"The Church" scripture and ECF define it!

[Mannyfit75]

I highlighted the facts Emmanual, the 2 posts I deleted had nothingto do with Universal authority or succesion directly from Peter as opposed to(PETER AND PAUL).
Like I said You’ll find nothing pre-189 that says the bishopric was handed from Peter to …pick your first pope.

“Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him.” Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

The First Epistle of Clement pre-dates 189. It was written in 96 A.D.

 

[Eden]

Me thinks your quote is not accurate if I recall Eusibius uses the term apostle(s)… and “peter and paul”

As such…

Eusebius
Xystus, Bishop of Rome for a decade, was succeeded by the seventh from the apostles

and such…
221Chapter VI.—Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.

1. “The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus.

A link to that comment saying “from Peter” would be great… I cant find the "little labrynth its not at ccel.

Youthinks incorrectly.

It’s easy to find this quote. It’s in Eusebius’ Church History, available at ccel.org:

. “For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter,[1738](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_iii.x.xxix-p8.1’)1738 On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note 1. Victor is the thirteenth bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one, otherwise the fourteenth. This is used by Salmon as an argument against the Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for Hippolytus reckoned Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and therefore made Victor the fourteenth (see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3). but that from his successor, Zephyrinus,[1739](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_iii.x.xxix-p9.1’)1739 The dates of Zephyrinus’ episcopate are to be gained by reckoning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217. A comparison of the various sources shows that Zephyrinus was bishop eighteen or nineteen years, which brings us back to the year 198 or 199 as the date of his accession. Eusebius says “about the ninth year of the reign of Severus,” which according to the correct reckoning would be the year 201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the emperors’ reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year 200, so that the agreement is reasonably close (see Lipsius’ Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 172 sq., and see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 1). In Bk. IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an account of Zephyrinus and his successor, Callistus. The former is described as ignorant and illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man, &c. How much of this is true and how much is due to prejudice, we cannot tell. But it seems at least to be a fact that Zephyrinus was completely under the influence of Callistus, as Hippolytus states. We learn from the latter that Zephyrinus at least countenanced the heresy of Patripassianism (at the opposite extreme from that of the Theodotians and Artemon), if he did not directly teach it. the truth had been corrupted.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxix.html

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Youthinks incorrectly.

It’s easy to find this quote. It’s in Eusebius’ Church History, available at ccel.org:

. “For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter,[1738](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_iii.x.xxix-p8.1’)1738 On Victor, see above, chap. 22, note 1. Victor is the thirteenth bishop if Cletus and Anencletus be reckoned as one, otherwise the fourteenth. This is used by Salmon as an argument against the Hippolytine authorship of the Little Labyrinth, for Hippolytus reckoned Cletus and Anencletus as two bishops, and therefore made Victor the fourteenth (see above, Bk. III. chap. 13, note 3). but that from his successor, Zephyrinus,[1739](javascript:toggle(‘fnf_iii.x.xxix-p9.1’)1739 The dates of Zephyrinus’ episcopate are to be gained by reckoning backward from that of Callistus, which is shown in Bk. VI. chap. 21, note 3, to have begun in the year 217. A comparison of the various sources shows that Zephyrinus was bishop eighteen or nineteen years, which brings us back to the year 198 or 199 as the date of his accession. Eusebius says “about the ninth year of the reign of Severus,” which according to the correct reckoning would be the year 201, but according to his erroneous reckoning of the dates of the emperors’ reigns (see the note already referred to) gives the year 200, so that the agreement is reasonably close (see Lipsius’ Chron. der röm. Bischöfe, p. 172 sq., and see above, Bk. V. chap. 22, note 1). In Bk. IX. of his great work Hippolytus gives quite an account of Zephyrinus and his successor, Callistus. The former is described as ignorant and illiterate, a taker of bribes, an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man, &c. How much of this is true and how much is due to prejudice, we cannot tell. But it seems at least to be a fact that Zephyrinus was completely under the influence of Callistus, as Hippolytus states. We learn from the latter that Zephyrinus at least countenanced the heresy of Patripassianism (at the opposite extreme from that of the Theodotians and Artemon), if he did not directly teach it. the truth had been corrupted.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxix.html

Thanks, you are correct…considering though his catalogue of bishops states it as Peter and Paul , and he pretty consistently says this! its worthy to note?

 

[Eden]

I highlighted the facts Emmanual, the 2 posts I deleted had nothingto do with Universal authority or succesion directly from Peter as opposed to(PETER AND PAUL).
Like I said You’ll find nothing pre-189 that says the bishopric was handed from Peter to …pick your first pope.

What is the significance of the arbitrary pre-189 qualifier?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What is the significance of the arbitrary pre-189 qualifier?

He failed to mention St. Clement which pre-dated 189. In St. Clement writings written in 97 A.D states.

HAP. V. — NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes.(11) Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillarsof the Church have been persecuted and put to death.(12) Let us set before our eyes the illustrious(13) apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity,(14) compelled(15) to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west,(16) and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.(17) Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

 

[Eden]

Thanks, you are correct…considering though his catalogue of bishops states it as Peter and Paul , and he pretty consistently says this! its worthy to note?

I don’t want to have to state this again. But I will. Sts. Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church at Rome. But St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome, so the office of Bishop of Rome (another name for the Pope) could not have been handed down from anyone but Peter. How can someone who was not Bishop of Rome (Paul) hand the office of Bishop of Rome to anyone?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What is the significance of the arbitrary pre-189 qualifier?

There is a questionable quote by Ireneaus that causes pages and pages of discussion to the point that the concept of the debate gets lost… I can’t tell you exactly what it is unless I go back to christianforums or one of the forums I’ve done the debate and look it up, I just know everytime I’ve encountered this argument, its where it gets sidetracked.

Edit:
For the sake of learning and sharing I’ll see if I can find it…BRB

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I don’t want to have to state this again. But I will. Sts. Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church at Rome. But St. Paul was never Bishop of Rome, so the office of Bishop of Rome (another name for the Pope) could not have been handed down from anyone but Peter. How can someone who was not Bishop of Rome (Paul) hand the office of Bishop of Rome to anyone?

Good lets start here…what church father 1.)recognizes Peter as the first bishop? writer date and quote please.
2.) recognized that Peter** alone** passed on the keys.

 

[mercygate]

I see you’ve chosen your words carefully! As you well know that pre 185- 200AD. None of the ECF’s recognize it was Peter alone, all say Peter and Paul… None say universal authority lies in Rome alone because of Peter having the keys and passing them on to succesive bishops.

BUT… 1st vat. council says this.
"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "

By your comment, might I ascertain that you disagree with the 1st Vat. council.

Blessings

Note: not without Peter.

It was not the First Vatican Council but Jesus who gave Peter the keys.

As for the Catholic definition of the Church, try this from the Catechism – a document drenched in both Scripture and the ECFs:

**Who belongs to the Catholic Church? **
[836](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/836.htm’) "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320
[837](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/837.htm’) "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321 [838](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/838.htm’) "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[Eden]

Good lets start here…what church father 1.)recognizes Peter as the first bishop? writer date and quote please.
2.) recognized that Peter** alone** passed on the keys.

Firstly, I want to be sure that we agree on what you mean by “first bishop”. You are referring to the primacy of the office of the Bishop of Rome, correct? Otherwise, I don’t understand what you are asking. Secondly, I still don’t understand the 189 date. The Canon of Scriptures was not defined for 400 hundred years after Christ and you are comfortable with the decisions they made, yet the writings of men in the Church after 189 on the primacy of Peter are not authoritative? I don’t get it.

Anyway, here are just a few of the vast number of quotes from ECF on the 1) and the 2), all written before the Canon of the New Testament was set:

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” *Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306). *

“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” *Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377). *

“Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world’s advantages to attract men to him?” *Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394). *

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." *Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). *

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

 

[Eden]

recognized that Peter** alone** passed on the keys.

I don’t understand this either. Peter alone was given the keys (Matt. 16:19). Why are you saying otherwise?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed due to lack of charity.