Peter's successors?

[Fredricks]

Batjacboy:

Thal is quite right.

And Eusebius places Peter in Rome in 42 AD, way before Paul ever went there.

"In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, "

Just another quote for free, where did you get the 42 AD date?
Is it deduced from the context?
Actually, who was there first is not what we are really talking about, is it? Peter could have been there first, I really do not see that the early Christians are giving much importance to who was there first. It certainly appears they give Peter and Paul equal heading. I await the evidence that the early Christian church thought that the Bishop of Rome is in charge of the entire church.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Do you realize how early 250 is?

I think a lot of people sortof hear 250 and think its pretty late. In 250, people were living only 3 or 4 generations away from the apostles.

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=Milliardo]I think you answered it yourself in your earlier post:

could you point it out for me

Now, we will grant for the sake of discussion that it was a development. But a development from what? It couldn’t have come out of thin air. There must be a basis for this, or else Cyprian is simply talking empty rhetoric. So there must be something to what Cyprian said regarding it, since he clearly spelled it out, and by that time as you contend it was believed that Peter had successors. Again, that would not be believed without basis before it.

The basis for this belief. Well, I suppose I could only guess. Are you saying that everything that develops has a GOOD reason? Just curious. Does that prove that they believed the Bishop of Rome is the leader of the early Christian church? My guess as to why it developed? I suppose it is because of its faithfulness to the teachings of Peter and Paul and its Rome for goodness sakes. Ever been to Rome? Impressive indeed. Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, that is where you find that Paul went to speak with the Pillars. I will also add that Rome had some incredible men as Bishops, most notably Clement, who I am not belittling. He was a great man of God.

 

[Batjacboy]

Fredricks:

Just another quote for free, where did you get the 42 AD date?

Eusebius.

Actually, who was there first is not what we are really talking about, is it?

Following up on what Thal wrote, it gives further evidence that the “Peter AND Paul” premise doesn’t truly hold in a chronological sense, Peter being primary.

Biblical scholars have also pointed out that, in Paul’s letter to the Romans, he says little on topics such as the church, the Lord’s supper and eschatology, which they feel makes sense, if the Roman church had not been established primarily by Paul.

 

[Fredricks]

Lazerlike42:

Do you realize how early 250 is?

I think a lot of people sortof hear 250 and think its pretty late. In 250, people were living only 3 or 4 generations away from the apostles.

Lazer
Do you fully realize how much literature we have prior to 250 CE??
The Catholic church teaches that this primacy has always existed. If the entire Christian church had a leader after Peter, you think maybe they would say something about it prior to 200 CE?

 

[Milliardo]

Fredricks:

could you point it out for me

I already did.

The basis for this belief. Well, I suppose I could only guess. Are you saying that everything that develops has a GOOD reason?

Yes, or else we’re arguing over nothing. So there must be a reason or a basis for it.

I suppose it is because of its faithfulness to the teachings of Peter and Paul and its Rome for goodness sakes.

Yes, faithfulness can very well be one point, but why Rome? Rome wouldn’t exactly be the best place to set up the Church’s leadership then; it’s right at the heart of the Empire, though you might theorize of course that the Romans wouldn’t think of looking for something that’s right under their noses.

 

[Fredricks]

Eusebius.

Do you have a page number or if you do not own the book a link to it on-line?

Following up on what Thal wrote, it gives further evidence that the “Peter AND Paul” premise doesn’t truly hold in a chronological sense, Peter being primary.

Eusebius has Paul first in some of the quotes I gave. You think the way the names are listed is chronological dating of who was there first?

Biblical scholars have also pointed out that, in Paul’s letter to the Romans, he says little on topics such as the church, the Lord’s supper and eschatology, which they feel makes sense, if the Roman church had not been established primarily by Paul.

I never said it was primarily Paul. Besides are we talking about what i am saying? I am quoting people. I am not misrepresenting them. I am trying to let them speak for themselves and asking a simple question.

 

[Batjacboy]

Fredricks:

If the entire Christian church had a leader after Peter, you think maybe they would say something about it prior to 200 CE?

It makes no sense for Irenaeus to list the successors of Peter if there were not a reason why this particular succession held enormous significance (given that he didn’t do it for all the other episcopates):

“To this **Clement ** there succeeded Evaristus. **Alexander ** followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, **Sixtus ** was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. **Soter ** having succeeded Anicetus, **Eleutherius ** does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

Notice also that he says that the apostolic tradition “come down to us” through Rome, not the other bishoprics.

 

[Fredricks]

QUOTE=Batjacboy]It makes no sense for Irenaeus to list the successors of Peter if there were not a reason why this particular succession held enormous significance (given that he didn’t do it for all the other episcopates):

Bat
I say this as nice as possible
You have not read the book. That is what he does throughout the book.
Jerusalem
Alexandria
Antioch
etc
How about you do not talk about a book you have not read.
. Eusebius loves his episcopates.

Irenaues himself. Just a source.

 

[Fredricks]

I already did.

Post number?

font=comic sans ms]Yes, faithfulness can very well be one point, but why Rome? Rome wouldn’t exactly be the best place to set up the Church’s leadership then; it’s right at the heart of the Empire, though you might theorize of course that the Romans wouldn’t think of looking for something that’s right under their noses.

I gave my opinion. That aside, any proof or do you wish to ask hypothetical questions all night?

 

[Batjacboy]

Fredricks:

I say this as nice as possible. You have not read the book.

Thanks for being so nice, but I have read Against Heresies, which is what I was quoting.

And what Irenaeus says right before the quote I gave is:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of **all ** the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority.”

Irenaeus (not Eusebius) does not bestow this type of accolade, in this kind of detail, on the other episcopates, in Against Heresies.

 

[Milliardo]

Fredricks:

I gave my opinion. That aside, any proof or do you wish to ask hypothetical questions all night?

I would think that you need to provide something more than hypothetical answers as well. It seems you derive your logic from assumptions you arrived on your own; though that very well has also been contradicted by yourself in the post I mentioned. As for the post number, do refer again to #17, wherein you stated that the view developed somehow over time. Now, again, we go back to that: if it developed to what Cyprian believed by 251 AD, then surely there must be basis for it, or else he would simply be stating something as a matter of opinion. But that is not the case, as he authoritatively stated time and again that it is on one man that Christ started the Church. So we are to conclude that his bassi for it must be a belief that came earlier, which he thus expressed in writing.

 

[Fredricks]

Irenaeus (not Eusebius) does not bestow this type of accolade, in this kind of detail, on the other episcopates, in Against Heresies.

that kind of detail? No, but I am not sure that a person who goes into the lineage of Rome is proof that the Bishop of Rome is head the entire church at this time. Do you? Is this the proof one would have to accept the claim that the Bishop of Rome was thought of as the head of the entire church during this era? I think you will agree that he clearly states why people should follow Rome and it has NOTHING to do with a claim that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the chuch. It has everything to do with their faitfulness to the teachings of the Apostles. Once again, the early chuch attributes this position as coming from Peter and Paul.

 

[Fredricks]

Milliardo:

I would think that you need to provide something more than hypothetical answers as well. It seems you derive your logic from assumptions you arrived on your own; though that very well has also been contradicted by yourself in the post I mentioned. As for the post number, do refer again to #17, wherein you stated that the view developed somehow over time. Now, again, we go back to that: if it developed to what Cyprian believed by 251 AD, then surely there must be basis for it, or else he would simply be stating something as a matter of opinion. But that is not the case, as he authoritatively stated time and again that it is on one man that Christ started the Church. So we are to conclude that his bassi for it must be a belief that came earlier, which he thus expressed in writing.

So your proof for the early church believing that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the entire church is that a person in 250 CE must have gotten it somewhere? Of course, the Gnostics got it from somewhere. The Ebionites as well, I am sure they got it somewhere. So let me get this right. This is your proof? This is a definitive claim. It is at the core of what Catholicism is claiming. Some guy. Had to get it somewhere.
I am underwhelmed. I do hope the big guns will weigh in tomorrow. Am I really supposed to believe that whole church accepted this for 150 years and they just neglected to write it down??

 

[Nicene]

Depending on which is accurate; The Muratorian fragment dates this between 140-155 as the brother of Pope Pius, Origen thinks it is the Hermas of St. Pauls Letter, still others as a contemporary of St. Clement (88-97 A.D.) due to his role in the work. The date of the work resides in the period between approximately 80 A.D (Origen) to the Fragment (140-155 A.D.)

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.

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.

**Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.
**
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. The church is developing without question, but it is also doing so under severe persecution. Believing there is a frequent coorespondance is naive at best. The church never did that really even throughout later times. The church responds when necessary. But it’s normative mission is to spread the gospel.

Around what time do the persecutions ease? (though not disappear)

The presumption that christianity is dominant in the empire is also incorrect, giving it a wider latitude of movement than can be credited. It is a growing movement which the emperors of the time are trying to squash. The concern of the church, even in Ignatius time were to reinforce adherance to the church leaders and not the detractors with new doctrines. However he does this while traveling to his martyrdom.

Clement likewise, we can see in his letter that the church is under persecution and he cannot answer them right away however it is worthy to note that again, as before with Paul, it is schism (sedition). Owing to the church struggling under persecution and still trying to remain unified as one the main focus obviuosly is spreading and adherance to the true gospel not concern over who has power.

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?

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.

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) 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.

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.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Am I really supposed to believe that whole church accepted this for 150 years and they just neglected to write it down??

Right. “Writing it down” is the only proof of viablity. . .So glad we have the orginal written and signed documentation of the letter to the Hebrews! Whew. . .we’d be in a blind mess, otherwise.

Tongue out of cheek. . .

What is the earliest direct and specific arguement you have refuting papal succession and Roman primacy?

 

[Milliardo]

Fredricks:

So your proof for the early church believing that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the entire church is that a person in 250 CE must have gotten it somewhere?

Not just that, but it’s a starting point, without which we won’t get somewhere with our discussion, won’t we now?

Am I really supposed to believe that whole church accepted this for 150 years and they just neglected to write it down??

I think the very answers have already been staring at you, yet you would not look at it or dismiss it.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Fredricks:

Did the early Christian church think that Peter had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome specifically was that person?

In none of these quotes, will you see any of the Bishops of Rome referred to, or thought of, as head of the “Church”.
Early Christians traced Rome back to PAUL AND PETER.

Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)

Not too much to say about that

You will see the Peter and Paul theme quite a bit.

Nothing about his role as leader of the universal church

Peter and Paul again. No mention of Peter specifically having a successor to lead the universal church

The one person who DO KNOW that succeeded only Peter

Clement was writing on behalf of Rome, not the universal church.

Peter and Paul again

Apostles, being once again, PETER AND PAUL

Advice, not a directive.

This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul again.

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”.

 

[jimmy]

The problem with this thread is that it is based on a misconception. The Catholic Church does claim to be founded by both Peter and Paul. The death of these two great apostles in Rome is a big part of the reason why Rome recieved the first position among the Churches. The bishop of Rome has recieved the authority of Peter based partly on their martyrdom in Rome. You can see it in the earliest writings of Christianity. Ignatius of Antioch puts the Roman Church at the head. Irenaeus says that the Roman Church is to be agreed with on account of its pre-eminent authority. By virtue of being first among the apostles, Peter held primacy. They could have handed the authority on in Jerusalem but that is not what happened.

Antioch and Alexandria claim Peter as their first bishop as well. That is the three original patriarchal sees. They all claim him as their first bishop. But, Rome being the place of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul and it being the place of the most orthodox form of the faith from the time of Pauls letter, that is where the primacy was passed on.