Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[OneTrueCathApos]

I say this because you make great leaps of conjecture stating what has not been proven as if fact. You are unable to look critically at the Catholic Church taking everything it says about itself as a given. You must understand that in many eyes The CC has not proven its claims.

All I know is Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church. I am loyal to Christ as well as his defender of the church. Everything else comes second. The only eyes the CC has not proven its claims are the eyes of non-Catholics, who only have the half truth while we have the whole truth.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Apostolic Succession:

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

The apostles are commanded to make disciples of all nations, all people in the world. In order for Jesus’ command to make sense, it has to apply to those who took the place of the apostles. Unless those people had the same authority as was given to the apostles, or how else could they make disciples of all nations? The apostles and their authority live on through their successors.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

Apostles were not only appointed for the first century church. The Church is still with us, therefore there must still be apostles in the Church, and those apostles must still have the apostolic authority that the original apostles were entrusted with.

Matthew 28:20 - How could Jesus be with the apostles to the end of the age if the apostles did not live until the end of the age? They were all dead within 60-70 years after Christ. BUT their successors lived and will live through the end of the age. The mission of the apostles is a teaching mission. Therefore the mission of the Church is also a teaching mission. Jesus did NOT say, “Go and write the Scriptures and let everyone read them and decide for themselves what is true.” He said “Go and teach all that I have commanded you.”

In Acts 1:15-26 Peter states the necessity of replacing Judas Iscariot, of having another take his office. The apostles held the office of Bishop.

I Timothy 3:1 - Faithful is the saying, If a man seeks the office of a bishop, he desires a good work.

If an office holder dies, another should always be appointed to fill the office - that’s how succession works - you can’t have a vacant office. If the President dies, we immediately get a new one sworn in. When each apostle died, another was appointed to take their office. The appointed or ordained other Bishops as well, they created new offices as the Church grew.

I Timothy 1:18 - This command I entrust to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you fight the good fight, 19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.

Paul is passing on authority as a father passes on authority to his son - an inheritance that would one day be passed on to Timothy’s successors.

Paul writes to others in regards to how they are to receive Timothy:

1 Corinthians 4:17 - For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church.

Timothy was sent with the full authority of Paul. Paul passed on authority as a rule of faith - the authority Jesus gave to Paul did not die with Paul, Paul passed it on and expected his successors to do the same. Paul expected Christians to obey these men who received this authority.

2 Timothy 1:13-14 Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 14 Guard the truth which has been entrusted to you, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, .

2 Timothy 2:2 The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Timothy is to ordain others as he himself has been ordained. From Paul, to Timothy, to faithful men, to others also - four generations of apostolic succession in one passage of Scripture.

Titus 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you

Titus is appointing or ordaining bishops. He has been given authority and is likewise ordaining others with the same authority. This includes the authority to teach, the mission of the church.

I Timothy 1:3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

I Timothy 4:11-13 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation(preaching), to teaching.

Timothy and Titus are told to command and teach, to charge others NOT to teach different doctrine, appoint elders, and guard the deposit of faith and pass it on to others.

How was authority passed on from the apostles to their successors?

2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands

I Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.

This authority from Paul to the elders or Bishops was passed on by a ceremonial laying on of hands. That’s exactly what is done and has been done for the last 2000 years. Apostles, as Fathers, pass on their teaching and their teaching authority that they received from Christ. It is only through Christ’s authority that the successors have authority. He also gave Timothy the authority to lay on hands - to ordain others. Only a Bishop has this authority.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

How does this lead to the office of Pope?

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. As a bishop he is a successor of the apostles, with all the authority. But the Pope is not just the successor of ANY apostle, but a successor of Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. Why is that important?

Matthew 16:15-19 He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Keys are a symbol of authority. Jesus gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. After Peter died, the Keys did not disappear - he passed them on to his successor and they are held today by Pope Benedict XVI.

Isaiah 22:20-23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: 21 and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government(authority) into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. 22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Authority is symbolized by keys. He is over the house of David. What is the NT “house of David”? The Church! In the OT, the Prime Minister held the keys to the kingdom, on the king’s behalf. In the NT the King, Jesus, is in Heaven. Did he leave someone to act on his behalf? Yes! Peter and his successors.

Jesus also says the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. If Peter or any of his successors have taught error, leading the entire church into error, wouldn’t that mean that Hell HAD prevailed against it? Jesus promised that it would not. Peter also has his name changed, to Rock. Built on the Rock of Peter. This is not Peter’s confession of faith that is the rock – that doesn’t make grammatical sense. The Aramaic word for Rock is Kepha. Jesus said “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church.”

Peter received special inspiration from God the Father to know what he knew about Jesus. If God can do that with Peter, can he not also do that with Peter’s successors? Many non-Catholics say Peter did not have a special place among the apostles, yet we see in Matt 16, he was given the keys to the kingdom. NO OTHER apostle was accorded this honor.

John 21:15-17 …Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Tend my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Who is it that feeds and tends sheep? The shepherd! Jesus is appointing Peter to shepherd His flock in His absence.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.

Christ is THE Shepherd, but Peter stands in Christ’s place on earth. Peter’s name is mentioned 160+ times in the NT, all the other apostles together add up to around 95. It’s a measure of importance in the ancient writer’s eyes. Peter is always the first to act.

Peter said Judas should be replaced.
Peter said the Gospel should be preached to the Gentiles.
Peter was the one who walked on water.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

And finally:

Luke 22:31-32 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) as wheat: 32 but I made supplication for thee (singular), that thy(singular) faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou (singular) hast turned again, establish (strengthen) thy brethren.

Jesus prays specifically for Peter to strengthen the brethren. Jesus prays specifically that Peter’s faith may not fail. Peter is put in a position of primacy. He was made the Prime Minister of God’s Kingdom on earth. That’s what the Pope does. He holds the keys to the Kingdom, teaches with authority, strengthens his brethren - the other Bishops, and all of God’s people. Whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven, whatever he looses on earth is loosed in heaven. This binding and loosing is directly related to his authority to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals.

2 Peter 1:12 Wherefore I shall be ready always to put you in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and are established in the truth which is with you. 13 And I think it right, as long as I am in this body to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 knowing that the putting off of my body cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me. 15 Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my death to call these things to remembrance.

Peter promises that Christians will ALWAYS be able to remember what he taught.

John 21:18-19 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. 19 Now this he spake, signifying by what manner of death he (Peter) should glorify God.

The Lord showed Peter how he would die. In 2 Peter, Peter talks about his death “as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me”

Peter was making sure the flock was always fed and tended. What did Peter do to fulfill his promise in 2 Peter 1:15? Peter did as Christ did, and appointed a shepherd to feed and tend the flock after his passing. Would the Lord leave the sheep without a shepherd after Peter died?

The Church MUST be able to teach the truth at all times in all places. If the Church is not protected from teaching error, then God’s people have no trustworthy foundation for their faith. They cannot turn to the Bible, because the trustworthiness of the Bible depends completely on the trustworthiness of the Church.

 

[mercygate]

If I accept all that the CC teaches on Matt 16 which I do not, how did we get there from here?
How does the bishop at Rome evolve into the whole Vatican structure and dogma of the Papacy that we have today?

How did the Church evolve into a world-wide Communion of over 1 billion souls?

You confuse the practical administrative and institutional structure with the Petrine charism to be the chief Shepherd of the flock.

The Scriptural references to Peter’s unique position have already been shown. “Strengthen your brethren,” “Feed my sheep,” “Tend my lambs,” “Feed my sheep.” “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church.” (IOW: “My” church will be found where Peter is found: not without Peter.) Apostolic succession is shown throughout the Acts of the Apostles, starting with Matthias, but begins with Christ’s breathing on the Apostles in John 20: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained. . . . Then at the Great Commission these Eleven are sent to teach [again: not *without Peter].

The exact shape of Petrine primacy and how it would mature as the Church confronted the vicissitudes of history evolved over time. That the barque of Peter has survived for two thousand years is a testimony to the Divine protection Jesus promised to her in Mt. 20.

Remember, in Luke 5, Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat. I know that’s almost a throwaway verse, but it sure caught my attention when I was struggling with the issue of Petrine primacy.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

How did the Church evolve into a world-wide Communion of over 1 billion souls?

You confuse the practical administrative and institutional structure with the Petrine charism to be the chief Shepherd of the flock.

The Scriptural references to Peter’s unique position have already been shown. “Strengthen your brethren,” “Feed my sheep,” “Tend my lambs,” “Feed my sheep.” “You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church.” (IOW: “My” church will be found where Peter is found: not without Peter.) Apostolic succession is shown throughout the Acts of the Apostles, starting with Matthias, but begins with Christ’s breathing on the Apostles in John 20: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained. . . . Then at the Great Commission these Eleven are sent to teach [again: not *without

Peter].

The exact shape of Petrine primacy and how it would mature as the Church confronted the vicissitudes of history evolved over time. That the barque of Peter has survived for two thousand years is a testimony to the Divine protection Jesus promised to her in Mt. 20.

Remember, in Luke 5, Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat. I know that’s almost a throwaway verse, but it sure caught my attention when I was struggling with the issue of Petrine primacy.

Love your signature.

 

[ryanoneil]

It would be inaccurate to factually state that Peter was the 1st Bishop of Rome or even that the first Bishops of Rome had primacy.

Have you ever read Clement’s letter to the Corinthian Church? Clement makes it clear in his letter that Rome is the instructor of the other churches. This is a powerful witness of the early primacy that Rome had among the churches.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

**“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96). **

Why do you think the Corinthian church appealed to Rome to rosolve their disputes?

Why didn’t they appeal to John the Evangelist who was still living on the island of Patmos?

 

[BDawg]

Snow, perhaps you would like to read something more recent than the old Encyclopedia and more authoratitive (for Catholics, ie what we believe) than Jean-M.R. Tillard?

Give Lumen Gentium a read.

Rebecca, you are not understanding Snow. “Monoepiscopacy” implies that there is a single bishop (Greek episcopos = “overseer”) per see. The general scholarly consensus, even among Catholics, is that there probably was not a monoepiscopacy in Rome until late in the second century.

As for the church as a whole, Lumen Gentium says that the bishops are a college of equals, but that the bishop of Rome has primacy over them.

So there are two issues here.

1. Was there even a single “bishop” of Rome before the mid-second century?
2. Was the bishop of Rome recognized as the successor of Peter at this early date.

 

[BDawg]

All I know is Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church. I am loyal to Christ as well as his defender of the church. Everything else comes second. The only eyes the CC has not proven its claims are the eyes of non-Catholics, who only have the half truth while we have the whole truth.

If you “defend” the Catholic church by making ridiculous and obviously false arguments, then you are not really defending it. You are harming it. That’s what HisAlone is trying to tell you.

 

[BDawg]

Have you ever read Clement’s letter to the Corinthian Church? Clement makes it clear in his letter that Rome is the instructor of the other churches. This is a powerful witness of the early primacy that Rome had among the churches.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html

**“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96). **

Why do you think the Corinthian church appealed to Rome to rosolve their disputes?

Why didn’t they appeal to John the Evangelist who was still living on the island of Patmos?

In 1 Clement, the author is never identified, except as the Church at Rome. So, if you happen to live in Rome, does that give you some kind of special authority if you are a Catholic? No, only the Bishop of Rome has this authority.

The way the authorship is stated is actually one of the reasons scholars generally believe that there was no monoepiscopacy in Rome at that time.

If Clement had been writing this as the Bishop of Rome, wouldn’t he have 1) identified, and 2) asserted his authority as Peter’s successor? And yet, he doesn’t. He only claims the authority of the Holy Spirit, which anyone can receive.

The issue was that the Corinthians were kicking out their regularly appointed leaders. Clement and the rest of the Roman presbyters felt that the Holy Spirit was prompting them to tell the Corinthians that they had no right to do this. They said what they thought the Holy Spirit wanted them to say, and threatened dire consequences if the Corinthians didn’t obey the Holy Spirit.

Consider also the Shepherd of Hermas, an early second century document written by a Roman Christian who wasn’t any kind of bishop or presbyter. And yet, he was given a strong prophetic message that the churches better shape up, or they would be rejected. Does that mean Hermas was claiming to be Pope? Of course not. If he had thought he had any authority from Peter, he would have said so.

Anyway, thank you for posting this. It is much more germane to the discussion than some of the stuff people have posted.

 

[BDawg]

Why do you think the Corinthian church appealed to Rome to rosolve their disputes?

Why didn’t they appeal to John the Evangelist who was still living on the island of Patmos?

Sorry, I forgot to directly address your last two questions.

Where do you get the idea that the Corinthians appealed to anybody? 1 Clement, if I remember correctly, never gives the impression that the Corinthians were taking their case to Rome for judgment. The Romans were just trying to step in and help resolve a crisis in Corinth.

As for John, he was on Patmos because he was exiled, you know. Maybe he wasn’t that accessible?

 

[mercygate]

Sorry, I forgot to directly address your last two questions.

Where do you get the idea that the Corinthians appealed to anybody? 1 Clement, if I remember correctly, never gives the impression that the Corinthians were taking their case to Rome for judgment. The Romans were just trying to step in and help resolve a crisis in Corinth.

As for John, he was on Patmos because he was exiled, you know. Maybe he wasn’t that accessible?

I believe in the first letter Clement apologizes for taking a long time to respond to the Corinthian church. The expectation of a response would mean that they had solicited his intervention. Patmos was not harder to reach than Rome.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

If you “defend” the Catholic church by making ridiculous and obviously false arguments, then you are not really defending it. You are harming it. That’s what HisAlone is trying to tell you.

Then you are calling Jesus Christ ridiculous, and you are calling him a liar. Jesus established the Catholic church. Why can’t you see this? And I don’t seem to care what Hisalone thinks of me, he needs to look to his own soul.

 

[ryanoneil]

In 1 Clement, the author is never identified, except as the Church at Rome. So, if you happen to live in Rome, does that give you some kind of special authority if you are a Catholic? No, only the Bishop of Rome has this authority.

The way the authorship is stated is actually one of the reasons scholars generally believe that there was no monoepiscopacy in Rome at that time.

If Clement had been writing this as the Bishop of Rome, wouldn’t he have 1) identified, and 2) asserted his authority as Peter’s successor? And yet, he doesn’t. He only claims the authority of the Holy Spirit, which anyone can receive.

I am no expert in this area so I can’t respond very eloquently. I thought the judgment of most scholars is that it is an authentic production Clement.

Is there any reason we shouldn’t believe Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., iii. 15), and Origen (Comm. in Joan., i. 29) who say Clement was the author?

I don’t know why he didn’t do 1) and 2). How can he rightfully claim the authority of the Holy Spirit?

Would it be strange to meet in council, and send a brotherly delegation?

The issue was that the Corinthians were kicking out their regularly appointed leaders. Clement and the rest of the Roman presbyters felt that the Holy Spirit was prompting them to tell the Corinthians that they had no right to do this. They said what they thought the Holy Spirit wanted them to say, and threatened dire consequences if the Corinthians didn’t obey the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry. I think I’m missing something you are trying to say.

By what authority do you think they speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit and threatening dire consequences?

Where do you get the idea that the Corinthians appealed to anybody? 1 Clement, if I remember correctly, never gives the impression that the Corinthians were taking their case to Rome for judgment. The Romans were just trying to step in and help resolve a crisis in Corinth.

Well, someone brought it to Rome’s attention. Do you see a difference between trying to help resolve a crisis and threatening dire consequences?

As for John, he was on Patmos because he was exiled, you know. Maybe he wasn’t that accessible?

I tend to agree with mercygate, but I’m no expert.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, you are not understanding Snow. “Monoepiscopacy” implies that there is a single bishop (Greek episcopos = “overseer”) per see. The general scholarly consensus, even among Catholics, is that there probably was not a monoepiscopacy in Rome until late in the second century.

As for the church as a whole, Lumen Gentium says that the bishops are a college of equals, but that the bishop of Rome has primacy over them.

Which has clearly been shown to be the same arrangements in the NT. Peter had primacy over the other Apostles, and also the presbyters (bishops).

So there are two issues here.

1. Was there even a single “bishop” of Rome before the mid-second century?

The Catholic Church recognizes that the Church in Rome was founded by both Peter and Paul. However, as has already been shown, Peter held primacy. Every Church had a Bishop, an overseer, I don’t know why Mormons, or anyone else, would believe that Rome was an exception. And if Rome held two bishops, that is not unusual. Even today there are diocese with more than one Bishop. But it is always clear, one is subject to the other, while they are equal in their capacity over their diocese.

1. Was the bishop of Rome recognized as the successor of Peter at this early date.

The first Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the 1st century, shows that the Church in Rome held primacy over the other Churches. There is no reason to believe that Clement started a new tradition, as evident by every writing we have that the Apostles passed on their responsibilities to the Bishops. Why would Peter be an exception to this practice? And since Peter’s responsibility was that as first among equals, his successor would also have that responsibility.

 

[BDawg]

I believe in the first letter Clement apologizes for taking a long time to respond to the Corinthian church. The expectation of a response would mean that they had solicited his intervention. Patmos was not harder to reach than Rome.

You’re right. My apologies.

 

[BDawg]

Then you are calling Jesus Christ ridiculous, and you are calling him a liar. Jesus established the Catholic church. Why can’t you see this? And I don’t seem to care what Hisalone thinks of me, he needs to look to his own soul.

No, I’m calling your arguments ridiculous, and an embarrassment to Catholicism. Take some notes from mercygate and ryanoneil, who are trying to conduct a rational conversation.

 

[BDawg]

I am no expert in this area so I can’t respond very eloquently. I thought the judgment of most scholars is that it is an authentic production Clement.

That’s true. But he never identifies himself, never claims to hold Peter’s authority, never claims to be the sole bishop, never mentions anything that really has a direct bearing on the question of the Papacy.

I don’t know why he didn’t do 1) and 2). How can he rightfully claim the authority of the Holy Spirit?

How did Hermas claim the authority to tell everyone to shape up? Whatever the reasoning, there were Roman Christians in that era who weren’t in any position of ecclesiastical authority, and did the same kind of thing the author(s) of 1 Clement did. This clearly undermines the usefulness of this passage in 1 Clement for legitimizing the Papacy.

Would it be strange to meet in council, and send a brotherly delegation?

Clement was clearly a person with a great reputation in the Church, so it does not seem too strange to ask for his (and his colleagues’) advice.

Well, someone brought it to Rome’s attention. Do you see a difference between trying to help resolve a crisis and threatening dire consequences?

I’m sorry, you were right about this. At least, it is clear that the Corinthians asked for the Romans’ advice. (The letter says as much.)

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

If you “defend” the Catholic church by making ridiculous and obviously false arguments, then you are not really defending it. You are harming it. That’s what HisAlone is trying to tell you.

Right here you say I defend the church with ridiculous and FALSE arguments. I only speak the truth and the truth is that Jesus Christ established his church with Peter. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church. This is what I’ve been saying, so to call me ridiculous with FALSE arguments when it was Christ who established the church, you are also saying Jesus Christ makes no sense.

 

[BDawg]

Right here you say I defend the church with ridiculous and FALSE arguments. I only speak the truth and the truth is that Jesus Christ established his church with Peter. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church. This is what I’ve been saying, so to call me ridiculous with FALSE arguments when it was Christ who established the church, you are also saying Jesus Christ makes no sense.

You may be arguing for the truth using bad (“FALSE”) arguments. For instance, I could say, “The Earth revolves around the Sun, because Play-Dough isn’t made of real clay!” The conclusion is true, but the argument has no bearing on the conclusion. It is a bad argument. A stupid argument. It would be an embarrassment to others who believe the Earth revolves around the Sun.