Succession of Bishops

[Eden]

You answered the question for me.

Since there is no “Apostolic Succession”, the leader of the Catholic Church would not be required to live in Rome. And you asked specifically who was the “first leader of the Catholic Institution”… that would be Augustine.

If you are asking who was the first bishop of the church of Rome… the only verifiable answer I can give you is that it was Zephyrinus. Although Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome, it has never been verified concretely that Peter ever pastored that church.

I’m going to start a new thread based on your response.

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

I appreciate the biblical arguments you presented.

I do have some comments about the interpretations of those passages though…

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first When ever the Apostles are listed by name

Although that fact is not without significance, I don’t think it can be considered a “proof” for Peter’s elevated level of importance, or Apostolic succession.

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Again, this fact is not without significance, but I don’t think it is a sure proof for Peter’s authority over the other Apostles. I think that fact might be somewhat attributed to the fact that the gospel was primarily preached to the jews by Peter, and the gospel hadn’t yet been taken to the gentiles as it would be when Paul went to them.
Paul said about Peter’s ministry…

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:

Matt. 16:19 - ONLY Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority. Why was Peter the only one?

No, Peter was not the only one to receive the keys. Although Jesus personally told Peter he would receive the keys, that did not mean that he was the ONLY one that would receive them… Jesus was illustrating that anyone who received revelation like Peter did would effectually have those same keys… I covered this earlier in this thread.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Peter was not specified as the leader of the Apostles in this verse. The angel only particularly mentioned Peter to comfort him after his fall. This was an affirmation of God’s acceptance of Peter even though Peter had sinned by denying Christ.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first

That is stretching things a bit to say that Peter had authority over the other Apostles based on these proofs.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see. Then Jesus goes on to say

The reason Jesus asked this question was because Peter had some time ago declared, though all the disciples were offended at Christ, and should deny him, he would not; and Peter had just now thrown himself into the sea to come to him first, as if he loved him more than they did… which Jesus asked Peter the question not out of ignorance, or as if Christ didn’t know whether he loved him or not, or how much he loved him; but because the grace given to Peter was abundant; and that Peter also might have an opportunity of expressing it before the other disciples who had also publicly denied him.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Bibleapologist - I just wanted to give you the link to the new thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=117542

bibleapologist:

Although Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome, it has never been verified concretely that Peter ever pastored that church.

I will again refer to Eusebius to prove concretely that Peter pastored the Church at Rome:

Eusebius, The Chronicle, AD 303, “[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.”

Remaining a bishop of the city of Rome and preaching the gospel for 25 years before his martyrdom in that same city = “pastoring that Church”.*
*

 

[bibleapologist]

Notworthy,

But John, you should at least try and back up your theory that “Those who baptized infants were in error” with something that proves it. Maybe show some documents in history that these practices were questioned and/or condemned.

I understand your point, but I don’t think any amount of historical evidence that believers baptism being practiced would bolster my case.

If the historical evidence were in my favor, I would expect nothing less from you to prove your position from the origin of the doctrine… the Apostles, and that being by their writings preserved for us in the New Testament.

I have though given proof that believers baptism was practiced… in the historical book of “The Acts of the Apostles”, and “The Key of Truth” from the 7th century.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Eusebius, The Chronicle, AD 303, “[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.”

Remaining a bishop of the city of Rome and preaching the gospel for 25 years before his martyrdom in that same city = “pastoring that Church”.

Firstly, this is Eusebius’ claim… one man from the 4th century claiming he knows the truth about a historical account of 250 years before his claim (see the problem with using ECF quotes). Eusebius cannot be considered to be a reliable witness to Peter’s pastorate at Rome… Please tell me the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not resting on the claim of Eusebius.

Secondly, we know that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, and left. Peter was, according to the bible present in Antioch… if he actually did return to Rome to pastor that church, wouldn’t that make Peter the SECOND bishop of Rome? Wouldn’t Peter then have succeeded Zephyrinus?

And couldn’t it just as well be said that Zephyrinus succeeded Paul rather than Peter (that is if the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is true).

So, in this whole Apostolic soap opera in Rome… Peter would have essentially succeeded Paul.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

I have though given proof that believers baptism was practiced… in the historical book of “The Acts of the Apostles”, and “The Key of Truth” from the 7th century.

John, I’m sorry, but I’m trying to reference the post with your proof. There’s 285 posts here, so it’s fruitless doing a search on Acts. But I did a search on “7th” and “key of truth” and I can’t find it. I’m not doubting you, I was just hoping you could reference the post in the hopes that you can find it much faster than I can.

Thanks, in advance.

 

[Eden]

All of Odell’s passages from the Bible prove the primacy of Peter.
And there are more:

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

 

[Eden]

(cont’d)

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…”

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[NotWorthy]

Secondly, we know that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, and left. Peter was, according to the bible present in Antioch… if he actually did return to Rome to pastor that church, wouldn’t that make Peter the SECOND bishop of Rome? Wouldn’t Peter then have succeeded Zephyrinus?

Where do we know that Peter left. He went first to Antioch, then to Rome. And it would have been hard for Peter to succede Zephyrinus, who died in 218AD.

So, in this whole Apostolic soap opera in Rome… Peter would have essentially succeeded Paul.

Except no one ever claimed that Paul was Bishop of Rome, or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Firstly, this is Eusebius’ claim… one man from the 4th century claiming he knows the truth about a historical account of 250 years before his claim (see the problem with using ECF quotes). Eusebius cannot be considered to be a reliable witness to Peter’s pastorate at Rome… Please tell me the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not resting on the claim of Eusebius.

Secondly, we know that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome, and left. Peter was, according to the bible present in Antioch… if he actually did return to Rome to pastor that church, wouldn’t that make Peter the SECOND bishop of Rome? Wouldn’t Peter then have succeeded Zephyrinus?

And couldn’t it just as well be said that Zephyrinus succeeded Paul rather than Peter (that is if the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is true).

So, in this whole Apostolic soap opera in Rome… Peter would have essentially succeeded Paul.

1. Paul was never the Bishop of Rome.
2. Zephyrinus was born in the late 2nd century and reigned from circa 189-217. So, there were 14 Bishops of Rome before Zephyrinus.

newadvent.org/cathen/15756c.htm

1. Peter was in Antioch before the foundations of the Church were laid at Rome.
2. There are many historical documents that attest to Peter’s martyrdom and burial in Rome.
3. I use quotes from Eusebius since you were the first to use him as “proof” of your claim that churches outside the Catholic Church existed in the 2nd century.

bibleapologist:

Firstly, this is Eusebius’ claim… one man from the 4th century claiming he knows the truth about a historical account of 250 years before his claim (see the problem with using ECF quotes)

It’s amusing to see you rejecting Eusebius, in light of your approval of his legitimacy as an early Christian witness only days ago.

bibleapologist:

Eusebius says, (H. E. iv. 22,) that Hegesippus, (who lived and wrote about A. D. 188,) "made some quotations from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and from the Syriac Gospel.

 

[Odell]

Odell,
Although that fact is not without significance, I don’t think it can be considered a “proof” for Peter’s elevated level of importance, or Apostolic succession.

You dont think that EVERY time the apostles where listed Peter was listed first and Judas last.

You dont think at all that the ones who wrote the bible might be trying to convey something. I mean what are the chances that all gospel writers write the order with Peter the first with out it haveing any meaning behind it?

“Peter and his companions”(Lk9:32) (Mk16:7)
I supose this does not mean anyhting eather.

No, Peter was not the only one to receive the keys. Although Jesus personally told Peter he would receive the keys, that did not mean that he was the ONLY one that would receive them… Jesus was illustrating that anyone who received revelation like Peter did would effectually have those same keys… I covered this earlier in this thread.

Thats your interpritation but im going to go by what the KJV says:thumbsup:

The reason Jesus asked this question was because Peter had some time ago declared, though all the disciples were offended at Christ, and should deny him, he would not; and Peter had just now thrown himself into the sea to come to him first, as if he loved him more than they did… which Jesus asked Peter the question not out of ignorance, or as if Christ didn’t know whether he loved him or not, or how much he loved him; but because the grace given to Peter was abundant; and that Peter also might have an opportunity of expressing it before the other disciples who had also publicly denied him.

Did you not read what Jesus said after do you love me more than these? It says “feed my shep tend my lambs tend my sheep” Who does this John? A sheperd he is the sheperd of the flock.

 

[bibleapologist]

notworthy,

Where do we know that Peter left. He went first to Antioch, then to Rome. And it would have been hard for Peter to succede Zephyrinus, who died in 218AD.

First, I need to say that Zephyrinus was my mistake… I was thinking of Linus

Second, where do we know that Peter came to Rome from Antioch?

Eusebius (a) says, Linus was the first bishop of it, the same that is mentioned in 2Ti_4:21 and according to the same writer (b), Anencletus succeeded him, and then Clement, a fellow labourer of the Apostle Paul’s, Phi_4:3; who wrote two epistles to the Corinthians, which are still extant; though Eusebius (c), not consistent with himself, makes Clement in another place to succeed Linus; and some make Clement even to be before him; and some place one Cletus before Anencletus and him: such an uncertainty is there, and such a puzzle attends the first account of this uninterrupted succession; (a) Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 2. (b) Ib. c. 13. (c) Ib. c. 4. 15.

Except no one ever claimed that Paul was Bishop of Rome, or anywhere else for that matter.

No, as an Apostle Paul would not have pastored a church, as being an overseer of many churches and a missionary. So was Peter, as an Apostle and a missionary to the Jews…

As these two were missionaries Iranaeus said that Peter and Paul preached the gospel at Rome (Adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 1. Vid. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 8.)

If that is the case, and Peter did return to Rome and succeed Linus, Peter would have been a successor to the teachings of Paul (and would have been the recipient of the "letter to the Romans) written in 55 or 56 AD.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Did you not read what Jesus said after do you love me more than these? It says “feed my shep tend my lambs tend my sheep” Who does this John? A sheperd he is the sheperd of the flock.

The fact that Jesus told Peter to “Feed my sheep” was not referring to the other Apostles. It was a command to follow Jesus but first to love Him.

Just after that account of Jesus telling Peter to “feed my sheep” three times, we read this…

Joh 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. **And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me. **
Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Joh 21:21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what [shall] this man [do]?
Joh 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? follow thou me.

Peter obviously didn’t have any authority over the Apostle John, as Jesus told Peter to basically mind his own business… just “follow me”.

The command for Peter to “feed my sheep” was to do the work of an Apostle, which was his job as an Apostle. But Jesus was telling Peter not to do his job only out of a sense of duty… but to do it out of love for Christ…

Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

This passage has nothing to do with Peter having authority over the other Apostles.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

As these two were missionaries Iranaeus said that Peter and Paul preached the gospel at Rome (Adv. Haeres. l. 3. c. 1. Vid. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 8.)

Here is St. Irenaeus:

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/apostolicsuccess.html

bibleapologist:

If that is the case, and Peter did return to Rome and succeed Linus, Peter would have been a successor to the teachings of Paul (and would have been the recipient of the "letter to the Romans) written in 55 or 56 AD.

According to Eusebius in “Church History” Book III, Chapter II-IV:

“After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome.”

And

"As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but** Linus**, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.

 

[Eden]

Peter obviously didn’t have any authority over the Apostle John, as Jesus told Peter to basically mind his own business… just “follow me”.

It is amazing that you are so quick to paint a picture of discord between Jesus and Peter in these passages, that you have completely missed the monumental significance of Jesus telling Peter, “Follow me”.

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

It is amazing that you are so quick to paint a picture of discord between Jesus and Peter in these passages, that you have completely missed the monumental significance of Jesus telling Peter, “Follow me”.

Like I said, Jesus was TEACHING Peter… sometimes when a person is being taught, that teaching requires that the error of the student be pointed out… How does that equate with “discord”? What I see in that passage is that Peter was a willing student.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

Here is St. Irenaeus:
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church…

I’m sorry Eden, but your point elludes me.

I don’t see where you intended to go with those quotes from Iranaeus, and Eusebius.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[NotWorthy]

John (BA),

Your reference to John’s manner of death being no matter to Peter does not confirm or deny Peter’s authority. It simply means that Peter does not need to know how John will die.

Interesting note: Because of this text and John’s extended life, it was thought by some early Christians that John would remain alive until the 2nd coming of Jesus.

But also, if you look at the text of John where Jesus and Peter converse, I’ve heard it explained this way:
The lambs are the people, the sheep are the leaders of the church. “Feed my lambs” means to spiritually feed them, or “teach them”. So Jesus is saying to “teach the people My ways”. “Tend my Sheep” implies authority, for the Greek word for “Tend” includes the authority over the predicate noun. So “Tend my Sheep” means to have authority over the church leaders. “Feed my Sheep” is to spiritually feed, or “teach” the church leaders.

This is something I’ve read in the past, and I can’t remember the source, but I’d love to hear yours and my fellow Catholics view of this interplay.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I’m sorry Eden, but your point elludes me.

I don’t see where you intended to go with those quotes from Iranaeus, and Eusebius.

The quotes are in response to your suggestion that Peter succeeded Linus.

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Like I said, Jesus was TEACHING Peter… sometimes when a person is being taught, that teaching requires that the error of the student be pointed out… How does that equate with “discord”?

You stated, essentially that Christ was telling Peter to “mind his own business”. You say that you “know” the Bible, but you miss too many subtltities to believe that you “understand” it.

Not only is this a clear moment when we see that Jesus has chosen Peter to lead His Church, not John, this passage is also a foreshadowing Peter’s martyrdom by crucifixion.

What I see in that passage is that Peter was a willing student.

That’s a shallow perception.

In John 21:18 (KJV) and the preceding verses, the Lord here warns Peter that his love for Him would be sorely tested, tending His sheep would ultimately involve a martyr’s death. Remember Peter said, “Lord, thou knowest *all *things”. Christ now gave proof that He *did *indeed, for He speaks positively and in minute detail of future events which could be known only to God. The beloved disciple again would be placed in such a position that he would have to choose between denying and confessing Christ. As the reward for his good confession here, and to supply an encouragement for the future, the Lord assures him that he *shall *confess Him even to death.

John’s remark in John 21:19 is made for the purpose of supplying a key to the meaning of the Lord’s words in the previous verse. When Christ said, “When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkest whither thou wouldest,” He signified that during his earlier days Peter had enjoyed his natural freedom. When he said, “But when thou shalt be old thou shall stretch forth thy hands,” He meant that Peter would do this at the command of another. When He added, “And another shall gird thee,” He meant that Peter should be bound as a prisoner with cords (Acts 21:11) where Agabus took Paul’s girdle and bound his own hands and feet, to symbolize the fact that the Apostle would be “delivered into the hands of the Gentiles.” In His final words, “and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,” the Lord did not mean that Peter would resist or cry out (“what death he should *glorify *God” proves that), but that the death he should die would be contrary to nature, disagreeable to the flesh. Peter was to die a death of violence, by crucifixion. Peter was killed in Rome by being tied to a cross upside-down because he told his tormentors that he was not worthy of dying in the manner of Christ. St. Peter’s Basilica was built over the place of his burial. In the “thou wouldest not” the Lord further intimated that He does not expect His people to *enjoy *bodily pains, though we are to endure them.