Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[SPH1]

Say it 100 times, jump up and down and click your heels three times. Bishops don’t have “Apostolic Authority.” It was retroactively applied. There is NOTHING in the writings to assume that the Apostles gave their authority as apostles to Bishops. That’d make them…Apostles like it did Matthias.

A Pac

I think you misunderstand (or perhaps I do). My understanding is that the Pope takes his Papal succession from Peter, and the Catholic Bishops collectively take their succession from the Apostles. But neither the Pope nor the Bishops are “Apostles” in the sense that the Apostles were.

Apostolic Authority or Succession, as I understand it, establishes the legitimate lineage and Church authority. But it does not confer full Apostleship as with the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

How did Paul know Christ if he was still persecuting the saints after Christ had died?

St. Paul was a unique case, since he had a vision of Christ and was blinded. He then received a miracle of healing when he was baptized. Notice that he was never listed among the Twelve, however.

Silly thing about this is, how many kings to follow David did David actually appoint?

We’re not talking about Kings; we’re talking about key-bearers. And I don’t know the actual number, but I do know that King David appointed all of the ones who worked for him - they did not appoint each other.

There is NOTHING in the writings to assume that the Apostles gave their authority as apostles to Bishops.

Actually, there’s plenty:

Acts 14:3; I Timothy 5:22; II Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5

That’d make them…Apostles like it did Matthias.

Matthias physically walked with Christ for the three years that He taught publicly; that’s why he could be an Apostle in Judas’ place.

Timothy and Titus, by contrast, were not Apostles (even though they had Apostolic authority) - they were “only” Bishops.

 

[A_Pac]

I
Apostolic Authority or Succession, as I understand it, establishes the legitimate lineage and Church authority. But it does not confer full Apostleship as with the Apostles.

Even so…this legitimate lineage doesn’t exist. It’s untenable. It was retroactively pieced together and there is no evidence of it. Just fragments…and let’s be certain the Apostles never had a pow-wow to discuss “Apostolic Authority,” and how to give it to the Bishops. It’s an anachronistic term, and to use it in terms of Peter and Paul is to confound paradigms.

A Pac

 

[jmcrae]

Apostolic Authority or Succession, as I understand it, establishes the legitimate lineage and Church authority. But it does not confer full Apostleship as with the Apostles.

True: good point. We aren’t going to be seeing any new Books of the New Testament being written, or any new doctrines coming about. The role of the Bishops is to preserve what has been given to us by the Apostles; not to add or change anything.

 

[jmcrae]

Even so…this legitimate lineage doesn’t exist.

There were lists being compiled of the Bishops of Rome (identified as the chief Church of Christendom) as early as the mid to late 100s AD. Are you saying that people were faking the Papacy as early as that, during the lifetime of people who would have known differently, if it were not really true?

 

[A_Pac]

Jmcrae,

St. Paul was a unique case, since he had a vision of Christ and was blinded. He then received a miracle of healing when he was baptized. Notice that he was never listed among the Twelve, however.

Oh so he WAS an exception! And never listed among the Twelve? Don’t tell the Vatican…they might have to take down one of the 12 statues above St. Peter’s that has the name Paul written under it.

We’re not talking about Kings; we’re talking about key-bearers. And I don’t know the actual number, but I do know that King David appointed all of the ones who worked for him - they did not appoint each other.

Oh…so Hebraic King appointment is really useless in this discussion after all! P.S. How many “Kings” worked for King David?

Actually, there’s plenty:

Acts 14:3; I Timothy 5:22; II Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5

Darn my Mormon scriptures. None of them say that the Apostles gave Apostolic Authority to Bishops. Please be so kind to quote that phrase.

Timothy and Titus, by contrast, were not Apostles (even though they had Apostolic authority) - they were “only” Bishops.

Call for references!! And Paul? Oh yeah…he’s an exception, and we don’t allow for any more of those.

The role of the Bishops is to preserve what has been given to us by the Apostles; not to add or change anything.

Adding and changing definitions as given by Jesus seem pretty blatant.

A Pac

 

[tdgesq]

No… I simply ask you to show sources. He said it was thus already shown…where? That’s hearsay.

Actually, he said “as has already been shown.” Where has it already been shown you ask? Two chapters earlier:

“1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.”

And just for good measure:

“Second year of the two hundred and fifth olympiad: the Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city . . . .” Eusebius, The Chronicle [Ad. An. Dom. 42], ca. 303, from Jurgens Faith of the Early Fathers p. 291.

Are you ready to concede that that I have presented better evidence than you of Peter’s status as Bishop of Rome?

 

[jmcrae]

Oh…so Hebraic King appointment is really useless in this discussion after all!

We are not talking about successors to Christ (the David of the analogy) - we are talking about successors to Peter (the key-holder of the analogy).

P.S. How many “Kings” worked for King David?

None. How is it relevant? We aren’t talking about Christ’s successors (He has none: He is still alive today); we are talking about Peter’s successors. Peter was the key-holder of Christ; not the successor of Christ.

Darn my Mormon scriptures. None of them say that the Apostles gave Apostolic Authority to Bishops. Please be so kind to quote that phrase.

The quotes I gave you are in the New Testament.

Call for references!! And Paul? Oh yeah…he’s an exception, and we don’t allow for any more of those.

St. Faustina is also considered an “apostle,” (she bears the title “Apostle of Mercy”) because she walked with Christ on the earth through her visions. However, you are correct - it is extremely rare and exceptional. (St. Faustina has no successors.)

 

[estesbob]

Jmcrae,

Darn my Mormon scriptures. None of them say that the Apostles gave Apostolic Authority to Bishops. Please be so kind to quote that phrase.

If they didnt its beucase they were too busy spinnng tales about cities that never existed and claiming lineage for Native Americans that DNA testing has proven false.

I really dont undersatnd where you are going with this thread. I guess somehow you believe since Linus was Pope that means there was no apostolic sucessionOr is it the other way around?)-this of course flies in the face of all recorded history of the time and the beliefs of the next 1,500 years-all of which you dismiss by saying you dont believe it. And the proof of this is in a book you wont name and you cant get to becuase you had surgery. Even if it what you say was true it would in no way legitimize the Mormon Church. They have even less claim to being the “The Church” than Protestants do. I suggest you should spend your time trying to sort out the myths, falsehood and contradictions in you own faith before tryng to tear down ours.

I

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude:Because if the authority to run the church was indeed never received by Linus, etc., the RCC would therefore not have the authority of Christ, and be a false church. That’s why it’s a hole.

I find that very bizarre reasoning. Despite the falibility of men, you doubt the power of Holy Spirit to protect the mandate of Christ.

Appeal to tradition is fallacious, and I reject it.

Have you looked at your own religion and practices?

Actually, it’s an untenable claim. If you think otherwise…fill the hole as I’ve presented it.

No, it is an undeniable fact that in no way makes a leap to Joseph Smith, Moroni, and gold tablets in the forests of America in the 1800’s.

I am reading another history of the Catholic Church now- this one is from a Christian, non-Catholic perspective, and even that confirms the power of the Holy Spirit at work throughout Her history. Too much is being made about the men who sit there as individuals- as great or small as many were/are, rather than the Spirit that seat represents. Christ washed the feet of the Apostles for this very reason.

It is the whole of Her history that should be reviewed for context, and each day is another page that continues to shape the world in the spirit of the great commision. The bumps in the road are just that; made smooth again by the Holy Spirit in time. Looking back upon the road She traveled to be where we are today… is the most direct path to the legitimate authority of Christ.

 

[mercygate]

I find that very bizarre reasoning. Despite the falibility of men, you doubt the power of Holy Spirit to protect the mandate of Christ.

Have you looked at your own religion and practices?

No, it is an undeniable fact that in no way makes a leap to Joseph Smith, Moroni, and gold tablets in the forests of America in the 1800’s.

I am reading another history of the Catholic Church now- this one is from a Christian, non-Catholic perspective, and even that confirms the power of the Holy Spirit at work throughout Her history. Too much is being made about the men who sit there as individuals- as great or small as many were/are, rather than the Spirit that seat represents. Christ washed the feet of the Apostles for this very reason.

It is the whole of Her history that should be reviewed for context, and each day is another page that continues to shape the world in the spirit of the great commision. The bumps in the road are just that; made smooth again by the Holy Spirit in time. Looking back upon the road She traveled to be where we are today… is the most direct path to the legitimate authority of Christ.

I think A Pac’s medications are overwhelming his brain. He rejects history, Scripture, and Catholic tradition as valid in supporting the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession. Topic closed.

 

[estesbob]

I think A Pac’s medications are overwhelming his brain. He rejects history, Scripture, and Catholic tradition as valid in supporting the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession. Topic closed.

I agree-no matter what evidence you present he rejects it out of hand. I would like to get a hold of this mystery book he has as it seems to have the answers to every question one can ask about anything.

 

[mercygate]

I agree-no matter what evidence you present he rejects it out of hand. I would like to get a hold of this mystery book he has as it seems to have the answers to every question one can ask about anything.

Well, in another thread, he just said in so many words that people who believe in the Trinity are incapable of thinking, and the ECFs are apostate.

 

[estesbob]

Well, in another thread, he just said in so many words that people who believe in the Trinity are incapable of thinking, and the ECFs are apostate.

I saw that!

 

[tdgesq]

I agree-no matter what evidence you present he rejects it out of hand. I would like to get a hold of this mystery book he has as it seems to have the answers to every question one can ask about anything.

Well, to be fair, first it was his notes, then it was “the book,” then it was the Catholic Encyclopedia.

As if that weren’t bad enough, we have on the one hand:

1. A source that he claims to know is apocryphal;
2. that his own source dates to ca. 400;
3. the author of which we do not know;
4. that is based upon some other writing(s) or statement(s) (ostensibly, we don’t really know) that are not identified; and thus is hearsay by definition.

On the other hand, we have the sources I quoted:

1. From ca. 303 and onwards;
2. that is sourced to a bishop of the early Church;
3. the identity of whom we know from the scholarly sources;
4. that also must be based on some other source, and are therefore hearsay since Eusebius could not have personally witnessed Peter as Bishop of Rome.

Everything about the quotes I gave indicate greater reliability than the quote A Pac gave. The only thing they have in common that bears on reliability is that they are both hearsay statements. But if that is such a problem, why did A Pac give his quote in the first place - one that he admittedly knew was hearsay? How can he now be heard to complain that the sources I’ve given are also (by necessity) hearsay statements? He either needs to admit to being inconsistent or he needs to accept that the better and more reliable sources indicate that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

 

[A_Pac]

Tdgesq,

Great. Thanks for the citations. I just wished they actually addressed the issue of whom ordained Linus. But they don’t. What about them was I suppose to have issue with?

Oh…Peter as the Bishop. One little thing…Eusebius isn’t germane. He’s about 200 years too late. That’s where all this retroactive definition began.

Jmcrae,

We are not talking about successors to Christ (the David of the analogy) - we are talking about successors to Peter (the key-holder of the analogy).

So explain to me when a Davidic King died, and the local magistrate took rule of Judah? The example is completely inconsistent!

The quotes I gave you are in the New Testament.

And all this time, I was looking in the OT.

OK…let’s get real. The NT says nothing about “Apostolic Succession” as termed by the RCC. Don’t worry about quoting it…it doesn’t exist.

St. Faustina is also considered an “apostle,” (she bears the title “Apostle of Mercy”) because she walked with Christ on the earth through her visions. However, you

Well, I reject her anyway.

Estesbob,

Do you know what a red herring is? If you don’t, you should learn. Because it makes you completely useless in the discussion. And FYI, for every red herring you bring up, I want you to address the Papal Bull of Innocent declaring sanctioned torture. Let’s do that, pal.

Verisimilitude,

Despite the falibility of men, you doubt the power of Holy Spirit to protect the mandate of Christ.

No…it was protected well. Just in the Church of Jesus Christ as Latter-day Saints, the true church of Christ (this ridiculous holier than thou is going to get real old, so I just assume you can it so I don’t have to continue it).

Have you looked at your own religion and practices?

What? Tu quoque is going to save you? I think not.

No, it is an undeniable fact…

Oh yea wise oracle of wisdom…why don’t you unrole that FACT for us all to see. And then I’ll mock your for your overzealousness for using words that you can’t possibly support.

Looking back upon the road She traveled to be where we are today… is the most direct path to the legitimate authority of Christ.

Say what it you’d like… can’t prove it nor does it make it true. But thanks for participating!

Mercy,

He rejects history, Scripture, and Catholic tradition as valid in supporting the Catholic claim of Apostolic Succession. Topic closed.

No…I do accept scripture. I DO reject Catholic tradition and history a fallacious.

Estesbob,

Do you have anything intelligent to add, or are you going to continuely troll and side-jab like a cowardly weakling?

Tdgesq,

Everything about the quotes I gave indicate greater reliability than the quote A Pac gave.

FAT CHANCE!! HA! Don’t say that around academics…they’ll laugh you out of the building.

He either needs to admit to being inconsistent or he needs to accept that the better and more reliable sources indicate that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

The more “reliable” source bases its knowledge on undocumented hearsay! How’s that reliable? I don’t care who it is… So because I’m less than 200 years removed from the Civil War, I can make a comment that I once heard and you’ll accept it? The critical implications of what you’re trying to substantiate are tremendous!

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

I want to clarify something. I’m not uncritically accepting the Apostolic Constitutions. The real issue is there’s NO OTHER explanation of how Linus was ordained, and to what he was ordained. That being the case, I’m forced to give credence to the Constitutions on this matter.

A Pac

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

John Paul II did not consecrate Benedict XVI as a Bishop or hand over the keys before he died.

Peter did not have to be the one to consecrate Linus as a Bishop in order for Linus to succeed him.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[estesbob]

Tdgesq,

Estesbob,

Do you have anything intelligent to add, or are you going to continuely troll and side-jab like a cowardly weakling?

Mathew 7:6

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae,

So explain to me when a Davidic King died, and the local magistrate took rule of Judah? The example is completely inconsistent!

This has nothing to do with when a Davidic king died. Jesus is the Davidic King - He is alive and well.

Peter is the key-holder guy in Isaiah 22:22 (see Matthew 16:18-19) - he’s Eliakim; not David.

Jesus = David.

Peter = Eliakim.

Peter is to Jesus, as Eliakim is to David.