Peter...the Bishop of Rome?

[mercygate]

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

A Pac

Why do you care who consecrated Linus? The Church consecrated Linus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as promised by Our Lord in John 14.

You reject history, tradition and Scripture. And you DO reject Scripture since you reject the Church that codified the canon of the New Testament. Why in the world do you write as if you accept the New Testament? It is the compilation of what you believe to be apostate Bishops of an apostate Church and ratified nearly 350 years after the death of Jesus.

You must reject the New Testament if you reject the Church. Particularly since the canon of the New Testament was not closed until 60 years following the definition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinitiy. Be honest. How can an such an apostate Church have ratified a trustworthy canon? Or is that your ground for accepting the witness of Joseph Smith?

Why do you care who was the Bishop of Rome?

 

[FCEGM]

A Bishop IN Rome yes…but not THE Bishop of Rome. I doubt they even looked at it in that paradigm.

So, you are an advocate of the modernist idea that the early churches were governed by some kind of “democratic” body of presbyters, eh? Well, aside from what I presented above, this too can be soundly refuted by Scripture. While the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” were used interchangably in the early days, the functions of the offices were not. Each church always had its leading presbyter (what would later be exclusively called “the bishop”) from earliest times. James was unquestionably the leading presbyter (a.k.a bishop) in Jerusalem (see Acts 21). The same can be shown of Timothy, who was the first bishop of Ephesus after Paul (John would only come to Ephesus after Timothy’s martyrdom). If you look at the Greek of 1 Tim 5:17-22, Timothy is clearly depicted at the monarchial bishop in Ephesus. In giving Timothy rules for the management of the Ephesian presbyters, Paul uses the YOU-singular in Greek, thus showing that Timothy himself held the authority in that church OVER the other presbyters. Paul writes:

“Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor …Do not accept (you singular) an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses. Reprimand (you singular) publically those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid. I charge you (singular) before God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels to keep these rules without prejudice, doing nothing out of favoritism. Do not lay hands (you singular) too readily on anyone …”

It was Timothy who had the final authority to accept accusations, to reprimand, and to ordain presbyters by the laying-on of hands. Don’t forget that this office in Ephesus held by Timothy c. A.D. 65 was the same office held by John the Apostle c. A.D. 70 onward, when he became bishop of Ephesus, calling himself “the Presbyter” in 2 John 1 & 3 John 1. This is the type of “presbyter” that Peter was as well (per 1 Peter 5).

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?

Was Peter “disrespecting” HIMSELF when he calls himself a “presbyter” in 1 Peter 5? As is so common among Mormons, you would rather hold to scenarios created by your own fanciful imaginations than the clear testimony of the early Church.

Quote:
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.

I explained it above. You are distorting my position.

Keys and authority were NEVER passed on like this.

Really? In Matt 23:1-3, Jesus says that the scribes and Pharisees (i.e., the assembled Sanhedrin) hold “the Chair of Moses” (that is, the teaching authority of Israel). Would you care to show me how they received it from Moses?? Where is this depicted in Scripture? Likewise, in Acts 23, Paul calls the High Priest “the ruler of the people.” How did the High Priest become this? Likewise, in John 11:49-52, the Apostle says that the Holy Spirit spoke through the High Priest Caiaphas BECAUSE he was the High Priest. Yet, Caiaphas came to the High Priesthood by bribing his way into office and he was appointed to the High Priesthood by the pagan Romans. Yet, according to the inspired Word of God (the Gospel of John), Caiaphas was a valid High Priest. So, how do you account for this??

continued. . .

 

[A_Pac]

FCEGM,

So says Joe “Big Love” Smith, who denies Matt. 16:18 and John 14:16-17,

You know…I already addressed it. Your broken record doesn’t help the argument any.

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.

Better than raping nuns and aborting the bodies of their children in the catacombs.

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.

Great, now what does that have to do with the question? He was over a congregation of Saints…not an Apostle. Thanks again for NOT addressing the question.

Once again, your problem is that you confuse Apostolic authority with episcopal authority.

No…one is held by an Apostle and the other by a Bishop. Oh… except in your world, Bishops own them both. The RCC made up these weird definitions retroactively to merge their strange history with the bible…but did a terrible job of it. The Bible certainly never talks of Bishops superior to Apostles in ANYWAY. Doesn’t it take a revelation to add to the Bible? You’re as bad as we are!

I also NEVER SAID that Rome succeeded to Peter’s ministry simply because he died there…

But you DID say had he died in Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch would have been Pope. Glad to know that’s not the same thing!

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.

Or was it all fabricated? You’re right, we don’t know. That’s why it’s UNTENABLE.

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

YES!! AND WHY? Because Linus didn’t have authority to call new Bishops! That was left to the Apostles!! Why else if he could? It makes no sense!

This included appointing the men who would succeed him (both immediately and conditionally) as Bishop of Rome.

No…he ordained people to succeed each other as Bishop of Rome.

Linus was the bishop of Rome after Peter.

So can you prove that Linus wasn’t ordained Bishop by Paul before Peter got there? Because if he was, I daresay he was still the Bishop of Rome…subject to the Apostle Peter.

Linus also received the fullness of Peter’s Christ-given office.

We just have no idea how, right?

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.

Wow. As convoluted as that sounds, I’m surprised Peter didn’t write it down. Seems like a pretty important part of your claim to have gone missing.

That’s right. I am not saying that he possessed APOSTOLIC authority “over” any Apostle.

Yes you did! You said that while John could receive revelation, the unity of the church (which would include John) was in the hands of Linus. You’re being inconsistent.

Will continued after lightening storm passes. . .

Don’t get struck. But if you do, take it as a sign.

A Pac

 

[FCEGM]

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!

Christ did not make any other Apostle the Rock or Key-bearer of the Church. Rather, the Lord gave this ministry to Peter alone, and Peter passed it on to the man who the Spirit chose to be his successor. As for the Jewish kings, David originally ruled from Hebron (2 Sam. 2 & 3), and he had sons born to him there, and some of them continued to hold Hebron for him. However, David later moved his capital to Jerusalem and established this as the seat of his dynasty. When David died, the kingdom did not return to Hebron or go to any of his sons from Hebron; rather, it went to Solomon, who was chosen from among the sons (including several older brothers) and who was a native of Jerusalem. Like David with Jerusalem, Peter established Rome as the seat of his ministry; and his ministry remained there. Jerusalem did not become the seat of the king merely because that’s where David died. Rather, it became the seat of the king because he established that place as his capital. Likewise, Peter positioned himself in the city of Rome (the center and focal point of the ancient world) so as to effectively carry out his Christ-appointed ministry to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy for Christ’s Church. This is why Peter thereafter entrusted this ministry to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[A_Pac]

Mercygate,

Go away. I’m finally found someone that will engage intellectually and I’m quite enjoying it.

You reject history, tradition and Scripture.

WHAAA!!! You’re about 4 pages too late.

And you DO reject Scripture since you reject the Church that codified the canon of the New Testament.

That makes NO sense! They are mutually exclusive. For such ridiculous comment, I’m not responding to the rest of your post.

A Pac

 

[mercygate]

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

A Pac

My great grandmother was born in 1858. She died at the age of 96, when I was 9. I very clearly remember her telling me how her parents took her to see the funeral train pass through her town after Lincoln died. She was 7 at the time. It is now nearly 150 years after that event. I have no doubt that people (like Irenaeus) could have very accurate information passed on to them about important things like who was the Bishop of Rome following the death of St. Peter. This would be even more likely for information passed through trusted, responsible and highly intelligent recipients like Irenaeus of Lyons. The plausibility of the historic transmission is much more likely than the apostasy theory – especially in a world where accurate memory was the chief means of learning and passing on teaching.

 

[Mannyfit75]

((Moderator edited) History, Scripture, disproves Mormonism.

In fact, Mormonism belief is contrary to genetics. Scientist did a study between the natives of Americas and compared that to the Jewish people. There are no similiarites. Second, the people mention in the Book of Mormons do not exist, there is no archeological evidence to connect the ancient ruins of Americas to those mention in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is nothing more than a fiction.

 

[mercygate]

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.

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.

All good points but Irenaeus – a highly credible source – notes that all the Bishops of Rome are well known up to his time (ca 180-85 A.D.).

 

[Mannyfit75]

All good points but Irenaeus – a highly credible source – notes that all the Bishops of Rome are well known up to his time (ca 180-85 A.D.).

Exactly. History proves Christianity is Catholic in its beginnings, started by Jesus Christ, whom he appointed Peter as the first Pope (Matthew 16:18)

 

[estesbob]

Mercygate,

Go away. I’m finally found someone that will engage intellectually and I’m quite enjoying it.

He is making the same arguments the rest of us did , Youll run him iff before long. After being told he is a liar and you have super secret sources that refute hell tire like the rest of us have

 

[SPH1]

The Bible certainly never talks of Bishops superior to Apostles in ANYWAY.

No. But I’m having a recollection - cannot locate it in Scripture - where Paul(?) mentions the Church growing beyond his/their control? Needs verification. [EDIT: Maybe I’m thinking of 1 Cor. 4:10?]

YES!! AND WHY? Because Linus didn’t have authority to call new Bishops! That was left to the Apostles!! Why else if he could? It makes no sense!

Well, someone would have to have authority to ordain new bishops over the centuries after the deaths of the Apostles. Otherwise, the Episcopacy would die out after the generation of the Apostles.

So can you prove that Linus wasn’t ordained Bishop by Paul before Peter got there? Because if he was, I daresay he was still the Bishop of Rome…subject to the Apostle Peter.

Even so, Linus would not have held the Papal keys while Peter was still alive. He would have been a Pope in waiting. Peter was the Pope holding the keys…where-ever Peter was. The office traveled with Peter. And as you admit, Bishop Linus or not, Peter was still top dog in Rome.

You’re still going on the pseudo Apostolic Constitutions as your keystone source. And once again, the Apostolic Constitutions doesn’t state that Peter was not in Rome when Paul supposedly ordained Linus. That’s your assumption.

There is as much evidence supporting Rome being Peter’s Seat as there is supporting authorship of some/many/all New Testament works. Rome being Peter’s seat was probably settled before the NT canon.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia material on Linus: Pope St. Linus (second after Peter)

newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm

 

[mercygate]

I see that A Pac has been banned. He broke enough Forum rules to have been sent home six times. I guess the Mods are awake – how many others on this sent them bad post notices? I sent at least two.

Gosh! Mormons are some of the GREATEST people I know. Really. I have close relatives who are BIG Mormons – Salt Lake City Temple stuff. They play their theology pretty close to the vest around the rest of the family (no mystery there, huh?). But they REALLY do not understand why the rest of the Christian world considers them to be a cult.

 

[estesbob]

I see that A Pac has been banned. He broke enough Forum rules to have been sent home six times. I guess the Mods are awake – how many others on this sent them bad post notices? I sent at least two.

Gosh! Mormons are some of the GREATEST people I know. Really. I have close relatives who are BIG Mormons – Salt Lake City Temple stuff. They play their theology pretty close to the vest around the rest of the family (no mystery there, huh?). But they REALLY do not understand why the rest of the Christian world considers them to be a cult.

Hell be back

 

[Todd_Easton]

Although the Church hierarchical structure of a single bishop per city, assisted by numerous presbyters (priests), seems to have been well-established by the end of the apostolic age, as indicated in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, about A.D. 110, it might be anachronistic to say the Church of Rome was rule by a single bishop during its earliest days. Scripture indicates the possibility of multiple bishops in one cityaul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones at Philippi, with their bishops and deacons in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:1)
Since Rome was larger than Philippi, it is not unreasonable that the Church of Rome likewise had multiple bishops at that time. With this in mind, whether it was Paul alone (Apostolic Constitutions) or both Peter and Paul (Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies) who ordained Linus as a bishop of the Church of Rome, seems of little significance. It is reasonable to assume that while the Apostle Peter was there, he held a primacy of honor and of authority among the bishops of the Church of Rome. It is reasonable too to assume that after Peter’s death, someone (namely, Linus) was chosen from among the bishops of Rome to fill Peter’s “chair” and assume Peter’s primacy of honor and of authority among the bishops of the Church of Rome.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Although the Church hierarchical structure of a single bishop per city, … It is reasonable too to assume that after Peter’s death, someone (namely, Linus) was chosen from among the bishops of Rome to fill Peter’s “chair” and assume Peter’s primacy of honor and of authority among the bishops of the Church of Rome.

Reason is often left at the door unfortunately. Well said.

 

[johnnydigit]

Believe it or not, I’ve read the documents and the only support they offer is hearsay from Irenaeus…nothing germane.

A Pac

couldn’t you essentially say that anything historical is “heresay”? i found that at some point you just gotta have faith and look at the big picture. if not the Church Fathers, then the Apostolic Fathers. if not the Apostolic Fathers, then the Apostles. if not the Apostles, then Jesus himself. how much proof does one really need?

“no sign will be given.”

i do recognize the need for a non-believer to find practical evidence, as i was once one. i guess i was lucky enough to live the faith before i dug into the Church Fathers…

 

[mich2]

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

A Pac

Tertullian wrote:

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like
the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by
John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter"
(ibid., 32:2).

Notice that Clement, not Linus succeeds Peter.Linus and Cletus were simply local bishops of Rome since Peter was still alive.

Also, taken from the commentary on the Recognitions of Clement, Rufinus writes :’

For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops of the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter?Now, of this we have heard the explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter; that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate,and that he (Clement) he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found in the case at Caesera where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zachaeus, ordained by himself, as bishop.
And in this way both statements will apear to be true, both that thes bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher’s seat on the death of Peter.

It seems that Linus, appointed by Paul was a local bishop for the gentile christian church at Rome and Cletus was appointed by Peter as local bishop of the jewish christian church in Rome as well. Both were probably overseers at the same period of time. Peter had ordained other bishops in other places, such as Antioch.However, when Peter knew the time of his death was near,he then ordained Clement as succesor to himself,as head of the Catholic Church.Clement would therefore for the first successor to Peter as head of the Catholic Church, and the third bishop of Rome, successor to both Peter and Paul, as mentioned by Irenaeus.

Andre

 

[SPH1]

Although the Church hierarchical structure of a single bishop per city, assisted by numerous presbyters (priests), seems to have been well-established by the end of the apostolic age, as indicated in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, about A.D. 110, it might be anachronistic to say the Church of Rome was rule by a single bishop during its earliest days. Scripture indicates the possibility of multiple bishops in one city:

Even today, doesn’t Rome/the Vatican have many Bishops and Cardinals running around? Perhaps Peter had a kind of Curia in Rome?

 

[FCEGM]

Even though our recent interlocutor has been banned, I’ve decided to go ahead and address some of his questions/comments.

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.

Welcome to the ancient Mediterranean and the Middle East. It is inappropriate to impose your modern American political “efficiency” on any ancient civilization and call it “disorderly” by comparison. Tell me, in the Jewish tradition, who was the head honcho of OT Israel: the reigning prophet, the High Priest, the King, or the prime minister of the kingdom who managed the state for the king? If you read the OT, you have situations in which kings judge whether prophets are true or false, prophets who rebuke, and anoint, and depose kings, High Priests who are appointed by kings and kings that are anointed by High Priests. Not very "orderly” - but very Jewish, and the early Church was very Jewish.

The authorities as placed by Christ were the Apostles, period.

Then why was James the Just an authority in the Church on par with the Apostles? Why is he described in Gal 2:9 as one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church on par with Peter (Kephas) and John? James was not an Apostle, but only a presbyter. Also, in Acts 15, why does it say again and again that the decision of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 was made by “the apostles and presbyters,” not by the apostles alone? Your pov is inconsistent with Scripture.

It is against the stated organization of the church to place others above the apostles.

You don’t know how to read Scripture properly.You do not understand what 1 Corinthians and Ephesians are referring to. Case in point: Acts 15 refers to presbyters (elders). Why are presbyters not listed in 1 Cor. or Ephesians? Likewise, Scripture refers to deacons. Why are deacons not cited in the list in 1 Cor. and Ephesians? Again, 1 Cor. and Ephesians are not referring to the managerial hierarchy, but to the hierarchy of grace. Apostles are the highest order of charismatic service in the Church because the revelation of the New Covenant went forth from them. After the Apostles, the “prophets” are listed as next in importance. But, unlike the modernist distortion of the LDS and others, these “prophets” who are being referred to here are the chief messengers and disciples of the Apostles - men like Timothy and Titus (who were the mouthpieces for Paul) and Mark (who was the mouthpiece for Peter). Paul is using the term “prophet” in the same sense that Exodus 7:1 describes Aaron as the “prophet” of Moses.

After these, are the teachers - men like Apollos and others who are able to give theological reinforcement to the revelation delivered by the Apostles (e.g. Paul) and prophets (e.g. Timothy). And after these are people in the Church with other spiritual gifts: Mighty deeds, healing, assistance, administraton, and speaking in tongues. Now, did the Apostles not perform mighty deeds? Did they not heal? Did they not assist each other and administer the churches? Did they not speak in tongues on Pentecost and on other occasions??? Of course they did; so Paul’s list is not exclusive; and not a structural hierarchy.

The structural hierarchy of the Church has always been this: bishop, presbyter (elder), deacon, lay servant. In this, a bishop could be an Apostle, or a prophet (the mouthpiece of the Apostle, also sometimes called an “angel” in Scripture), or a teacher, or a worker of mighty deeds, or healings, or an administrator, etc. And a presbyter might be any of these, too, and likewise a deacon could be many of these (i.e., Paul and Barnabas served as deacons by taking up and delivering the collections until Acts 13, when they were re-ordained to found new churches). So, again, you confuse the concepts that are presented in Scripture; and you do this because you were unfortunately taught to approach the Scriptures in non-historical ways.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Quote:
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.

But Peter didn’t ordain anyone in the church of Antioch to take over his singular ministry as Rock and Keybearer because he himself still held this office, and would continue to hold it for years to come. It was at Rome that Peter was shown by Christ that he was soon to be martyred (see 2 Peter 1), and this is when Peter made preparations after his departure. He did not make this decision in Antioch. It is true that he appointed “successors” there - bishops to govern the local church of Antioch in his place; but these men were not ordained to the Petrine ministry, since Peter continued to hold this ministry himself while he served as bishop of Rome.

1. New that Clement would support their case, because if he didn’t, it’d undermine his own authority

Really? But, the Corinthians were hoping that Clement (that is, Rome) would support what they did in overthrowing the presbyters. He did not, however. For goodness sake, the epistle is written to the very people who usurped the Corinthians presbyters’ authority! So, for all your imaginative razzle-dazzle (a “power-mad” Clement assuming apostolic authority, etc.), your view cannot be reconciled with the evidence. What’s more, Rome’s authority is not recognized by the Corinthians alone. Writing only a few years later, Ignatius of Antioch speaks of it as well.

Quote:
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?

Because Judas was an Apostle in the sense of one of the Twelve, their particular mission being to evangelize the Jews. There were other apostles who appeared after this time, Paul being the principal one, as Apostle to the Gentiles. But, once the Gospel was proclaimed to Israel on Pentecost and shortly after, the Apostolic mission of the Twelve achieved its purpose, and it came to an end when their ministries came to an end. The same was true of the other apostles who came afterward (appointed by the risen Christ, like Paul). Once the last of these two groups of Apostles died (John being the last of the Twelve), the public revelation of the New Covenant ceased; and from this point on, the Church was bound by the substantive content of the Apostolic Deposit and cannot add to it or subtract from it.

The Papacy, on the other hand, is - as I keep saying - NOT the office of “Apostle,” but a ministry that is distinct from it. It is true that an Apostle (Peter) once held it, but it was not part of his Apostolic office; it was an additional ministry that was given to Peter by Christ. This is what you are not appreciating. The Pope does not succeed to Peter’s Apostolic office. Rather, he succeeds to Peter episcopal office, which included his role as Rock and Keybearer - the exclusive Petrine ministry.

continued. . .