Peter's successors?

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

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 Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox also called themselves catholic at that time (But this is a different thread)

The insistence on Clement is interesting. I provided early quotes which said it was viewed as advice:

1. Bishop Dionysius writing to “Pope” Soter
   Referring to the letter Clement wrote to Corinth

“Which we will read for its valuable advice”

Pgs 131, 132 Eusebius. He refers to Pope Soters letter for it’s valuable advise,
“Which we shall read frequently for it’s valuable advise.”

Eusebius:
*“In the same letter he refers to Clements “Epistle to the Corinthians” proving that from the very first it had been customary to read it in Church. He says:”
*

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.

1. 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.

If you can find me a bishop writing to Rome to handle it I’d appreaciate it but I haven’t been able to find one. (I could be wrong but I can’t find reference to a bishopric letter) On Pg 113, Irenaeus describes the situation while Hyginus is Bishop concerning the visitation to Rome by Valentinus and Credo:

Eusebius referencing book 3 of Against heresies:
*Valentinus arrived in Rome in the time of Hyginus, reached his heyday under Pius, and remained till Aniucetus. Credo, who preceeded Marcion, also joined the Roman church and declared his faith publicly, in the time of Hyginus, the ninth Bishop; then he went on in this way - at one time he taught in secret, at another he again declared his faith publicly, at another he was convicted of muischievous teaching and expelled from the Christian community. *

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??

How do you deduce that the authority rests with the presbyters and the bishops are subject to them? Even Eusebius refers to the church in terms of Diocese (I’ll look up the page if you want). Are you saying the presbyters were in charge of the diocese and the bishops were under them?

1. Nicene, I spoke about John.

One must prove that disputes were handled by John in other situations before you can say he should have handled this.

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.

Aren’t you reading Eusebius? Irenaeus and Justin Matyr tell us John resided in Ephesus where he wrote his gospel. Eusebius tells us of John exile to Patmos pg. 81 and returned to Ephesus in 96 and died during the reign of Trajan and was buried in Ephesus pg 94. Trajan reigned 98-117. So he is still alive during this time.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JaneFrances]

"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.

Once again, Fred, you have shown an extraordinary misunderstanding of the development of doctrine.

You are citing the First Vatican Council, which would OF COURSE have a more well expounded and explicit explanation of papal succession and Roman primacy than a 1st or 2nd century document!

You have proven nothing against papal succession and Roman primacy here, but only managed to point out the obvious: The First Vatican Council affirms papal succession and the Roman primacy.

Since a thorough reading of Newman’s Essay may prove too time consuming for you at this juncture, I would offer this statement from the reputable 19th century Protestant historian Philip Schaff. He has no interest in supporting the Catholic position, of course, but he does a fairly good job of expaining how the deveopment of doctrine is understood throughout Church history. In his General Introduction to his multi-volume History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975, rep. of 1910 ed. from Scribner’s, New York, p. 10), he writes:

. . . the mind of the Church has gradually apprehended and unfolded the divine truths of revelation, . . . the teachings of scripture have been formulated and shaped into dogmas, and grown into creeds and confessions of faith, or systems of doctrine stamped with public authority. This growth of the church in the knowledge off the infallible word of God is a constant struggle against error, misbelief, and unbelief; and the history of heresies is an essential part of the history of doctrines.

Every important dogma now professed by the Christian church is the result of a severe conflict with error. The doctrine of the holy Trinity, for instance, was believed from the beginning, but it required, in addition to the preparatory labors of the ante-Nicene age, fifty years of controversy, in which the strongest intellects were absorbed, until it was brought to the clear expression of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Christological conflict was equally long and intense, until it was brought to a settlement by the council of Chalcedon.

To assert that “there is no room for development” based on the fact that a council in 1870 had a better formulated explanation of a particular doctrine than 1st or 2nd century Church Fathers is simply weak.

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.

That’s quite a statement, Fred. Sure you want to make it that specific?

How 'bout:

“. . .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])

Here, St. Irenaeus is quite clear, I’ll even repeat it: “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.”

Hmmm. . .now, what did you need for it to say? Oh, right. . .something about the successors being over the universal church. I think “all the faithful in the whole world” may qualify.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

PETER AND PAUL.

O.K. So, Peter and Paul chose Peter’s successor as Linus. 115 Cardinals chose the 264th successor to Peter last April. The number of interest here is not how many were involved in electing a successor but the fact that only ONE successor was named in both cases.

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene
This is focused here, good.
WHEN was the letter written exactly?
Not theory proven.

EXACTLY what year did John die?

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

This thread is not about the primacy of Peter, which I accept, although differently than Catholics to be sure.
If you wish to start a primacy thread Geno, please do so. I am attempting to keep this post biblical historical sources.

You accept the primacy of Peter? I about fell out of my chair!

Since apostolic teachings include holding fast to traditions, why would subsequent Church leaders deny a hierarchy in the Church structure that was both accepted by the Apostles, and bestowed by Christ?

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

This thread is not about the primacy of Peter, which I accept, although differently than Catholics to be sure.

What in the world does this mean? You accept that Peter had the primacy but not his successors?

 

[JaneFrances]

AND, so that we aren’t just depending on one quotation. . .

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)

Iganatius, too, is just so pointed.

Later in this same letter, he states

I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all. . .

So, he means for this letter addressed to the Roman Church to be of instruction to “all the Churches.”

Now, what is it exactly that he’s trying to communicate to the Roman Church that he wants all the Churches to hear?

“You [the Roman Church] have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force.”

Do you know what “enjoined” means, Fred? It goes a little something like this: to direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition

There’s something lost in translation here, but basically Ignatius is telling Rome: you have no other Church to envy (a figure of speech, indicating a position of supremacy). . .you are in a position of teaching authority. . .your instructions are to be heeded and “remain in force.” Sounds pretty PRIME to me. And since Ignatius makes it clear that he is intending for this message to be for **“all the Churches,” ** he is apparently making a very clear testimony to the universal Church about Rome’s primacy.

I’m stumped, Fredricks. Tell me again what “proof” were you looking for?

 

[Fredricks]

Fascinating Jane. I of course, addressed this from the get go. However bring it back up because it does prove my point

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.

Peter and Paul were considered Bishops of Rome

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere

people must agree because they are faithful to the teachings not a word about it being because of Peter having a successor.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Peter and Paul were considered Bishops of Rome

You just said that you agreed Peter had primacy over all apostles.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

You accept the primacy of Peter? I about fell out of my chair!

Since apostolic teachings include holding fast to traditions, why would subsequent Church leaders deny a hierarchy in the Church structure that was both accepted by the Apostles, and bestowed by Christ?

1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition

Sigh
What you guys assume is beyone me completely. I have said I will address what this means biblically later, in another thread.
I want to scream PAY ATTENTION, but screaming is rude!

 

[Ignatius]

Fredricks:

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?

Look, let’s be honest. It really doesn’t matter how much evidence we show you, you’re just going to reject it anyway. So, why should we waste our time and effort?

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

people must agree because they are faithful to the teachings not a word about it being because of Peter having a successor.

They must agree with the Church in Rome because the Tradition of apostolic succession keeps Peter first. Why is this not obvious?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

You just said that you agreed Peter had primacy over all apostles.

Yes. However, I think the Bible explains what that looks like and from there we would disagree.
I do not think Peter had a successor in that role, no. Where there Bishops of Rome after Peter and Paul? Yes. Did they have primacy over the whole church? No Did God clearly give us the plan in scripture? Yes. Quit jumping ahead! Its another post. Goodness gracious.
PS
A lot of Protestants accept Peters primacy, although we define it differently, you guys need to get out more.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Sigh
What you guys assume is beyone me completely. I have said I will address what this means biblically later, in another thread.
I want to scream PAY ATTENTION, but screaming is rude!

Addressing it biblically* later*? In your first posts on this thread you said the Bible does not mention the successor to Peter and I showed you in 2 Timothy that it does.

 

[Fredricks]

I cannot debate five people at the same time. My head hurts.
I need to email BH and get his Mormon bashing tail in here.

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Peter and Paul were considered Bishops of Rome

So then all succeeding bishops of Rome are successors of Peter and Paul? You are confusing me Fredricks. :whacky:

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Addressing it biblically* later*? In your first posts on this thread you said the Bible does not mention the successor to Peter and I showed you in 2 Timothy that it does.

It has become apparent to me that I have conveyed my point on this thread. Read what I said. Conveyed. Now while everyone would disagree with what I have tried to convey, it appears inevitable I must go into what form of church government was in place in the NT. You have assumed too much. So I suppose I will get to work on that. Give me time.

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

So then all succeeding bishops of Rome are successors of Peter and Paul? You are confusing me Fredricks. :whacky:

I am stating, that early Christians attributed the Bishop of Rome as being the successors of Paul and Peter for that particular city. Early Christians DID NOT consider their successors to have control over the universal church. That is a later invention, I mean development.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

Sigh
What you guys assume is beyone me completely. I have said I will address what this means biblically later, in another thread.
I want to scream PAY ATTENTION, but screaming is rude!

I look forward to your discussion of your belief in the primacy of Peter with great interest (in another thread, if you wish).

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

It has become apparent to me that I have conveyed my point on this thread. Read what I said. Conveyed. Now while everyone would disagree with what I have tried to convey, it appears inevitable I must go into what form of church government was in place in the NT. You have assumed too much. So I suppose I will get to work on that. Give me time.

You conveyed that you believe Peter held primacy over the apostles but his successors did not hold primacy over all other bishops.

You can clearly see that the Church centered in Rome is the True Church. So, do you believe Jesus lied when He said “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”?