Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[A_Pac]

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.

Umm…it was a previous poster that brought up the Davidic tie to succession, not me. I agree with you. I don’t think it’s helpful at all to try and explain away.

A Pac

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

This is false as the Bible itself and the writings of the Early Church Fathers attest.

First, from the scriptures:

Acts 1:15-26
In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—he was one of our number and shared in this ministry.” (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the book of Psalms, " ‘May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,’ and, " ‘May another take his place of leadership.’ Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

If the “bishopric” of Judas needed to be filled upon his death, how much more should that of Peter be filled after he had died?

2 Peter 1:12-15
****So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. ****

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure?

From the Early Church Fathers:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… 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 further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry.” (Pope St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [80 A.D.])

“***The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. ***To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3])

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[tdgesq]

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.

Let’s not forget what you as the OP asked in the title of the thread. This is what I’m trying to answer at present. We will get to Linus’ ordination in just a bit. Your first objection is that the quotes are 200 years after Peter would have been 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!

Your second objection(s) is that it is undocumented hearsay and that it is a critical point that I’m trying to establish.

Please note, your quote suffers from both of these objections, but in a much more profound way. Your quote is 300 years after Peter would have been bishop. Your quote is also undocumented hearsay. In fact, the author is undocumented as well. Eusebius was a bishop of the Church and a historian of the Church. We may not accept your word on an event that occurred during the Civil War, but we would look at a statement from a Civil War historian quite differently. Finally, if the point is a critical one, then it applies to your quote with just as much force.

Once again, you are not being consistent. You will accept your quote for the proposition that Peter was not Bishop of Rome when it suffers from the same objections to a far greater degree than those I have provided. Either admit that you are being inconsistent or admit that the better evidence is that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

 

[FCEGM]

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

Well, one should believe (i.e., acknowledge) what the Catholic Church officially teaches on the matter - what our Tradition unquestionably asserts. The opinions of dissident liberals who call themselves “Catholic” are of no importance.

Quote:
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.

Yes. But this shows that he would be concerned about a continuation of his ministry. Again, look at Acts 1, where it is Peter who personally initiates the selection of a successor for Judas. Would not a personality like this (an “administrative” personality) be concerned about the continuation of his own office?

Quote:
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.

What do you mean there’s “nothing germane”?? The universal witness of the ancient Church maintained that the Bishop of Rome is the direct successor of Peter. This Tradition is so strong, in fact, that even the modern Eastern Orthodox recognize it in principal, even though they do not consider themselves bound by modern Roman authority.

Your problem is that you evidently hold to a sola Scriptura-style mentality and do not acknowledge the witness of the early Church, which always and universally recognized some form of primacy for the church of Rome, and acknowledged this based on Rome’s succession from St. Peter. Granted, there is no clear account in Scripture which speaks about Peter passing on his Christ-given ministry to a successor. But, there is also no account in Scripture that Matthew ever wrote a Gospel or that Paul was martyred, or a million other things which both non-Catholic Christians and Mormons accept without question. So, it depends on how one defines what is “germane.” We Catholics trust the universal witness of the ancient Church.

Quote:
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.

Am I?

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Sure, again, it’s plausible…but simply to assume that because it wasn’t recorded that it was there for clearly oral is UNTENABLE.

Poppycock. I can point to Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul, and the third successor of Peter), who was appealed to by the Corinthians and who instructed them with authority, even to the point of commanding them to submit to their local presbyters. I can point to Ignatius of Antioch (another disciple of Peter, and also of John; and Peter’s second successor in the see of Antioch) who does not presume to offer any teachings to the church of Rome (in contrast to how he writes to the other churches he addresses), but who declares that Rome “presides in the chief place” and “presides in love,” and says how it has “never envied anyone,” but has “taught others.” This shows that, between ca. A.D. 90 (when Clement wrote to the Corinthians) and A.D. 107 (when Ignatius was writing), the church of Rome was widely recognized to hold the primacy and to offer teaching and instruction to other churches, not just Corinth. I can also point to Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of the Apostle John and of Philip the Deacon) who, in A.D. 155, when he was 85 years old, made the 1,000-mile journey from Asia Minor to Rome to explain to Pope Anicetus why the Asian churches (following the custom of St. John) celebrated Easter on a different date from Rome and the rest of the Church. Why would the elderly disciple of an Apostle travel all the way to Rome to explain the Asian custom to men who never even met an Apostle, unless Rome held some form of primacy over him?

I can point to Dionysius of Corinth, the Bishop of Corinth, who in c. A.D. 170, writes to Pope Soter of Rome, praising him for an epistle that he wrote to give instruction to the Corinthians, comparing these instructions to the teachings of Peter (and also of Paul), and also comparing Soter’s letter to the earlier epistle issued by Pope Clement, which the Corinthians at this time were reading as inspired Scripture! I can also point to Ireneaus of Lyon (the disciple of Polycarp), who in A.D. 180 says that the church of Rome draws its succession from Peter and Paul; and, because of this, it holds “preeminent authority” and that it is “a matter of necessity” that every other church must agree with Rome. I can also point to Tertullian, who in c. A.D., 212 clearly says that Peter ordained Clement as one of his successors and that Rome gets its doctrinal authority from Peter. I can also point to Tertullian’s contemporary, Hippolytus of Rome, who says that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and that the present Pope holds Peter’s authority. I can also point to another contemporary of Tertullian and Hippolytus, Pope Callistus, who claimed to possess the authority of Peter and who invoked Peter’s authority to “bind and loosen” to relax the original discipline for the Sacrament of Confession. I can also point to Cyprian of Carthage, who, about A.D. 250, speaks of Rome as the “Chair of Peter” and “the principal church in which the unity of bishops has its source.” He also calls Rome the “place of Peter” and says that Pope Fabian, and Pope Cornelius, and Pope Stephen hold the office of Peter.

I can also point to Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a contemporay of Cyprian, who also admits that Pope Stephen holds the office of Peter. I can also point to Pope Stephen himself, who invoked Peter’s authority to “bind and loosen” to settle the controversy over Baptisms performed by heretics. I can also point to another contemporary of Cyprian and Firmilian and Stephen, Dionysius of Alexandria, who appealed to the authority of Rome several times because of the ties of discipleship between Rome and Alexandria based on the relationship between St. Peter and St. Mark (who was sent to Alexandria by Peter). I can also point to the heretic Novatian, who claimed to be the true Pope of Rome, in opposition to Pope Cornelius, and who sent emissaries to all the other churches and deposed bishops who disagreed with his heretical views on atonement; and he did this by invoking the Petrine authority to “bind and loosen,” and was obeyed by these other churches until Cyprian and Dionysius of Alexandria made it clear that he was not the true Pope.

So, before A.D. 260, I can cite at least 13 primary sources that illustrate that Peter appointed a successor at Rome and that Rome held Peter’s own authority. So, where’s your evidence to the contrary?? It is your position that is “untenable,” not ours. The burden of proof is on you, not on us. We have the ancient witness on our side.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

You could even say that little green men came at the order of God to see over the process.

Well, you Mormons would know more about making up extraterrestrial fantasies than us. After all, it’s you who believe that God the Father was once a man on another planet, right?? Talk about “untenable.” Our Catholic Faith, however, is rooted in historical fact; and we can produce evidence to show this. So, where is your evidence that would lead you to conclude that Peter did not appoint a successor to his ministry at Rome?? Do you have anything historical to offer?? I don’t think so.

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!

As “untenable” as a God who was once a man on another planet?? So, let’s see now … You have no problem accepting the fact that ol’ Joe Smith found gold tablets that he never showed to anyone or that the wacky Mormon doctrines he cooked up are legit, yet you are suddenly from Missouri (the show-me state ) when it comes to the Petrine succession of Rome; that is, the unanimous patristic evidence isn’t enough for you, and you will not accept the Apostolic Tradition of Roman primacy until you see first-hand documentation that Peter personally commissioned Linus as his successor. Amazing.

Quote:
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.

Peter was in Rome between A.D. 42 and A.D. 49. He then returned to Jerusalem for a time, then settled in Antioch until about A.D. 62-63. He then settled in Rome, where he was around for the great fire of A.D. 64, and died in the Neroan persecutions which began in the latter part of A.D. 65. 1 & 2 Peter were clearly written during the course of the persecutions.It is believed that Peter was martyred in A.D. 67; and that Paul was beheaded later that year.

Quote:
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.

Okay. First, we have the very early witness of Ignatius of Antioch, who, in his Epistle to the Romans, does not offer any teaching or instruction (in contrast to his other epistles), but merely asks the Romans not to try to save him from death in the arena. Rather, he writes:

“Not as Peter and Paul did do I command you. They were Apostles, and I am merely a convict.”

He also says …

“You (the Roman church) have never envied anyone; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed by your conduct, which in your instructions you enjoin on others.” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter III)

He also says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and that it “presides in love.” He writes:

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also presides in the chief place in the Roman territory; a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s Name: her do I therefore salute in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” (Ignatius to the Romans Chap. I)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Now, because I know it’s going to come up, let me address several things here. First of all, the term “presides” here is the Greek word “prokathomenae,” and whenever Ignatius uses this word, he means an authoritative, jurisdictional position. However, Ignatius never applies this word to another church, but only to Rome. Also, notice how Ignatius speaks of how Rome “presides in love, maintaining the law of Christ.” One must recognize where Ignatius (a disciple of the Apostle John) is getting this idea from, that is, to “preside in love.” He is drawing it from Jesus’ words to Peter in John 21:15-19: “Simon, do you love me more than these? …Feed my sheep” Thus, if one understands Ignatius properly, he is making a reference to Peter and Rome’s Petrine authority here. Rome (not Antioch) holds the primacy of love, and so “maintains the law of Christ” for the universal Church. This is what is being referred to.

Now, in the quote above, Ignatius’ exact words are that Rome “presides in the chief place in the Roman territory”; and many anti-Catholics have tried to claim that Ignatius is merely referring to Rome’s local authority - meaning that Rome merely presided over the surrounding churches of Italy. This seems like a plausible reading, until one considers the actual context of the letter:

For example, we know from Chapter X of the Epistle that Ignatius is writing from Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he and his imperial guards were staying with St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. He writes:

“Now I write these things to you from Smyrna by the Ephesians …” (Ignatius to the Romans Chap X).

Therefore, given the “international” context, why would Ignatius be referring to Rome’s local jurisdiction? If that was his meaning, surely he would have referred to the surrounding Italian churches in the context of his letter. Yet, he does not. Nor would it make any sense for him to do so, since he was on his way to Rome itself, and it was the Christians of Rome who were his intended audience - those who could potentially interfere with his martyrdom in the arena. Therefore, Ignatius must be referring to something else when he utters the phrase: “which presides in the chief place in the Roman territory.” What he clearly means is simply: "…which presides in the chief place, located in the Roman territory.” This is all that Ignatius means to say; and we can see this by simply reading the letter from the very beginning. Please read it through again:

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the church [which church?] that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High Father and of Jesus Christ, His only Son; the church (which church?) by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God; which also presides in the chief place in the Roman territory [Ah! That church! ] ; a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s Name: her do I therefore salute in the Name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” (Ignatius to the Romans Chap. I)

So, the only reason that Ignatius says “in the Roman territory” is to identify which church he is writing to - that is, the church of Rome. This church “presides in the chief place,” not merely “in the Roman territory,” but generally and throughout the universal Church. IOW, the church that “presides in the chief place” happens to be “in the Roman territory.” “In the Roman territory” is just Ignatius’ terminology for the city of Rome.

But, Ignatius will make one last reference to the “presiding love” of the church of Rome. For, at the very conclusion of his epistle, he writes:

“Remember in your prayers the Church of Syria (Antioch) , which now has God for its bishop, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”

This is most significant. While Ignatius asks all the churches to which he writes to pray for the church of Syria (Antioch), he never commends it to the care of another church, but only to the presiding love of Rome.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

So, according to the earliest testimony that we have from an Antiochian Christian (indeed, from the second Bishop of Antioch after Peter), Antioch was not equal in authoriy to Petrine Rome, but Rome was superior in authority.

But, the Antiochian witness doesn’t stop with St. Ignatius. We also have the witness of all the other Antiochian fathers, such as St. John Chrysostom, a native of Antioch. In regard to the relationship between Antioch and Rome, Chrysostom writes:

“For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome.” (Chrysostom, On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).

As I have said before, Antioch did not retain the Petrine ministry. Rather, it left Antioch with Peter, and was inherited by the church of Rome. The ancient Antiochians clearly recognized this fact.

To cite yet another Antiochian father, we have the very specific witness of Theodoret of Cyrus, who writes to both the bishop of Constantinople and to Pope Leo the Great and says:

“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.” (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

…and …

“It pertains to you (Pope Leo) to hold the primacy in all things, for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.” (Theodoret Ibid, Epist. Leoni)

…and …

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.”(Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

…and …

“Hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many priviledges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles.” (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113).

Now, this same Theodoret is not oblivious to the fact that his own Antiochian church was established by Peter, and that Peter was once bishop there, for he also writes to Pope Leo against the heretical Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria:

“But this man (Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) will not abide by the decrees (of Nicaea), but brings forward at every turn that his is the Throne of Mark; and yet he knows well that the great city of Antioch has the Throne of Peter, who was both teacher of Mark, and the first and the leader (coryphaeus) of the choir of the Apostles.” (Theodoret, T. iv. Ep. lxxxvi.).

So, while the Antiochians recognized their own Petrine heritage, they DID NOT think that this made them equal in authority to Petrine Rome.

Is this enough patristic evidence to prove this point to you, or do you require more??

continued. . .

 

[A_Pac]

RandyCarson,

If it’s false, then give the verse of scripture that says that Bishops were going to overtake the Apostles.

Acts 1:15-26: Choosing ANOTHER APOSTLE

2 Peter 1:12-15: Declaring HIS OWN INTENT TO CONTINUE TO TESTIFY

Early Chruch Fathers…

I reject them. But I will get to Clement’s post. It is very interesting.

Tdgesq

Please note, your quote suffers from both of these objections, but in a much more profound way.

As I posted, the issue isn’t that the Constitutions aren’t controversial themselves. It’s simply that there’s nothing to contradict them! If there’s something else to evaluate concerning Linus’s ordination, then we’d have something to go off of. We don’t. I’m not accepting it uncritically, but accept it because it is the ONLY thing that addresses this issue. Could it be wrong? Sure…but the authoritative claim still remains untenable.

No…I am not being inconsistent as I’ve explained. Treat Linus’s ordination by Paul, then we can move on.

Yes. But this shows that he would be concerned about a continuation of his ministry.

NO it does NOT! That’s your insinuation, and I reject it. The best thing it does it makes arrangements to carry on a collection of his epistles. This has NOTHING to do with Apostolic Succession, and is certainly NOT proof of it.

Would not a personality like this (an “administrative” personality) be concerned about the continuation of his own office?

Not if it were meant to pass away!

What do you mean there’s “nothing germane”?? The universal witness of the ancient Church maintained that the Bishop of Rome is the direct successor of Peter.

Germane, as in…being a germane source and not hearsay some hundreds of years later. Oh…I reject the RCC “witness” because it’s circular reasonsing, again.

Your problem is that you evidently hold to a sola Scriptura-style mentality and do not acknowledge the witness of the early Church

Well, yeah… I believe the early church went apostate, so why would I acknowledge it? The authoritative claim without this tradition is untenable. It’s only support is circular reasoning.

But, there is also no account in Scripture that Matthew ever wrote a Gospel or that Paul was martyred, or a million other things which both non-Catholic Christians and Mormons accept without question.

So what? You’re saying if we accept one tradition we have to accept them all? That’s a pretty ludicrous notion.

We Catholics trust the universal witness of the ancient Church [as germane].

But objectivity and apologetics does not.

Poppycock. I can point to Clement of Rome (a disciple of Peter and Paul, and the third successor of Peter), who was appealed to by the Corinthians and who instructed them with authority, even to the point of commanding them to submit to their local presbyters.

I really will get to this, because I think it’s interesting. Clement HAD to do what he did, else undermine his own authority.

This shows that, between ca. A.D. 90 (when Clement wrote to the Corinthians) and A.D. 107 (when Ignatius was writing), the church of Rome was widely recognized to hold the primacy…

You may like to believe it does, but it certainly in no uncertain terms, does not! The only reason Clement wrote them is because the Corinthians ASKED for it.

Why would the elderly disciple of an Apostle travel all the way to Rome to explain the Asian custom to men who never even met an Apostle, unless Rome held some form of primacy over him?

Because by the time he was that old, the Apostles had died and the church was no more. Moreover, it sounds like he went to Rome to tell Anicetus (Cletus?) that he was flat wrong and to shape up and ship out. Why else travel the distance when a letter would have done just fine? Sounds like he had something to get off his chest.

And Irenaeus and Tertullian…again, NOT germane sources. Realize that they’re as far removed as we are from the civil war. You keeping resorting to this circular appeal to tradition…just because you keep doing it doesn’t make it any more logically valid.

The burden of proof is on you, not on us. We have the ancient witness on our side.

On the contrary, it’s your burden of proof to supply germane evidence that doesn’t involve circular reasoning.

Are we talking of Linus’s ordination, or Peter as THE Bishop of Rome? Linus’s ordination sets the stage for the latter, but you’ve been mostly addressing Peter (which is fine). Just want to make some progress.

A Pac

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
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?

What do you mean “how did he do it”? Do you want to know specific details? We don’t have any. Rather, we can only conclude that he did it in the sense that OT prophets (e.g. Elijah and Elisha) and all 1st Century Jewish rabbis passed on their own authority to a successor. By the end of Peter’s life, Rome was seen as Peter’s own See. IOW, the church of Rome became equated with Peter’s own authority. So, when he died, this sense of Petrine authority was unquestionably maintained and universally recognized. How this specifically came about is obscure to us. We do not know the details of what happen in the context of an illegal, underground society under persecution, which is what the Church was at the time. But all the available evidence illustrates the result most clearly. When the “smoke cleared,” Rome held Peter’s authority. This is because he entrusted it to the church of Rome. That is the Tradition, and there is no other. There is no disagreement on this point for orthodox Catholic Christians …or for orthodox Eastern Orthodox for that matter. The Tradition is well attested.

Quote:
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.

Reject all you like. You Mormons reject quite a few things …like Jesus’ promise in Matt. 16:18 that even the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and His promise in John 14:16-17 that the Spirit of Truth would REMAIN with His Church ALWAYS; so much for total apostasy and the Church of Jesus Christ being “withdrawn from the earth” until Joe Smith came along.

But, to address your point, we are not saying that Rome obtained Peter’s authority merely because he happened to die there - as if the geographic location of his death achieved the succession on its own. Rather, the point is that Peter concluded his earthly ministry in Rome. It was in Rome that his earthly “term of office” as Rock and Key-Bearer came to an end. And since this ministry was still needed after his death, he entrusted it to his succeeding bishop in the church of Rome. This is how Rome received the Papacy, and not Antioch. If Peter has concluded his “term” while at Antioch, Antioch would have succeeded to his Papal office.

It’s farfetched and completely untenable.

Ha-ha! Simply amazing. A Mormon is accusing us of presenting something “far-fetched”! That’s rich. If you really feel that way, I strongly urge you to prayerfully consider Jesus’ instruction to remove the plank from your own eye first. When you can give me some evidence that Joseph Smith was anything better than a creative liar who “liked the ladies” a little too much, then you can accuse us of being “far-fetched.”

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.

Total nonsense. I explained this before. Go back and read what I wrote. An Apostle was one ministry, the Petrine ministry was something distinct from it. One did not have to be an Apostle to be the leader of the Church. Your problem is that you assume that holding an Apostolic office meant that one was a final authority. If that were the case, then Peter would have had no more authority than any of the other Apostles, which would render Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 meaningless. As Apostles Peter and the other members of the Twelve, and Paul, were all equals; but, as Rock and Key-Bearer (a special, Christ-created ministry for maintaining the Church in unity and orthodoxy), Peter held additional responsibility, to which all the other Apostles had to give assent. It would be no different for the Apostles who survived Peter’s death and who living when one of Peter’s successors was Pope. As an Apostle, John could introduce new revelation, which is something that Linus and Clement could not do. But, as Pope, Linus and Clement could maintain the entire flock in unity and orthodoxy, which is something John did not have the authority of the Christ-given commission to do.

continued. . .

 

[A_Pac]

Concerning Clement’s letter to the Corinthians…

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they [the Apostles] had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they [the Apostles] appointed those [other Bishops] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these [the other Bishops] should fall asleep, other approved men [approved by the Apostles ahead of time like Cletus and Clement during the Bishopric of Linus]should succeed them [the other Bishops] in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them [the first Bishop], or afterwards by other eminent men [others ordained by these first bishops—or just anybody of “status”], with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

The glaring points are:

1. If Clement was the authority, what’s the “we” all about?
2. The Apostles named others to follow those Bishops, aka, Cletus and Clement to follow Linus. Why did they do that if Linus couldn’t simply ordain another Bishop? I’ll tell you why? Probably because Bishops didn’t have the authority to ordain Bishops.
3. “We are of opinion…?” Opinion? Why didn’t he KNOW how the appointing of ministers should be handled? It is such an important thing that there should truly be no “opinion.”
4. Consent of the whole church? All of a sudden those ordained by those ordained by the Apostles, these need to be ordained with the consent of the church? Why not the Apostles, or the first Bishops/ministers? What’s the difference?
5. Clement was to give and receive…his authority wasn’t anything special.

Now, Ignatius wrote similar letters with similar statements of authority. In the earliest version of 1 Clement, the writer notes that the reason he is writing is because those of Corinth asked him to. This is similar to Polycarp’s letter to the Ephesians which he wrote at the request of the Ephesians. Also interesting is that Clement only asked the Corinthians to send him word in hopes of hearing that they had set themselves in order, but made no effort to go there or send someone to make sure things were put in order. I find this as very week evidence.

A Pac

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
Says who?

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

See above.

Quote:
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.

Big surprise. As a pseudo-Arian cult member, you deny the most important Traditions of the Apostolic Church (e.g. the Trinity).

Quote:
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.

“God told you,” eh? And what do you say to a Muslim when he says that “God told him” that the Koran is the Word of God and that it “teaches true principals”? And what about 1 Clement to the Corinthians or Ignatius to the Romans? I think they teach true principals too, but, I don’t think they’re Apostolic or inspired, and I don’t include them in my Bible because of that. So, how do you know that the Gospel of Matthew is the Word of God and that it belongs in your Bible? How do you know that it wasn’t just made up by some well-meaning Christians and just attributed to the Apostles?? You know this based on the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you wish to admit this or not.

I don’t care about this “sacred oral tradition.”

Well, of course, not! You prefer a guy with a hat and some magic stones. Your preferences place you in jeopardy of your soul.

In fact, I find very little sacred about it considering I hold it highly likely that corruption crept in.

But Joe Smith can be trusted, right?

Quote:
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.

Sorry. I assumed I was dealing with someone with some rationality.

Quote:
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.

The Tradition is ancient and consistent evidence. Where’s yours?

Quote:
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.

It is perfectly sound logic, and you know it. Methinks the Smithian disciple doth protest too much.

Quote: 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.

Addressed comprehensively above.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
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.

So says Joe “Big Love” Smith, who denies Matt. 16:18 and John 14:16-17, and who made up all sorts of fantasies, lied to people, and instituted polygamy in order to satisfy his overactive libido. That’s quite a “prophet” you got there.

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.

I see. And was James the Just (aka “the brother of the Lord”) an Apostle? No, he was not.Yet, he was in authority in Jerusalem and the leader of the ultra-Jewish faction in the Church. Once again, your problem is that you confuse Apostolic authority with episcopal authority. An Apostle is a witness to Christ who delivers revelation. A bishop (which includes a Pope) is someone responsible for maintaining the revelation that is delivered by the Apostles, and for maintaining the integrity of the flock. Clement held this position in a universal context while John was still alive. There is no conflict of interest here. You are merely unable to see that because you do not appreciate what an apostle is vs. what a bishop is. As an Apostle - that is, a first-hand witness of Christ - John was superior to Clement; but, as a bishop, Clement was superior to John, who was only responsible (as a bishop) for the churches in Asia, whereas Clement was responsible for the universal unity of the flock.

Quote:
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?

Yes, of course he appointed Linus. I never said otherwise. I said from the start that 2 Peter 1:13-15 shows that Peter was concerned for the future of the Church in the event of his death and that he would have made arrangements for a successor because of this. I also NEVER SAID that Rome succeeded to Peter’s ministry simply because he died there, but because Rome was where Peter ended his “term of office” and surrendered his earthly ministry. What’s in question are the specific details of how Peter commissioned Linus, and Cletus and Clement as his prescribed “stand ins.” Was it by the laying on of hands? Was it by throwing his cloak over Linus in the way that Elijiah threw it over Elisha? Was it by the prayer of the entire Roman church and the casting of lots, as with Matthias in Acts 1? We don’t know. All we know is what Clement tells us, which is:

“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.” (1 Clement 44:1-2)

…e.g. Cletus and Clement were also ordained by Peter as “back ups.”

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
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.

SIGH! Okay, listen closely now. Here’s what we believe:

1. Peter knew that he was going to die. He had been shown this by Christ (see 2 Peter 1), and so made all the necessary arrangements for this. This included appointing the men who would succeed him (both immediately and conditionally) as Bishop of Rome. These men were Linus, Cletus, and Clement. Linus was the immediate successor, and Cletus and Clement were ordained as an “insurance policy” that the succession would continue, since this was happening at the time of Nero’s persecution, and Christians were being killed in droves. Aside from Cletus and Clement, there may have been other ministers who were ordained for the succession, but these were killed in the persecution. We don’t know. All we know is that Linus succeeded Peter, followed by Cletus, then Clement; and that Cletus and Clement, along with Linus, received Apostolic ordination (so says Tertullian, and so implies Clement himself above).
2. Linus was the bishop of Rome after Peter. But, aside from succeeding to the office of Bishop of Rome (as Evodius succeeded Peter to the office of Bishop of Antioch), Linus also received the fullness of Peter’s Christ-given office. This is because Peter himself was about to give it up (in an earthly sense); and so, Linus would succeed to Peter’s full ministry, not merely to the office of Bishop of Rome. Or, iow, the Christ-created office of Rock and Key-Bearer now became part of the office of the Bishop of Rome, since it was AS Bishop of Rome that Peter ended his earthly ministry, passing on this ministry to Linus.
3. So, Linus did not become Pope “automatically” when Peter died. We are not saying that. What we are saying is that Peter concluded his earthly ministry while serving in the office that he would pass on to Linus. In passing it on to Linus, he did not pass it on to a mere person, rather, he passed it on to the church of Rome itself in the person of its bishop. This is how Rome received the Petrine ministry; and it was recognized as possessing it by all the other churches.

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 right. I am not saying that he possessed APOSTOLIC authority “over” any Apostle. Rather, he possessed EPISCOPAL authority “over” both Apostles and non-Apostles because he succeeded to the ministry of Peter. Again, you do not see this because you confuse and fail to appreciate what an apostle is and what a bishop is.

Will continued after lightening storm passes. . .

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

Well, you Mormons would know more about making up extraterrestrial fantasies than us.

On the contrary, you can’t use illicit hallucinogens in our church and maintain good standing.

After all, it’s you who believe that God the Father was once a man on another planet, right??

CUTE!

Our Catholic Faith, however, is rooted in historical fact;

Sure. And it makes it easy when it’s made up retroactively through spongy hearsay as you go along.

So, where is your evidence that would lead you to conclude that Peter did not appoint a successor to his ministry at Rome??

STRAWMAN!! Who said that’s my claim? On the contrary…for the third time, I maintain that the RCC authoritative claim is UNTENABLE, NOT false. Please get that right.

You have no problem accepting the fact that ol’ Joe Smith found gold tablets that he never showed to anyone or that the wacky Mormon doctrines he cooked up are legit…

Getting angry now, are we? The fact is actually that ol’ ‘Joe Smith’ showed them to 8 people, and an Angel showed them to another three. I don’t blame you for being an ignoramus, but would suggest you from re-writing “historical fact.”

and you will not accept the Apostolic Tradition of Roman primacy until you see first-hand documentation that Peter personally commissioned Linus as his successor…

Accept? Who said anything about accepting it? It’s a false claim…but I’m just suggesting it’s untenable. That’s it.

Peter was in Rome between A.D. 42 and A.D. 49.

Is that historical fact too? (I really don’t care either way)

Okay. First, we have the very early witness of Ignatius of Antioch, who, in his Epistle to the Romans, does not offer any teaching or instruction (in contrast to his other epistles), but merely asks the Romans not to try to save him from death in the arena.

I KNOW he didn’t “lay” his ministry down in Antioch. I just reject the idea he laid it Rome.

He also says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and that it “presides in love.”

Are you seriously proof-texting?

Sorry for the obvious, but Rome was, “the chief place in the Roman territory;” Doesn’t it make sense that Rome was the center of the Roman Empire? And that’s evidence that the church of GOD was centered there? Wow.

a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love…

Yeah! Just like ANY LOCAL CHURCH presiding over their congregation in like attributes! You really read a lot into this stuff, don’t you?

However, Ignatius never applies this word to another church, but only to Rome.

I’m not going by your ignorantium, so don’t try and pass off the fallacy.

One must recognize where Ignatius (a disciple of the Apostle John) is getting this idea from, that is, to “preside in love.”

How do you know? Were you seriously harboring in his brain to KNOW that it came from John 21? There’s no WAY to know that! Your scholarship is idealistic, but certainly not practical.

Therefore, given the “international” context, why would Ignatius be referring to Rome’s local jurisdiction?

Ummm…because they had one! It was a commendation to the leadership in Rome for being loving in their service. To say that it went beyond “international” borders is presumption at best! Believe it if you want, but there’s certainly no support for it. It’s also most, untenable.

If that was his meaning, surely he would have referred to the surrounding Italian churches in the context of his letter.

Says who? You? Prove it? You are not the standard of what he should or should not have done. Stop being so presumptuous.

Therefore, Ignatius must be referring to something else when he utters the phrase: “which presides in the chief place in the Roman territory…

You know, if you want to believe it go ahead. I don’t care. But your “proof” is lacking and but creative, convenient mingling and meshing.

.” What he clearly means is simply: "…which presides in the chief place, located in the Roman territory.

UNTRUE, UNTRUE, UNTRUE!! I’m really wondering if you’re maliciously proof-texting. It was clearly the chief place IN the Roman territory…THAT BEING THE MUNICPAL CAPITAL, ROME ITSELF!!

Please read it through again:

I beg you to do the same!

A Pac

 

[tdgesq]

As I posted, the issue isn’t that the Constitutions aren’t controversial themselves. It’s simply that there’s nothing to contradict them! If there’s something else to evaluate concerning Linus’s ordination, then we’d have something to go off of. We don’t. I’m not accepting it uncritically, but accept it because it is the ONLY thing that addresses this issue. Could it be wrong? Sure…but the authoritative claim still remains untenable.

No…I am not being inconsistent as I’ve explained. Treat Linus’s ordination by Paul, then we can move on.

No, we can’t move on until we answer the title of your thread. Was Peter the Bishop of Rome? You want to now deflect to Linus’ ordination. Your contention was that your quote demonstrated that Peter could not have been the Bishop of Rome.

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

The original post of this thread. I’ve now given you several quotes that declare that Peter was the Bishop of Rome. You still want to make an inference from a far less trustworthy source that he wasn’t. On the point of whether Peter was the Roman Bishop there is authority that is demonstrably more reliable than yours. And it directly states it, it isn’t just an inference like you have made from your apocryphal source. So what shall it be: inconsistency or admission of Peter’s status?

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

Antioch did not retain the Petrine ministry…

Sorry for making you waste the time…I know that. We just believe it the case for two different reasons.

What do you mean “how did he do it”? Do you want to know specific details? We don’t have any. Do you want to know specific details? We don’t have any.

AND THAT IS MY POINT. THERE IS NO DETAILS, AND THUS THE WHOLE PROCESS IS UNTENABLE. THANK YOU LADIES AND GENTLEMAN.

So, when he died, this sense of Petrine authority was unquestionably maintained and universally recognized [in Rome].

Except your evidence is completely anachronistic…they’re postmortem. The time under scrutiny is before Peter died. Some “location” was never important, but the vessel of the Lord to whom the keys were given.

When the “smoke cleared,” Rome held Peter’s authority.

Well, there certainly is a lot of smoke….and considering Innocent went about torturing and killing any “heretic” that believed differently, no wonder all the records are so ‘clear.’ History is written by the conqueror.

Reject all you like. You Mormons reject quite a few things …like Jesus’ promise in Matt. 16:18 that even the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church and His promise in John 14:16-17 that the Spirit of Truth would REMAIN with His Church ALWAYS;

STRAWMAN!!! I in fact trust in the promises explicitly! John the beloved never died, and preserved the keys of the church from hell (death) until given to Joseph Smith. During that time called the apostasy, the church was lost from the world. Moreover, considering the great advantage Satan had for centuries, I’d daresay that the restoration is akin to a marvelous come back in the 4th quarter…certainly a prevailing for the times!

Did prevail not mean what you hoped it did?

But, to address your point, we are not saying that Rome obtained Peter’s authority merely because he happened to die there…

Actually, you’ve said it a number of times, but thank you for clarifying.

And since this ministry was still needed after his death, he entrusted it to his succeeding bishop in the church of Rome.

But…we just don’t have any details of that exchange yet it must have happened due to others Fathers that said that it must have happened… Right…

If Peter has concluded his “term” while at Antioch, Antioch would have succeeded to his Papal office.

WHAT?! So it DID have everything to do with location!

A Mormon is accusing us of presenting something “far-fetched”!

That is correct.

When you can give me some evidence that Joseph Smith was anything better than a creative liar who “liked the ladies” a little too much, then you can accuse us of being “far-fetched.”

Well, at least he was married to them. Unlike those poor little altar boys and their priests….
Look, if you really want to throw mud, I think it’d be a lot of fun. But you’re actually my favorite poster and would love to keep an intelligent conversation going, minus the inflammatory comments.

An Apostle was one ministry, the Petrine ministry was something distinct from it.

Again, believe it if you want. The fact is Christ nor Peter discriminated between them. Christ place “first Apostles,” etc., etc. In my book, that means they were in charge. Period. Why? Because first comes before second or third, etc., etc.

One did not have to be an Apostle to be the leader of the Church.

Of COURSE that’s what you’re going to say!

Your problem is that you assume that holding an Apostolic office meant that one was a final authority. If that were the case, then Peter would have had no more authority than any of the other Apostles,

Why? He was the first, or chief Apostle. Makes sense to me that he was leading the crew.

As an Apostle, John could introduce new revelation, which is something that Linus and Clement could not do.

So…John could introduce new revelation, and if Linus or Clement didn’t like it, they could excommunicate John? Or in the very least, ignore him completely in organizing the church?

Ladies and gentlemen…I give you the Great Apostasy!

A Pac

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

Big surprise. As a pseudo-Arian cult member, you deny the most important Traditions of the Apostolic Church (e.g. the Trinity).

Better than speaking as a member of a genocide enforcement agency (do you really want to continue the inflammatory comments going?)

“God told you,” eh?

Yup. I assume that he wasn’t lying in James 1:5, and then went the Apostles felt the burning of the bosom, they weren’t making it up.

You know this based on the oral Tradition of the Catholic Church, whether you wish to admit this or not.

Why are you incessant in telling me what I believe, particularly after I clarify it? God told me it’s true. Does he not tell people the Bible is true? Sounds pretty silly of God if He’s not into the practice.

Well, of course, not! You prefer a guy with a hat and some magic stones. Your preferences place you in jeopardy of your soul.

Hey…if it’s good enough for the children of Israel in the OT, it’s good enough fore me. Canonical practice seems to do wonders.

But Joe Smith can be trusted, right?

He…and the other 11 which included a number that were excommunicated from the church yet never denied the truthfulness of the work. Anyway…I’d trust him before murderous Popes any day (keep it coming…it’s so easy).

The Tradition is ancient and consistent evidence.

Again, when you kill everyone you can to keep it “clean,” it’s amazing what stories you can come up with. Thank you Pope Innocent IV!!

The origins of the gospels are with Apostles and have nothing to do with their compilation. To assume that WRITINGS thus came from oral tradition is a burden of proof that I’m glad I don’t have. Again, it’s completely nonsensical and illogical.

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

Yes. In a very Catholic-ist manner you explained how it’s not territorial…although it really is.

A Pac

 

[FCEGM]

A Pac - continuing. . .

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?

Go read 1 Cor. 12 carefully. The Apostles were certainly first in the order of the Body of Christ because the revelation of the New Covenant went forth from them. But this has nothing to do with episcopal or managerial authority in the Church. In 1 Cor. 12, Paul is not speaking about managerial authority or structural hierarchy. He is speaking about importance. You again view the Church and Church authority in a very secular way. This is not how the early Church operated. Clement has one kind of authority (directed toward a particular ministry - to maintain the universal Church in unity and orthodoxy); John has another kind of authority (to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ).

Your problem is that you wish to view an Apostle as “the boss”, as the “alpha male” in any Church assembly. But this is not how things operated. Clement’s role was to maintain unity and troubleshoot problems in the family. John’s role was to be a witness to all that the Lord said and did. They did not conflict because their authority ran parallel to each other. Both were in the service of the same Lord and Master.

Quote:
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.

You’re not very discerning, I’m afraid. An Apostle did have authority - the authority of an Apostle, which was to be a witness to Christ and to introduce revelation. Now, aside from being an Apostle, some Apostles were also bishops of certain churches, and so acquired the additional responsibility to maintain that local church in unity and orthodoxy. In this (PLEASE NOTE) that a particular church (e.g. Jerusalem, Rome, or Ephesus) might have a number of Apostles in it. But, NOT ALL of these Apostles were the bishop of that church!! See where I’m going here? For, while the Twelve were still in Jerusalem (before Acts 12), there were Twelve Apostles in Jerusalem. HOWEVER, Peter was clearly the leader among them - the bishop; the one responsible for maintaining unity and orthodoxy. Likewise, while John was in Ephesus (in the early days), there were other Apostles there with him …like Philip, and Barnabas, and Jude, and Bartholomew, etc. Yet, John alone was the bishop, and these other Apostles were “under” him in the sense of episcopal authority. The same was true in Rome and in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul were active at the same time. Both were equal as Apostles, but Peter was the bishop in Rome and in Antioch, and Paul was “under” his authority in that sense. So, we can see that the office of Apostle and the office of bishop are two distinct things. Being an Apostle did not necessarily make one a bishop; and having episcopal authority over you didn’t make you any less an Apostle! Thus, there was no problem if Clement was a bishop “over” John. It didn’t matter. The authority of witness was one thing; the authority of “management” was another thing. Peter held the ultimate “managerial” office, but it did not make him more of an Apostle than the others. Indeed, his special ministry had nothing to do with him being an Apostle. Jesus could have given it to James or some other non-Apostle.

Quote:
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.

Word games, eh? Well, to first address your silly argument, if you or I were a 1st Century king or Roman procurator, we would be “superior to” Christ in an administrative sense, since He was a subject of the Empire and a mere Jewish carpenter. This is why He directly tells Pilate that Pilate was given authority over Him “from above.” In becoming a servant, Christ submitted Himself to every earthly authority. So, your little “trick” there may work on the slow-witted, but not on an Apostolic Christian who understands Scripture properly and comprehensively.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

As for your other comments, you still fail to appreciate how Christ entrusted the Church to Peter. He most certainly did not make Peter His only witness. Rather, all of the Apostles were entrusted with this. He certainly did not make Peter his only priest. Rather, all the Apostles received the priesthood at the Last Supper. So, Peter was not “entrusted with the Church” in these and other senses. Rather, Peter was merely entrusted with the Church insofar that he was made responsible for maintaining its unity and orthodoxy, that is, to clarify the revelation that was delivered through ALL the Apostles and to hold them together in unity (see Luke 22:30-31), and one did not have to be an Apostle to do this. This is why Clement, for example, could do it with an episcopal college that consisted of both Apostles and non-Apostles. You again fail to appreciate the distinction between “Apostle” and “bishop.”

Quote:
The Pope is not an Apostle.

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

The first Pope happened to be an Apostle. All his successors were not. Being an Apostle is not intrinsic to the Papacy. That’s the point.

Quote:
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.

The ancient Church fathers disagree with you, and I’ll take their word over that of a Mormon any day.

There’s nothing to assume that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

Oh? Where to begin? In 1 Peter 5:1-4, Peter calls himself a “presbyter.” As any elementary student of Church history knows, in the earliest days of the Church, the terms “presbyter” (elder) and “bishop” (overseer) were used interchangeably. See, for example, …

Titus 1:5-7: “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless, not arrogant, …etc.” (compare to 1 Tim 3:1-7 & 5:17-22)

Acts 20:17-28: “From Miletus he (Paul) had the presbyters of the church of Ephesus summoned. When they came to him, he addressed them, ’ …Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (i.e., “bishops”), in which you tend the Church of God …”
Also, in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1, John calls himself “the Presbyter” - a reference to his role as Bishop of Ephesus.
Thus, according to 1 Peter 5, Peter is also a “Presbyter”’ and he is the presbyter of a place that he calls “Babylon” in 1 Peter 5:13, “Babylon” being the Christian code name for the city of Rome. Ergo, Peter was the Bishop of Rome. He was not merely its Apostle.

Also, if you read Gal. 2:11-14 carefully, Paul is clearly describing a situation in which Peter was the “leading presbyter” (aka “bishop”) of Antioch. Notice that this was a church that included Paul, and Barnabas, and also Silas and Judas (see Acts 15), and other important presbyters who had participated in the council of Jerusalem. Yet, it is Peter that everyone looks to for leadership - both because Barnabas and the others follow Peter’s hypocritical example and withdraw from eating with the Gentiles, and also because Paul and his Gentile disciples are miffed that Peter has excluded them! If Peter was not the bishop (not the instrument and focal point of church unity in Antioch), then why should Paul and the Gentiles care whether he ate with them or not??? Needless to say, it was at the communal meal that the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist (Lord’s Supper); and so Peter was, unthinkingly and insensitively, excluding the Gentiles from his episcopal communion at Antioch. This is why Paul was so irate.

So, the testimony of Scripture (if one knows how to read it) is pretty clear: Peter was the bishop (that is, leading presbyter) at both Antioch and Rome. One does not even need the testimony of the fathers to illustrate this historical fact.

continued. . .