Peter's successors?

[Fredricks]

The date of the work resides in the period between approximately 80 A.D (Origen) to the Fragment (140-155 A.D.)

agreed

Therefore shall you Hermas write two little books and send one to Clement Bishop of Rome and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty.

"But when I finish all the words, all the elect will then become acquainted with them through you. You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the **presbyters who preside over the Church. "**shepherd of hermes

As well two other bits of information from Ignatius of Antioch concerning Rome:

You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.

Ignatius seems to give some weight to their teaching authority over others.

We agree but that says nothing about Peter having a successor over the entire church. Does it?

Contending that it is a later view has several problems. It isolates a particular element while ignoring what is occuring in the life of the church. Choosing 200 to 250 is erronious because it ignores what is occuring in the empire.
I do not choose this date. History has choosen this date. Of course the beginning of people making this assertion, does not mean the whole church agreed, thus its continued development and its great split along Orthodox and Catholic lines.

However that same authority is evident in the letters themselves. As with the catholic epistles why write if they weren’t expected to respond to that authority?

Clement does tell them about authority but its not his and from my earlier quotes the Christians viewed it as “advice”

*For ye did all things without respect of persons, and walked in the laws of God, submitting yourselves to *them ** that have the rule over you, and giving the due honour to the presbyters that are among you
1st clement

What does Irenaeus inform us? That they did keep records in his time. Have they survived? As far as I know only in the the Muratorian fragment, however Eusabius references material in his time that he had access to that have not survived.

Are you contending we do not have a lot of history at this time.

The presumption is that the church officially started in 200 A.D. (myfavoritemartin says 300 A.D., if you wish to question his verasity on that statement I would be interested; it goes towards integrity of motive)

The church started, I would venture, on the day of Pentecost.
The church, in some parts, begin to hold Roman primacy, around 200. Do not confuse the argument.

However this never addresses the aspect of ordination either,

laying on of hands. If this power from Christ to the apostles (until the end of time) has disappeared then one must question Christ’s divinity.

WHAT?
I have never said such. This is a distraction, with a rather brash statement. I will not adress the biblical text too much, YET. Suffice to say, Orthodox and Protestans both believe in ordination and laying on of hands(with a different twist to be sure) but do not hold to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome(with once again a different twist to be sure)

Basically it all comes down to faith in Christ’s words. Are they true in John or not? Did the Holy Spirit protect and guide the nascent church, or did it fall immediately into heresy and apostasy? (as myfavoritemartin contends). Given the later, that only leaves the gnostics as the true heirs of Christianity, and voids any validy Christ may have claimed.

Those are the only two choices??? Roman Catholic or Gnostic?
How does one ignore the Protestant or Orthodox?
I await PROOF and not distractions and rationalizations.

 

[Fredricks]

Semper Fi:

Fredericks, in his epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul said that he would only visit the Romans when he was passing through on his way to Spain. Had he “founded” the Church at Rome… he would not have needed permission to be there preaching to the flocks. It is clear that the Church at Rome was first founded by Peter, and Saint Paul arrived later. In the Council of Chalcedon, we see the Bishop of Rome called “Head of the Church”.

I do not know, and neither do you, who founded the church at Rome. What is more important is my contention that there is no proof that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the universal church.

 

[Fredricks]

Jane has resorted to taunting instead of answering my contentions. If Awful is reading this thread, I hope he will post and agree that this was our mutual desire, although I made the initial request.

 

[Thal59]

Fredricks:

Let me see if I have this straight. You want proof of the succession of Peter in the form of a 1st century document that dates as closely to the time that Peter lived, or at least when he died, as possible. Is this correct? First of all, some of the quotes you offered in your opening post.

“Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.”

Right here you have offered a quote establishing that Peter was the “first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome,” and that Linus succeeded him.

“Eusebius
Clement had left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church in Rome and sent to the church at Corinth.”

Nothing about his role as leader of the universal church.<<<

Plenty is said about his role as leader if you cared to listen to the words you are quoting. Notice it differentiates between the church in Rome, and the church at Corinth. Lets make it a bit more understandable:

“…which he (Clement) composed - in the name of thee church, i.e.universal church - in Rome (where Clement was) and sent to the church at Corinth.”

I.O.W., Clement, who succeeded AnaCletus, who succeeded Linus, is writing a letter in the name of the universal church in or from Rome and sending it to the church at Corinth; which, and you fail to mention this, decided the issue at Corinth. That the church at Corinth “obeyed” Clements precepts shows Clements authority over more than just the church at Rome.

But your entire arguement is fallacious. Let me see… can I produce a wrtten document from the middle of the first century to prove Peter’s successors? Well, lets see… hmmm, we could go to Jerusalem and… no, wait - Jerusalem was toatally destroyed by the Romans. OK, we could go to the ancient Roman records and try to… no, wait - Rome burned. Hmmm, maybe we could resort to the great library at Alexandria and… darn it - it burned too.

Why don’t we do it this way. You show me the first and second century documents denying the Bishop of Rome’s universal leadership. After all, if this is the criteria you wish to stand on, may I remind you that none of the original Gospels exist either. In fact, our oldest copies of the Gospels date back only to around 200-225 AD. So I guess we really don’t have any valid first century proof that the Gospels we possess are true to the originals. Unless of course we are willing to accept the church’s “Tradition” on it. Of course, if we can do that, why can’t we accept its tradition on who succeeded Peter?

I strongly recommend that you read Steven Ray’s book “Upon this Rock.” So far, from what I have read on this thread, it will answer all of your questions.

Thal59

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

So that is your case? What happened to the keys in Isaiah by the way?

Peace.

Please read Isaiah.

Peace.

 

[jim1130]

Thal59:

Fredricks:

Let me see if I have this straight. You want proof of the succession of Peter in the form of a 1st century document that dates as closely to the time that Peter lived, or at least when he died, as possible. Is this correct? First of all, some of the quotes you offered in your opening post.

“Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.”

Right here you have offered a quote establishing that Peter was the “first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome,” and that Linus succeeded him.

“Eusebius
Clement had left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church in Rome and sent to the church at Corinth.”

Nothing about his role as leader of the universal church.<<<

Plenty is said about his role as leader if you cared to listen to the words you are quoting. Notice it differentiates between the church in Rome, and the church at Corinth. Lets make it a bit more understandable:

“…which he (Clement) composed - in the name of thee church, i.e.universal church - in Rome (where Clement was) and sent to the church at Corinth.”

I.O.W., Clement, who succeeded AnaCletus, who succeeded Linus, is writing a letter in the name of the universal church in or from Rome and sending it to the church at Corinth; which, and you fail to mention this, decided the issue at Corinth. That the church at Corinth “obeyed” Clements precepts shows Clements authority over more than just the church at Rome.

But your entire arguement is fallacious. Let me see… can I produce a wrtten document from the middle of the first century to prove Peter’s successors? Well, lets see… hmmm, we could go to Jerusalem and… no, wait - Jerusalem was toatally destroyed by the Romans. OK, we could go to the ancient Roman records and try to… no, wait - Rome burned. Hmmm, maybe we could resort to the great library at Alexandria and… darn it - it burned too.

Why don’t we do it this way. You show me the first and second century documents denying the Bishop of Rome’s universal leadership. After all, if this is the criteria you wish to stand on, may I remind you that none of the original Gospels exist either. In fact, our oldest copies of the Gospels date back only to around 200-225 AD. So I guess we really don’t have any valid first century proof that the Gospels we possess are true to the originals. Unless of course we are willing to accept the church’s “Tradition” on it. Of course, if we can do that, why can’t we accept its tradition on who succeeded Peter?

I strongly recommend that you read Steven Ray’s book “Upon this Rock.” So far, from what I have read on this thread, it will answer all of your questions.

Thal59

Peace.

It seems that Fredericks is looking for the establishment of some type of parliamentary procedure and the term “successor” and “Pope” in the Bible. I think that a lineage has been well presented by multiple posters, but it seems to me that it is coming down to semantics. Perhaps many of these Early Church Fathers were hesitant to write too much because of the ongoing presecutions of the time and did not want to draw the attention of the Roman Emperor to the exact location of the head of the Church founded by Christ (how easy it would have been, the Roman Emperor would have thought, to crush this new religion by killing the immediate successors). I am not trying to make excuses or rationalize, but there has been quite a bit of evidence and, for whatever reason, it is being dismissed.

Peace.

 

[montanaman]

JaneFrances:

Hello Fred!

I understand that you have high-tailed it out of the realm of debating of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. . .And gauging from your responses to Awful’s questions, I think I can surmise your reasons. . .Good choice.

However, though you may desire to ignore it, the issues of papal succession and Roman primacy are directly related to the issue of Tradition which you have chosen to forfeit (for the time being, at least). Again, just as Awful’s thread intended to produce, there is no escaping Tradition. It is foundational.

You have observed, quite rightly, here that “this view” of papal succession (and contingently, Roman primacy) was a certain “view” by 250. Much like Sacred Scripture, there was some degree of development in understanding issues regarding papal succession and Roman primacy. This is undeniable. However, just like the canon of Sacred Scripture, the degree of development (and I would even add, the degree of contention—which you have yet to prove, in any case) does not affect the viability of a given Tradition.

In fact, given a comprehensive assessment of the early Church patristic documents, it is much easier to disprove the canon of Sacred Scripture on the basis of development and contention than the issue of papal succession.

So, it would seem that if the crux of your argument is that papal succession is bunk because it underwent some degree of development or was contentious, you have thereby (albeit, unwittingly) also set up the canon of Scripture for equal scrutiny and, arguably, it stands on shakier ground.

To be direct, how many others, other than the Roman Bishop, are even contenders for papal succession and primacy prior to 200?

Indubitably. Of course, not. . .but getting hung up on the years 50 to 200 is no problem, right?

Again. . .weak argument. By all accounts, the canon of the New Testament, the dual natures of Christ, and even the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church were “pretty controversial,” yet hardly rejected on those terms.

You are very good at narrowing the argument to force a response that nullifies the opposing position by concentrating on the particularity rather than the objective. Unfortunately (for you), we are not bound by your narrow demands precisely because you yourself can not adhere to such terms in other aspects of your chosen debate topics.

Even if one were to produce a quotation “from 50 CE to 200 CE that said that Peter had a specific successor that was in charge of the whole church,” it would be of no avail because you would reject it based solely on your presuppositions—which you have already proven to do in the case of Sacred Tradition. To you, it would be a fluke or a misinterpreted idea which you would ignore because you don’t agree with it.

Now, having said that. . .St. Irenaeus’ well known quotation (Jurgens, 211) would be a prime example of such a quotation.

In it, he recognizes the immediate successors of the Roman episcopate as having prime authority in the Church.

But, in true Fredricks fashion, it is forgettable and deniable because you simply don’t see it that way. . . OR because your chorus of “conservative” scholars haven’t affirmed it. . . OR because it isn’t expressly Biblical by your interpretation, so it isn’t essential. . . OR because your audience agrees with your postion, whereby it must be true. . . OR because the patristic testimony supporting the Catholic position are inadmissable after the year span 50 through 200. . .

This is an interesting thread. . .I look forward to following it.

Wow. You hit this one out of the park.

 

[montanaman]

jim1130:

Peace.

It seems that Fredericks is looking for the establishment of some type of parliamentary procedure and the term “successor” and “Pope” in the Bible. I think that a lineage has been well presented by multiple posters, but it seems to me that it is coming down to semantics. Perhaps many of these Early Church Fathers were hesitant to write too much because of the ongoing presecutions of the time and did not want to draw the attention of the Roman Emperor to the exact location of the head of the Church founded by Christ (how easy it would have been, the Roman Emperor would have thought, to crush this new religion by killing the immediate successors). I am not trying to make excuses or rationalize, but there has been quite a bit of evidence and, for whatever reason, it is being dismissed.

Peace.

Like another guy at the PW forums, Fredericks is looking for a long-lost DVD (with commentary) on the papal succession ceremonies of the first centuries of the Church. Anything short of that will never suffice.

Meanwhile, a consortium of Protestant representatives from every major sect is still looking for a sola scriptura proof text, but Fredericks isn’t to be bothered with its absence.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Fredricks:

Those are the only two choices??? Roman Catholic or Gnostic?
How does one ignore the Protestant or Orthodox?
I await PROOF and not distractions and rationalizations.

Ok, give us PROOF and not distractions or rationalizations that either the Orthodox church or any Protestant churches existed between 50 to 250 and that they came directly from Christ.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Jane has resorted to taunting instead of answering my contentions. If Awful is reading this thread, I hope he will post and agree that this was our mutual desire, although I made the initial request.

Oh, Fred, please don’t feel taunted. This was far from my intention. I merely wanted to point out to those who may not be familiar with your debate tactics that no matter the weight of proof they offer, you are unlikely to concede or consider an opposing perspective for a number of reasons–I was only listing a few that I’ve witnessed.

And for the record, as most of us are not privy to the mutual desires of you and and with whomever you choose to share them off this public forum, we can not be responsible for moving beyond the bounds of your agreements.

Again, my only purpose was to reinforce Awful’s original point that unless we have some measure of foundation for considering matters of faith and doctrine, then this and any conversation regarding Catholic “distinctives” is quite difficult because it will always boil down to the “well, that’s just not how I choose to see it” perspective. Then, at moments of high contention, it becomes a game of “my guys” are better than “your guys.” And yet another well intentioned thread will fizzle. . .

Forgive me, Fred, if I have offended you by making you feel that I am mocking you. I am not.

And concerning your specific contentions, I DID address them directly which was the bulk of my original post, but you have opted to allow my promptings to make you feel somehow ridiculed instead of considering my responses. Here’s a refresher:

Quote:
I do believe by 250 CE that people held this view in some corners. I sure do. Obviously at sometime, this view developed. I contend it is a later developing view and 200 to 250 CE would be about it.

You have observed, quite rightly, here that “this view” of papal succession (and contingently, Roman primacy) was a certain “view” by 250. Much like Sacred Scripture, there was some degree of development in understanding issues regarding papal succession and Roman primacy. This is undeniable. However, just like the canon of Sacred Scripture, the degree of development (and I would even add, the degree of contention—which you have yet to prove, in any case) does not affect the viability of a given Tradition.

In fact, given a comprehensive assessment of the early Church patristic documents, it is much easier to disprove the canon of Sacred Scripture on the basis of development and contention than the issue of papal succession.

So, it would seem that if the crux of your argument is that papal succession is bunk because it underwent some degree of development or was contentious, you have thereby (albeit, unwittingly) also set up the canon of Scripture for equal scrutiny and, arguably, it stands on shakier ground.

To be direct, how many others, other than the Roman Bishop, are even contenders for papal succession and primacy prior to 200?

Quote:
I do not want to get too hung up on Cyprian

Indubitably. Of course, not. . .but getting hung up on the years 50 to 200 is no problem, right?

Quote:
my understanding is that it was pretty controversial.

Again. . .weak argument. By all accounts, the canon of the New Testament, the dual natures of Christ, and even the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church were “pretty controversial,” yet hardly rejected on those terms.

Quote:
If I have not grasped that situatin fully, I accept any correction. Anything from 50 CE to 200 CE that said that Peter had a spefic successor that was in charge of the whole church?

You are very good at narrowing the argument to force a response that nullifies the opposing position by concentrating on the particularity rather than the objective. Unfortunately (for you), we are not bound by your narrow demands precisely because you yourself can not adhere to such terms in other aspects of your chosen debate topics.

Even if one were to produce a quotation “from 50 CE to 200 CE that said that Peter had a specific successor that was in charge of the whole church,” it would be of no avail because you would reject it based solely on your presuppositions—which you have already proven to do in the case of Sacred Tradition. To you, it would be a fluke or a misinterpreted idea which you would ignore because you don’t agree with it.

Now, having said that. . .St. Irenaeus’ well known quotation (Jurgens, 211) would be a prime example of such a quotation.

In it, he recognizes the immediate successors of the Roman episcopate as having prime authority in the Church.

Keep up the good work!!!

 

[Fredricks]

Plenty is said about his role as leader if you cared to listen to the words you are quoting. Notice it differentiates between the church in Rome, and the church at Corinth. Lets make it a bit more understandable:

It is understandable

“…which he (Clement) composed - in the name of thee church, i.e.universal church - in Rome (where Clement was) and sent to the church at Corinth.”

where do you get the universal church. It does not say that.

I.O.W., Clement, who succeeded AnaCletus, who succeeded Linus, is writing a letter in the name of the universal church in or from Rome and sending it to the church at Corinth; which, and you fail to mention this, decided the issue at Corinth. That the church at Corinth “obeyed” Clements precepts shows Clements authority over more than just the church at Rome.

There is absolutely nothing thats says he was writing in the name of the universal church in the letter or the quotes I gave.
Nothing.

“1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which
sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the
will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace
from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.”
Please show me the universal church in this.

 

[Fredricks]

Jane is spending her time picking apart my words instead of providing proof. I addressed the Irenaues quote. It does not say that Peter had a successor

 

[Lazerlike42]

Fredericks, please show me the Trinity in the Bible.

I’m sorry, but this is the same arguement you are using. You would say that when Christ says certain things He is talking about the Trinity even though He doesn’t explicitly state it. Clement was talking about the universal Church even though he didn’t explicitly say it.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Fredricks:

Jane is spending her time picking apart my words instead of providing proof.

If you don’t think that this is valid, then you need to stop criticizing any arguements at all that we provide. Don’t pick apart our arguements, provide proof.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Jane is spending her time picking apart my words instead of providing proof.

Right, Fred. I’m a mean old nit-picker who would rather divert than defend. I’m notorious for that!

I addressed the Irenaues quote. It does not say that Peter had a successor

I concede wholly. No where does Irenaeus say: “Peter had a successor.”

Instead, he says:

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. . . To him succeeded Anenecletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. . .To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; adn Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred. . .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.

Obviously, Peter had not one successor–he had MANY, in succeeding order, and they managed “in this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church” to convey the truth for the early Church.

 

[montanaman]

I think I have a crush on Jane’s brain…

 

[Thal59]

“1Clem prologue:1
The Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth, to them which are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace from Almighty God through Jesus Christ be multiplied.”

Please show me the universal church in this.

Can you not see that the church of God in Rome, is the same church as the church of God in Corinth? In the first centuries, before the nonsense of Protestantism, (Oh, for the good old days!) there was only ONE church.

Now, lets take the quote you first offered, along with my reply, that you just recently decided to ignore:

“Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.”

Right here you have offered a quote establishing that Peter was the “first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome,” and that Linus succeeded him.

Therefore, the church in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Phillipi, etc.,
is ONE UNIVERSAL church.

Clement, who succeeded AnaCletus and Linus, is the successor to Peter as the Bishop of Rome. Anything that he writes to THE CHURCH is written to the one universal church no matter where the letter is addressed to. But once again, you passed over an important observation. (I am going to have to enlarge this, as you seem to be quick to “glance-over” pertinent points.)

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians decided the matter for them. This would not have happened if Clement was merely the Bishop of a church that happened to be in Rome. It clearly demonstrates his authority to make such a decision.

I will repeat my last request…

“Show me the first and second century documents denying the Bishop of Rome’s universal leadership.”

To that I will add a second request…

“Show me any other document by someone other than the Bishop of Rome that was held as doctrinal by the universal church without the Bishop of Rome’s approval.”

Thal59

 

[Fredricks]

Can you not see that the church of God in Rome, is the same church as the church of God in Corinth? In the first centuries, before the nonsense of Protestantism, (Oh, for the good old days!) there was only ONE church.

No, it does not say that.

Now, lets take the quote you first offered, along with my reply, that you just recently decided to ignore:

“Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.”

Right here you have offered a quote establishing that Peter was the “first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome,” and that Linus succeeded him.

Do you not see the conjunction AND.
It does not say, Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome, was Linus. That does not make sense. It is Peter and Paul together.

Therefore, the church in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Phillipi, etc.,
is ONE UNIVERSAL church.

Clement, who succeeded AnaCletus and Linus, is the successor to Peter as the Bishop of Rome. Anything that he writes to THE CHURCH is written to the one universal church no matter where the letter is addressed to. But once again, you passed over an important observation. (I am going to have to enlarge this, as you seem to be quick to “glance-over” pertinent points.)

size=4]Clement’s letter to the Corinthians decided the matter for them. This would not have happened if Clement was merely the Bishop of a church that happened to be in Rome. It clearly demonstrates his authority to make such a decision.

No, It does not do that at all. Lots of Bishops wrote epistles. Where do you nfind the word Decided". Prove that contention.

I will repeat my last request…

“Show me the first and second century documents denying the Bishop of Rome’s universal leadership.”

I have shown you all of them. He has never mentioned. You want me to prove a negative! Are you serious?

To that I will add a second request…

“Show me any other document by someone other than the Bishop of Rome that was held as doctrinal by the universal church without the Bishop of Rome’s approval.”

Thal59

Show me one that was in the first 150 years.

 

[Fredricks]

Lazerlike42:

If you don’t think that this is valid, then you need to stop criticizing any arguements at all that we provide. Don’t pick apart our arguements, provide proof.

I have provided proof of what people said. I have not intentionally tried to leave anything out. I have asked you guys to prove the Papacy over the whole church from 50 CE to 200 CE

 

[Fredricks]

Lazerlike42:

Fredericks, please show me the Trinity in the Bible.

I’m sorry, but this is the same arguement you are using. You would say that when Christ says certain things He is talking about the Trinity even though He doesn’t explicitly state it. Clement was talking about the universal Church even though he didn’t explicitly say it.

How do you know that? Why are you talking about my beliefs? This is a Catholic board for you to provide proof of one of your most important claims. I have asked for proof and none has been provided.