Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He also had the keys and got a name change. Something none of the other Apostles had.
 
Gorgias said:
You’ve claimed that Judas’ “office” – for which they found a replacement – was “treasurer”. And yet, as you’ve shown, that role was filled by the Church.
Click to expand...
Well then my bad. I never meant to claim Judas role had to have successor, just as Peter’s role did not need a successor. Indeed both could be filled by the church (in particular by church council)
Gorgias said:
Offhand, this doesn’t ring a bell with me. Would you mind citing it?
Click to expand...
Believe twas Ignatius, letter to Magnesians ch3…apparently God the Father is our head bishop

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-roberts.html
Julius_Caesar said:
Even then the Church had a system resembling the monarchial episcopate. Titus and Timothy had singular authority to oversee Churches and ordain presbyters
Click to expand...
Not sure that is monarchal and not presbyter model. I did say that presbyters were local and regional ( Tim/ Titus in mind).
Julius_Caesar said:
Let’s not forget Peter is an Apostle, something not all presbyters could say of themselves.
Click to expand...
Correct and Paul was an apostle also, who did not appoint a singular head replacement for his churches, but several. I would think Peter did also, and why Rome was thought to have a presbytery, a group of bishops for the large diverse church ( maybe why Ignatius mentions no head bishop there).
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
He also had the keys and got a name change. Something none of the other Apostles had.
Click to expand...
Correct, but does that necesarily mean an office ad infinitum, as described by only later bishops?

I mean Paul had a name change also. Iranaeus also cites preeminence of Rome’s see due to Paul and Peter. Yet all other lists of Roman bishops leave out Paul.
 
mcq72 said:
Not sure that is monarchal and not presbyter model. I did say that presbyters were local and regional ( Tim/ Titus in mind).
Click to expand...
Notice how Timothy and Titus have singular authority to ordain presbyters.
mcq72 said:
Correct and Paul was an apostle also, who did not appoint a singular head replacement for his churches, but several. I would think Peter did also, and why Rome was thought to have a presbytery, a group of bishops for the large diverse church ( maybe why Ignatius mentions no head bishop there).
Click to expand...
John took that capacit, albeit not appointed. Notice his Apocalypse is addressed to seven churches, two of which were founded by Paul. And if you’re Ignatius, would you really want to endanger the bishop of the place where the emperor’s throne is?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
maybe why Ignatius mentions no head bishop there).
Click to expand...
If you are quoting what’s included in Ignatius, and what’s not mentioned in Ignatius, as somewhat authoritative you are kinda inching the door open for other things taught by Ignatius and other Magisterium endorsed early authorities outside scripture.

Not sure you want to go there.
 
Julius_Caesar said:
And if you’re Ignatius, would you really want to endanger the bishop of the place where the emperor’s throne is?
Click to expand...
yes, that is the oft heard possible explanation. Yet Rome’s arm had no problem picking him as bishop for execution all the way from Antioch. So certainly Rome could grab bishops even closer than that, where Ignatius more than mentioned there names in letters to said closer churches.

Still a valid point, but moreso is that they had a presbytery/group of bishops in Rome
commenter said:
If you are quoting what’s included in Ignatius, and what’s not mentioned in Ignatius, as somewhat authoritative you are kinda inching the door open for other things taught by Ignatius and other Magisterium endorsed early authorities outside scripture.

Not sure you want to go there.
Click to expand...
Understand. yet folks are divided already just at Scripture, so being divided over non scripture is no different. For example i pretty much agree with Ignatius letters, but disagree with what folks interpret
what he says.

I think with fatherly writings we can more easily take a look at item by item. For example here my use of his text is not abrogated by anything else he says elsewhere pertaining to this specific topic ( why no mention of head bishop in Rome as he does other churches closer to Rome than Antioch).
Julius_Caesar said:
Notice how Timothy and Titus have singular authority to ordain presbyters.
Click to expand...
Yes, but does not indicate this is only method of appointing. (granted it would soon become the only way by end of 2nd century., beginning of third).

"Therefore, choose for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord… ( Didache 15:1)

Those [elders] therefore who were appointed by them [apostles], or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole church… (1 Clement 44:3)

So not so clear cut at the beginning.

 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Yet Rome’s arm had no problem picking him as bishop for execution all the way from Antioch
Click to expand...
At the time of Ignatius, persecution was a local enterprise as well as in Rome. He wasn’t grabbed but shipped.
 
mcq72 said:
Yes, but does not indicate this is only method of appointing. (granted it would soon become the only way by end of 2nd century., beginning of third).
Click to expand...
And by John’s time.

Note the seven angels of their churches.
 
mcq72 said:
Well then my bad. I never meant to claim Judas role had to have successor, just as Peter’s role did not need a successor.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but Judas’ office – apostle – did need a successor, and that’s why the first thing Peter did was ensure that the 12 was reconstituted.
mcq72 said:
Believe twas Ignatius, letter to Magnesians ch3…apparently God the Father is our head bishop
Click to expand...
I think it’s pretty fair to say that Ignatius was claiming God as an ‘overseer’ of us all, and not a guy with a miter and crosier. 😉
 
Julius_Caesar said:
At the time of Ignatius, persecution was a local enterprise as well as in Rome. He wasn’t grabbed but shipped.
Click to expand...
Point noted, yet those other churches had no political protection from becoming “local” there also at any time.
 
You should know the seven angels are generally thought to be the seven leaders of the churches there.
 
Gorgias said:
Ahh, but Judas’ office – apostle – did need a successor, and that’s why the first thing Peter did was ensure that the 12 was reconstituted.
Click to expand...
Yes but do we have twelve today?Replacement before the church actually began mission is different than a “successor”. No where do we see appointing of authoritative apostles beyond the twelve (missionaries yes).
Gorgias said:
I think it’s pretty fair to say that Ignatius was claiming God as an ‘overseer’ of us all, and not a guy with a miter and crosier.
Click to expand...
OK, so God is indeed our Bishop, then Teacher , then Guider ( as cited by Ignatius), working thru the church and it"s offices and giftings
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
Yes but do we have twelve today?
Click to expand...
We have their successors.
mcq72 said:
No where do we see appointing of authoritative apostles
Click to expand...
Acts 1, brother. “Matthias… was counted with the eleven apostles.”

If Peter and the other ten have the power to name an apostle, they certainly have the ability to name a successor to an apostle (which is what, historically, we know actually happened).
 
That also presupposes there was a statewide mandate to persecute Christians. Governors had relative freedom to decide what to do with their population.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top