Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[Stephen168]

1. Don’t trust angry anti-Mormons to give you accurate answer to anything about The Church of Jesus Christ. They usually don’t know very much and and agenda driven.
2. Mormons DO NOT accept “The Trinity” as voted upon by the Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. I have never ever heard of a Mormon who thought so.

However, you don’t own the word “trinity.” The word “trinity” simply means “A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.” So from and English definition stand point, The LDS understanding of the Godhead is a trinity. That’s all.

You miss-understood my question, twice now. That is why I was hoping an ex-mormon could answer it

 

[guanophore]

Your claim was every Church Father said so, was it not?

I did not ask about what Eusebius said Papias said. I already posted what he said earlier.

Again: What did Polycarp have to say about it? Athanaisus? Gregory and Ambrose?

I doubt that “every Church Father” included this in their writings. Most of the writings of the fathers are directed to specific people about specific issues. So, are you going to discount what was posted, because there are some fathers that did not mention it?

 

[Snow]

I doubt that “every Church Father” included this in their writings. Most of the writings of the fathers are directed to specific people about specific issues. So, are you going to discount what was posted, because there are some fathers that did not mention it?

I don’t discount it. It’s a possibility. If you followed the discussion, I didn’t claim there was not Aramaic version, just that proof was lacking. The poster, incorrectly, disagreed with me and then incorrectly claimed that every Church Father covered the topic.

 

[Stephen168]

Peter said the position of Bishop must never go empty. (Acts 1:20)

Clements First letter to the Corinthians Chapter 42 written about 96 AD states: God sent Christ. Christ sent the Apostles. The Apostles were appointed by God and the Holy Spirit. The Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8 written about 107AD: Follow the bishop, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Don’t do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, written about 180 A.D. states the Church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul. Peter & Paul preached to men that which has come down to his time by succession of the Bishops. The Church in Rome has primacy over the others. They were followed by Linus, Anacletus, Clement. Linus knew Paul and Clement knew the Apostles. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians.

Tertullian in The Prescription against Heretics, Chapter 32 writing c. 199 states: The Bishops should show his predecessor to be one of the Apostles. Polycarp was made a Bishop by John and Clement was ordained by Peter. The Bishops having been appointed to their Episcopal places by apostles are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

Lactantius in Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, Chaper 2 written in about 300AD states: Peter came to Rome during the reign of Nero, Nero crucified Peter and Paul.

Eusebius in The History of the Church Book 3 Chapter 4 written about 324AD states: Linus was the first Bishop after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome.

The Apostolic Constitutions Book 7, Chapter 46 written around 400AD states: The Bishops of Jerusalem were James the Apostle upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the Church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clement, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.

I’m comfortable with Apostolic Succession and the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t discount it. It’s a possibility. If you followed the discussion, I didn’t claim there was not Aramaic version, just that proof was lacking. The poster, incorrectly, disagreed with me and then incorrectly claimed that every Church Father covered the topic.

yes, and I do side with you on that point. I don’t believe reference can be found to it in all the FAthers. However, one wonders what might constitute “proof” for you. There are many references from many parts of the world spanning many years making this testimony. Do you think they made it up? Why would it compromise your doctrine if the Gospel of Matt had originally be written in Aramaic?

 

[Snow]

yes, and I do side with you on that point. I don’t believe reference can be found to it in all the FAthers. However, one wonders what might constitute “proof” for you. There are many references from many parts of the world spanning many years making this testimony. Do you think they made it up? Why would it compromise your doctrine if the Gospel of Matt had originally be written in Aramaic?

It is irrelevant to me whether it was in Aramaic or not. I just don’t like it when people invent things to make a point.

 

[RebeccaJ]

35 years ago the mormons I knew were proud to tell me that I believed in the trinty and they did not. Has there been a change in the mormon church or is it just the mormons that post on CAF that have a desire to call their gods a ‘trinity?’

In the last 25 years or so the LDS have worked at appearing more mainstream Christian. To do so, they use Christian terms and apply their own definitions to them. Snow’s post re: Trinity is just one example of this.

Trinity, in Chrisitan theological terms has meant the same thing, for centuries. Mormons have always referred to their belief of 3 separate gods as “the godhead”, and they still use this term. The use of the term Trinity to describe their belief of God is very recent, within the last few years.

 

[RebeccaJ]

1. Don’t trust angry anti-Mormons to give you accurate answer to anything about The Church of Jesus Christ. They usually don’t know very much and and agenda driven.

So, you are a bigot and group all former Mormons under one umbrella?

My agenda is to keep people informed, as Mormons are deceptive. Proof of this is in your posts, where you don’t answer questions, attack the poster, redirect to another subject, etc.

1. Mormons DO NOT accept “The Trinity” as voted upon by the Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. I have never ever heard of a Mormon who thought so.

However, you don’t own the word “trinity.” The word “trinity” simply means “A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.” So from and English definition stand point, The LDS understanding of the Godhead is a trinity. That’s all.

Trinity is a word that has been used for centuries by Christians. A word with a very clear theological definition and belief behind it. When Mormons use the same term in a theological connotation, there is only one purpose and that is to confuse or confound Christian doctrine with their own heresies.

 

[guanophore]

It is irrelevant to me whether it was in Aramaic or not. I just don’t like it when people invent things to make a point.

As well you should not.

However, I think it is relevant.The Catholic understanding of the renaming of Peter, and the making of him a foundation stone of the Church, and the giving of the keys are all fundamental to the understanding of the Petrine ministry and Apostolic succession. Most non-Catholics depart from the Apostolic tradition based in whole or in part on the Gk. translation of Matthew, not even knowing that it was orginally written in Aramaic. This is where the misunderstanding comes from about the meaning of the words.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think it is worth pointing out, once again, that Mormons believe Jesus is A God, for this earth. The same for the Father, He is A God. Neither is believed to be THE God. Except in henotheistic terms of the Father is one God of many but we on this planet are to worship only the Father. This is how they view “thou shalt have no other Gods before me”.

Mormons will say all day that Jesus is God, but they have it framed in these definitions that they don’t often offer to clarify to Christians, who believe in One God, who is THE God.

Since Snow would like to deceive people into thinking I made this up, please see this previous thread where this is explained as a clear as you will get it from someone who is LDS.

 

[Stephen168]

In the last 25 years or so the LDS have worked at appearing more mainstream Christian. To do so, they use Christian terms and apply their own definitions to them. Snow’s post re: Trinity is just one example of this.

Trinity, in Chrisitan theological terms has meant the same thing, for centuries. Mormons have always referred to their belief of 3 separate gods as “the godhead”, and they still use this term. The use of the term Trinity to describe their belief of God is very recent, within the last few years.

Thank You

I also liked your posts on the primacy of Peter.

 

[mercygate]

1. No one knows who the Linus in 2 Timothy was. For that matter, the author of 2 Timothy is unknown with the consensus scholarly opinion that it is pseudepigraphic.
2. Irenaeus didn’t write of “Linus” for over 100 years after Linus had supposedly died.

That’s not historical evidence. That’s just evidence of when the tradition starts. There are no writings of Linus, no contemporary historical accounts, no proof that he was Bishop - and in fact scholars know that there weren’t monoepiscopal bishops for sometime after Linus, It was a later innovation.

What I am asking for is actually historical information, not tradition, that, for example: Linus, Cletus and Evaristus were actually Popes - monoepiscopal bishops of Rome with primacy over all other bishops.

You’d hardly accept a one sentence mention in 2008 as proof that someone had been an actual living person in Kentucky and been a lawyer in 1895.

You are demanding complete demonstrability of the Tradition via extant historical sources. It is important to distinguish between “completely demonstrable” evidence and “credible” evidence. The Catholic case relies on credible evidence. There certainly is no demonstrable “evidence” of the sort you demand to the contrary that says Peter was never thought to be a bishop in Rome.

We claim 1) that Peter was in Rome (they found his bones, so THAT quarrel is off the table), 2) that he was an Apostle and therefore had episcopal powers, 3) that the Scriptural witness places him foremost in the apostolic band, 4) that he was martyred in Rome, and 5) that Apostolic Succession is demonstrable in Scripture.

It is clear from the NT Church that some churches seem to have been governed by councils of elders while others enjoyed one-man leadership. As an Apostle, Peter would have enjoyed priority, even in a church that had other elders. (My own archdiocese has 4 assistant bishops in addition to the bishop of the place).

Peter was in Rome, was martyred there, enjoyed primacy among the Apostles. The maturation of the “job description” occurs in response to the needs of the Church through several centuries. We do not need to see the exact, developed form of the papacy in the first century to see that the developed form is a reasonable maturation of the New Testament picture.

 

[mercygate]

1. Don’t trust angry anti-Mormons to give you accurate answer to anything about The Church of Jesus Christ. They usually don’t know very much and and agenda driven.
2. Mormons DO NOT accept “The Trinity” as voted upon by the Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. I have never ever heard of a Mormon who thought so.

However, you don’t own the word “trinity.” The word “trinity” simply means “A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.” So from and English definition stand point, The LDS understanding of the Godhead is a trinity. That’s all.

For theological purposes, Christians actually DO “own” the word Trinity. The word was created to indicate a specific doctrine that had not been clearly delineated before the development of the word. It has an origin in time and place and is tied indissolubly to the doctrine as it is understood by the firs four Ecumenical Councils.

 

[mercygate]

As well you should not.

However, I think it is relevant.The Catholic understanding of the renaming of Peter, and the making of him a foundation stone of the Church, and the giving of the keys are all fundamental to the understanding of the Petrine ministry and Apostolic succession. Most non-Catholics depart from the Apostolic tradition based in whole or in part on the Gk. translation of Matthew, not even knowing that it was orginally written in Aramaic. This is where the misunderstanding comes from about the meaning of the words.

I disagree. They depart from the Apostolic tradition and then have to juggle Mt. 16:18-19 to justify their departure from the faith.

 

[guanophore]

1. No one knows who the Linus in 2 Timothy was.

Well, Linus does.

For that matter, the author of 2 Timothy is unknown with the consensus scholarly opinion that it is pseudepigraphic.

This is the first I am hearing this. Why would SDA need to discount 2 Tim? Is it because the evidence of Apostolic succession is so clear?

1. Irenaeus didn’t write of “Linus” for over 100 years after Linus had supposedly died.

I saw a great special on PBS yesterday about the Hebrew Bible. It seems that Moses did not write the stories for a couple thousand years after all the Patriarchs had died.

That’s not historical evidence. That’s just evidence of when the tradition starts. There are no writings of Linus, no contemporary historical accounts, no proof that he was Bishop - and in fact scholars know that there weren’t monoepiscopal bishops for sometime after Linus, It was a later innovation.

Do you believe the entire monoepiscopal model was “a later innovation”, or just when it applies to the office of the papacy? You have still not answered my question about what you mean by monoepiscopal. Do you not see the church operating in council?

What I am asking for is actually historical information, not tradition, that, for example: Linus, Cletus and Evaristus were actually Popes - monoepiscopal bishops of Rome with primacy over all other bishops.

Tradition is based on actual historical information. Tradition is how the Church understands and interprets the events that occurred.

I think mercygate has hit the nail on the head.

The office of the Papacy, like everything else in the Church, developed over time to adapt to the needs of the Church as she grew. The importance of Rome as a defining center of right doctrine did not become clear until many heresies had emerged.

You’d hardly accept a one sentence mention in 2008 as proof that someone had been an actual living person in Kentucky and been a lawyer in 1895.

No, but I might be tempted to look twice if his practice was still alive and well, and was founded on all the work he had done in 1895.

 

[guanophore]

I disagree. They depart from the Apostolic tradition and then have to juggle Mt. 16:18-19 to justify their departure from the faith.

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I don’t think that the vast majority of modern Protestants have “departed” from the Apostolic faith. I think they were brought up in their beliefs, which have been separated for centuries. They are misinformed about the Apostolic faith, and don’t even realize that they are oustide of it.

I agree, however, that Mt. 16:18 does need to be juggled.

 

[guanophore]

You want me to refute that Eusebius wrote that Papias said that there was an Aramaic copy of Matthew?

Why would I do that? I was the one that said so originally in post 216. If I intended to refute myself, I probably just wouldn’t have posted it in the first place.

"Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” (Against Heresies 3:1:1).

Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, “Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, “Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that “Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325])"

credit: catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304qq.asp

Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were looking for historical evidence that Matthew was written in Aramaic. Do you consider all these references to be “tradition” and not “historical”?

 

[guanophore]

It makes sense when you use logic that a Scriptural truth is often one expounded on in length. Building a Papacy on one verse is what dosent make proper sense.

You are correct. However, this iis not the case. The primacy of Peter was built many decades before a word of scripture was written, including his own contribution to it.

 

[avenger]

You are correct. However, this iis not the case. The primacy of Peter was built many decades before a word of scripture was written, including his own contribution to it.

So you would logically think it would be spelled out pretty plainly in Scripture, yet it isnt…

 

[avenger]

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? As for those who come to me and hear my words and put them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But those who hear my words and do not put them into practice are like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete” (Luke 6:46–49).

The Greek for rock here is petra. Notice that building on rock has nothing to do with Peter or papacy, it is accomplished by following and practicing the teachings of Christ, the theme that is throughout the NT. That is the teaching of the “rock”. And who is our true rock and foundation? ONLY Christ Himself.