Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[OneTrueCathApos]

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.

So it is an embarrassing argument about Christ and his church?

 

[O.S.Luke]

You are one thickheaded dude, OneFalseCathApos. Do you get ANYTHING?

 

[ryanoneil]

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.

If everyone understood the primacy of Peter’s office passed through apostolic succession would there be any need for Clement to declare authority?

I believe primacy is the issue, not sole bishop. Clearly Peter and Paul were in Rome. Just like there are two bishops in my Archdiocese.

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.

What can I say? Bishops (office of the episcopate) are recognized as having authority all throughout biblical and non-biblical text.

*“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96). *

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.

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.)

No problem. Perhaps the Corinthian were asking for an authoritative judgment, because the matter wasn’t being resolved internally.

What would you think, if it could be proved that the primacy of Peter passed through apostolic succession?

 

[Snow]

Look how smart you are! All the “Pope is the Bishop of Rome”.

Did you forget what you said?

quote: “a monoepiscopal leader over the Church”

I said, perhaps you don’t understand the role of the Pope, he is not the monoepiscopal leader of the Church.

I’ll speak as slowly as I can.

The Bishop of Rome is a monoepiscopal leader… mono meaning one; episcopal relating to bishop.

The Bishop of Rome is the Pope.

The Pope is, therefore, the monoepiscopal leader of the Church at Rome.

Ergo, the Pope is a monoepiscopal leader and is a leader of the whole Church.

You’re not a math major are you.

 

[Snow]

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.

If you don’t believe that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, that’s fine with me, though you might want to check out article 22 of your link.

While we are on the topic of reading things - I just ran across this (below) in Catholicism, volume II, page 831. (classic textbook in Catholic universities)

Of Peter:

“The terms primacy and jurisdiction are best avoided when describing Peter’s role in the New Testament. They reflect a post-biblical development.”

“Whether he actually served the church of Rome as Bishop cannot be know though the evidence at hand, And from the New Testament record alone we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter though subsequent bishops of Rome.”

“No single texts or series of texts “proves” proves the primacy of Peter in the New Testament, not even the classic texts: Matthew 16:13-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19”

 

[Snow]

I’ll comment on a few:

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.

That’s a logical fallacy - a non-sequitar.

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.

There is no historical evidence that apostles held the role of bishop. On the other hand, the apostles were apostles.

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.

The verse you cited says nothing about all about what you assert, that when an apostle died, another was appointed to take his place.

What we do know is that there the apostles disappeared.

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.

The verse you posted says nothing about your assertion.

I look at the rest but off hand I just don’t see much relevance.

 

[RebeccaJ]

If you don’t believe that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, that’s fine with me, though you might want to check out article 22 of your link.

hello. Yes, I know the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

While we are on the topic of reading things - I just ran across this (below) in Catholicism, volume II, page 831. (classic textbook in Catholic universities)

Of Peter:

“The terms primacy and jurisdiction are best avoided when describing Peter’s role in the New Testament. They reflect a post-biblical development.”

“Whether he actually served the church of Rome as Bishop cannot be know though the evidence at hand, And from the New Testament record alone we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter though subsequent bishops of Rome.”

“No single texts or series of texts “proves” proves the primacy of Peter in the New Testament, not even the classic texts: Matthew 16:13-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19”

Since Mormons are known here to take quotes wildly out of context, I’ll assume this is what you have done.

 

[BDawg]

What would you think, if it could be proved that the primacy of Peter passed through apostolic succession?

I would become a Catholic. I’ve read a number of books by Catholics arguing this point, however, and I don’t think there’s hope for that at this point. Nobody started claiming this for the Roman bishops until the third century, and then these claims were largely ignored in the East. The traditions about Peter in Rome clearly developed over time.

Honestly, I just don’t see why nobody would explicitly mention this power transfer until so late, if it really happened.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I’ll comment on a few:
my durn self:

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.

That’s a logical fallacy - a non-sequitar.

non se⋅qui⋅tur
   /nɒn ˈsɛkwɪtər, -ˌtʊər; Lat. noʊn ˈsɛkwɪˌtʊər/
–noun

1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

Scripture clearly says that God appointed apostles in the Church. We still have the Church, so we must still have apostles. What about this is a non-sequitur?

There is no historical evidence that apostles held the role of bishop. On the other hand, the apostles were apostles.

There is plenty of *Scriptural *evidence. Is Scripture a work of fiction?

The verse you cited says nothing about all about what you assert, that when an apostle died, another was appointed to take his place

. You split up my Scripture quotes from my commentary to make it appear so, but this comment went along with the passage in Acts 1:15-26, where Peter states the necessity of replacing Judas Iscariot, who had died, of having another take his office.

What we do know is that there the apostles disappeared.

The apostles disappeared where? How do you know this? I didn’t know that! I thought they were busy for the rest of their lives passing on the teachings of Christ so that His message of redeeming Grace would reach the whole world! Disappeared, eh? Was it like a David Copperfield kind of thing, or what?

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.

The verse you posted says nothing about your assertion.

Once again you are picking out singular verses instead of looking at the other verses that go with this comment. Catholics don’t just find singular verses to support the Church’s teachings, Church teachings were in place for a good 30 or more years before the first NT epistle was ever written!

I look at the rest but off hand I just don’t see much relevance.

I submit that perhaps you don’t want to see the Scriptural evidence for the Primacy of Peter in the early Church, and Apostolic Succession? Don’t just read it off-hand, get the MP3 (it’s FREE! ) from the Bible Christian Society (I posted the condensed version of my notes from his talk on Apostolic Authority) and listen to it with your heart and your Bible opened up.

 

[palakerala2008]

Bishop of Antioch was the superior and seniormost of all the bishops in the first 3 centuries.
All the known parts and civilised parts of the world were under the bishop of Antioch in the first centuries afer our lord.
He was regarded as the succesor of Peter.
The problems were created when emperor gave the title patriarch to bishop of Constantinople in AD381. He was given the title ecumenical patriarch to put him above the three patriarchs.
As a result of all these, bishop of Rome in AD451 (council of chalcedon) declared that he is in the seat of Peter. Unfortunately, the then patriarch of Antioch accepted that statement inorder to avoid the problems created by Emperor and Constantinople. After that a many chalcedonians (those who accept the decree of Chalcedon) were appointed as patriarchs of Antioch.
But the syriac orthodox patriarch of antioch never accepted that fact. Before that st severus of antioch was deposed and exiled. In the 6th century onwards, syriac orthodox patriarchate of Antioch was formed which never accepted the Pope’s supremacy. But Greek orthodox patriarchate of antioch accepts pope in the seat of Peter. The patriarchate of constantinople, Roman church, Greek orthodox patriarchate of antioch were one up to 12 the century.
All those documents which claim the supremacy of Rome are fake documents created during the reign of Charlemagne, the barbarian ruler who saved Rome and Europe from muslims. They created a lot of fake documents proclaiming that Pope got his powers from peter and emperor constantine in 3rd century have given a lot of powers to pope. Now the Roman Catholic church persons are proclaiming these things. In the midieval period during colonisation, the missionaries proclaimed these facts. as a result those areas which were under other churches were forcefully joined with Rome.

 

[cazayoux]

I would become a Catholic. I’ve read a number of books by Catholics arguing this point, however, and I don’t think there’s hope for that at this point. Nobody started claiming this for the Roman bishops until the third century, and then these claims were largely ignored in the East. The traditions about Peter in Rome clearly developed over time.

Honestly, I just don’t see why nobody would explicitly mention this power transfer until so late, if it really happened.

So, if I read between the lines correctly, you believe that by the 3rd century, Jesus’ Church had failed and there was no longer Christ-given authority left on earth.

??

michel

 

[BDawg]

So, if I read between the lines correctly, you believe that by the 3rd century, Jesus’ Church had failed and there was no longer Christ-given authority left on earth.

At least on that side of the world. It lasted a little longer in Mesoamerica, according to Mormon belief.

 

[guanophore]

I commend you for all your research. You are certainly highly motivated.

1. “As to worldwide jurisdiction, did it ever cross Peter’s mind when preached to his little flock at Antioch or Rome that he had command over the whole Church? Such an idea had to wait until Christianity was integrated into the Roman Empire. Even then it took time for the papacy to grow to the stature that made such pretension plausible… So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter.” Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ. Crown Publishers, 1988, p25

I agree with all of this except the use of the word “pretension”. From reading his letters, and from the gospel accounts, Peter became more and more humble as he grew with Christ. Presumption and pretense is not evident anywhere, except when He is making infallible proclamations.

It is quite true that it took time for the papacy to grow. Even the Apostles had trouble asserting the authority that was given to them during their lifetimes. The testimony of the early fathers is that power struggles continued.

1. “That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today)for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him,

I agree with this too. Just as a tree is unrecognizable from it’s seed, the office of bishop has necesarily grown with the Church. The “church” at Rome had it’s birth in Jerusalem at Peter’s preaching on Pentecost. Pilgrims who had a minimum of instruction returned there after the feast. No doubt many Christains travelled through there before the city received any bona fide Apostolic instruction. Paul’s letter testifies to this. It is likely that Peter and Paul were there laboring together to build up the Church for less than three years.

1. “Well if Peter alone of the Twelve left Jerusalem, can the claim of succession be derived from him as bishop of Rome?

Who claims that he was the only Apostle who left? This is contrary to all the historical evidence, which shows that all of them left but James, who was martryred there.

“Peter never served as the bishops or local administrator of any church. Anitioch and Rome included.” Gary Wills, Papal Sin, Doubleday 2000 p158 - Wills quotes Raymond E. Brown, SS., Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church, Paulist Press, 1975, p70.

I think this is also accurate. I think all of the Apostles considered themselves sent to the “whole world”, and although exercised authority over the churches, did not consider that they would be available to remain and shepherd them. This is one reason that bishopss were appointed, so that when the Apostles moved on, there would be leadership. I am sure it became also increasingly clear that being an Apostle was a very dangerous profession.

The author discusses at length Peter’s extra-biblical activities in depth including details of Peter’s supposed years in Rome without a single citation nor without mentioning, as do the 12 sources cited above, that there is no historical record of it for over a hundred plus years later.

Are you one of those that believes that Peter was never in Rome? I thought we got passed that one?

 

[PJM]

Hi folks.

Faith aside, it might be worthwhile to explore the evidence. Some in this forum have claimed that there historical proof that the line of popes - apostolic succession extends right back to Peter. Personally, I don’t think so.

Would anyone care to review the facts or post the evidence?

I’d also be interested in exploring the case for Peter’s primacy in the New Testament.

Reply: dear friend in Christ, good post, please stay with us

Read the following two post and feel free to respondlease read it “word by word” not a verse at a time, thanks!

Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?

Matt. 16:13-19

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to.

Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?

Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!”

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.

God’s Bless,
PJM m.c.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Maybe we should be looking at Matt. 16?

I think the question of how we got from there to here is quite legitimate.

The assumption is wrong, though. The fact that Peter and Paul were both in Rome, laboring as Apostles, does not equate to either being the bishop of Rome. In fact, if they were both imprisoned as the record indicates, it would be much more practical for them to ordain someone NOT imprisoned to the bishopric.

 

[cazayoux]

At least on that side of the world. It lasted a little longer in Mesoamerica, according to Mormon belief.

So on that side of the world, when the Catholic bishops clarified the teaching that Jesus is God incarnate and the trinity and gave us the Nicene Creed, this was a council that had not Christ-given authority and the teachings are wrong?
At this point in 325, you cannot trust the teachings of the Catholic Bishops as authoritative?

 

[mercygate]

You’re right. My apologies.

No harm. No foul. :tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

I would become a Catholic. I’ve read a number of books by Catholics arguing this point, however, and I don’t think there’s hope for that at this point. Nobody started claiming this for the Roman bishops until the third century, and then these claims were largely ignored in the East. The traditions about Peter in Rome clearly developed over time.

Honestly, I just don’t see why nobody would explicitly mention this power transfer until so late, if it really happened.

It is clear from history that both the full sacramental understanding of Holy Orders and the administrative structure of the episcopacy developed as the Church grew.

In the New Testament we see dimly the growing distinction between “the elders” of a congregaton and “the number one elder around here” (the bishop).

Since there is more evidence that Peter WAS in Rome than that he was NOT, I believe the Tradition carries the point. Since the Scriptures demonstrate Peter’s position among the Apostles, I believe Tradition carries the point.

By 180 A.D., Irenaeus refers to the See at Rome as "the very great, the very ancient, and 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. 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 apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

One need not see the full-blown and developed mediaeval papacy to see that the enterprise that bears the mark of what Christ Himself promised to build as “His” church is the Church that is “not without Peter.”

 

[ryanoneil]

I would become a Catholic. I’ve read a number of books by Catholics arguing this point, however, and I don’t think there’s hope for that at this point. Nobody started claiming this for the Roman bishops until the third century, and then these claims were largely ignored in the East. The traditions about Peter in Rome clearly developed over time.

Honestly, I just don’t see why nobody would explicitly mention this power transfer until so late, if it really happened.

Even though you don’t think there is hope, humor me.

What about the words of Christ. I’m sure someone has mentioned Isaiah 22:15,19-22 and “keys” being used to descibe dynastic succession to the Davidic kingdom. (a regent runs the affairs of the king while he is gone, which includes successors to the office until the king returns.)

I guess what I’m saying is, it was explicitly mentioned by Christ and the apostles in the Bible, and was common knowledge. (Peters primacy and apostolic succession any way) Now obviously we interpret the Bible differently in many ways, which explains our diffence of opinion.

As far as Roman bishops after Peter, I would argue that there is plenty of non-explicit writing if you know what you are looking for. There are many examples of eastern Churches appealing to Rome for judgments on their behalf. I’ve also heard it argued that you don’t see explicit extra-biblical writing about it until the accepted belief is seriously challenged. At that point plenty is said in defense.

If you think it would make a difference, I’ll try to find the books with the evidence.

 

[guanophore]

That’s true. But he never identifies himself,

You mean, you think he did not know who he was?

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.

there is no such thing as a “sole bishop”. The office of the bishop has been plural since the beginning. there have always been multiple bishops. As the Church developed, they were spread out over various geographical areas.

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.

Catholic letters (those written to the Church at large) are written within the Apostolic Authority. Hermas was not writing on his own, outside of the Sacred Tradition.

Of course there were Christians over all the world that were not in any position of eclesiastical authority. I would say that describes the majority of the Christians.

The fact that others were writing, either legitamately or not, has no bearing on the role of Clement as the successor of Peter.

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.

How do you suppose he came by his “reputation”?

Do you think Peter is a person who had a “great reputation in the Church”?

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.)

Why would they do that, do you think? Do you reject the early historical evidence that Rome was considered outstanding among the Churches because of the labors of Peter and Paul?