Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[BDawg]

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?

That’s correct.

 

[BDawg]

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.

Agreed.

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).

That’s the scholarly consensus. On the other hand, my opinion is that there probably were many places with a monoepiscopacy early on. Somebody has to have the final word–even the Orthodox and Anglicans implicitly admit this point because they all appoint Archbishops, Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and so on.

On the other hand (or foot, by now), this is what makes it so surprising that there was such a power vacuum in the second century. It wasn’t as if it were a big love-fest going on. Gnostic teachers were coming out of the woodwork, the Monarchians and Marcionites were popular in some quarters. Irenaeus’s *Against Heresies *is a pretty big work.

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.

I agree.

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.

In context, this is part of a larger argument that gnostic teachers can’t go around saying they have some secret revelation that Apostles received, but didn’t tell anyone about. If they were going to hand on secret traditions, they would have done so to the bishops they appointed. So, the argument goes, we should look to the churches the Apostles founded, and that have had an unbroken line of bishops.

Irenaeus gives several examples of Apostolic churches, but uses Rome as the prime example. Why? It was clearly founded in the Apostolic period, and they had record of BOTH Peter and Paul–the Chief Apostle and the Apostle to the Gentiles–taking part in that.

So while I do think that Irenaeus is a good source to show that the Church at Rome was very highly regarded, even among the Apostolic churches, what he doesn’t say speaks volumes. He DOESN’T say that the bishop of Rome holds the “chair of Peter,” or that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. There is no mention at all about the bishop of Rome having any special authority, except in the context of the argument that it’s more likely that he would have carried on unblemished traditions from the Apostles.

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.”

Thank you for bringing up this line of reasoning–I think guanophore mentioned it, too. This is a responsible way to rationalize the legitimacy of the Papacy, without doing violence to the historical record. I was getting a little tired of the posters who don’t have a clue how to make a historical argument, so you are a breath of fresh air!

Honestly, I recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the Papacy. I might launch counter-arguments about some point, but I don’t think you’re being unreasonable.

 

[BDawg]

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

No problem. Honestly, I would become a Catholic before I would become any kind of other Christian. I have a problem, sometimes, with how Catholics in general behave, but then to be fair, maybe it isn’t reasonable to expect any more from an organization so enormous. It’s hard to have anything that big without quite a few “salad bar” Catholics, if you know what I mean. On the other hand, I think you have better arguments for authority than any of the others.

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.)

Mormons buy into all that. We think Peter held the keys (jointly with the other apostles, but he was the head,) but due to apostasy, and God’s wisdom in dealing with his children the way they are, John (Peter’s successor, in our view) did not pass those keys on until more recently.

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.

Like I said to mercygate, I believe this was all done in the context of the argument for “Apostolic churches” being more likely to carry on unblemished traditions. Rome was always held up as the prime example, because it was founded by two of the greatest apostles. So when disagreements arose, they tried to get a consensus among the “Apostolic churches,” especially Rome. Add on a few legends about Peter passing the keys to the Bishop of Rome (that nobody mentioned before,) and you have yourself a Papacy. Really, it was inevitable that SOMEONE would have to be in charge, and Rome was certainly the most likely candidate.

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

I’ve probably read them, but if you want to post them for other participants, or lurkers, I have no objection. I would certainly read them and see if the argument I stated just above doesn’t work for your examples.

 

[BDawg]

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

No, but I think that if he held some kind of sole Papal power, he would have identified himself, and pointed out that authority.

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.

When historians talk about the development of the monoepiscopacy, they are talking about one bishop per geographic area.

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.

My point was that he clearly wasn’t the Pope, and yet claimed prophetic authority to call the Church to repentance. Supposing Clement was the bishop of Rome, I don’t see why his call to the Corinthians to repent means that he had the keys of Peter.

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

He was a good man, who was taught directly by the Apostles.

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

Certainly. And there is clear evidence from the New Testament that he was given the keys by Jesus. There is no such clear evidence for Linus, Clement, etc.

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?

No. See my post to mercygate.

 

[Shlomey]

Let me throw in a couple of link

These are videos, not texts, so no need for reading!

Biblical Proof for the Supremacy of the Papacy(6 parts)
youtube.com/view_play_list?p=98980FA624357779

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for bringing up this line of reasoning–I think guanophore mentioned it, too. This is a responsible way to rationalize the legitimacy of the Papacy, without doing violence to the historical record. I was getting a little tired of the posters who don’t have a clue how to make a historical argument, so you are a breath of fresh air!

Honestly, I recognize that there are reasonable arguments for the Papacy. I might launch counter-arguments about some point, but I don’t think you’re being unreasonable.

Thank you. You are not unreasonable either.

I don’t see the legitimacy of the papacy as needing to be “rationalized.” We accept the notion of doctrinal development, which doesn’t meant that doctrne changes but rather that we come to understand things better as we live through history; we need to tighten our views and refine our thinking.

 

[BDawg]

Thank you. You are not unreasonable either.

I don’t see the legitimacy of the papacy as needing to be “rationalized.” We accept the notion of doctrinal development, which doesn’t meant that doctrne changes but rather that we come to understand things better as we live through history; we need to tighten our views and refine our thinking.

I didn’t mean “rationalized” in a negative sense. I just meant that it is a way to explain the Papacy in a way that makes some sense of the historical record, such as it is. So I meant “rationalize” = “make sense of”.

 

[PJM]

Rebecca has put together a decent case for the proposition that Peter was the first of the Apostles (even though there is some ambiguity, like James’ role at the council in Jerusalem), but where is the evidence that Peter was the first “bishop” of Rome? !

The “Bookends refuting this teaching are"On the Left side,” The very words of Jesus Himself, and 90 AD, while the Apostle John still lived the Church of Corinth “fired there bishop.” The letter of dismissal was issued by Pope St. Clement (4th Pope) in Rome, not from John. Also St. Ignatius (98-117) wrote a thesis affirming and confirming the Primacy of Peter. “The right side Bookend” includes the 4th Council of Chalcedon (451), The second Council of Lyons in 1274, and the First Vatican Council in 1869.

 

[mercygate]

I didn’t mean “rationalized” in a negative sense. I just meant that it is a way to explain the Papacy in a way that makes some sense of the historical record, such as it is. So I meant “rationalize” = “make sense of”.

Ah. Got it. And for what it’s worth, the Church is extremely cautious when taking steps that appear to go in a new direction and does her “rationalizing” well beforehand. It took almost 400 years to delineate the teaching on transubstantiation.

 

[avenger]

I linked the entire 15th chapter of Acts.

After much discussion, it is Peter who spoke up first, and led them. The first to speak in Jewish tradition of the time is the person in authority. Peter is the first to say, the Gentiles are saved by Jesus, the same as themselves.

James, as Bishop of Jerusalem, is leading the church in Jerusalem and so of course he put forth his judgment. But it was second to Peter.

Further into chapter 15 it is stated that all the apostles and presbyters were in agreement with the whole church. Peter, speaking first, James second. They sent the council’s decision by letter to Antioch.

That conclusion does not make sense. There is no indication James was second to Peter in this or any other scenario. Beside, if Peter was first, why wasnt he Bishop of Jerusalem, the most important community at the time?

 

[avenger]

It’s not too often that God changes somebody’s name.
I’d be curious to get your take on why Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (Cephas/Kephas).

michel

He did give a new name to James and John too.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That conclusion does not make sense. There is no indication James was second to Peter in this or any other scenario. Beside, if Peter was first, why wasnt he Bishop of Jerusalem, the most important community at the time?

What makes you believe the Church in Jerusalem was the most important?

 

[avenger]

What makes you believe the Church in Jerusalem was the most important?

What makes you believe it wasnt? Logic would certainly dictate that it was, since it was the place of the Church’s infancy. To say otherwise, in my opinion, would be nothing more than an attempt to justify why Peter wasnt in charge there.

 

[Snow]

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

Then perhaps you shouldn’t have chastised me for saying it.

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

You just made up the claim (out of context) out of thin air. You invented it,

I have the book right in front of me. PROVE IT.

note: I’ll expect your usual and customary practice of not backing up what you claim when challenged.

 

[Snow]

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?

Non-sequitur means it does not follow. Just because there were once apostles, it does not follow that there must be apostles not, or 300 years ago, etc.

There used to be prophets who saw God face to face. Do you believe there are such prophets now?

God used to reveal his word to authors who would write biblical scripture. Do you believe that God does so now?

God used to turn people into salt pillars and flood the earth with water. Has He done so recently?

Let’s look at it this way. There were twelve apostles. Who are th twelve apostles today?

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.

I apologize. I had trouble understanding which explanations went along with which scriptures. It wasn’t deliberate.

As to Judas, God also spoke of the necessity of not stealing yet His followers still steal. Yes, God wanted Judas replaced. I don’t think he wished the apostasy to happen. After the passing of the first general group of apostles, they stopped appointing replacements - not because God willed it, but because there was an apostasy.

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?

They died Pixie Dust. They died.

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 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.

I am familiar, somewhat, with the apologetic interpretation of Peter and primacy. I don’t find it convincing.

Are you familiar, not with the apologetic, but the scholarly take on it?

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”

Richard P.McBrien, Catholicism (classic text in Catholic universities) 1980, Winston Press p. 831

Father McBrien is the rowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and was the awarded the John Courtney Murray Award for outstanding and distinguished accomplishments in theology.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

"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"

Gabriel of 12
**You do know that the texts you mentioned above are quotes from Jesus himself establishing his church upon Peter, including handing on the keys (authority or primacy as you put it) of the kingdom of God.

As I can appreciate you bringing to this forum samples of your research, and I think everyone has been impressed with your “authors, and scholary research” but you haven’t proven anything from them, nor offer your personal witness to any of their content. What is the phrase you use? Blah, Blah, Blah. What you stated above goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Can you clarify how your opinion or others do not using the above Jesus quotes about building and handing his shared authority to Peter and his successors?

God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today and forever more. Here is a text of the prophecy about the Messiah (Jesus will establish his Kingdom, which will last forever and will never be destroyed, Nor pass away.

Isaiah9;6-7 For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. ****His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David’s throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains **By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

**Heres another; and this one Jesus fulfilled this prophecy from Daniel in Peter and his Catholic church.

Daniel 7;13
8 As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him,
14
He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed. **

Peace

 

[Snow]

"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"

Gabriel of 12
**You do know that the texts you mentioned above are quotes from Jesus himself establishing his church upon Peter, including handing on the keys (authority or primacy as you put it) of the kingdom of God.

As I can appreciate you bringing to this forum samples of your research, and I think everyone has been impressed with your “authors, and scholary research” but you haven’t proven anything from them, nor offer your personal witness to any of their content. What is the phrase you use? Blah, Blah, Blah.**

You can say blah, blah blah all you want but the quote above is from Father McBrien is the rowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and was the awarded the John Courtney Murray Award for outstanding and distinguished accomplishments in theology.

So who do ya trust? Some nameless guy on the internet or one of the nation’s leading Catholic scholars?

What you stated above goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ. Can you clarify how your opinion or others do not using the above Jesus quotes about building and handing his shared authority to Peter and his successors?

]

Nope. Not true. It simply goes against YOUR opinion of what the Bible says. No more, no less.

God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today and forever more. Here is a text of the prophecy about the Messiah (Jesus will establish his Kingdom, which will last forever and will never be destroyed, Nor pass away.

Isaiah9;6-7 For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.

**His dominion is vast and forever peaceful, From David’s throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains **By judgment and justice, both now and forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this!

Whatever. Try and stay on topic. This is about Peter and the Papacy.

**Heres another; and this one Jesus fulfilled this prophecy from Daniel in Peter and his Catholic church.

Daniel 7;13
8 As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him,
14
He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed. **

Peace

F O C U S

 

[Ecoclimber]

Clement of Rome [a.d. 30–100.]From the apostle, and his companion, St. Luke, he had no doubt learned the use of the Septuagint, in which his knowledge of the Greek tongue soon rendered him an adept.A co-presbyter with Linus and Cletus, he succeeded them in the government of the Roman Church.
But in the catalogue of contents prefixed to the ms. they are both plainly attributed to one Clement; and the judgment of most scholars is, that, in regard to the first Epistle at least, this statement is correct, and that it is to be regarded as an authentic production of the friend and fellow-worker of St. Paul. The Princeton Review, 1877, p. 325, also in Bishop Wordsworth’s succinct but learned Church History to the Council of Nicæa, p. 84. The invaluable edition of the Patres Apostolici, by Jacobson (Oxford, 1840),

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. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor.

Irenaeus against Heresies
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of 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 pre- eminent authority that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;4421626:

You can say blah, blah blah all you want but the quote above is from Father McBrien is the rowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and was the awarded the John Courtney Murray Award for outstanding and distinguished accomplishments in theology.

Gabriel;
Ok, I am going to buy in this little gammet your drawing. What is it that Father McBrien has got you so convinced that the quotes from Jesus and the old testament prophets deny Jesus building his kingdom upon Peter? Can you make sure these are facts that disprove Jesus teachings, and not opinions. Because if this is true, maybe we should make you and Father McBrien Pope?

So who do ya trust? Some nameless guy on the internet or one of the nation’s leading Catholic scholars?

Gabriel:
Honestly, Neither? nor should you. Place your trust in Jesus first. then if the former agrees with the teachings of Jesus, then I will give heed to his interpretation. If it conflicts with the teachings of Jesus, R.U. N.N O.F.T.

I can appreciate your insults and candor, but your focus statements appears to me, that the topic is to dangerous for you to handle, or your just not getting it. never the less good night.

Peace be with you

 

[mercygate]

He did give a new name to James and John too.

But it didn’t stick. They are never referred to as “Boanerges” – and that name really is to their father.