Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Radical]

Hello Irish Polock…From your last effort I can only conclude that you do not understand the consensus that Sullivan asserted. First, it it is a consensus among scholars that exists today…Quoting Phillip Schaff, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), James T. Shotwell etc. does little to address the current consensus…they may be of some use in determining the consensus that existed a century ago. Second, here again is the consensus as described by Sullivan:

It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a “general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge.” (Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops p 100)

"There exists a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones, that such churches as those in Alexandria, Philippi, Corinth and Rome most probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did the threefold structure become generally the rule, with a bishop, assisted by presbyters, presiding over each local church.

One conclusion seems obvious: ** Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’ Clearly, such a simplistic approach to the problem will not do. **On the other hand, many reputable Catholic scholars, who share the consensus regarding the gradual development of the episcopate in the early church, remain convinced that we do have solid grounds for holding that bishops are the successors of the apostles. Such scholars agree that along with the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian documents, one must invoke a theological argument based on Christian faith to arrive at the conclusion that bishops are the successors of the apostles ‘by divine institution.’ At the same time, they insist that the evidence from the New Testament and early Christian literature is crucial, and must be treated with scholarly integrity. It is counterproductive to put forth arguments that will not stand the test of critical exegesis or historical investigation." (Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church, Mahwah, NJ: Newman Press, 2001, 15-16.)

As you can see the consensus has to do with how the church at Rome was governed in the first hundred years of its existence. The consensus does not speak to the 3rd or 4th century view regarding the Primacy of Peter. I didn’t bother to read your posts b/c they don’t appear to address the modern consensus…is there anything in those posts that does apply?

Just so we are clear on what is being said, let me spell it out for you:

a) there was a Church in Rome before Peter got there

b) that existing Church, in all likelihood, was led by a group of elders before Peter got there

c) when Peter got to Rome, in all likelihood, he would have been accorded the respect due to an apostle (even though he was an uneducated Jew), but he would not have served as the bishop of Rome (there wasn’t a monoepiscopacy in Rome at that time)

d) while Peter was in Rome, the existing group of elders would have continued to lead the Roman Church

e) when Peter died, the existing group of elders would have continued to lead the Roman Church (there wasn’t a hole in the Roman Church’s leadership that needed filling upon the death of Peter)

f) Linus may have been one of the elders that led the Roman Church after Peter’s death, but he wouldn’t have been appointed as the mono-episcopal replacement for Peter

g) Clement was one of the elders that led the Roman Church near the end of the 1st century, but he wouldn’t have been appointed as the monoepiscopal replacement for Linus (or for any one else)…he was one of a number of elders

h) the monoepiscopacy was not established in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century (give or take)

I have checked, and I have not found this “consensus” that you claim is so obvious.

It is only obvious and easy to find if you look for the right thing in the right place…it appears you are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong century.

 

[mangy_dog]

I am told by non-Catholics that the Catholic Church, in communion with Rome, is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa 33 AD, in Jerusalem. Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and when, just as I have done below, regarding just a few of the very first reformed churches?

The Lutheran church – 1517 AD, founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome.

The Anabaptist church – 1520 AD, founded by Nicholas Storch, and Thomas Münzer, former Lutherans.

The Mennonite church – 1525 AD, founded by Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock, in Switzerland, as an offshoot of the Anabaptist chruch.

The Baptist church – 1606 AD, founded by John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

The Amish church – 1693 AD, founded by Jacob Amman, a Swiss Bishop.

The Anglican Church – 1534 AD, founded by King Henry VIII, as a direct result of the Pope not granting him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon.

The Presbyterian church – 1560 AD, founded by John Knox, in Scotland.

The Congregationalist church (The Puritans) – 1583 AD, founded by Robert Brown, in Holland.

The Episcopalian church – 1784 AD, founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies; an offshoot of the Church of England.

The Quakers - 1647 AD, founded by George Fox, in England.

The Methodist church – 1739 AD, founded by John and Charles Wesley, in England.

The Evangelical church – 1803 AD, founded by Jacob Albright, originally a Methodist, who broke away and founded his own church.

The Mormon church – 1829 AD, (also call themselves “Latter Day Saints”) - was founded by Joseph Smith.

The Seventh Day Adventists – 1831 AD, founded by William Miller.

Jehovah’s Witnesses – 1872 AD, founded by Charles Taze Russell.

Sure,

First there is Jesus Christ. He got the ball rolling with Peter; then Linus; then Analcletus…as a matter of fact 264 popes later to Pope Benedict XVI

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Radical,
Here is modern protestant scholarly commentary that appeals to a majority of scholars that seems to contradict the majority of scholars that you appeal to.

[T]he major opinion of modern exegetes… [is] that Peter, as a sort of supreme rabbi or
prime minister of the kingdom, is in 16.19 given teaching authority, given that is the
power to declare what is permitted (cf. the rabbinic shara’ ) and what is not permitted (cf.
the rabbinic ’asar). Peter can decide by doctrinal decision what Christians must and must
not do. This is the traditional Roman Catholic understanding, with the proviso that Peter
had successors. This interpretation of binding and loosing in terms of teaching authority
seems to us to be correct… Peter is the authoritative teacher without peer” (W. D.
Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew, 2:638-39)

Peter is prime minister of the kingdom, has teaching authority, has power to declare what is and is not permitted, decides doctrinal issues, has successors, and he is an authoritative teacher without peer.

 

[Radical]

Radical,
Here is modern protestant scholarly commentary that appeals to a majority of scholars that seems to contradict the majority of scholars that you appeal to.

It doesn’t seem that way to me…it looks like the commentary refers to a majority opinion WRT how a particular passage in Matthew should be understood. It appears to state that majority opinion is essentially the traditional RC understanding (with the RC position then adding that Peter had sucessors). Please note that the understanding that Peter was made a “prime minister of the kingdom” does not mean that:

a) he ever served as the bishop of Rome;

b) that Rome had a monoepiscopacy earlier than mid-second century; or

c) that any one (and in particular Linus) succeeded him in that prime ministerial office.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Hello Irish Polock…From your last effort I can only conclude that you do not understand the consensus that Sullivan asserted. First, it it is a consensus among scholars that exists today…Quoting Phillip Schaff, the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), James T. Shotwell etc. does little to address the current consensus…they may be of some use in determining the consensus that existed a century ago. Second, here again is the consensus as described by Sullivan:

To truncate the work of scholars to only those whom have completed their work in the last quarter century is illogical Radical; what would be your reasons for doing so? Do the scholars of today have something that those scholars of a century -ago did not? If so, what would this be?

Further, I named scholars from across the board, I and others in this tread have quoted Catholic, Orthodox, and even numerous Protestant scholars; from the beginning of the century, to works as recent as 1992.

You have named one dissident scholar whom claims to know of a “consensus”- of his likeminded peers in all probability - and whether this “consensus” is from today or yesterday, your argument based on this unsupported “consensus”… is a fallacy.

As you can see the consensus has to do with how the church at Rome was governed in the first hundred years of its existence. The consensus does not speak to the 3rd or 4th century view regarding the Primacy of Peter. I didn’t bother to read your posts b/c they don’t appear to address the modern consensus…is there anything in those posts that does apply?

Understandably, the first century of the Church in Rome was tough on many Roman Christians, in fact the persecutions went on well into the second century of the Church. To govern a Church that was at the very center of the persecutors empire, would surely have be a monumental task., especially for the Bishops of Rome.

Just so we are clear on what is being said, let me spell it out for you:

a) there was a Church in Rome before Peter got there

b) that existing Church, in all likelihood, was led by a group of elders before Peter got there

c) when Peter got to Rome, in all likelihood, he would have been accorded the respect due to an apostle (even though he was an uneducated Jew), but he would not have served as the bishop of Rome (there wasn’t a monoepiscopacy in Rome at that time)

d) while Peter was in Rome, the existing group of elders would have continued to lead the Roman Church

e) when Peter died, the existing group of elders would have continued to lead the Roman Church (there wasn’t a hole in the Roman Church’s leadership that needed filling upon the death of Peter)

f) Linus may have been one of the elders that led the Roman Church after Peter’s death, but he wouldn’t have been appointed as the mono-episcopal replacement for Peter

g) Clement was one of the elders that led the Roman Church near the end of the 1st century, but he wouldn’t have been appointed as the monoepiscopal replacement for Linus (or for any one else)…he was one of a number of elders

h) the monoepiscopacy was not established in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century (give or take)

A and B may be true, and this would not effect this the Catholic argument, the others are unsubstantiated, although I will say St. Peter himself was always the Church’s final arbiter (no matter where he resided); and the Roman church inherited that role after his death. So, if you wish to deny that Rome is the exhibitor of this unique authority; could you produce another ancient city-church which exhibits these same qualities? Just one example in which the church of Rome received an authoritative instruction from another church; we have already seen many other churches requesting authoritative instruction from the church in Rome - numerous times, from several previous posters.

The claims you have made Radical have no substantial historical support, either through Sacred Scripture or the Church fathers.

It is only obvious and easy to find if you look for the right thing in the right place…it appears you are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong century.

Apparently you would like me to narrow my search so that I might come to this same “consensus” of opinion, why must one exclude centuries of teaching and history in order to deduce a fair opinion on this matter? Protestants create this same error in their exegetical works of scripture normally too, by taking one verse out of context and creating an error of faith. You have mentioned in this tread, dissidents and apostates in the Catholic Church. Do we have them? Sure we do (especially in academia). And so do you Protestants. Jesus predicted as much (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43), so their existence doesn’t affect the integrity of the Church. We also have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which specifically submits what the Church believes, and also teaches what it does not believe. Can you produce an equivalent statement for universal Protestantism? If not then how would you define the “spiritual unity “ that Sacred Scripture and the Church fathers historically sought throughout Christendom?.

You still have not answered my question of …how your ecclesiastical community compares to that of the early Church.

 

[guanophore]

As you can see the consensus has to do with how the church at Rome was governed in the first hundred years of its existence. The consensus does not speak to the 3rd or 4th century view regarding the Primacy of Peter.

Without a doubt, the role of the successor of Peter grew as the Church grew. The battle with heresies in the early centuries required an expansion of the role.

Just so we are clear on what is being said, let me spell it out for you:

a) there was a Church in Rome before Peter got there

b) that existing Church, in all likelihood, was led by a group of elders before Peter got there

Certainly there was a Church in Rome prior any Aposltes arriving there. However, the “likelyhood” that it was led by a group of elders is pure speculation. Elders (presbyters) were appointed by the Apostles, and their successors. If there were any presbyters serving in that community, then they were sent by an Apostle.

We have no historical evidence that this was the case.

c) when Peter got to Rome, in all likelihood, he would have been accorded the respect due to an apostle (even though he was an uneducated Jew), but he would not have served as the bishop of Rome (there wasn’t a monoepiscopacy in Rome at that time)

I find this statement puzzling. What duty to you imagine that a bishop would have that would separate that function from an Apostle?

Under what possible condition would a bishop or council of elders be more qualified to oversee a community than an apostle?

d) while Peter was in Rome, the existing group of elders would have continued to lead the Roman Church

You say this as if this would occur in separation from the Apostle, instead of at his feet.

e) when Peter died, the existing group of elders would have continued to lead the Roman Church (there wasn’t a hole in the Roman Church’s leadership that needed filling upon the death of Peter)

This speculation seems to imply that Peter did not exercise Apostolic and bishopric oversight while he was alive.

If there was not vacancy when an Apostle passed on, why does Scripture state that another should succeed to his office? why does history affirm that this is, indeed, what happened?

f) Linus may have been one of the elders that led the Roman Church after Peter's death, but he wouldn't have been appointed as the mono-episcopal replacement for Peter

The notion that the successor of Peter must have been “monoepiscopal” is irrelevant. The duties of the successor of Peter are not dependent upon how many other bishops are present.

Also, your theory does not account for the difference between the role of the presbyter and the bishop.

g) Clement was one of the elders that led the Roman Church near the end of the 1st century, but he wouldn’t have been appointed as the monoepiscopal replacement for Linus (or for any one else)…he was one of a number of elders

Yes. All of the successors of the aposltes are also members of a group of elders. Bishops are only succeeeded by those who are members of that community of elders.

h) the monoepiscopacy was not established in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century (give or take)

It is only obvious and easy to find if you look for the right thing in the right place…it appears you are looking for the wrong thing in the wrong century.

Frankly, I can’t see what difference this makes…

It is clear from the book of Acts that none of the Apostles worked in isolation from one another, and that decisions were councilar.The presence of many bishops in any one location changes nothing.

 

[guanophore]

Please note that the understanding that Peter was made a "prime minister of the kingdom" does not mean that:

a) he ever served as the bishop of Rome;

b) that Rome had a monoepiscopacy earlier than mid-second century; or

c) that any one (and in particular Linus) succeeded him in that prime ministerial office.

If Peter was considered the Prime Minister, and he was in Rome, how do you imagine that he was not the head overseer of the Church there?

Since Peter was given primacy among the Apostles, he would have been deferred to no matter what city he resided, or who else was present (the Apostle Paul, for example).

How do you suppose that all of Christendom understood that Peter’s successors in Rome carried his authority as prime minister?

 

[rinnie]

Do you repudiate anything I say that you disagree with?

BTW, I thought the word ‘protestant’ means protesting. Disagreement doesn’t mean protesting unless you’re willing to say you’re protestant with reguards to what I believe that is different to your beliefs.

If you’re protestant and I am, then what’s all the ‘to-do’ all about?

Correct! Protestant does mean to protest. And to Protest means to speak strongly against. And that is what you do when you protest the teachings of the RCC,

Now can you show me how disagreement differs from protesting?

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Radical
Please note that the understanding that Peter was made a “prime minister of the kingdom” **does not mean **that:

According to whose standards? Yours?

a) he ever served as the bishop of Rome;

Do you have scores of ancient historical documents confirming he NEVER served in Rome? Plenty of early church writings confirming the opposite.

b) that Rome had a monoepiscopacy earlier than mid-second century; or

The office of the episcopacy evolved and developed over all time as ALL offices do over time. However,that in no shape or form negates the office. The roles of the first priests and bishops in the NT were more fluid,but nonetheless,both offices existed already.

c) that any one (and in particular Linus) succeeded him in that prime ministerial office.

You have empirical evidence Linus or no other never succeeded Peter as bishop? What I find amazing is how opponents of the papacy always specualte or imply pure conjecture that NO ONE ever succeeded the 12 Apostles. I am curious to know what historical evidence such opponents have supporting such a charge or belief? When, where and WHO determined the role of the bishop was to cease, after the death of the last Apostle?

 

[Dokimas]

Correct! Protestant does mean to protest. And to Protest means to speak strongly against. And that is what you do when you protest the teachings of the RCC,

Now can you show me how disagreement differs from protesting?

Let me see if I understand: are you saying disagreeing IS protesting?

I don’t think they are equal. I can disagree without protesting your belief. I don’t protest you believe becasue I’m not CC. The early reformers were catholic. They wanted some things of the CC to be changed. They did protest. I don’t care if anything of the CC ever changes, cuz I’m not a catholic and it doesn’t effect or affect me at all.

 

[Nicea325]

Let me see if I understand: are you saying disagreeing IS protesting?

I don’t think they are equal. I can disagree without protesting your belief. I don’t protest you believe becasue I’m not CC. The early reformers were catholic. They wanted some things of the CC to be changed. They did protest. I don’t care if anything of the CC ever changes, cuz I’m not a catholic and it doesn’t effect or affect me at all.

Greetings my friend! I can understand your position and what you are trying to say or state. Yes the CC did need reform,but some went a bit to far.

 

[Dokimas]

Greetings my friend! I can understand your position and what you are trying to say or state. Yes the CC did need reform,but some went a bit to far.

Nice hearing from you, Nicea. God bless you.

I was not referring to any need for the CC. It is none of my business. I was just trying to show that not all disagreeing is protesting.

 

[rinnie]

Let me see if I understand: are you saying disagreeing IS protesting?

I don’t think they are equal. I can disagree without protesting your belief. I don’t protest you believe becasue I’m not CC. The early reformers were catholic. They wanted some things of the CC to be changed. They did protest. I don’t care if anything of the CC ever changes, cuz I’m not a catholic and it doesn’t effect or affect me at all.

Not really, because if you reject a teaching of the RCC that means that you strongly disagree with it, that is what the definition of protest is.

Are you saying that you do not strongly disagree with the teachings of the RCC and expressing your disapproval of a teaching? It’s a simple question yes or no.

If you say that you can disagree with a teaching and strongly disagree with it and are not protesting my belief, how is that possible? You either agree with the teachings of the RCC or you disagree and strongly express your disapproval which means to protest.

The Cathoolic faith is quite simple you are either Catholic which means you accept all of the teaching’s as the word of God, or you simply are Protestant and reject them.

 

[rinnie]

Nice hearing from you, Nicea. God bless you.

I was not referring to any need for the CC. It is none of my business. I was just trying to show that not all disagreeing is protesting.

And again I disagree with you. If you do not accept the teaching’s of the CC you are protesting that teaching. When you are Catholic you either believe that the teaching’s are straight from the Holy Spirit or you do not. You cannot say that you are a true Catholic and disagree with the teachings. Jesus said he would lead his Church. He said point blank when the Bishops and Pope speaks it is with his voice they will speak. You either accept it or you do not.

How can you say that you believe these words of Jesus and then say you do not agree with it? Now I am talking about teachings. If you are talking about something else I stand to be corrected. But teachings is what I believe we are talking about.

 

[Dokimas]

Not really, because if you reject a teaching of the RCC that means that you strongly disagree with it, that is what the definition of protest is.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. It’s up to you if you want to take this to an extreme.

Are you saying that you do not strongly disagree with the teachings of the RCC and expressing your disapproval of a teaching? It’s a simple question yes or no.

 

[Dokimas]

And again I disagree with you. If you do not accept the teaching’s of the CC you are protesting that teaching. When you are Catholic you either believe that the teaching’s are straight from the Holy Spirit or you do not. You cannot say that you are a true Catholic and disagree with the teachings. Jesus said he would lead his Church. He said point blank when the Bishops and Pope speaks it is with his voice they will speak. You either accept it or you do not.

How can you say that you believe these words of Jesus and then say you do not agree with it? Now I am talking about teachings. If you are talking about something else I stand to be corrected. But teachings is what I believe we are talking about.

Looks like we are getting no where. Time to move on.

 

[Nicea325]

Nice hearing from you, Nicea. God bless you.

I was not referring to any need for the CC. It is none of my business. I was just trying to show that not all disagreeing is protesting.

I understand you my friend, I totally do. Blessings to you and your loved ones.

 

[Radical]

To truncate the work of scholars to only those whom have completed their work in the last quarter century is illogical Radical; what would be your reasons for doing so? Do the scholars of today have something that those scholars of a century -ago did not? If so, what would this be?

are you looking for something like, say the Dead Sea Scrolls?..or the Nag Hammadi texts? …or a century more of study and analysis?

Further, I named scholars from across the board, I and others in this tread have quoted Catholic, Orthodox, and even numerous Protestant scholars; from the beginning of the century, to works as recent as 1992.

yep, you provided scholars commenting on something other than the consensus which was described in order to challenge the existence of that consensus…why would you possibly think that matters?

You have named one dissident scholar whom claims to know of a “consensus”- of his likeminded peers in all probability - and whether this “consensus” is from today or yesterday, your argument based on this unsupported “consensus”… is a fallacy.

have you ever been to court? Tell you what, do this one thing for me…next time a murder trial is being conducted in your area, show up and when it gets to the point where an expert offers opinion evidence, jump to your feet and announce (as a “friend of the court”) that “If anyone relies on the opinion of that expert/authority, he will be guilty of a fallacy!”…tell me how that turns out for you…I am sure that the judge would be very grateful for your insight.

A and B may be true, and this would not effect this the Catholic argument, the others are unsubstantiated, although I will say St. Peter himself was always the Church’s final arbiter (no matter where he resided);…

that may be your interpretation, but it sure ain’t mine

…and the Roman church inherited that role after his death.

that may be your bit of faith, but it sure ain’t mine

Just one example in which the church of Rome received an authoritative instruction from another church; we have already seen many other churches requesting authoritative instruction from the church in Rome - numerous times, from several previous posters.

So what? How does this make Peter the first bishop of Rome? Even if I produced “an authoritative instruction from another church” it wouldn’t establish that he wasn’t the bishop of Rome…Why are you on this rabbit trail?

Apparently you would like me to narrow my search so that I might come to this same “consensus” of opinion, why must one exclude centuries of teaching and history in order to deduce a fair opinion on this matter?

well, if one is going to attack a consensus that was acheived in the last few decades and say that such a consensus doesn’t exist, then one has to:

1. demonstrate the existence of scholars who held a different opinion ** at the time that the alleged consensus** is supposed to have existed ( it is as simple as: If I said that there is today a consensus that the earth revolves around the sun, would you have disproved the existence of the alleged consensus by producing a bunch of medieval scholars who said that the sun revolves around the earth?)
2. demonstrate the existence of scholars who held a different opinion ** WRT the subject matter of the alleged consensus** ( it is as simple as: If I said that there is today a consensus that the earth revolves around the sun, would you have disproved the existence of the alleged consensus by producing a bunch of scholars who say that the moon revolves around the earth?)

Can you produce an equivalent statement for universal Protestantism? If not then how would you define the “spiritual unity “ that Sacred Scripture and the Church fathers historically sought throughout Christendom?

spiritual unity is achieved by God providing us all with the same Spirit…just as scripture teaches.

You still have not answered my question of …how your ecclesiastical community compares to that of the early Church.

very nicely, thanks for asking. We have eliminated most of the corruptions and have, for the most part, kept to the unifying beliefs of the earliest Church. If you would like to have an idea of what the earliest church looked like, try ** Unity and Diversity in the New Testament ** by James Dunn for starters

 

[Radical]

Without a doubt, the role of the successor of Peter grew as the Church grew.

well, for starters we aren’t agreed that there was any successor…but, in any event, what you see as legitimate growth, I see as man-made innovation…and it isn’t the only bit of man-made innovation, hence the need to label the founders of the CC as Mr. Inovation, Mrs. Development and Father Time

Certainly there was a Church in Rome prior any Aposltes arriving there. However, the “likelyhood” that it was led by a group of elders is pure speculation.

Do you think that the first Roman Christians were primarily Jews? Were Jewish communities of that day led by elders?

Elders (presbyters) were appointed by the Apostles, and their successors.

some were, but not all. The Didache instructs the congregation to appoint leaders for themselves.

If there were any presbyters serving in that community, then they were sent by an Apostle.

now there’s a bit of pure speculation

I find this statement puzzling. What duty to you imagine that a bishop would have that would separate that function from an Apostle?

an apostle: a) was sent out to preach the gospel, b) a witness to the resurrection and c) had his ministry confirmed by signs and wonders. An apostle provided pastoral care to a church (a temporary reality) and then moved on (thereafter providing pastoral care infrequently by letter, if at all). An overseer may have lacked (a), (b) and (c), would have been a local resident and it was intended that his provision of pastoral care would have been rather permanent

If there was not vacancy when an Apostle passed on, why does Scripture state that another should succeed to his office?

scripture doesn’t actually say that, does it? Where are the terms “succeed” and “office” used exactly? I suspect that you are referring to the replacement of Judas…which was necessary b/c the Twelve were to sit on 12 thrones and judge the 12 tribes (Matt 19, Luke 22) Judas needed to be replaced b/c he wasn’t going to serve as a judge after betraying Christ. There was no succession for the role of judge of the 12 tribes.

…why does history affirm that this is, indeed, what happened?

b/c that is what you want to see history affirm…others, like me don’t see that affirmation

The notion that the successor of Peter must have been “monoepiscopal” is irrelevant. The duties of the successor of Peter are not dependent upon how many other bishops are present.

I thought that the CC wanted to claim that Peter was the first Pope and that a bishop of Rome "stepped into his sandals"and that the CC possesses an unbroken line of Popes going back all the way to Christ’s appointment of Peter and that the Roman bishop has served as the Vicar of Peter/Vicar of Christ ever since Peter passed on the torch. Instead, what we see history affirm is that Rome was initially led by a group of Presbyters (same as Corinth) for about a century…no single guy acting as the Vicar of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the Pope. This “unbroken line” actually never reaches Christ…it only starts a hundred years later and then still has problems

It is clear from the book of Acts that none of the Apostles worked in isolation from one another, and that decisions were councilar.

really? The book of Acts describes the ministry of each apostle in such detail that you know how they worked from Christ’s death to their own deaths?..and it describes councilar decisions right up to the end/death of the last apostle?

Since Peter was given primacy among the Apostles, he would have been deferred to no matter what city he resided, or who else was present (the Apostle Paul, for example).

there wasn’t a whole lot of deferring goin’ on when Paul confronted Peter to his face

How do you suppose that all of Christendom understood that Peter’s successors in Rome carried his authority as prime minister?

I don’t suppose that all Christendom had that understanding…yes, you can provide a number of ECFs who held that opinion (or something similar), but a number of ECFs don’t equal all of Christendom. Continuing the work of, ministry of, task assigned to an apostle is the succession of a function/role and not the succesion of an office.

 

[PRmerger]

We have eliminated most of the corruptions and have, for the most part, kept to the unifying beliefs of the earliest Church.

Does your Church have the One Flesh Union in the Eucharist, Radical?

If you would like to have an idea of what the earliest church looked like, try ** Unity and Diversity in the New Testament ** by James Dunn for starters

Why not just read the ECFs?