimed bishop by the people, even before he was ordained! He had to be rushed through the Orders in order to be consecrated bishop.

I reject authority ad populam.

Tdgesq,

Dearest conspiracy theorist,

Then you conveniently neglected to mention that it clearly states the date of the Apostolic Constitutions as c. 400

I just assumed that everyone understood the nature of apochryphal writings.

So Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and Linus was chosen as his successor. Any questions?

Yeah…HOW had it already been shown? No actual mentions where this idea came from….just that it kind of did.

A Pac

 

[FCEGM]

Peter was in Rome for seven years between A.D. 42 and A.D. 49. He then attended the Jerusalem council in A.D. 49, and then (according to Tradition and Gal 2:11-14), he settled in Antioch. But he was only in Antioch until the death of Claudius and the first few years of the reign of Nero, when Nero permitted the Jews to return to Rome; this is why Peter went back there. If you read the Church fathers, all of them who address the subject say that Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years. This only works if you count from A.D. 42 until A.D. 67, when Peter was crucified in Rome. Indeed, if you carefully read St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans - an Epistle written while Peter was based at Antioch - you will see that Peter was still considered the Apostle of the Roman church, and was still the remote authority for the Roman church. For, while Rome was the most populous and important city in the world at the time, Paul writes that he does not plan to focus his efforts there (see Romans 15:23-24), but merely wants the Roman Christians to help him to get to Spain! The reason that Paul says that he will not focus his efforts in Rome is because “I aspire to proclaim the Gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20).

So, the question arises here: Who is this “other man” that Paul is referring to?? Who is the Apostle who established a church in the most important and populous city in the world??? …so much so that Paul will not focus his efforts there, but will pass it over for Spain?? According to the unanimous testimony of the ancient Church, that man was Peter. Indeed, who else could it be??

But, to address your direct question: The Bishop of Antioch did not become Pope because Peter did not lay down his Christ-given ministry (the Papacy) there. Rather, he laid it down in Rome. So, while St. Evodius (the second Bishop of Antioch after Peter) did succeed to Peter’s place as the bishop of the city of Antioch, he did not succeed to the ministry that Christ gave to Peter, to maintain the universal Church in unity and orthodoxy. Peter took this ministry with him to Rome; and at Rome, he laid down this ministry, passing it on to the next Bishop of Rome when he died. This is how Rome received the Papal ministry. If Peter had died at Antioch, then the Bishop of Antioch would have become Pope. But this is not what happened; and the Holy Spirit saw fit to lead Peter to Rome for his martyrdom. Indeed, it is very interesting that there is no Christian presence in Antioch today. The city was destroyed and has been replaced by a modest Turkish town. The Bishop of Antioch (there are several who compete for that title) no longer lives there, but is based in Damascus, Syria. So, the church of Antioch has not continued in an unbroken line, whereas the church of Rome is an uninterrupted Christian community since the 1st Century, just as Jesus promised the Church founded upon Peter would be.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

See…here’s the problem that I have. The claim of Peter is untenable because it’s simply from geographic association. There was no other known association between Peter and Linus, so thus it is assumed. All of it is assumed.

Says who? Linus was a leader in the Roman church - see: 2 Tim 4:21, where Linus is mentioned (with his mother Claudia) after two Christian Roman senators. Peter was in Rome during the latter part of his life (see 1 Peter 5:13 - “Babylon” was the Christian code word for pagan Rome: Rev 14:18, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, etc.), and there Peter ended his life and laid down his Christ-given ministry, with the full intention to make arrangements for his impending death: 2 Peter 1:13-15. Thus, Peter’s ministry was entrusted to the Roman church; and, according to Tradition, Linus was the principal bishop of that Roman church. This is not “assumption,” but solid Tradition and common sense. You yourself “assume” many things based on this same body of ancient Tradition. For example, do you believe that the Gospel of Matthew is inspired and Apostolic? that it was written by the Apostle Matthew and is a trustworthy first-hand witness to the Faith? If so, why do you believe this?? Scripture itself never records that Matthew wrote a Gospel or tells us how the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write, etc. Rather, you accept the Gospel of Matthew and its inspiration for the same reason that the Catholic Church does -because you accept and trust the Sacred oral Tradition of the Church on this matter, and the witness of the earliest Christians, who write things like …

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. (Ireneaus of Lyon, Against the Heresies 3, 1:1 --180 A.D.)

And this same early source upon which you base your acceptance of Matthew’s Gospel (St. Ireneaus of Lyon) also tells us …

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the bishops’ successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that all other churches agree with this church (Rome) because of its preeminent authority.” (Ireneaus of Lyon, Against the Heresies, 3, 3:2, A.D. 180).

Ireneaus then goes on to list the succession from Peter’s successor Linus to the Pope of his day.

Again, this is not an “assumption.” It is established Tradition. If you wish to dispute this, then you must dispute the origins of the Gospels themselves, since both are established by the same body of oral Tradition.

continued. . .

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

Who says he didn’t?

And here’s my frustration. Some Catholics say he doesn’t, other insinuate he does. I don’t know what to believe.

See 2 Peter 1:13-15, where Peter makes it very clear that he has made arrangements in the event of his death.

Arrangements to continue his testimony of the things he knew.

If he was concerned about preserving Judas’ ministry, does it not make sense that he would have a similar concern for his own??

Certainly it’s plausible, BUT THERE’S NOTHING GERMANE TO SUPPORT IT!! That’s why it’s untenable.

So for this reason, and because not all Apostolic teaching is preserved in the form of Scripture, but some of it from oral Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15), the Bible itself does not need to specifically address the fact that Peter passed his ministry on to the Bishop of Rome.

You’re grasping at straws. Sure, again, it’s plausible…but simply to assume that because it wasn’t recorded that it was there for clearly oral is UNTENABLE. You could even say that little green men came at the order of God to see over the process. Not likely, but possible. I’m not proving it didn’t happen, because I can’t prove the little green men don’t exist. But I can say it’s untenable!

Actually, Peter was not in Antioch first.

He was in Antioch before dying in Rome. I also believe that Peter was in Rome…but your historical summary was interesting.

A Pac