Peter's successors?

[jim1130]

Fredricks:

jim1130:

But you’ve dismissed this (bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

) and these:

They, Peter and Paul, not just Peter, hand it to Linus. What do they hand? The Bishop of Rome. Thats all, nothing more.

"
Proof right there. Thank you, Rome has a special place because
of its adherence to the teachings of the Apostles. Not one word about Peter having a successor as head of the church. Not one word.

What does this prove again? No one is arguing against Peter??

Why do you only quote part of this
Once again here i go
"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. "

Devils snare? Because I ask that you prove your contention and you cannot?

Peace.

It has been proven. You choose to ignore it because the presentation is not how you wish it to be.

Peace.

 

[jim1130]

Fredricks:
Impugn my motives instead of disproving me. Once again.
Peace.

You cannot see the forest through the trees. I am sorry that I contributed to your martr complex.

Peace.

 

[Fredricks]

quote=jim1130 Tertullian (c. AD 197) speaks of Peter apart from Paul as ordaining Clement as his episcopal successor (De Praescrip Haer 32).

And Eusebius and others talk about it as being Peter and Paul.
Episcopal successor, not leader of the church.

(2) The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how “Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat” (III, 80). The word “chair” (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one’s episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop’s chair).

I would need a link. I do not have the text of this. This of course seems from this quote to have nothing to do with head of the universal church anymore than his successor at Antioch was head of the universal church.

(3) Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

and elsewhere it says Peter and Paul

(4) Hippolytus (225 AD) counts Peter as the first Bishop of Rome (Dict Christian Biog I, 577).

I know that history also records Peter and Paul. Can you send me the link to the direct quote though. i need context

(5) Cyprian (in 250) speaks of Rome as “the place of Peter” (Ep ad Anton), and as “the Chair of Peter” (Ep ad Pope Cornelius).

I know the view was starting to develop at this time and I addressed the controversy about this earlier.

The rest of the quotes start to reflect the later developing view that contradicts earlier history.
[/quote]

 

[Fredricks]

jim1130:

Fredricks:

Peace.

It has been proven. You choose to ignore it because the presentation is not how you wish it to be.

Peace.

How I wish it to be? You mean even having a slight bit of proof? Yes I suppose I do wish the presentation to have that. Once again, you, like no one else either, cannot refute what i have said. Everytime you guys put up quotes, you can do nothing but complain when i point out it does not prove your point.

 

[montanaman]

Bottom line: Fredericks is looking for a proof text from history. The weight of evidence would easily be enough proof in a court of law, but he’s looking for a smoking gun. But sometimes, the gun isn’t necessary for a conviction.

Might as well end this pointless exercise and admit it, my fellow papists–we don’t have the proof he requires. Of course, this proof isn’t necessary, and his demands are totally arbitrary…

 

[DeFide]

montanaman:

Bottom line: Fredericks is looking for a proof text from history. The weight of evidence would easily be enough proof in a court of law, but he’s looking for a smoking gun. But sometimes, the gun isn’t necessary for a conviction.

Might as well end this pointless exercise and admit it, my fellow papists–we don’t have the proof he requires. Of course, this proof isn’t necessary, and his demands are totally arbitrary…

How about a proof from disproving Frederick’s only alternative explanation, which is essentially conciliarism of the Eastern Orthodox or the “authority of the assembly”:

The utter impracticability of conciliarism, even on the theoretical level, is illustrated by the assertion of an Eastern conciliarist that ecumenical councils have “the supreme authority in the Orthodox Church.” And which councils are truly ecumenical and therefore authoritative? [An Eastern Orthodox’s] answer: The decisive criterion of the ecumenicity of a council is whether it receives “the recognition of its decrees by the whole Church, which is therefore in fact the sole authority in Orthodoxy.” How is it possible to vest “supreme” authority in one agency (a council) and “sole” authority in another (the whole Church)?

source:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711eaw.asp

Related article:
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

Does Fredricks have any other escape routes he wants to try?

 

[montanaman]

I think, also, that Fredericks put a lot of weight on the absence of proof in several passages that weren’t necessarily intended to do so. It’s like saying because my Ford 150 Chilton book doesn’t claim to be the definitive repair manual for all Fords, the Ford F150 doesn’t exist. (Yes, I know that’s a terrible example, but I think you get the jist).

For example, Fred quoted this:

Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-emincence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.

Not too much to say about that

Yeah–I don’t have much to say about it either. He’s right–it doesn’t prove that Peter didn’t CLAIM pre-eminence, and Jesus chose James to be Bishop of Jerusalem, but so what? It doesn’t say that Peter DENIED his special role, either.

Argh!

 

[Thal59]

Let’s go one step at a time.

You keep bringing up “Peter and Paul.” Yes, the quotes mention them also, but you cannot get off this angle. So…

What are you saying? That Peter and Paul together were the first leaders of the church?

Thal59

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Jane
As you well know, what I am asking for is not at all unreasonable. This goes back 1700 years as Rome began to assert itself in a way that other Bishops did not agree with. You have tried to frame this as some kind of radical statement. What I am asking for is at the core of the Orthodox/Catholic split, is it not? At the core of this debate, is my request that Catholicism prove its claim of Papal supremacy. Everyone knows this is the primary issue that caused a massive split 1000 years ago. This is not a Fredricks invention. Reasonable people disagreed then and now. Do you think the Orthodox church is absurd as well for not believing this? I keep mentioning the Orthodox because most scholars in this particular area of the Papacy tend to be Catholic or Orthodox. For most Protestants, who are content with a simplistic petra/petros argument, they never investigate further.

Hey Fred,

This is becoming entirely too predictable. . .

First, I would hope by now that you are keenly aware that I do not need a tutorial on Church history.

I am quite informed of the circumstances surrounding the schism. I do not contend, as you would like for me to have done, that the tensions present during the schismatic debates are a mere “Fredricks invention.”

Toggling between your favored 150 years (50 CE through 200 CE) and the Orthodox schism, however, does nothing to further this discussion.

In your OP, you have asked very specific questions which we have attempted to discern and answer on your terms:

Did the early Christian church think that Peter had a successor. . .

Yes. “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.” (Irenaeus [3, 3, 3])

No one defending the Catholic position has ignored the great role of St. Paul in Rome and in the Church on the whole, as you would want us to have done. You keep pointing out that Irenaeus says “Peter and Paul,” but the fact of the matter is that Paul’s great importance as a chief Apostle of Christ does not displace St. Peter’s role as holding the prime seat of authority in Rome. YES, Paul was involved—deeply and profoundly—yet, his position along side St. Peter is not sufficient “proof” that St. Peter was not the Bishop. And there has been adequate “proof” that the office of bishop was handed from Peter to Linus.

who was in charge of the whole church?

Yes. “. . .we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul. . .For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. . .” (Irenaeus [3, 3, 2])

Did they think the Bishop of Rome specifically was that person?

Yes. “. . .in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate.” (Irenaeus [3, 3, 3])

“. . .like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter.” (Tertullian [32, 1])

“In the time of Clement, no small dissention 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. . .” (Irenaeus [3, 3, 3])

“to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place 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 of you hold the presidency of love, named after Jesus Christ and named after the Father.” (Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, A.D. 110)

So, short of the magical pre-200 CE quotation which would say all these things to your satisfaction, we have a composite picture from these few quotations which proves:

1. Peter had a successor
2. His successor is the Bishop of Rome
3. The Church at Rome held a place of “superior origin” with which “all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world.”
4. As evidenced in the case of Clement, other church communities were exhorted by the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his place in the seat of authority “which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans.”

 

[Sherlock]

Frederick, I would like you to prove to me that the level of “proof” you are asking for is necessary for its acceptance as doctrine. That is, I want you to show me that ALL doctrines, such as the Trinity, that we accept as Christians are supported by the very level of “proof” that you are looking for here. I can assure you that you won’t be able to do so. It would be reasonable, then, to conclude that the “proof” you require is simply a personal desire on your part, with no relevance to doctrinal development and understanding. Next, I would like you to explain to me what your basis is for accepting some doctrines (such as the Trinity) that simply don’t rise to the level of what you are requiring here, and rejecting others.

Given that Christian doctrines do not always come with pedigrees that suit your particular fancy, Catholic acceptance of the doctrine of the papacy is perfectly reasonable given the level of “proof” that we do have. I’m not asking you to accept this doctrine: I’m asking you to accept that it is reasonable to accept it.

 

[Returnee]

Thal59:

Let’s go one step at a time.

You keep bringing up “Peter and Paul.” Yes, the quotes mention them also, but you cannot get off this angle. So…

What are you saying? That Peter and Paul together were the first leaders of the church?

Thal59

I was just about to bring up this question myself.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

This is not a Fredricks argument. It is a debate that has raged on for 1700 to 1800 years, This stance of Catholicism must be proven. It has no room for development by your own decrees:
I have shown you quotes that show how the early Church viewed this. Some of said my argument is too narrow. I have provided quote after quote of how they viewed this. Remember, this doctrine does not develop according to your beliefs but has always been there.

You have a very poor understanding of the development of doctrine, Fred, if this is truly what you believe.

The Church, by no means, lacks “room for development” by my decrees or by her own.

I would recommend for your edification:

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
by John Henry Newman

newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

 

[JaneFrances]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thal59
Let’s go one step at a time.

You keep bringing up “Peter and Paul.” Yes, the quotes mention them also, but you cannot get off this angle. So…

What are you saying? That Peter and Paul together were the first leaders of the church?

Thal59

I was just about to bring up this question myself.

Bump!

 

[DianJo]

To tag onto what Jane said:

In continuation of the Letter to the Corinthians:
Clement and the Church of Rome send Legates to Corinth:
“Make haste and send our messangers, Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Vito, and Fortunatus back to us in peace and joy; so that news of the truce and the unity for which we are praying and longing may reach us the more speedily, and we may the sooner rejoice over your return to order. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, and with each and all everywhere whom God has called by Him; and through Him be glory and honour to God, with might, majesty, and everlasting dominion from all ages now and to eternity. Amen.”

Footnotes to this: Legates are personal representatives of the Holy See who have been entrusted with its authority. Throughout the first centuries of the Church, it was the custom of the Church for the bishop of Rome to send legates to reprsent the papal office. It was first practiced by the Apostles (1Cor 4:17; 2Cor 9:3; 2Tim 4:12) and then **carried on by their successors. **Roman civil authorities also used legates.

Also, in a letter from Clement preceding the one above:
Clement speaks with Authority from God:
“Receive our counsel, and ye shalll have no occasion of regret. For as God liveth, and the Lord Jesus Chrsit liveth, and the Holy Spirit,…so surely shall he, who with lowliness of mind and instant in gentleness hath without regretfullness performed the ordinances and cmmands that are given by God (through us), be enrolled and have a name among the number of them that are saved through Jesus Christ…But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him (Jesus Christ) through us, let them undersstand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin.”

Footnotes to the above quote: These are very authoritative words. If one were to view Clement as “just another Christian” writing to other fellow Christains, they would sound extremely presumptuous. These are words of authority, words that assume God Himself is speaking through Clement and the Church of Rome. To disobey Clement’s exhortation would be sin. Clement, in discharging his duty as Pope, will be guiltless of their sin if they choose to disobey. The primacy of the Roman See is undeniably assumed in t his epistle. Clement and the Church of Rome speak to the Church at Corinth as a superior speaks to his subjects.

Now, if Peter, as bishop of Rome, did not have primacy and authority over the other churches and if the other churches didn’t recognize that authority, then why would Clement be so quick to assume HE had it? These 2 letters clearly show the primacy of the Bishop of Rome/Successor of Peter over all the other churches.

This is my last try to get you too see the implications of these letters and others that have been presented to you. The proof is there - you just don’t want to see it.

 

[DianJo]

If you REALLY want to understand the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, the Papacy and Succession, I recommend that you read, “Upon This Rock,” by Stephen Ray.

That should answer all your qwuestions.

 

[SPH1]

Fredricks:

Another long attempt to try to skirt the issue that Catholicism cannot prove its claim. Guys show me the proof. Quit complaining about me and lets dissect the quotes if I am so wrong, it should be very easy. Yet, no one is doing it.

Hi, I’ll jump in.

Isn’t your argument similar to that of Jehova Witnesses and such who look for definitive doctrinal “proof” of the Holy Trinity in the first centuries before Nicea? The JW’s play the same game.

The Church has always recognized the primacy of the Roman Church by its action, regardless of actual doctrinal statements to your satisfaction. You’ve been provided many examples.

Similarly, Peter was “Pope” in every instance that required a papal action via Peter’s actions, regardless of supporting scriptural statements (which are many). See my tentative work here on my site:
catholic-view.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=3

In the end, your argument does you no good. For all of the early Bishops and churches were in communion with the Church of Rome. You apparently are not. You have nothing in common with the early Church.

Here’s an idea: What proof do you have that for the first few hundred years the early church was divided up into various Protestant denominations?

 

[Nicene]

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

Holding you to the same standard which you are holding: Sinse you assert that christians viewed it as advise I will ask you to prove this with your first century documents stating so. I am amazed that you claim to know what the first century christians were thinking.

1 Clement Chap 3:
These things, beloved, we write to you not only for your instruction, but also for our own remembrance.

Ignatius to Rome Chap 3
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.

An interesting bit; They had 5 bishops within 100 to 200 miles of them, one of them being Timothy (about 150 miles away in Ephesus) whom they know personally, yet they write to Rome almost 1000 miles away. As well, John is still alive, either in Rome or Ephesus (96-98, Tertullian) Can you explain this?

Am we also to infer that by this that you believe the letters of Peter, John, James, Paul and Jude were viewed as advise? If you believe that the apostles did not pass on that authority by filling vacant offices:

**20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’
21: So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22: beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
24: And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles. **

prove it scripturally. The burden of proof in on you to show that the apostolic offices ceased to exist.

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

You bet. And I’ll make you prove it. Show any, even one, first century Gospel or Epistle. Not extant copies, originals. Next prove that any extant copies came from originals and that they were not 2nd century and later inventions. I am giong to hold you to the exact same standard you have been holding. Prove christianity.

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.

I would venture that the Church started when Christ initiated it in Matthew. However I gather by your declination that you are not going to challenge myfavoritematins assertion.

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)

Don’t act so surprised, if I remember correctly, I said the same in my PM. I wouldn’t go lumping EO with protestantism in ordination. They, the EO, have a valid line of ordination even recognized by the church (form and matter)

Now I will challenge you as an elder to show your decention from any of the below through laying on of hands (actual power and authority, not theologic wishful thinking) Peter, John, Thomas, Andrew, James the Less, James the greater, Philip, Simon, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thaddaeus, Matthias, Paul, Timothy, Clement, Epaphras, Apollos, Damas, Polybius, Onesimus, Luke, Mark, Barnabas, etc.

As you question the primacy, so I also question by divine right from scripture, (“test the spirits”), your authority, by producing proof via apostolic laying on of hands throughout the centuries, and ask you to stand as a “light to the world” and provide it. Either there is historical proof of your claim, as you require, or this is smoke and mirrors.

40: For he that is not against us is for us.

Are you against the apostolic church or for it? (Not the invisible mythical one claimed) Is your goal to save people from becoming catholic or to attempt to undermine the church at it’s foundation or both? Many have tried before to knock down the rock upon which Christ built His church. (They ended up with massive heaches or turned to sand)

**Luke 10:16: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” **

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[NotWorthy]

Has anyone wondered why Rome? Why that heart of the beast to go to head up the Church? Wouldn’t Jerusalem have made more sense???

Of course, the Apostles knew that Jerusalem was running on borrowed time, thanks to Jesus prophesy that would occur “in this generation”.

But, in Matthew 28:19, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit…”, the Apostles knew that “all roads lead to Rome”. They knew that the best way to spread the Word throughout the known civilized world would be to go to the head of the known civilized world.

**Brilliant!!! ** (You have to imagine St. Peter doing a Guinness Beer Commercial here to get the full effect).

Notworthy

 

[Nicene]

Probably because Rome was the center of the known world. All raods lead to Rome was a truism, their road system was incredible and every nation had access to Rome. What better way to hit every nation.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Lazerlike42]

NotWorthy:

Has anyone wondered why Rome? Why that heart of the beast to go to head up the Church? Wouldn’t Jerusalem have made more sense???

Of course, the Apostles knew that Jerusalem was running on borrowed time, thanks to Jesus prophesy that would occur “in this generation”.

But, in Matthew 28:19, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit…”, the Apostles knew that “all roads lead to Rome”. They knew that the best way to spread the Word throughout the known civilized world would be to go to the head of the known civilized world.

Brilliant!!! (You have to imagine St. Peter doing a Guinness Beer Commercial here to get the full effect).

Notworthy

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)