R
- Status
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi OneTrue,
Look. Nothing I have said should force anyone into rejecting the Papacy. I have only noted that the historical evidence that some Catholics trot forward to support their claims is either a) bogus, or b) not that convincing. But even so, there are historically savvy Catholics who still make reasonable arguments for the Papacy without distorting the historical evidence beyond recognition. Why don’t you read Father Sullivan’s book? You might get a more complete picture of the problem.
Consider this excerpt from the one I quoted:
“It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation.”
What Fr. Sullivan is saying is that when people like you make obviously faulty arguments for the Papacy, it might make people like me (who don’t already accept it) think that there are no good arguments for the Papacy.
The fact is that there are some good arguments for the Papacy. But quoting contradictory passages from Eusebius and Lactantius about how long Peter was in Rome won’t get you there.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi OneTrue,
What, exactly, did I distort in that post? I cut and pasted Lactantius’s comment from YOUR post.
Did Lactantius NOT say that Peter came to Rome during Nero’s reign?
Did Eusebius NOT say that Peter was in Rome for 25 years?
If my interpretation is distorted, how, exactly, do YOU reconcile their statements?
M
mercygate
Guest
Apostolic Succession and Petrine Primacy are two different things. All the Apostolic Churches have Apostolic Succession.
Petrine Primacy is based on the several passages of Scripture in which Our Lord places Peter in a position of leadership among the other Apostles.
Y
YADA
Guest
When you come to us and say …
"prove X [Peter was first Pope] using Y [independent - historical] but not Z [traditions] … "
You have stacked the deck … you can forever negate any early writings whether biblical or non-biblical … because you will nit pick every discrepancy between them [as if that negates the whole - or as if current events written today never have opposing fews or mistakes or condentions taken for brevity, clarity or because they were unimportant to the true topic at hand … and as if we had extant today the entire body of material from that time … ] … Fac, what we have are not even originals but copies of copies … and not all of what we have [individual letters] is the whole of that letter et alone the entire body of writings …
Sources outside of the Christian community [which gave its blood to protect the record of its struggle] that reference a motly crew of early Christians is scarce … that does not mean it did not exist - even minimally - but only that the secular society failed to see the value of its preservation …
So I will offer this … there is far more “Proof” of Peter being the Head of the Church - its earthly Father - the Keeper of the Keys for the King [Jesus] [Isaiah and Matthew] and that the Chruch for whatever reason determined early on that part of its mission to spread the Gospel [Good News] through out the earth meant that its primary head quarters was to be in Rome [the political seat of power for the known world] … then there is that Jesus walked the earth, claimed to be God Incarnate, was crucified, died and was buried and rose on the 3rd day … Ascending into heaven on Pentecost …
What you want to prove Peter’'s primacy you could not get for Jesus - even that he lived yet alone all of the Messianic claims…
And with Peter you have the history of the church … you call it traditions … but those traditions do not come from thin air …
Also, in one post someone said something about it not looking like the papacy of today … Peter’s chruch did not look like the church today … in fact no institution still in existance today from 2000 years ago [actually I can’t think of one outside the church] would look or feel the same … I would offer up that our COuntry looks far different today then it did to our founding fathers … how we govern [even with our constitution] today is not the same as it was in 1776 … ditto with France, England etc …
Even in businesses … do you think that IB is the same company it was when founde? How about Ford Motor Company … would Henry Ford’s role as head of Ford look the same as the CEO’s today?
An impossible task …
"prove X [Peter was first Pope] using Y [independent - historical] but not Z [traditions] … "
You have stacked the deck … you can forever negate any early writings whether biblical or non-biblical … because you will nit pick every discrepancy between them [as if that negates the whole - or as if current events written today never have opposing fews or mistakes or condentions taken for brevity, clarity or because they were unimportant to the true topic at hand … and as if we had extant today the entire body of material from that time … ] … Fac, what we have are not even originals but copies of copies … and not all of what we have [individual letters] is the whole of that letter et alone the entire body of writings …
Sources outside of the Christian community [which gave its blood to protect the record of its struggle] that reference a motly crew of early Christians is scarce … that does not mean it did not exist - even minimally - but only that the secular society failed to see the value of its preservation …
So I will offer this … there is far more “Proof” of Peter being the Head of the Church - its earthly Father - the Keeper of the Keys for the King [Jesus] [Isaiah and Matthew] and that the Chruch for whatever reason determined early on that part of its mission to spread the Gospel [Good News] through out the earth meant that its primary head quarters was to be in Rome [the political seat of power for the known world] … then there is that Jesus walked the earth, claimed to be God Incarnate, was crucified, died and was buried and rose on the 3rd day … Ascending into heaven on Pentecost …
What you want to prove Peter’'s primacy you could not get for Jesus - even that he lived yet alone all of the Messianic claims…
And with Peter you have the history of the church … you call it traditions … but those traditions do not come from thin air …
Also, in one post someone said something about it not looking like the papacy of today … Peter’s chruch did not look like the church today … in fact no institution still in existance today from 2000 years ago [actually I can’t think of one outside the church] would look or feel the same … I would offer up that our COuntry looks far different today then it did to our founding fathers … how we govern [even with our constitution] today is not the same as it was in 1776 … ditto with France, England etc …
Even in businesses … do you think that IB is the same company it was when founde? How about Ford Motor Company … would Henry Ford’s role as head of Ford look the same as the CEO’s today?
An impossible task …
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
I don’t read anything from former ex-Catholics. And if he is still a practicing Catholic, then I am ashamed of him.
Furthermore, if you read correctly, you’ll find that I said that Peter lived **in both Claudius and Nero’s time. **
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi OneTrue,
He is still a practicing Catholic, and for heaven’s sake, his book was published by Newman Press!
And I know that Peter lived in both Claudius’ and Nero’s time, but the question was when he came to Rome. Eusebius said during Claudius’ reign, and Lactantius said during Nero’s. In other words, they contradict one another.
Anyway, it doesn’t seem like you are willing to listen to anyone–even fellow Catholics–whose views aren’t as extreme as yours. Also, it seems to me that you’ve exposed yourself as this type of extremist by being unwilling to read the passages that you posted yourself, and look for any obvious contradictions, even when they are pointed out to you. Therefore, I don’t think I need to bother responding to you on this thread, anymore, unless you actually come up with a new line of argumentation.
I’m wondering. Do any of the other Catholics who are participating here notice the obvious fact that Eusebius and Lactantius contradict one another? I mean, it’s not as if this fact should make anyone’s faith crumble.
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Gabriel,
I think we may be misunderstanding one another here. Mormons believe (just like Catholics) that Peter was the chief Apostle, and that Jesus gave him the keys. We disagree with you mainly about whether Peter’s apostolic authority was passed on to the Bishops, specifically the Bishop of Rome, when the Apostles disappeared from the scene.
So when you say Peter was in Rome, it makes no difference to us. When you prove that Peter was given the keys, and was the chief Apostle, we agree with you. The questions at issue between us are:
I think we may be misunderstanding one another here. Mormons believe (just like Catholics) that Peter was the chief Apostle, and that Jesus gave him the keys. We disagree with you mainly about whether Peter’s apostolic authority was passed on to the Bishops, specifically the Bishop of Rome, when the Apostles disappeared from the scene.
So when you say Peter was in Rome, it makes no difference to us. When you prove that Peter was given the keys, and was the chief Apostle, we agree with you. The questions at issue between us are:
- Was Peter the first Bishop of Rome?
- Did Peter pass his authority on to the bishops, and especially to the Bishop of Rome?
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Hello…Protestants will disagree with us on more than one issue because that is what Protestanism means **PROTEST. **And of course you disagree with the church that Christ founded and go by your man made churches, so what else is new?? :yawn:
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
How does Eusebius and Lactantius contradict each other when they BOTH SAID that Peter was there when Nero and Claudius were reigning??
B
BDawg
Guest
Look at your quotation. Lactantius said that Peter came to Rome when Nero was reigning. Not Claudius.How does Eusebius and Lactantius contradict each other when they BOTH SAID that Peter was there when Nero and Claudius were reigning??
H
Hisalone
Guest
BDawg is really getting the better of you.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
**Gabriel of 12
Protestants do not disagree with me, they disagree with Jesus Christ himself. Scripture clearly indicates Jesus will build his church upon Peter, and he has fulfilled his Word today. Why dont Protestants believe what Jesus states from record scripture. See my point, there is no need to move from what Jesus spoke about Peter. How one thinks one can argue against Jesus and history from 2000 years of unchanged Catholic christianity from Peter and the apostles, without inventing some false assertion about the Church Jesus built upon Peter.
Now to the buildng upon Peter is enough evidence from Jesus mouth to confirm every successor from Peter.
What puzzles me, is that protestants view the first four hundred years of Catholic christianity, and invent arguments from afar, to discredit Jesus’s Word, Promise, and Power. And not realize their Christian founder denominations were not even thought of, only in exposed heretics.
Peace**
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi Gabriel,
I have never heard before that the first 30 popes were martyred. Where did you get this information?
I have never heard before that the first 30 popes were martyred. Where did you get this information?
G
guanophore
Guest
Here is an interesting quote:
CYPRIAN:
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
This is one of the earliest references to the “chair” of Peter. The early fathers seemed to believe that the “Seat of Moses” had been transferred to Peter.*
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you think this tradition started later? I will assume you will say yes, and add my next question, which would be, why?
OPTATUS:
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church". (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
I would speculate, based on references such as this, that such a tradition was fostered because it served to maintain unity and prevent schism.
If that is true, then why would the establishment and preservation of “Peter’s Chair” serve to preserve unity better than not having such a belief?
CYRIL OF JERUSALEM:
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
B
BDawg
Guest
Hi guanophore,
Thanks for posting these–at last someone has posted some sources that actually address the question at hand!
Anyway, this is what I was talking about when I said that nobody can be found claiming that the Bishop of Rome had inherited the keys from Peter until the mid-third century. I believe Cyprian is the earliest source for this.
Thanks for posting these–at last someone has posted some sources that actually address the question at hand!
Anyway, this is what I was talking about when I said that nobody can be found claiming that the Bishop of Rome had inherited the keys from Peter until the mid-third century. I believe Cyprian is the earliest source for this.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Interesting progression.
Christ the rock and foundaion of the Church
Peter the rock and foundation of the Curch
The “chair of Peter” now is transfered to others.
This is in scripture?
Christ the rock and foundaion of the Church
Peter the rock and foundation of the Curch
The “chair of Peter” now is transfered to others.
This is in scripture?
G
guanophore
Guest
St.Cyprian was elected bishop of Carthage in North Africa. A few months after he became bishop, a severe persecution of the Christians began under the emeperor Decius. Many Christians denied their faith under pressure, and they wished to be reconciled.
It was during this setting that St. Cyprian wrote The Unity of the Catholic Church. The prupose was to prove that the Church’s unity was incompatible with a competitive hierarchy. He wrote it in AD 251, and two versions of chapter 4 (shown below) have come down to us today. The one below is the shorter version.
“If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?”
The Petrine gift, to strengthen the brethren, feed and care for the sheep, was not intended to create “supremacy”, which Jesus clearly taught against. On the contrary, as we see in Peter’s epistles, it is an office of great humility. The value of this gift took about 200 years to develop, and until the necessity for it became obvious. In the early years of Christianity, unity among the Apostles and their immediate disciples had more clarity. As the Church spread and connection with the 12 was seldom and infrequent, it became more difficult to preserve the unity.
Unity is founded in the center of Truth. The reason that Rome became a focal point of unity is because it was established so solidly by the ministry of both Peter and Paul. The strength of the Apostolic Teaching there far outdistanced any other Apostolic center anywhere in the world. When there were disputes about doctrine, appeal was made to Rome, because the deposit of faith there was so carefully laid by the combined apostolic ministry.
It was during this setting that St. Cyprian wrote The Unity of the Catholic Church. The prupose was to prove that the Church’s unity was incompatible with a competitive hierarchy. He wrote it in AD 251, and two versions of chapter 4 (shown below) have come down to us today. The one below is the shorter version.
“If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (St. Matthew 16:18). And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep” (St. John 21:16). It is on him that He builds the Church, and to him that He entrusts the sheep to feed. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” (St. John 20:21, 22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is thus made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he confidence that he is in the Church?”
The Petrine gift, to strengthen the brethren, feed and care for the sheep, was not intended to create “supremacy”, which Jesus clearly taught against. On the contrary, as we see in Peter’s epistles, it is an office of great humility. The value of this gift took about 200 years to develop, and until the necessity for it became obvious. In the early years of Christianity, unity among the Apostles and their immediate disciples had more clarity. As the Church spread and connection with the 12 was seldom and infrequent, it became more difficult to preserve the unity.
Unity is founded in the center of Truth. The reason that Rome became a focal point of unity is because it was established so solidly by the ministry of both Peter and Paul. The strength of the Apostolic Teaching there far outdistanced any other Apostolic center anywhere in the world. When there were disputes about doctrine, appeal was made to Rome, because the deposit of faith there was so carefully laid by the combined apostolic ministry.
- Status