Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sebastian04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YADA said:
Didn’t say there was no visit, just that Peter - Cephas- The Rock was the primary contact…James was also seen …
Click to expand...
Paul and Peter already knew each other from Antioch. It’s quite possible that Paul had never even met James before. .
 
Gorgias said:
There’s no evidence of such a ‘committee’, as such, as you are claiming, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
OK, so I will have to remember that when reading a catholic historian (Mike Walsh) who says otherwise (poor Jesuit training ?). I certainly wouldn’t know by myself.

lol…had to look up afaik…first thought you meant a fake supposition, but now I see indeed a qualifying humble remark on your part…

Walsh has written several books on popes,

Here is an excerpt,

from Lives of the Popes under “Linus”

“The ’ episcopacy” of Linus is open to some doubt. Modern scholarship agrees ,however, that the system of a single bishop ( so called “monarchical episcopacy”) did not become established in Rome until at least the middle of second century)."

He gives reasons of large city , with many different ethnic communities, each with their bishop. He does not dismiss "list of early popes’’, because indeed there were presbyter meetings, probably with a chairman, and suggests that it would be anachronistic to call them popes, but certainly as chairman enjoyed some preeminence…pretty fair i think.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
There has not been serious dispute about Peter’s own primacy for some decades now; it’s clear and then some to any intellectually honest reader, whether or not of a sola scriptura bent.

That doesn’t, though, get us anywhere as to his succesors’ authority or leadership (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...
But that was my point. We must run in different circles because clearly there are still people I encounter who deny this point. And fight it!
dochawk said:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Click to expand...
This is not in question for me. But for people who adhere to sola scriptura, despite the claim & demand of keeping to the Scriptures as their sole authority, will have their own unscriptural views that they will nonetheless hold as valid.
 
dochawk said:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Click to expand...
Notice it does not say, “And there many other things which Jesus did teach” that are not recorded.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
The ’ episcopacy” of Linus is open to some doubt. Modern scholarship agrees ,however, that the system of a single bishop ( so called “monarchical episcopacy”) did not become established in Rome until at least the middle of second century)."
Click to expand...
Modern scholarship also agrees that the Gospels were products of the second century.
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
Gorgias:
There’s no evidence of such a ‘committee’, as such, as you are claiming, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
OK, so I will have to remember that when reading a catholic historian (Mike Walsh) who says otherwise (poor Jesuit training ?). I certainly wouldn’t know by myself.
Click to expand...
LOL! ‘Snark’ doesn’t become you, friend… 🤣

Then again, the mirror image of the “ad hominem” fallacy is the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Are you suggesting that Jesuits, as such, or Walsh, in particular, are correct merely because of their titles or training? I’m disappointed. 😉
mcq72 said:
Modern scholarship agrees ,however, that the system of a single bishop ( so called “monarchical episcopacy”) did not become established in Rome until at least the middle of second century)."
Click to expand...
An interesting discussion on the question appeared in the ‘Called to Communion’ website: Modern Scholarship, Rome and a Challenge | Called to Communion

I’d recommend it as an interesting read.
mcq72 said:
He does not dismiss "list of early popes’’, because indeed there were presbyter meetings, probably with a chairman, and suggests that it would be anachronistic to call them popes, but certainly as chairman enjoyed some preeminence…pretty fair i think.
Click to expand...
“Presbyter meetings” are not the same as a “list of popes”. That would be akin to suggesting that if, as a stockholder, I attended a meeting, I should be considered the CEO. :roll_eyes:
mcq72 said:
Notice it does not say, “And there many other things which Jesus did teach” that are not recorded.
Click to expand...
So… I guess that teaching isn’t something “that Jesus did”…? 🤔
Julius_Caesar said:
Modern scholarship also agrees that the Gospels were products of the second century.
Click to expand...
Some modern scholarship. Not all.
 
Gorgias said:
Presbyter meetings” are not the same as a “list of popes”. That would be akin to suggesting that if, as a stockholder, I attended a meeting, I should be considered the CEO. :roll_eyes:
Click to expand...
I paraphrased incorrectly then. There were presbytery meetings, that is the different bishops of Rome got together at times for church business. They would probably appoint a chair person to lead the meetings. That chairperson would have some sort of preeminence. He is suggesting Linus and perhaps Clement had this role, lending credence to list of head bishops of Rome, ( later chronicled such as Iranaeus), yet not quite popes of later monarchal system.

I hope that clarifies things. Sorry for poor paraphrase.
 
Gorgias said:
40.png
Julius_Caesar:
Modern scholarship also agrees that the Gospels were products of the second century.
Click to expand...
Some modern scholarship. Not all.
Click to expand...
Some or not, @mcq72 is making a logical fallacy. Just because scholars say “2-2=6” doesn’t make it so.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
That chairperson would have some sort of preeminence.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really demonstrate anything. The pope presides over councils of the college of bishops… but that doesn’t prove that the Pope doesn’t have the authority we’re asserting he does. I mean… the fact that councils occurred doesn’t demonstrate a lack of Petrine authority.
 
“mcq72 said:
[quote="Julius_Caesar, post:42, topic:624351,
Correct, but does that necesarily mean an office ad infinitum, as described by only later bishops?
Click to expand...
Well if there were no succession, how was the work of the Apostles and chuch governance to continue?

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
Click to expand...
But Paul’s name change was not in the same magnitude of Simon’s. Paul was not intended to succeed peter as per God’s will.
Click to expand...
 
Julius_Caesar said:
Modern scholarship also agrees that the Gospels were products of the second century.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, the majority of modern scholarship–heck, the majority of liberal/critical modern scholarship–puts the Gospels in the first century, except for maybe John.
 
Last edited:
Julius_Caesar said:
Modern scholarship also agrees that the Gospels were products of the second century.
Click to expand...
Many, many gospels, epistles, Books of Acts, were circulating in the second century. But the Magisterium didn’t complete canonization of the NT until much later.

We now know Luke was inspired from the time it was written, and many other gospels were thought to be possibly inspired, but positive identification of canonical certain books, public declaration/creation of a “NT”, and exclusion of other books, came later.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top