Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[FCEGM]

So if Peter indeed did no passing of authority, the only thing that makes sense is that a living Apostle—John, would take over after Peter left. Nothing else makes possible sense to me.

Yet this is not what we see in Scripture or in the historical record. For example, we know for a fact that the epistle called 1 Clement to the Corinthians was written while the Apostle John was still alive (before A.D. 90). This was an epistle written by Peter’s third successor as Bishop of Rome (St. Clement of Rome) to the church of Corinth; and it was written in response to an appeal made by Corinth to the the church of Rome, so that Rome would provide a solution to an internal schism in the church of Corinth, where some members of the laity had overthrown the presbyters. Clement begins his letter like this:

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

Clearly, Corinth had appealed to Rome - a church that was 1,000 miles away from Corinth. Yet, it did not appeal to nearby Ephesus, which is where the Apostle John was based and where he served as bishop. This is especially striking, given the fact that Corinth used to appeal to Ephesus when Paul was based there (see 1 Cor. 16:8 & 16:19 - 1 Corinthians was written from Ephesus). So, it is pretty obvious that by the late 1st Century Rome was regarded as the final court of appeal for the universal Church, just as Jerusalem held that place in the early days (see Acts 15:2). The fact that John and other Apostles were still alive elsewhere was not a factor. Rome held Peter’s episcopal authority.

What’s more, if we turn to John 21, we see that even the churches of Asia under John recognized Petrine authority to be superior to that of John himself. As we know from John 21:22-23, this chapter was written after the Apostle John’s death in order to dispell the rumor that John would not die until the Lord’s Second Coming, and to confirm the faith to those who were confused when John did die. But, in this same chapter (John 21-15-19), the sacred author re-affirms the primacy and authority of Peter - which can only have one purpose, since Peter had died over 30 years earlier! IOW, John 21:15-19 is a reference to the Petrine ministry (now held by Rome) rather than a reference to Peter’s personal authority per se. If this is not the case, then this passage can have no practical meaning in a chapter that was written c. A.D. 100 to comfort Asian Christians in the wake of John’s death.

Sure, he wrote to them [Romans] on multiple occasions, but scholarship has a difficult time pegging when they were. Typical understanding is that Paul got to Rome before Peter.

Not so. See again Romans 15:20. Paul had not yet visited Rome; “another man” had already “built a foundation” there. Whenever Paul speaks of a church’s “foundation,” it is always in reference to an Apostle (see Eph. 2:19-20, 1 Cor. 3:10, etc.). So, which Apostle laid the foundation for the church of Rome? The unanimous testimony of the ancient Church says that it was Peter.

I think the best evidence is via the Recognition, in that Linus was ordained Bishop by Paul. If Peter had arrived first then he’d have ordained someone previously but there’s no record that this was the case. I’m not excercising ignorantium, but just stating what’s known, etc.

Even if Linus’ episcopal/priestly ordination came from Paul (there is no first-hand evidence about this), it doesn’t matter. Linus was apparently the bishop of the Roman church when Peter died. When Peter died, he entrusted his Christ-given ministry to the Roman church. A church consists of a congregation shepherded by a bishop. This is how Linus became Pope. Properly understood, the Petrine ministry belongs to the church of Rome, and practically speaking, to the one who serves as bishop of that Roman church.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Irenaeus clumps Peter and Paul together as the founders, but they didn’t arrive together. That’s the hole in the story.

Ireneaus does not “lump Peter and Paul together.” Anyone who says that does not appreciate the context in which Ireneaus is writing. Ireneaus’ intention is to contrast the doctrines of the Gnostic heretics (who claimed to have “secret knowledge” from the Apostles) with the bishops of the various city-churches. Ireneaus’ point is that, if the Apostles entrusted “secret knowledge” to anyone, it would be to the bishops that they appointed to oversee the churches. This is how Ireneaus connects Peter and Paul to the succession of Roman bishops. In other words, the Roman succession draws its doctrinal traditions from the joint witness of both Peter and Paul, who were the Apostles of the Roman church. Ireneaus is not saying that Peter and Paul held equal roles in the Roman church, and he is not denying that Peter was the actual bishop. This is evidenced by the fact that Ireneaus (like all the early fathers - e.g. Ignatius, Clement, Dionysius, Tertullian, etc.) always names Peter first. It is always “Peter and Paul,” never “Paul and Peter.”

The claim is that the RCC sits in the chair of Peter, and my point is that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome.

The fathers disagree with you. While it’s true that some fathers number the bishops from the first successors to the Apostles (not counting the Apostles themselves) as the first bishops, we have plenty of other fathers who count Peter as the first bishop of Rome. For example, Hippolytus of Rome (c. 200) directly calls Peter the first bishop of Rome. Cyprian of Carthage says so too.

That would have been Linus.

It depends on what you wish to emphasize. Some fathers numbered the bishops from the first successor of an Apostle (i.e., making Linus the first bishop of Rome), but others focused on the fact that, before the first successor, the Apostle himself held the episcopal authority of that church, and was thus the first bishop. Clearly, someone held the episcopal authority over the church of Rome while Peter was still alive. This person was Peter himself. In other words, he was the first bishop, even if one does not wish to call him that or use the term “bishop.” For some fathers the term “Apostle” was enough, and an apostle’s epsicopal authorty was presumed. But, the fact remains that the first non-Apostle bishops succeeded to an office that the Apostle himself held. For example, St. Augustine writes:

“For, if the order of the succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom the Lord said: 'Upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” For to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement …To Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius." --St. Augustine, Ep 53.

Also, writing closer to the time, St. Clement of Rome says …

“The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent by God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then, are by God’s will. Through countryside and city they preached; and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers.” (1 Clement 42:1-4 )

…and …

“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Ibid, 44:1-2)

In other words, the Apostles appointed men to an episcopal office that already existed - an office which the Apostles themselves already held. So, from this perspective, Peter was the first bishop of the Roman church, just as the fathers say. If you still disagree, I challenge you to find me one father who denies that Peter was the first bishop of Rome! When some fathers (like Ireneaus) number Linus as the first bishop, all they mean is that he was the first to hold the episcopal office after the Apostle held it.That’s all.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Peter was something greater than that—an Apostle.

This is true. But, you fail to appreciate the fact that Peter held two ministries. He was an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and so responsible for revealing the Faith to mankind and evangelizing (principally toward the Jews - Gal 2:7-8). However, he was also given the special ministry to maintain the entire flock in unity and orthodoxy - a special episcopal commission that the other Apostles did not possess. This is the ministry that Peter passed on to Linus and the Roman church. The Pope of Rome is not an Apostle. He cannot deliver new revelation as Peter could. However, the Pope of Rome does hold Peter’s episcopal ministry. This is what the Catholic Church believes.

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?

The “connect” is pretty obvious for any honest student of history. Five of the earliest extra-Scriptural testimonies from the early Church - that of Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 90), Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 155), Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170) and Ireneaus of Lyon (A.D. 180) testify to the fact that the church of Rome, the church of Peter - held primacy and preeminent authority after the death of Peter. What more do you need?

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.

There is no indication that Peter did not make an assignment. Both Scripture and extra-Scriptural Tradition (e.g. the witness of Clement of Rome above) shows that he did appoint a successor to carry on his ministry. And, second, even if we could not p(name removed by moderator)oint who this successor was, the fact remains that the authority of Peter was recognized to be held by the Roman church; and the mere fact that Peter ended his earthly career as the chief minister of the Roman church is enough to establish that the Roman church inherited his ministry. The place where Peter ended and laid down his Christ-given ministry is the place where his ministry was recognized to continue. This is simply and practically a historical fact.

What gave Linus authority over living Apostles when nothing was ever stated by Peter or Christ that that should be what would happen?

Linus had authority “over” living Apostles in the same sense that Peter had authority “over” other living Apostles. For the ministry of Peter was not merely an Apostolic ministry, but a special episcopal ministry. This did not make Peter more of an Apostle than James, and John, and Andrew. Rather, Peter was merely one Apostle among all the other Apostles; but he was the Apostle who held the episcopal primacy, that is, the special Christ-given duty and responsibility to hold all the others together in unity and orthodoxy. As an Apostle, Peter’s job was the same as all the other Apostles - to proclaim Christ and to evangelize the world with the revelation of the New Covenant. After Peter’s death, the Apostles continued to do this. But, they did not succeed to Peter’s special Christ-appointed ministry. Only Peter’s successor (who was not an Apostle) did this. But, it is a mistake to assume that Peter’s non-Apostle successor was “over” the still-living Apostles. He was not “over” them, but was, instead, their servant and the servant of the Church, just as Peter himself was. “He who would be the first among you, must be THE SERVANT of all.” This is why, even to this day, the Pope holds the title “Servus Servorum Dei” - “Servant of the Servants of God.” After Peter’s death, Linus (and then Cletus and Clement) held the primacy among all bishops (both Apostles and non-Apostles) while some Apostles were still alive. This did not make him a “super-apostle,” just as Peter was not a super-apostle. Rather, it gave him a duty and a responsibility to maintain the entire Church in unity and orthodoxy while the Apostles could concentrate on their own duty to proclaim the Gospel and be witnesses to Jesus Christ. There is no conflict or disorder here.

The Pope is not an Apostle. Rather, he possesses a ministry for maintaining unity and orthodoxy. This is the office that Peter held, and which the Bishops of Rome held after him. Thus, while John was still alive, the church of Corinth appealed to Rome to solve its problem - a problem that affected the Church’s unity and orthodoxy. But, if they wanted to clarify something that the Lord had said, they could just as easily have appealed to the still-living Apostle John. John was an Apostle, but he was not a Pope - he did not hold Peter’s special, Christ-given ministry; and even John and his disciples recognized this.

continued. . .

 

[SPH1]

SPH1,

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

My point is that the concept is early.

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

Yes, I understand. My point is that it is a false assumption to state that Peter was not in Rome when Paul supposedly ordained Linus.

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

Yes. And the official record does not include the Apostolic Constitutions as establishing the lineage.

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.

To my knowledge, the See of Rome is the only See that takes its lineage directly from both Peter and Paul. I don’t know that Paul “ordained” any bishops in Antioch.

Where am I going with this? IMO, Paul’s lineage at Rome gives the Roman Church even more boost, passing on his apostleship to the gentiles, creating one consolidated, universal apostleship in the Church at Rome.

I agree that this apostleship to jews/gentiles was not strict, as they preached to both. But scripture does recognize these sub-apostleships created by apostolic agreement, and both were passed on and consolidated in the Church at Rome.

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

Agreed. I’m unclear of the authority between the Pope of Rome after Peter’s death and the living apostle John. However, I understand that the Church at Corinth had a problem and turned to the Church at Rome rather than John to resolve it.

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.

You’ve brought this theme up a couple of times now. Let’s be clear: while Peter was still alive, he held the keys. Nobody else. So going by your source (Apostolic Constitutions), even if Paul and Peter ordained “Bishops of Rome”, since Peter was still clearly alive (the Apostolic Constitutions is supposedly Peter speaking) he would have still held the keys. While Peter was alive holding the keys, he held the Papacy and these Roman “Bishops” would have been non-papal until Peter died.

This is, as noted, based on the pseudo Apostolic Constitutions, non-binding as establishing Papal lineage.

 

[A_Pac]

,

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.

Says who? Call for references.

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.

So Peter passed it on? I thought that was the big issue of disagreement. So, how did he do that?

If Peter had died at Antioch, then the Bishop of Antioch would have become Pope.

And I reject the notion that one’s place of death gives authority to a local Bishop to continue the leadership of the church. It’s farfetched and completely untenable. For Christians under the direction of other Apostles, they’d have certain problems with these new processes…evident with the problems of authority in Corinth.

A Pac

FCEGM,

Says who?

Umm…because there’s no other reason to believe otherwise.

Tradition, Linus was the principal bishop of that Roman church. This is not “assumption,” but solid Tradition and common sense.

I reject an appeal to tradition, and common sense using Catholic paradigms.

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…

Wrong. I believe it because God told me the Book of Matthew teaches true principles. I don’t care about this “sacred oral tradition.” In fact, I find very little sacred about it considering I hold it highly likely that corruption crept in.

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

Please don’t tell me why I believe what I believe.

Again, this is not an “assumption.” It is established Tradition.

And tradition isn’t any proof. Again, you’re magnifying how this is all untenable.

f 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.

That’s terrible logic, and a poor false dilemma.

A Pac

 

[FCEGM]

If Christ passed the authority (keys) to Peter, why needn’t Peter pass the authority on in like manner?

He did. This is where the church of Rome’s universal authority came from.

What separated Linus from Ignatius, Clement, or for that matter…

Well, Clement (if you mean Clement of Rome) was Pope after Linus. Ignatius, however, was the successor of Evodius, who was the first bishop of Antioch after Peter. But, unlike with Rome, when Peter left Antioch, he took his Christ-given ministry with him. Peter’s Christ-given ministry ended at Rome, not at Antioch. This is why Rome succeeded to it.

John the Apostle?

John the Apostle held the office of Apostle. Peter held an additional, Christ-given office to be the chief earthly (vicarious) shepherd of the entire flock. John did not succeed to this additional ministry. The fact that he was an Apostle did not give him any claim to this additional ministry, which was given personally to Peter, and thereafter passed on to the church of Rome. No early Christian thought that Ephesus should hold the primacy because the last living Apostle was bishop there.

For a Bishop to assume power over that of a living Apostle would have been ridiculous.

Your problem is that you view authority (you say “power”) in an earthly, secular sense. This is not how it is with the Church. Again, the Papacy is a ministry to promote unity and to standardize orthodoxy among the brethren. The office of Apostle, on the other hand, is to be a first-hand witness to Christ and to deliver new revelation. A Pope was never “the boss” of the living Apostles. Rather, he held an office (a Christ-created ministry) that ran parallel to the office of Apostle. See, for example, Acts 15:2, where Paul and Barnabas conflict with some teachers from Judea and they decide to appeal to the Apostles and presbyters (elders) in Jerusalem. Now, Paul was clearly an Apostle of Jesus Christ and held apostolic authority, but he still submits himself to the ultimate authority of the Jerusalem magisterium, which included the office of Peter.

Here, we clearly see a case in which the magisterial office has authority “over” an Apostle, for notice that Paul submits himself, not only to the other Apostles, but also to “the presbyters” (elders) who share the episcopal ministry of the Jerusalem Magisterium. But, in submitting himself to the ultimate earthly shepherds of the Church, Paul is not denying his Apostolic office, but relying on the magisterium of the Church to confirm it! It would have been the same if some disagreement arose in Ephesus in the time of the Apostle John, when Clement of Rome was Pope. Clement would not have been “in power over John,” but would have headed the Christ-given instrument for defending and confirming John’s Apostolic authority.

continued. . .

 

[mercygate]

Mercygate,

I reject authority ad populam.

Bully for you. Those people are the Body of Christ. A roaring crowd shouting AXIOS (even if inspired by the Holy Spirit) isn’t the last word. The ecclesial authority is ultimately in the affirmation by the consecrating bishops through the laying on of hands.

Even Saul was authorized by the Church when Ananias laid hands on him by which Paul received the Holy Spirit and regained his sight. Paul was already chosen by Christ. The Church embraced the nomination and effected the commission (although Ananias had a vision).

 

[FCEGM]

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

And what evidence do you have for this?? 2 Peter 1:13-15, the unanimous testimony of the early Church, and the very nature of the Matt. 16:18-19 commission (drawn from the Jewish heritage of Isaiah 22:20-22) says otherwise.

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

It was a large part of it, yes. How could the bishop of Antioch (St. Evodius) succeed to Peter’s ministry while Peter still held it???

And yes, he [Clement] 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.

Au contraire. If you read St. Clement’s epistle, the men who were overthrown by the Corinthians were set in place by the Apostles themselves. This is the major point of Clement’s criticism. What’s more, Clement issues a direct command to the Corinthians. He writes:

“Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)

Simple question: Why should these Corinthians listen to Clement (which we know they did) when they would not obey their own Apostle-appointed presbyters??

What’s more, as I presented above, the Corinthians did not merely “ask for Rome’s advice” (as you unrealistically color it), rather, they appealed to Rome for a solution to their schism, just as Paul and Barnabas appealed to Jerusalem in Acts 15. The controversy at Corinth was a major crisis, and Rome provided the authoritative solution. All of the early commentators are agreed on this fact.

But why? Because, they weren’t chosen by the Apostles, but chosen by men whom were chosen by the Apostles…kind of like Clement.

Wrong on a few counts. Firstly, if Clement was not chosen by the Apostles, then Phil. 4:3, where Paul calls Clement his “co-worker” is wrong. According to Scripture, and to all the other early witnesses, Clement was a disciple of both Peter and Paul. Secondly, you are not reading 1 Clement correctly. The Corinthian presbyters who were overthrown belonged to the Apostolic succession of Corinth. Some were appointed by the Apostles and some by the immediate successors of the Apostles. But, according to Clement, both ordinations were of the same force, since the origin of the ordination was from God through Christ. See the quotes I presented above.

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.

Ha! That is a silly and unsubstantiated thing to say. You don’t know what you are talking about.

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.

What about Acts 1:23–26, where a successor to Judas’ apostolic office was selected by a) the nomination by the church of two candidates, b) prayer, and c) the casting of lots of ballots. This is how Popes are elected today. Also, what you fail to appreciate is that the office of the Petrine ministry (the Papacy) belongs to the Roman church. Whoever is bishop of Rome speaks with the authority of the Roman church, and so the authority of Peter. This is how the ancient Church understood it. The succession is to the episcopacy of the Roman church, which in turn holds the Petrine office. So, it does not matter how one becomes the next bishop of Rome, that is, whether by direct appointment by the previous bishop, or by election, or by some other means. Ancient people were not sticklers for such “legalities” as modern Americans are. Rather, all that is important is that the Roman church recognizes this person to be their Sacramental head and bishop. This is what makes someone a successor to Peter and a holder of the Christ-given Petrine ministry.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

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.

Right. Is this suppose to surprise anyone? Popes still speak this way today. In fact, this is the origin of the “royal you” in modern English. When the Queen of England says “We are not amused,” she is speaking of herself; but she is speaking as the personification and figurehead of the English people. This linguistic convention originated in the early Church, where the bishops would write letters in the “royal we” because, as Sacramental heads of the Christian community, they spoke with the authority of the church that they shepherded; and Christians kings later picked up this practice to identify themselves as the “sacred figureheads” of the Christan people that they ruled. This is how Clement is speaking, but without the royal trappings that would later be associated with it Again, the Papacy belongs to the church of Rome itself. Clement, as bishop, speaks for the Roman church, and this understanding was maintained throughout the ages. For example, in the 440’s, we have Pope Leo the Great writing as follows:

“Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. …And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see Rome). To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops. When, therefore, … Believe that he is speaking whose representative we are.” ----Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4.

Here, Leo is, of course, referring to himself, but speaks in the plural because he speaks for the Roman church which belongs to St. Peter. So, you are apparently ignorant of this linguistic convention, which goes all the way back to the 1st Century, and even earlier in the Jewish writings of High Priests and other Sanhedrin officials.

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.?

A classic LDS argument; but, like all the others, it’s short-sighted and full of beans. Here’s why: First of all, Paul is not denying that the Church is united in Faith. If he were saying this, then he’d be contradicting himself (e.g. Eph. 4:1-6 and 1 Cor. 1:10). Rather, by “until we meet in the unity of faith,” Paul is contrasting true and orthodox Christian believers with those who are outside the Church and with those who are nominally inside the Church, but whose faith is lacking and immature (see Eph. 4:17-24). Secondly, Paul is not merely speaking about the Church on earth. Rather, he is speaking about the FULL Body of Christ, which is both on earth and in Heaven with Christ. This is quite obvious from what he says in Eph. 4:7-10, where Paul speaks about how Christ descended into Sheol (the realm of the dead) and “took prisoners” and “gave gifts” to the Old Testament saints, who are now with Him in Heaven. This, of course, connects to what Paul says earlier in Eph. 2:19-20, where he makes it clear that the Church is founded on both the Apostles and on the prophets of the Old Testament - Christ being the Capstone that links both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant together into one Church - one Messianic Kingdom, against which the “gates of hades” (that is, death itself) cannot prevail (Matt. 16:18). Thus, in Eph. 4, Paul is speaking about the eternal and organic unity of the Church; and within that eternal and organic unity, we DO still have Apostles and prophets (both OT prophets and NT prophets --the mouthpieces of the Apostles). But, these people are not necessarily alive in the flesh with us on earth today. Yet, in Christ, they are still alive and one-Body with us; and so, in the way that Paul is speaking in Eph. 4, even we Catholics would say that we still do have Apostles, and we will always have them until all mankind is perfected. But, these Apostles are the actual Apostles of Jesus Christ - Peter and the others who, as St. Leo says above, have " not abandoned the helm of the Church", that is, not in a spiritual sense. The Church is still one; and Peter is still Pope, speaking through his earthly successors in the authority of the one Faith. These are the Apostles given to us by Christ, not the self-styled “prophets” who set themselves at the head of the LDS cult.

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

This is the ministry that Peter passed on to Linus and the Roman church.

GREAT! How? Just because he died in Rome? I reject that as nonsensical.

Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 90), Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 155), Dionysius of Corinth (c. A.D. 170) and Ireneaus of Lyon (A.D. 180) testify to the fact that the church of Rome, the church of Peter - held primacy and preeminent authority after the death of Peter. What more do you need?

And I think they were good men whom had stumbled deep into apostasy. Considering John the Beloved was still alive, I cannot accept that a Bishop…not an apostle was placed in position of superiority over those anointed by Christ himself.

Both Scripture and extra-Scriptural Tradition (e.g. the witness of Clement of Rome above) shows that he did appoint a successor to carry on his ministry.

You said previously that it was because Peter died in Rome…did he appoint Linus or not?

the mere fact that Peter ended his earthly career as the chief minister of the Roman church is enough to establish that the Roman church inherited his ministry.

Wait…you just said that Peter appointed Linus. Did he, or did he not? DYING is not APPOINTING.

Linus had authority “over” living Apostles in the same sense that Peter had authority “over” other living Apostles.

Except, Linus wasn’t an Apostle! That’s why it doesn’t make sense. Bishops were subject to the Apostles, and an Apostle was alive. Christ put first Apostles, did he not?

Only Peter’s successor (who was not an Apostle) did this.

So you’re saying that no authority came with being an Apostle, but somehow Peter dying in a city gave authority to a Bishop? Non sequitur, I’m afraid.

But, it is a mistake to assume that Peter’s non-Apostle successor was “over” the still-living Apostles. He was not “over” them, but was, instead, their servant and the servant of the Church, just as Peter himself was…

Play word games all you’d like. Peter was entrusted with the church after Christ left, and it makes no sense that a Bishop would be entrusted ‘over’ Apostles. Christ was the greatest of servants…so are you or I thus superior to Him? Didn’t think so.

The Pope is not an Apostle.

I agree. And I think it evidences the fact that Peter wasn’t Pope.

This is the office that Peter held, and which the Bishops of Rome held after him.

Except Peter wasn’t the bishop of Rome! Linus was, and was so during Peter’s lifetime. There’s nothing to assume that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. A Bishop IN Rome yes…but not THE Bishop of Rome. I doubt they even looked at it in that paradigm. Linus the Bishop was probably very happy to have an Apostle, and likely referred to him as an Apostle. Why disrespect him as an Apostle to give him a limited, local title?

John was an Apostle, but he was not a Pope - he did not hold Peter’s special, Christ-given ministry; and even John and his disciples recognized this.

All because Peter died in Rome? This makes NO sense. Keys and authority were NEVER passed on like this. If a Hebrew King died in a small off town, they didn’t make the current, local magistrate king…they went and found the next in line. Christ established this line with Apostles!

A Pac

 

[SPH1]

,
And tradition isn’t any proof. Again, you’re magnifying how this is all untenable.

A Pac

Your statement is tenable only if one assumes that Christ is not builder of the Church in any real sense.

But it is Christ who is builder of the Church. Recognition of Peter’s Seat at Rome is what popped up and rather early on. Peter’s Seat of Succession is in Rome and because of Christ’s building of His Church.

Going back to my point about Paul passing on his apostleship to the Gentiles at Rome, I believe that is ultimately why Christ called Paul to Rome. To establish the Papal seat with Peter and Paul…a consolidated apostleship, no longer to Jews or Gentiles but universal.

 

[jmcrae]

A Pac;

When Jesus gave Peter “the keys” in Matthew 16:18-19, He was quoting directly from Isaiah 22:22, which is part of a passage that is speaking directly about the office of the key-holder of the house of David, and its line of succession.

If you read the whole section, you could very easily feel as though you were reading a history of the Catholic Papacy; it’s that prophetic.

It’s clear from Jesus’ choice of Scripture quotation that He intended for the office of Chief Shepherd of the Church (aka Papacy) to be a perpetual office that takes successors.

 

[mercygate]

All because Peter died in Rome? This makes NO sense. Keys and authority were NEVER passed on like this. If a Hebrew King died in a small off town, they didn’t make the current, local magistrate king…they went and found the next in line. Christ established this line with Apostles!

A Pac

You’re a Mormon, aren’t you? Maybe we have a language problem.

The Christian churches ceased to use the title “Apostle” for any who were not eye-witnesses to the Resurrection.

The apostolic authority to continue the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations, teaching, and baptizing inheres fully in the office of Bishop. Episcopal authority is pass on by the laying on of hands by legitimate bishops acting in consensus.

The chosen candidate may have been chosen by lot, elected, or appointed according to the canonical discipline of the true particular Church he serves. The choioce of a candidate and his consecration are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whatever the process may be.

 

[tdgesq]

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

That’s what I assumed too. You’ve shown that that isn’t the case.

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

Am I the only one who sees the irony here? You give a bare truncated quote of an apochryphal source for the proposition that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. When I give you an earlier source from a known author, a bishop of the early Church, you reject it. Let’s be clear. Do you admit that I have given better evidence than you have about Peter’s status as the Bishop of Rome?

 

[SPH1]

In line with the theme of this thread started by our LDS guest, I wonder about the lineage from the prophet Joseph Smith and the various competing Mormon Churches.

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

He did. This is where the church of Rome’s universal authority came from.

Passing is an active verb. How did Peter pass it?

But, unlike with Rome, when Peter left Antioch, he took his Christ-given ministry with him. Peter’s Christ-given ministry ended at Rome, not at Antioch. This is why Rome succeeded to it.

So it’s Christ given, Peter dropped? So had Peter been visiting me in my house the day he died, I’d have been Pope? Location of death to find a successor makes absolutely, no sense. I’m sorry. It’s untenable.

John the Apostle held the office of Apostle. Peter held an additional, Christ-given office to be the chief earthly (vicarious) shepherd of the entire flock.

On the contrary…as the senior Apostle, it was his duty.

Rather, he held an office (a Christ-created ministry) that ran parallel to the office of Apostle. See, for example, Acts 15:2, where Paul and Barnabas conflict with some teachers from Judea and they decide to appeal to the Apostles and presbyters (elders) in Jerusalem.

So it was up to Linus to “run” the church, yet up to the Apostles to be appealed to when there were questions? That is so disorderly. I reject it. The authorities as placed by Christ were the Apostles, period. Ephesians states it. It is against the stated organization of the church to place others above the apostles.

Here, we clearly see a case in which the magisterial office has authority “over” an Apostle, for notice that Paul submits himself, not only to the other Apostles, but also to “the presbyters”…

Huh? They went to discuss it with the Apostles and Elders…one and the same. And recall, it was Peter that made the judgment. The submitted themselves to the senior apostle.

And what evidence do you have for this?

There’s no evidence…and other’s have brought it up that better didn’t name a successor.

It was a large part of it, yes. How could the bishop of Antioch (St. Evodius) succeed to Peter’s ministry while Peter still held it???

I don’t understand the point…I never assumed this the case. But if I take a guess at what you mean, it was just like Moses and Joshua, and Caleb…the previous ordaining the next one to take over.

If you read St. Clement’s epistle, the men who were overthrown by the Corinthians were set in place by the Apostles themselves.

No they weren’t. The were, ‘those chosen by the apostles and OTHER GOOD MEN.’

Simple question: Why should these Corinthians listen to Clement (which we know they did) when they would not obey their own Apostle-appointed presbyters??

1. Because they weren’t necessasrily apostle-appointed.
2. Because they were desperate
3. New that Clement would support their case, because if he didn’t, it’d undermine his own authority

What’s more, as I presented above, the Corinthians did not merely “ask for Rome’s advice” (as you unrealistically color it), rather, they appealed to Rome for a solution to their schism…

And I can appeal to a transient bum on the street. Semantics here aren’t going to help you.

Firstly, if Clement was not chosen by the Apostles…

I didn’t say that. You misunderstood me. “…but chosen by men whom were chosen by the Apostles…kind of like Clement.” Or in other words, ‘chosen by men (like Clement) whom themselves were chosen by the apostles.”

Ha! That is a silly and unsubstantiated thing to say. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Sticks and stone love!

What about Acts 1:23–26, where a successor to Judas’ apostolic office was selected by a) the nomination by the church of two candidates, b) prayer, and c) the casting of lots of ballots.

GREAT! Then why didn’t the Apostleship continue? Moreover, they were the Apostles doing the praying and casting ballots. Your parallelism has some serious holes.

Also, what you fail to appreciate is that the office of the Petrine ministry (the Papacy) belongs to the Roman church.

That’s the issue at hand, my friend. IF you’re using this as evidence, it’s only circular reasoning…again.

A Pac…

 

[A_Pac]

ALL:

I have now been going non-stop for several hours, and am getting more and more behind at responding to posts. I apologize, but I’m not going to be able to respond to everyone… I’ll do my best.

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

Popes still speak this way today. In fact, this is the origin of the “royal you” in modern English.

If you can find that it was an English translation issue, then I’ll happily concede that point.

Moreover, you missed part of the issue. Clement wasn’t very authoritative when he was stating his “opinion.” Was he (they) unsure?

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.?

A classic LDS argument; but, like all the others, it’s short-sighted and full of beans. Here’s why:

This will be fun.

First of all, Paul is not denying that the Church is united in Faith. If he were saying this, then he’d be contradicting himself (e.g. Eph. 4:1-6 and 1 Cor. 1:10). Rather, by “until we meet in the unity of faith,” Paul is contrasting true and orthodox Christian believers with those who are outside the Church and with those who are nominally inside the Church, but whose faith is lacking and immature (see Eph. 4:17-24).

Wow. That was confusing. So the church WAS united in the Faith? You know, if he was “contrasting true and orthodox Christian” believers with those inside and outside and nominally in, but lacking…I think he would have said that. Your creative interpretation makes NO sense to what Paul said. Please give it a more concise try…sometimes I’m slow.

Secondly, Paul is not merely speaking about the Church on earth. Rather, he is speaking about the FULL Body of Christ, which is both on earth and in Heaven with Christ….

Great…so Apostles are needed until both the church on earth and in heaven are unified? Hasn’t happened yet…

and within that eternal and organic unity, we DO still have Apostles and prophets (both OT prophets and NT prophets --the mouthpieces of the Apostles).

You’re really stretching it now, eh? So once the unity exists, all those dead Apostles will what…disappear or be stript of their Apostolic calling? Non Sequitur.

Even we Catholics would say that we still do have Apostles, and we will always have them until all mankind is perfected.

These are the Apostles given to us by Christ, not the self-styled “prophets” who set themselves at the head of the LDS cult.

Set themselves? I bet that’d makes Christ pretty upset. And no, I don’t mind someone refers to my faith as a cult. I’m sure the cult of Christianity went through much, much more. In fact…Christ was crucified for such intolerance. Cult or not, I’m happy to associate myself with his church.

Cheers….

Jmcrae,

22:22, which is part of a passage that is speaking directly about the office of the key-holder of the house of David, and its line of succession.

Great! Last time I checked, Davidic succession didn’t occur because of location of death.

The apostolic authority to continue the Great Commission of making disciples of all nations, teaching, and baptizing inheres fully in the office of Bishop.

And I reject it. One that’s not an Apostle can’t have Apostolic authority. It just doesn’t make sense. Moreover, one that isn’t an Apostle cannot perpetuate it.

Tdgesq,

When I give you an earlier source from a known author, a bishop of the early Church, you reject it.

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

A PAc

 

[jmcrae]

Set themselves? I bet that’d makes Christ pretty upset.

They were not born yet when Christ walked the earth, so no, they were not appointed directly by Christ. If they also weren’t appointed by a legitimate successor of the Apostles, then yeah - they were “self” appointed, since they appointed themselves.

Great! Last time I checked, Davidic succession didn’t occur because of location of death.

On the other hand, David also never appointed anybody who wasn’t physically present to be able to be appointed.

One that’s not an Apostle can’t have Apostolic authority. It just doesn’t make sense. Moreover, one that isn’t an Apostle cannot perpetuate it.

An “Apostle” is someone who physically walked with Christ here on the earth.

They passed their authority down to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, by the laying on of hands. Bishops aren’t Apostles, but they do have Apostolic authority.

 

[A_Pac]

Jmcrae,

They were not born yet when Christ walked the earth, so no, they were not appointed directly by Christ.

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

On the other hand, David also never appointed anybody who wasn’t physically present to be able to be appointed.

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

An “Apostle” is someone who physically walked with Christ here on the earth.

No…you’re tenses are wrong. “Walked” or walks….

They passed their authority down to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, by the laying on of hands. Bishops aren’t Apostles, but they do have Apostolic authority.

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