N
NotWorthy
Guest
Brilliant!!!
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
Let us ponder this for a moment. Since you have not been satified with sufficient “proof” that corresponds to the Fredricks time frame, let me ask you a question. Since there are references to “Peter and Paul”, would you have considered it appropriate if the Catholic Church had referred to the pope as "the successor of Sts Peter and Paul?
R
RyanL
Guest
Guinness?!? Why Guinness? He has his own:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
Thal59
Guest
Fredricks:
Lets go over some previous stuff. You first offered…
“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.”
Your reply to that was…
How about this one…
“Show me the first and second century documents denying the Bishop of Rome’s universal leadership.”
This is illustrated in the fact that Jim1123 gave you 23 quotes, you decided to respond to only five; and those responses are debatable. You ignore the body of the evidence, weakly reply to five of them, and yet somehow think that your point is still valid??? The evidence against your stance is overwhelming. The rebuttal on your side is underwhelming. A reply that consists entirely of one-liners such as “That doesn’t prove anything,” “I don’t agree,” or “you just proved my point,” is no refutation at all.
But enough of this nonsense, its time for the harvest, as it were. Let me take a look at a few of your past quotes…
You try to back this up by saying that Linus was the first man “appointed” Bishop of Rome. But this appointment came from the hands of Peter and Paul. You do understand the relevance of the laying of the hands upon someone, don’t you?
more…
Lets go over some previous stuff. You first offered…
I replied…
“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.”
Your reply to that was…
So what you are telling me is that in the time of Clement, around 70-90 AD, there were already two or more churches with no central leadership. Is this correct?
How about this one…
“Show me the first and second century documents denying the Bishop of Rome’s universal leadership.”
You ask someone to show you a document that says something to the effect of… “I, St. Peter, Bishop of Rome, Chief Sheppard and Pope of the Universal Catholic church, do hereby annoint and appoint one Linus to be my successor.” Yet, when I ask you to show me any documentation stating the opposite in such concise terms you ask me - “Are you serious?” Arguing with quotes on the basis of “it says Peter and Paul” and not “Head of the Church” or Bishop of Rome" does not prove your point. You may not accept those quotes as favorable to our side, but it does not prove your point. I am, therefore, just as serious, or ridiculous, as you are. Which is it?
This is illustrated in the fact that Jim1123 gave you 23 quotes, you decided to respond to only five; and those responses are debatable. You ignore the body of the evidence, weakly reply to five of them, and yet somehow think that your point is still valid??? The evidence against your stance is overwhelming. The rebuttal on your side is underwhelming. A reply that consists entirely of one-liners such as “That doesn’t prove anything,” “I don’t agree,” or “you just proved my point,” is no refutation at all.
But enough of this nonsense, its time for the harvest, as it were. Let me take a look at a few of your past quotes…
What you are saying is that Peter and Paul handed on to Linus the title/office of Bishop of Rome and nothing more. Correct?
You try to back this up by saying that Linus was the first man “appointed” Bishop of Rome. But this appointment came from the hands of Peter and Paul. You do understand the relevance of the laying of the hands upon someone, don’t you?
more…
T
Thal59
Guest
St. Peter was first “appointed” as head of the church by Jesus. Peter, eventually, became the first Bishop of Rome. Peter, along with Paul, then “appointed” Linus to succeed him. You are arguing that succession to the office of the Bishop of Rome does not necessarily mean head of the church also. But this argument fails on account of its ignorance of the effect of the laying on of the hands. The laying of hands is not a fraternal gesture, it is not a brotherly pat on the head - it is the conferring not only of duties and responsibilities, but also the “passing on” on Divinely given authority and grace.
Deut 31:14-23 tells of the Lord commanding Moses to bring Joshua before Him. All of this concerns Moses except the last verse which speaks of the Lord encouraging Joshua to lead the people to the promised land. But while there is the Lord’s promise to be with Joshua, there is no endowment of his position yet as leader, and no spiritual charism.
Now, flash forward to Deut 34:9. “And Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, beacuse Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him (Joshua), and did as the Lord commanded Moses.”
Joshua was charged by the Lord to succeed Moses. But Joshua’s charism, a divine grace necessary to fulfill his role as leader, did not come from God directly. God gave this charism to Moses, who in turn passed it on to Joshua through the laying on of the hands.
And the children of Israel obeyed Joshua, and did as the Lord had commanded his predecessor, Moses.
St. Peter was given his charism as the chief sheppard and head of the church by Jesus through proclaimation, (Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church… also, Feed my sheep, etc.) as well as through the Holy Spirit. (Breathing upon the apostles, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the upper room.) Peter then passed on this authority, role of leadership, and charism to Linus as his successor to his seat as the Bishop of Rome.
Just as the children of Israel obeyed Moses’ successors, because God is with them, we must obey Peter’s successors for the same reason. They are the authorized leader of the church, and God is with them.
Or, are you arguing that the charism of authority and grace, the endowment of the holy spirit was not passed onto Linus. That Jesus was stupid enough to let the authority of the head of the church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit die out when St. Peter died?
Is this what you are arguing?
Thal59
Deut 31:14-23 tells of the Lord commanding Moses to bring Joshua before Him. All of this concerns Moses except the last verse which speaks of the Lord encouraging Joshua to lead the people to the promised land. But while there is the Lord’s promise to be with Joshua, there is no endowment of his position yet as leader, and no spiritual charism.
Now, flash forward to Deut 34:9. “And Joshua the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, beacuse Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him (Joshua), and did as the Lord commanded Moses.”
Joshua was charged by the Lord to succeed Moses. But Joshua’s charism, a divine grace necessary to fulfill his role as leader, did not come from God directly. God gave this charism to Moses, who in turn passed it on to Joshua through the laying on of the hands.
And the children of Israel obeyed Joshua, and did as the Lord had commanded his predecessor, Moses.
St. Peter was given his charism as the chief sheppard and head of the church by Jesus through proclaimation, (Thou art Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church… also, Feed my sheep, etc.) as well as through the Holy Spirit. (Breathing upon the apostles, and the descent of the Holy Spirit in the upper room.) Peter then passed on this authority, role of leadership, and charism to Linus as his successor to his seat as the Bishop of Rome.
Just as the children of Israel obeyed Moses’ successors, because God is with them, we must obey Peter’s successors for the same reason. They are the authorized leader of the church, and God is with them.
Or, are you arguing that the charism of authority and grace, the endowment of the holy spirit was not passed onto Linus. That Jesus was stupid enough to let the authority of the head of the church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit die out when St. Peter died?
Is this what you are arguing?
Thal59
F
Fredricks
Guest
"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.
This did not happen. None of the quotes show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome, or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church. Because Catholicism claims, which Christians who also trace their roots as far back as you guys disagree, that Rome has primacy for Catholicism now, which no one denies of course, they tend to project their beliefs back to that era. What is most important is THEY are saying it Peter and Paul, not me guys. Yes, based upon what they are saying, I do think they viewed them equally. That is an opinion that personally I would not be prone to share EXCEPT they do keep saying, Peter and Paul. I will put together a post at sometime about how the Bible views authority but not yet.
The insistence on Clement is interesting. I provided early quotes which said it was viewed as advice:
Dionysius was Bishop in Corinth writing to the Bishop in Rome 70 years or so after Clements letter. What you want me to believe is that Dionysius does not know how Corinth viewed it.
One must prove when the letter was written. Not theory. PROVE
They must prove that John was not on Patmos when it was written, unless you think he was getting his mail at that time.
They must PROVE when John died.
We already know from Holy Scripture though that people wrote letters to people outside their jurisdiction. Once again, Eusebius is full of examples.
I can see how someone could read early Christian history and be Orthodox, I get that, different thread why I am not though. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could read early Christian history and choose a faith that contradicts the shared authority of the bishops or how they did things the first 200 to 300 years. I have never understood it. Suffice to say, when I bring out the Roman Catholic scholars, not even they see it either. I will put together some quotes if I can. Not that it will matter, people see history how they want to. I do wish, if you have not actually read some of the books mentioned, you will do so.
First Vatican Council
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.
This did not happen. None of the quotes show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome, or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church. Because Catholicism claims, which Christians who also trace their roots as far back as you guys disagree, that Rome has primacy for Catholicism now, which no one denies of course, they tend to project their beliefs back to that era. What is most important is THEY are saying it Peter and Paul, not me guys. Yes, based upon what they are saying, I do think they viewed them equally. That is an opinion that personally I would not be prone to share EXCEPT they do keep saying, Peter and Paul. I will put together a post at sometime about how the Bible views authority but not yet.
The insistence on Clement is interesting. I provided early quotes which said it was viewed as advice:
- Bishop Dionysius writing to “Pope” Soter
Referring to the letter Clement wrote to Corinth
Dionysius was Bishop in Corinth writing to the Bishop in Rome 70 years or so after Clements letter. What you want me to believe is that Dionysius does not know how Corinth viewed it.
- Eusebius is full of letters written from bishops to bishops, page after page, including some where a Bishop in another city(I do not have the book with me but could provide the exact quote tonight) writes to handle a heretical situation in Rome even.
We know that Clement does not speak of himself as the head of the universal church. To say that the readers would have assumed it, contradicts what their Corinthian Bishop says 70 years later.
I have included a quote where Clement specifically mentions that the authority of their church rests with their presbyters. Have you guys not read some of the letters that other bishops wrote the first 200 years?? - Nicene, I spoke about John.
One must prove when the letter was written. Not theory. PROVE
They must prove that John was not on Patmos when it was written, unless you think he was getting his mail at that time.
They must PROVE when John died.
We already know from Holy Scripture though that people wrote letters to people outside their jurisdiction. Once again, Eusebius is full of examples.
- DianJo, are you actually contending ONLY Rome sent representatives to vaious councils or other churches!?!?!.
- I have concluded, as I remember an Orthodox priest/professor, recollection is vague, saying in a lecture, the only people who could read Eusebius and see Papal Primacy, did not read it".
I can see how someone could read early Christian history and be Orthodox, I get that, different thread why I am not though. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could read early Christian history and choose a faith that contradicts the shared authority of the bishops or how they did things the first 200 to 300 years. I have never understood it. Suffice to say, when I bring out the Roman Catholic scholars, not even they see it either. I will put together some quotes if I can. Not that it will matter, people see history how they want to. I do wish, if you have not actually read some of the books mentioned, you will do so.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Well, I could’ve sworn that I had posted this here, but I’ve been busy, so maybe not.
**
Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty
16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.**
Since this passage shows not only the scriptural beginning of papal succession as well as Petrine Primacy, that should lay the matter to rest. The simple list of all the popes to date should do the rest. Though there is definitely ample extra biblical documentation for it.
Pax vobiscum,
**
Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty
16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.**
Since this passage shows not only the scriptural beginning of papal succession as well as Petrine Primacy, that should lay the matter to rest. The simple list of all the popes to date should do the rest. Though there is definitely ample extra biblical documentation for it.
Pax vobiscum,
M
Mickey
Guest
Church Militant:
Our friend is not looking for Scriptural evidence. He is seeking air-tight patristic or historical written words within a given time frame. In Fredricks mind, his request has not been satiated, so he is confident that the Catholic Church is a false Church. Now he can go to the Eastern forum and tell the Orthodox about their errors. Then he can sleep well at night–confident and secure in his protestantism.
Wisdom, be attentive!
Hello Church Militant,
Our friend is not looking for Scriptural evidence. He is seeking air-tight patristic or historical written words within a given time frame. In Fredricks mind, his request has not been satiated, so he is confident that the Catholic Church is a false Church. Now he can go to the Eastern forum and tell the Orthodox about their errors. Then he can sleep well at night–confident and secure in his protestantism.
Wisdom, be attentive!
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Aw foot! Yet if the Word of God is not enough for one who is an adherent to Sola Scriptura, then what good is that belief system?
(Hand me one of those cold St. Peter’s beers there willya Mickey?)
M
Mickey
Guest
F
Fredricks
Guest
Church Militant:
You think them picking Judas replacement by lots is an example of papal succession? Did the other 12 get their successors picked this way as well?Well, I could’ve sworn that I had posted this here, but I’ve been busy, so maybe not.
**
Acts 1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty
16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.**
Since this passage shows not only the scriptural beginning of papal succession as well as Petrine Primacy, that should lay the matter to rest. The simple list of all the popes to date should do the rest. Though there is definitely ample extra biblical documentation for it.
Pax vobiscum,
G
geno75
Guest
Yeah, lets forget that Africa sits RIGHT BELOW Israel!
So lets hear it, how about a—
“Those guys down there in Africa could build a mean pyramid, but man, their roads are horrible, lets go north! Its a no brainer that the gospel was to go to Rome to be “headquartered” with supreme and authoritive powers!”
I have read on these forums that when Philip preached to the Ethiopian eunach in Acts, it was about how one has to have supreme mystical magical magesterium laying of the hands authority to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus to those in the world.
Well, without authority, I read Acts and I noticed several things the author of Acts pointed out. For one, an angel of the Lord told Phillip to go south to the desert road leading out of Jerusalem. Philip was told by The Spirit to go up to a chariot containing the Ethiopian eunach and stay near it. Philip did this and starting with the scripture of Isiah he was reading, Philip told him THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST. The Ethiopian felt compelled to be water baptized, and Philip obliged to do it. And as they emerged from the water, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SUDDENLY TOOK PHILIP AWAY, and the Ethiopian eunach did not see him again. BUT he went on his way rejoicing.
So an Angel of the Lord and The Spirit saw to it a Afican heard the gospel of Jesus. And it is obvious The Spirit saw it fit that the eunach be left alone without any other further teaching from Philip right when they came up from the water. Also, we can say this Ethiopian was a man of importance in his homeland. So after the Ethiopians water baptism, Philip was gone, taken out of sight by the Spirit immediately, and he went home with Jesus in his heart. So was this it for the Ethiopian, he believed in Jesus and was water baptized? All this fuss over an angel of the Lord and The Spirit moving Philip around just to preach the gospel of Jesus to the Ethiopian and send him on his way. Was this gift just for the Ethiopian, or did God use this vessel to spread the gospel “authoritively” to those in the world south of Israel?
So when do you think he recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Maybe when he asked God in Jesus’ name for it. After all, Philip preached Jesus, and Jesus said he will send a comforter, the Holy Spirit. Was there an authoritve laying of the hands on the Ethiopian before he was water baptized into Jesus Christ?
So either we can say that God wanted this Ethiopian personally to be saved and that is it, without ever recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. OR God is showing us how his “sacred tradition” of obtaining and maintaining faith in Jesus is supposed to really work,…his way and his word; not mans claim of apostolic unbroken line of laying on the hands.
Also, the author in Acts did not mention, “Apostolic Succession”, “Authoritive Church seat” when Philip told the Ethiopian the good news of JESUS. We can conclude that Philip was snatched up by the Spirit right after his water baptism, and the Ethiopian went home anyways rejoicing in the name of Jesus. And in faith, I believe that he recieved the baptism of the Spirit when he asked for it. And if the Spirit saw it fit to let the eunach go on his way, guess what, he for sure had the ordaination for “laying on of hands” by the spirit himself. That is, if the Spirit saw it fit for him, or for others the Ethiopian would spread the good news of Jesus to.
G
geno75
Guest
A one man universal leadership of Jesus’ church. We are all created in God’s image but also created by God identically different from one another. But yet one man will guide his church. Where does faith in Jesus’ name come into play in this system?
M
Mickey
Guest
Apostolic succession has been thoroughly explained to you. If you refuse to accept it, that is your choice–you have freewill.
But don’t you dare insinuate that Catholics do not have faith in the name of Jesus. That is rude and uncharitable. For shame! :tsktsk:
N
Nicene
Guest
What is the significance of the Etheopian encounter?Yeah, lets forget that Africa sits RIGHT BELOW Israel!
So lets hear it, how about a—
“Those guys down there in Africa could build a mean pyramid, but man, their roads are horrible, lets go north! Its a no brainer that the gospel was to go to Rome to be “headquartered” with supreme and authoritive powers!”
I have read on these forums that when Philip preached to the Ethiopian eunach in Acts, it was about how one has to have supreme mystical magical magesterium laying of the hands authority to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus to those in the world.
Well, without authority, I read Acts and I noticed several things the author of Acts pointed out. For one, an angel of the Lord told Phillip to go south to the desert road leading out of Jerusalem. Philip was told by The Spirit to go up to a chariot containing the Ethiopian eunach and stay near it. Philip did this and starting with the scripture of Isiah he was reading, Philip told him THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST. The Ethiopian felt compelled to be water baptized, and Philip obliged to do it. And as they emerged from the water, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SUDDENLY TOOK PHILIP AWAY, and the Ethiopian eunach did not see him again. BUT he went on his way rejoicing.
So an Angel of the Lord and The Spirit saw to it a Afican heard the gospel of Jesus. And it is obvious The Spirit saw it fit that the eunach be left alone without any other further teaching from Philip right when they came up from the water. Also, we can say this Ethiopian was a man of importance in his homeland. So after the Ethiopians water baptism, Philip was gone, taken out of sight by the Spirit immediately, and he went home with Jesus in his heart. So was this it for the Ethiopian, he believed in Jesus and was water baptized? All this fuss over an angel of the Lord and The Spirit moving Philip around just to preach the gospel of Jesus to the Ethiopian and send him on his way. Was this gift just for the Ethiopian, or did God use this vessel to spread the gospel “authoritively” to those in the world south of Israel?
So when do you think he recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Maybe when he asked God in Jesus’ name for it. After all, Philip preached Jesus, and Jesus said he will send a comforter, the Holy Spirit. Was there an authoritve laying of the hands on the Ethiopian before he was water baptized into Jesus Christ?
So either we can say that God wanted this Ethiopian personally to be saved and that is it, without ever recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. OR God is showing us how his “sacred tradition” of obtaining and maintaining faith in Jesus is supposed to really work,…his way and his word; not mans claim of apostolic unbroken line of laying on the hands.
Also, the author in Acts did not mention, “Apostolic Succession”, “Authoritive Church seat” when Philip told the Ethiopian the good news of JESUS. We can conclude that Philip was snatched up by the Spirit right after his water baptism, and the Ethiopian went home anyways rejoicing in the name of Jesus. And in faith, I believe that he recieved the baptism of the Spirit when he asked for it. And if the Spirit saw it fit to let the eunach go on his way, guess what, he for sure had the ordaination for “laying on of hands” by the spirit himself. That is, if the Spirit saw it fit for him, or for others the Ethiopian would spread the good news of Jesus to.
Can you furnish proof that the Etheopian started churches and evangelized Africa? As far as I am aware he is never heard of again.
How do you reconcile you last paragraph (personal Tradition: The Holy Spirit layed hands on the eunoch) with Sola Scriptura?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
D
DianJo
Guest
No, I’m not suggesting that ONLY Rome sent representatives. I am trying to show how Clement viewed and the other Catholic Churches viewed his authority; that he spoke with the God given authority passed on to him from Linus. If Clement (or the office of Pope) didn’t think they had the God given authority to speak as they did, then why would Clement write with such force? It was because the office of the Pope - the bishop of Rome had the authority passed on to them from Peter who was ordained by Christ Himself to be the leader of His church on earth until He returns.
D
DianJo
Guest
What does this have to do with Apostolic Succession and Peter passing on his authority to the next to hold the office of bishop of Rome?Yeah, lets forget that Africa sits RIGHT BELOW Israel!
So lets hear it, how about a—
“Those guys down there in Africa could build a mean pyramid, but man, their roads are horrible, lets go north! Its a no brainer that the gospel was to go to Rome to be “headquartered” with supreme and authoritive powers!”
I have read on these forums that when Philip preached to the Ethiopian eunach in Acts, it was about how one has to have supreme mystical magical magesterium laying of the hands authority to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus to those in the world.
Well, without authority, I read Acts and I noticed several things the author of Acts pointed out. For one, an angel of the Lord told Phillip to go south to the desert road leading out of Jerusalem. Philip was told by The Spirit to go up to a chariot containing the Ethiopian eunach and stay near it. Philip did this and starting with the scripture of Isiah he was reading, Philip told him THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS CHRIST. The Ethiopian felt compelled to be water baptized, and Philip obliged to do it. And as they emerged from the water, THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SUDDENLY TOOK PHILIP AWAY, and the Ethiopian eunach did not see him again. BUT he went on his way rejoicing.
So an Angel of the Lord and The Spirit saw to it a Afican heard the gospel of Jesus. And it is obvious The Spirit saw it fit that the eunach be left alone without any other further teaching from Philip right when they came up from the water. Also, we can say this Ethiopian was a man of importance in his homeland. So after the Ethiopians water baptism, Philip was gone, taken out of sight by the Spirit immediately, and he went home with Jesus in his heart. So was this it for the Ethiopian, he believed in Jesus and was water baptized? All this fuss over an angel of the Lord and The Spirit moving Philip around just to preach the gospel of Jesus to the Ethiopian and send him on his way. Was this gift just for the Ethiopian, or did God use this vessel to spread the gospel “authoritively” to those in the world south of Israel?
So when do you think he recieved the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Maybe when he asked God in Jesus’ name for it. After all, Philip preached Jesus, and Jesus said he will send a comforter, the Holy Spirit. Was there an authoritve laying of the hands on the Ethiopian before he was water baptized into Jesus Christ?
So either we can say that God wanted this Ethiopian personally to be saved and that is it, without ever recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. OR God is showing us how his “sacred tradition” of obtaining and maintaining faith in Jesus is supposed to really work,…his way and his word; not mans claim of apostolic unbroken line of laying on the hands.
Also, the author in Acts did not mention, “Apostolic Succession”, “Authoritive Church seat” when Philip told the Ethiopian the good news of JESUS. We can conclude that Philip was snatched up by the Spirit right after his water baptism, and the Ethiopian went home anyways rejoicing in the name of Jesus. And in faith, I believe that he recieved the baptism of the Spirit when he asked for it. And if the Spirit saw it fit to let the eunach go on his way, guess what, he for sure had the ordaination for “laying on of hands” by the spirit himself. That is, if the Spirit saw it fit for him, or for others the Ethiopian would spread the good news of Jesus to.
G
geno75
Guest
To get back on topic-
There seems to be something a little odd about the idea of Peter being made pope in Matthew 16.
For one, Jesus starts off by asking his disciples who people say he is. The disciples give him some distorted answers back. Then he asks them-“Who do you say I am?” We know Jesus isn’t having a idenity crisis. It seems Jesus is making sure his disciples dont have a identity crisis of who he(Jesus) is.
So Peter confesses who Jesus is. Jesus informs Peter that revalation was not giving to him by man, but by God. Then there is the rock, Peter, keys thingy that to some signify pope.
Then this section of Matthew 16 ends with Jesus warning his disciples not to tell ANYONE who his identity is-the Christ, the Messiah. Peters confession of Jesus was also written in Mark and Luke.
IT IS IMPORTANT to note that in the gospels of Mark and Luke, the authors stress the importance of putting in their writings that Jesus warned his Apostles the same thing in Matthew, not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) really is.
So, according to Matthew 16, some believe that Jesus revealed to all the disciples that Peter is pope, or head of the church Jesus will build, THEN warned his disciples not to tell ANYone who he(Jesus) is. So doesn’t that leave poor 'ol Peter sorta kinda left hanging out to dry?!
In other words, this interpretation could sound like this-
Peter-“Your the Christ”
Jesus-“Your the head of my church, but dont tell anyone who I am! Everybody hear that! Judas, this means you to!”
Its safe to say Judas was present when Peter confessed who Jesus is. We know that satan entered into Judas, and Judas left to betray Jesus. We also know that Jesus said to Peter that satan is asking to sift his disciples as wheat, but prays that Peters faith will not fail and to stregthen his brothers when he turns back.
If Judas knew Peter was the supreme head of Jesus church and satan has entered Judas, dont you think satan would see to it that the pharisees took care of Peter also? Satan could kill two birds with one stone, the messiah and his first pope, or so he thinks. Jesus prays for Peters faith not to fail. If Peter gets killed when Jesus gets crucified, the church could be seriously destined to die. Jesus makes it known that Peter will be needed to stregthen his disciples. The pharisee’s want Jesus, if they knew Jesus had one man and a office to head his church, they would see to it that was taken care of right away. Remember, Jesus states that satan is asking to sift ALL his disciples, but doesnt ask for Peter personally. Why isnt this so? If Jesus knew that his idenity must be keep hushed for awhile longer, why would he distingush who the head of his church would be in front of the one who will betray him? It totally does not make sense.
There seems to be something a little odd about the idea of Peter being made pope in Matthew 16.
For one, Jesus starts off by asking his disciples who people say he is. The disciples give him some distorted answers back. Then he asks them-“Who do you say I am?” We know Jesus isn’t having a idenity crisis. It seems Jesus is making sure his disciples dont have a identity crisis of who he(Jesus) is.
So Peter confesses who Jesus is. Jesus informs Peter that revalation was not giving to him by man, but by God. Then there is the rock, Peter, keys thingy that to some signify pope.
Then this section of Matthew 16 ends with Jesus warning his disciples not to tell ANYONE who his identity is-the Christ, the Messiah. Peters confession of Jesus was also written in Mark and Luke.
IT IS IMPORTANT to note that in the gospels of Mark and Luke, the authors stress the importance of putting in their writings that Jesus warned his Apostles the same thing in Matthew, not to tell anyone who he(Jesus) really is.
So, according to Matthew 16, some believe that Jesus revealed to all the disciples that Peter is pope, or head of the church Jesus will build, THEN warned his disciples not to tell ANYone who he(Jesus) is. So doesn’t that leave poor 'ol Peter sorta kinda left hanging out to dry?!
In other words, this interpretation could sound like this-
Peter-“Your the Christ”
Jesus-“Your the head of my church, but dont tell anyone who I am! Everybody hear that! Judas, this means you to!”
Its safe to say Judas was present when Peter confessed who Jesus is. We know that satan entered into Judas, and Judas left to betray Jesus. We also know that Jesus said to Peter that satan is asking to sift his disciples as wheat, but prays that Peters faith will not fail and to stregthen his brothers when he turns back.
If Judas knew Peter was the supreme head of Jesus church and satan has entered Judas, dont you think satan would see to it that the pharisees took care of Peter also? Satan could kill two birds with one stone, the messiah and his first pope, or so he thinks. Jesus prays for Peters faith not to fail. If Peter gets killed when Jesus gets crucified, the church could be seriously destined to die. Jesus makes it known that Peter will be needed to stregthen his disciples. The pharisee’s want Jesus, if they knew Jesus had one man and a office to head his church, they would see to it that was taken care of right away. Remember, Jesus states that satan is asking to sift ALL his disciples, but doesnt ask for Peter personally. Why isnt this so? If Jesus knew that his idenity must be keep hushed for awhile longer, why would he distingush who the head of his church would be in front of the one who will betray him? It totally does not make sense.
E
Eden
Guest
EUSEBIUS
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (*The Chronicle *[A.D. 303]).
Doesn’t this quote from Eusebius prove that the Bishop of Rome would be Peter’s successor? It is from 303 A.D. which is 100 years after your cut-off date of 200 A.D. but it’s from Eusebius.
Let’s see, if Peter is bishop of that city (Rome), he must be “Bishop of Rome”. So, the successors to Peter would also be bishop of that city (Rome) and thus “Bishop of Rome”.
What exactly are you asking? Because this one is obvious.
E
Eden
Guest
Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome],** they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21].** To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. **180-190]).
(Peter) doesn’t designate a successor in writing, but 2 Peter suggests that his authority was to be handed on to the next generation. In chapter one he recognizes that his end is near. He has always reminded his hearers of the truth (1:12), but Jesus Christ has revealed that he (Peter) will soon die (1:14), and as a result Peter will make every effort to ensure the faithful will remember the truth after his departure (1:15).
Peter knows that the truth of Christ will never pass away (Matt. 24:35) and that Christ’s authority to spread the gospel would last to the end of time (Matt. 28:18–20). He also knows that he, Peter, has been given special authority by Christ to keep the faith (Luke 22:31–32) and feed the flock (John 21:15–17). He must have realized that his authority had to be passed on. Other bishops are appointed by the apostolic representatives (Titus 1:5, 2 Tim. 2:2), so why not the bishop of Rome?
Peter must have realized that the defense of the faith could not depend on one leader alone, but that the apostolic role was to be shared amongst the next generation of leaders. Thus Peter refers to a whole group of men as his “fellow elders” (1 Pet. 5:1). Peter writes both of his letters not to specific churches but as universal epistles. He must therefore have seen that his ministry and authority was wider than simply being bishop of the Roman Church.
After Peter, this ministry was carried on by his successors. The first of these, Irenaeus tells us, was** Linus, a member of the Roman Church mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:2**. As Peter exercised authority over many churches, so his sucessors had authority over the rest of the Christian churches. One of them, Clement, wrote an authoritative letter around the year 95 calling the church of Corinth into line.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9906fea4.asp
- Status