The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,
you are absolutely grasping at straws here. For months now, you have been proclaiming Peter’s role as Vicar of Christ null and void because of your own personal interpretation of scripture. Now you are dredging up questionable interpretations of EDF who disagreed with Pope Stephen in a lame attempt to disprove the same primacy, at the same time disregarding dozens of ECF writings which clearly recognize the primacy of Rome.

Daniel,
I fear you have so much invested in denying the Primacy of Rome that you will never see the truth, to your detriment. On the positive side, I believe that your denials are so obvious that it will bring others to understand what you yourself can not see.

Certainly the church at Rome was revered early on because of the association of Paul and possibly Peter and because of Rome as the centre of the Empire. For the regard for Rome distinguished from primacy of church distinguished from primacy of bishop, the order is as follows:

1. the church at Rome is revered for the above reasons, from the time of the crisis at Corinth (96 AD)
2. the bishop of Rome is revered from the time of Irenaeus (190 AD)
3. the primacy of Rome is asserted from the time of Victor (190 AD)
4. the idea of the bishop of Rome as holding the chair of Peter, keys, binding/loosing is claimed in the spurious Clementine Homilies (220 AD)
5. the primacy of the bishop of Rome is asserted from the time of Stephen (250 AD)
6. the primacy of the bishop of Rome as head over the whole church is asserted by Damasus (375 AD).
7. the legal suppression of non-Catholic Christians begins under Emperor Theodosius I (380 AD).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

There was no need for any successor of Peter to “assert” his position. Anyway, such a person does not replace Jesus as Head of His One Body, the Church.

Agreed, except that the early absence of an assertion shows its development.

The fact that Irenaeus had to rebue Victor is evidence in itself that his excommunication was valid, and had to be retracted.

Victor’s excommunication was regarded as valid by much of the church except that many churches at the time continued their separate practice and did not conform to Victor, so he had to retract it. .

This is the first extant historical reference to it, however, all of them were successors of Peter, and wree considered as such. The modern notion of the papacy was asserted by Christ, and is contained in the NT. However, I do grant you that the role has developed markedly through the centuries.

I suppose this is your way of saying that the office of the pope is as spurious as the document?

There was a development of increasing authority in the bishop of Rome, and the Clementine Homilies contributed to this development.

I am curious, Daniel, what would have to change for you if you were to believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter?

A scripture or even an early authentic document such as the discovery of early papal statements from Linus to Cornelius, that attest to Peter as the head of the church with successors to his “chair” and that exclusively hold the keys to the kingdom… basically what the Clementine Homilies state but in an authentic document. Without this, there is a significant gap that I am unable to overcome.

 

[LionHeart777]

1. the primacy of Rome is asserted from the time of Victor (190 AD)

I would argue that as I can tell and as far as the written record is concerned, since Clement wrote to the Corinthians.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I wanted to add the following regarding Firmilian and this passage.

I don’t think that he flat out rejects the claim that Pope Stephen has such authority in the passage we are discussing, as (if I’m not mistaken), Ray Ryland pointed out in the tract I posted above. I believe he (Ryland) is referring to this passage when he wrote:

"…Firmilian responded to Cyprian’s letter, and Stephen’s ruling, in a letter filled with indignation and bitterness. Yet Firmilian’s letter itself implicitly recognized the Pope’s authority. Firmilian expressed no indignation over Stephen’s emphasizing his role as Peter’s successor and his claim to what we call universal jurisdiction.

If Stephen’s claim had not been universally accepted, Firmilian’s ultimate weapon against the despised ruling would have been to deny and reject papal authority. That weapon was not available to him, so all he could do was fulminate in bitterest terms…" (catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp accessed 6/ 14/ 09)

This may well be the case as the momentum for the legend of Peter was building especially with the wide circulation of the Clementine Homilies as this very time. Nonetheless, Firmillian did strongly object to the “boast” of Stephen and did not think his authority was greater than the “truth of the Christian Rock.”.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I would argue that as I can tell and as far as the written record is concerned, since Clement wrote to the Corinthians.

primacy does not equal high regard; Paul had been closely associated with Rome as well as Corinth; hence the request by Corinth for advice from Rome, the church not any singular bishop, mind you.

 

[jlhargus]

Thanks for the advice. I believe the individual can know the truth by a study of scripture. Otherwise, this forum is a waste fo time.

JL: Which individual would that be? You alone? We can see the results of individual truth. Truth becomes whatever one wants it to be, that is clear with the myriads of divided faith groups all claiming sola scripture. Why doesn’t your truth agree with a Baptist’s, a Presbyterian’s, Pentecostal groups, non-denominational groups, or Evangelicals of whatever name etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

This is just a groundless speculation, Daniel. Pacifism is an individual conviction, and has always been chosen by individuals. The Church has never opposed participation in the military, even since the time of John the Baptist, who did not counsel converts to leave their military profession. Of course there were always some converts to the faith who decided they could no longer, in good conscience participate in the army.

Luke 3:13-14
14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Does this sound to you like a directive to leave the military? Honestly it really seems that you will go to ridiculous lengths to convince yourself that the Catholic Church was corrupted and abandoned by Christ.

This might fit best in another thread. What would a soldier do when faced with the order to do violence to a Christian or to anyone? Exactly… refuse and suffer the consequences.

 

[paul_c]

Certainly the church at Rome was revered early on because of the association of Paul and possibly Peter and because of Rome as the centre of the Empire. For the regard for Rome distinguished from primacy of church distinguished from primacy of bishop, the order is as follows:

1. the church at Rome is revered for the above reasons, from the time of the crisis at Corinth (96 AD)
2. the bishop of Rome is revered from the time of Irenaeus (190 AD)
3. the primacy of Rome is asserted from the time of Victor (190 AD)
4. the idea of the bishop of Rome as holding the chair of Peter, keys, binding/loosing is claimed in the spurious Clementine Homilies (220 AD)
5. the primacy of the bishop of Rome is asserted from the time of Stephen (250 AD)
6. the primacy of the bishop of Rome as head over the whole church is asserted by Damasus (375 AD).
7. the legal suppression of non-Catholic Christians begins under Emperor Theodosius I (380 AD).

Now you are starting to understand. But you are still subject to your anti-catholic biases.

First of all, the primacy is clearly stated in Clements letter in 96. You just won’t admit it because you misunderstand the definitiion of the Royal We (to mean the Bishop and all he leads)
.
Secondly, the idea of the holding the Chair of Peter with the keys and binding and loosing comes directly from Jesus as reported in Scripture (Matthew 16). The fact that Peter went to Rome is also in Scripture, when Peter notes he is writing from Babylon, which you know as code for Rome (since you recognize it in Revelations)

Third, the references to the spurios Clementine Homilies is spurious in itself. Do you really believe that the Papacy is based on a spurious tract?

The listing of Stephen and Damasus are not the only ones that assert the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. We’ve noted probably a dozen other earlier ECF writings that also support that view.

Finally, what does #6 have to do with the Papacy? And seriously, for 313 years, there was legal supression of the Catholic Church in the empire, yet by the time of the Edict of Milan, there were between 15 and 20M Catholics in the Roman empire out of a total population of 60M. Legal suppression can not stop something that comes from God. And Constantine himself preferred Arianism to Catholicism because it was easier to support politically. The fact is, the temporal authorities never defined Catholicism. That Came from Christ and was passed on by the Bishops of Rome.

 

[LionHeart777]

primacy does not equal high regard; Paul had been closely associated with Rome as well as Corinth; hence the request by Corinth for advice from Rome, the church not any singular bishop, mind you.

The fact that Clement’s letter is from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth does not exclude the possibility of there being a single Bishop at each. I refer you (again) to Irenaus’ Against Heresies , for the sucessive list of Roman Bishops. I believe that St. Ignatius doesn’t address singular Bishops in his letters to Churches, yet he clearly believes in the validity of singular Bishops, even to the point of declaring “…Apart from these [Bishop/Deacons/Presbyters], there is no Church…” (1) I also have a feeling that Ignatius would have written his letters in the same way as Clement’s is written, (i.e. something like from the Church at Antioch to the Church at Rome) had he written from Antioch in his capacity as the Bishop (just my speculation of course)

(1)(Letter to the Trallians, accessed 6/ 14/ 09 from: newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm)

 

[Cinette]

Daniel, is it your goal to proseltyze Catholics away from the Catholic Church and become members in another Church?

I have only read about a dozen postings but have come across our friend Daniel before.

I am convinced that Daniel has built a whole industry against Catholicism because it is lucrative. It sells!

So Prodigal Son 1 you can stand on your head, you can quote the whole bible, you can make your point over and over again but you will not win Daniel over! What for? He would have to abandon his business! Can’t you see that? He would go out of business!

Peace
Cinette

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have only read about a dozen postings but have come across our friend Daniel before.

I am convinced that Daniel has built a whole industry against Catholicism because it is lucrative. It sells!

So Prodigal Son 1 you can stand on your head, you can quote the whole bible, you can make your point over and over again but you will not win Daniel over! What for? He would have to abandon his business! Can’t you see that? He would go out of business!

Peace
Cinette

I kind of stated that back towards the beginning of this thread and someone brought it to my attention, so I was trying to give Daniel the benefit of the doubt.

This is a problem discussed by many Protestant pastors that converted to Catholicism. They lose their source of income. Some become Apologist authors for the Catholic Church and others go to work. It’s not easy for those who converted.

 

[pipper]

I have only read about a dozen postings but have come across our friend Daniel before.

I am convinced that Daniel has built a whole industry against Catholicism because it is lucrative. It sells!

So Prodigal Son 1 you can stand on your head, you can quote the whole bible, you can make your point over and over again but you will not win Daniel over! What for? He would have to abandon his business! Can’t you see that? He would go out of business!

Peace
Cinette

But who would he sell to, he sure has no made any converts to his sect on here, that is for certian.

I will give him no benefit or the doubt, for before I converted to THE real Church of Christ, I belonged to his fundamental sect that calls it’self “the church of Christ” funny thing although he claims his sect goes back to 33 AD history will tell you he is a member of a denomination that is a result of schisms going back eventually to the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian). His sect goes back no further than 1906, regardless of any fantasies he may have.

The main reason is I have evidence to beleive he posted to me in order to get me banned, but as all can see I am still here. He hates it that I tell the truth about the denomination he belongs to. A radical sect that hates all who are not members of it, not just Catholics. They are conviced that they are the only Christians and proselytise everyone.

 

[PRmerger]

This is a problem discussed by many Protestant pastors that converted to Catholicism. They lose their source of income. Some become Apologist authors for the Catholic Church and others go to work. It’s not easy for those who converted.

Indeed. All must seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt 6:33)–even if it means following Christ all the way to Calvary.

All who seek will find, and I trust that Daniel, whose love for God and love for Scripture is quite evident, will eventually find.

But our prayers to speed his conversion surely can’t hurt!

 

[pipper]

Indeed. All must seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt 6:33)–even if it means following Christ all the way to Calvary.

All who seek will find, and I trust that Daniel, whose love for God and love for Scripture is quite evident,

To Daniel the scriptures are God.

 

[paul_c]

It’s important in apologetics to always give the other party he benefit of the doubt. Isn’t Catholicism a religion based on love? Therefore, we need to act that way.

And by the way, I like the fact that Daniel is so diligent about posting. First of all, as long as he is engaged, there is always the possibility that he will see the light and someone as diligent as he is could be very useful as an advocate. Secondly, he allows all of us an opportunity to respond with the truth, which will help lurkers. Third, he is forcing us to investigate his charges, which also helps us to find the truth. This is very valuable as well.

So don’t be so hard on Daniel. He is fulfilling God’s purpose, even if it is not the way that Daniel intends. And if its God’s will for him, he will come to believe in the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, once his heart is open to the truth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I wanted to add the following regarding Firmilian and this passage.

I don’t think that he flat out rejects the claim that Pope Stephen has such authority in the passage we are discussing, as (if I’m not mistaken), Ray Ryland pointed out in the tract I posted above. I believe he (Ryland) is referring to this passage when he wrote:

"…Firmilian responded to Cyprian’s letter, and Stephen’s ruling, in a letter filled with indignation and bitterness. Yet Firmilian’s letter itself implicitly recognized the Pope’s authority. Firmilian expressed no indignation over Stephen’s emphasizing his role as Peter’s successor and his claim to what we call universal jurisdiction.

If Stephen’s claim had not been universally accepted, Firmilian’s ultimate weapon against the despised ruling would have been to deny and reject papal authority. That weapon was not available to him, so all he could do was fulminate in bitterest terms…" (catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp accessed 6/ 14/ 09)

Nonetheless, we see in Firmillian a strong objection to Stephen’s action AND to his “boast.”

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

But who would he sell to, he sure has no made any converts to his sect on here, that is for certian.

I will give him no benefit or the doubt, for before I converted to THE real Church of Christ, I belonged to his fundamental sect that calls it’self “the church of Christ” funny thing although he claims his sect goes back to 33 AD history will tell you he is a member of a denomination that is a result of schisms going back eventually to the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian). His sect goes back no further than 1906, regardless of any fantasies he may have.

The main reason is I have evidence to beleive he posted to me in order to get me banned, but as all can see I am still here. He hates it that I tell the truth about the denomination he belongs to. A radical sect that hates all who are not members of it, not just Catholics. They are conviced that they are the only Christians and proselytise everyone.

The American churches of Christ are the result of returning to biblical roots from Protestant sectarianism. However, churches of Christ in Europe pre-date the American movement. I welcome all your criticisms, even those that are disrespectful as I am honoured to participate in the sufferings of Christ. I do not encourage people to leave the Roman Catholic church but to contribute to ongoing movements for change within that historic denomination.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

JL: Which individual would that be? You alone? We can see the results of individual truth. Truth becomes whatever one wants it to be, that is clear with the myriads of divided faith groups all claiming sola scripture. Why doesn’t your truth agree with a Baptist’s, a Presbyterian’s, Pentecostal groups, non-denominational groups, or Evangelicals of whatever name etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum?

many false teacher have gone out into the world…but let a man examine himself to see whether he is in the faith

2 Cor.13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Now you are starting to understand. But you are still subject to your anti-catholic biases.

First of all, the primacy is clearly stated in Clements letter in 96. You just won’t admit it because you misunderstand the definitiion of the Royal We (to mean the Bishop and all he leads)

.

There is no clear statement of primacy. The letter states a plurality of bishops, not a singular bishop, as I proved in a previous post.

Secondly, the idea of the holding the Chair of Peter with the keys and binding and loosing comes directly from Jesus as reported in Scripture (Matthew 16). The fact that Peter went to Rome is also in Scripture, when Peter notes he is writing from Babylon, which you know as code for Rome (since you recognize it in Revelations)

I do not deny that Peter went to Rome. The first extant reference to the keys being passed to a successor, is in the spurious Clementine Homilies.

Third, the references to the spurios Clementine Homilies is spurious in itself. Do you really believe that the Papacy is based on a spurious tract?

Yes, I believe the papacy is based largely on this spurious work that appeared in the same period as and prior to papal claims.

The listing of Stephen and Damasus are not the only ones that assert the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. We’ve noted probably a dozen other earlier ECF writings that also support that view.

Victor asserts authority but not primacy. Irenaeus laid foundations of apostolic succession with the focus on Rome but not yet the bishop as head of the whole church. You could list the ECF’s and papal claims with dates and quotes, and we could examine them closely. Remember also that some ECF’s were desperate to counter heretical groups and used the theory of Roman primacy to bolster their arguments.

Finally, what does #6 have to do with the Papacy? And seriously, for 313 years, there was legal supression of the Catholic Church in the empire, yet by the time of the Edict of Milan, there were between 15 and 20M Catholics in the Roman empire out of a total population of 60M. Legal suppression can not stop something that comes from God. And Constantine himself preferred Arianism to Catholicism because it was easier to support politically. The fact is, the temporal authorities never defined Catholicism. That Came from Christ and was passed on by the Bishops of Rome

I refer to Theodosius to point out the reason early Catholicism thrived while non-Catholic Christians did not.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Another example of only a plurality of leaders rather than a singular bishop is the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in which he refers only to a plurality of presbyters in the church at Philippi and refers to himself as Polycarp and “those who with him are presbyters.” I have already noted that Catholic scholarship does not dispute that there was only a plurality of bishops in Rome and generally (see Didache for “bishops and deacons”) at the time of “First Clement.” Therefore Peter was never THE bishop of Rome although he may have been in Rome and served as a co-bishop.

The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius and was accepted as the norm by the time of Irenaeus.