The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[paul_c]

hey Paul I realize you posted something similar above, I haven’t investigated the history of these offices and terminology much. What do you think of the view above (the one I posted which appears to be alitlle different)? Or…on 2nd thought, maybe it’s not as different as I thought it was since I’ve read some of the commentary you posted?

I think we are totally in sync. I think its perfectly logical that the churchc hierarchy was in development as the church grew. How exactly that happened is speculative. But it is clear, (to me, if not to Daniel) that the Top (Peter and his successors) and the bottom (the priests that administered the sacraments to the faithful) were in place from the beginning. Additional structure (Bishops and eventually archbishops) were necessary as the church grew and the Apostles, who were providing some of that structure, were martyred.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I just came off a long shift and apologize if I was mistaken. It seems I remember you, more than, insinuating that the office of Pope was developed during the time of Constantine.

Knowing this thread was started by you and entitled, “The Office the Papacy in Scripture”, I also assumed that your statement of, “The notion of a singular ruling bishop within a congregation appears by the time of Ignatius…” was to insinuate the idea of the office of Pope might have been originally developed by Ignatius, which I took as your argument was to point out that the idea had come about after scritpures. This is why I wanted to point out the timeline of Ignatius’ life and the origin of scriptures.

It seems my pointing out the timeline might have struck a nerve with you, because now you’ve responded with “a more likely possibility is that Ignatius was one who loved to be first as John says of Diotrephes”, which is no more than speculation, or an assumption, on your part.

This is what you’ve been doing with scriptures, in my opinion. Something that doesn’t fit your theology, or your idea of what the Church Christ started is, as stated in scriptures is no more than speculated, or assumed to be something else, by you.

This is why I keep pointing out that there is nothing in scriptures specifically stated to support your view, just as you say there is nothing specifically stated in scriptures to support the Catholic view. Your entire argument is based on speculation/assumption derived from a personal interpretation of scriptures and appears to be fitting scriptures to a theology, as opposed to fitting a theology to scriptures and a tradition as passed through the early Church fathers.

I do not believe this is as much an honest discussion, as it is maintaining an agenda to push a view of an anti-Catholic nature. How else can one explain an argument based on statements like, “a more likely possibility”, with absolutely no supporting sources?

Ignatius did not write by inspiration. His reference to singlar bishops is not in scripture and is therefore a human invention, with the only biblical precedent found in Diotrephes. His deliberately planned martyrdom, going to Rome to be eaten by beasts, is contrary to the spirit of Paul who said he would stay alive, rather than die, so he could be of service. This kind of eager martyrdom smacks of arrogance and selfish pride on the part of Ignatius. His attitude of acting as a kind of apostle in his letters to many churches, also smacks of arrogance.

Philippians 1:22 If I am to **go on living **in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. 25Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, 26so that through my being with you again your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me.

The papacy did begin as a seed with Ignatius but did not reach full flower until Stephen in 250AD, preceeded by the arrogance of Victor, then finally found imperial support under Damasus with his bold claims. The fact Ignatius knows nothing about the head of the church in the bishop of Rome, speaks loudly that there was no such thing or he would have made at least a tiny reference in at least one of his letters (that urged unity) and especially in the letter to Rome.

 

[utunumsint]

I appreciate your numbering of points/questions. Ignatius certainly represents a change from the NT re bishops and presbyters. Here are relevant NT passages:

Plurality of presbyters in “each church” with no mention of bishops.

Plurality of presybters also called bishops and shepherds.

Plurality of “bishops and deacons” in Philippi but no mention of bishops.

Singular reference to bishop (with the same qualifications as for presbyters in Titus 5), mentioned with deacons but with no mention of presbyters.

Plurality of presbyters direct the church with no mention of bishop(s).

Plurality of presbyters also called bishops.

Plurality of presbyters also called bishops and shepherds as in Acts 20.
In view if the above, Peter would not have been a singular bishop of Rome as there were none during the life of the apostles. The only singular ruler of any church was Diotrephes condemned because he loved to be first.

You are forgetting the role the apostles played in the early church. I’ll come back to this point later.

Regarding your other questions:

Jerome notes that bishops are the same as presbyters in the NT and that they are plural in their rule over a church. Ignatius avoids referring to a singular bishop in Rome. Does any ECF contemporary with Ignatius even mention Ignatius?

Polycarp does, and the Phillipians seemed to be very interested in him since they specifically asked Polycarp for his letters. As for your comment about Jerome, I would again refer you to the decisive and unifying role of the apostles.

By the time of Irenaeus in 190AD the singular bishop was well established. And the tradition had already developed that Clement was THE bishop of Rome at the time of the letter.

Earlier than that. What about Dyonisius’ letter to Soter?

His lack of mention of a singular bishop in Rome in contrast to singular bishops mentioned for other churches, indicates the probability there was no singular bishop in Rome also because Rome tended to be most conservative and would have moved later toward a singular bishop.

Read over Ignatius’ letter and you will find that he names no one in the letter to Rome. Nor does he name any office whatsoever. Not deacon, not priest, and not bishop. There is no evidence at all for your position as stated above.

Thank you for responding to my questions.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

“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…” (abridged)

I originally posted this (above) before I realized that Ignatius mentions the Bishops of the Curches in most of his letters. So, in a way, I’m glad you mentioned this below:

One thing that is interesting is that I think all of the Bishops of all the Churches he writes to met with him personally along his way to Rome, except maybe Polycarp, to whom he writes an individual letter to besides the letter to the Smyrnians. He wasn’t met by the Roman Bishop possibly because that’s where he was heading to, in mmy opinion. Just my $0.02, I’ll have to go back and research it more.

We can see, in my opinion, from the letter to the Smyrneans alone that there is a singular Bishop and the same 3 tiered hierarch headed by the Bishop that we see in all the other letters (except Rome, as you pointed out.) Here is my evidence:

“…I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm -accessed 6/ 16/ 09)

It is widely known and accepted that St. Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna, so I take it this is who Ignatius is referring to as “…your…Bishop…” It is also widely known that Polycarp was a disciple of St. John. So if Ignatius “loved to be first” as you accuse him of, then so did all the other Bishops including St. Polycarp who I believe was known for his holiness.

I know it doesn’t matter to you that Polycarp was a disciple of John, as I believe that you have stated before Apostolic proximity doesn’t do much for you (my paraphrase.) But think about this:

According to you (IF I understand you correctly):

Ignatius was wrong
Irenaeus was wrong

by implication it appears to me that all of the singular Bishops that Ignatius mentions explicitly (including St. Polycarp and the Philippian Bishop) were wrong in their idea of Church governance. Unless you believe that Ignatius invented theses singular Bishops either by an honest mistake or by lying? Or you have another idea?

To me, the more plausible explanation is that you are mistaken, albeit honestly mistaken and that there is another plausible explanation.

Here is one thing that seems plausible to me:

“… the terms ‘bishop,’ ‘priest,’ and ‘deacon’ were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament…” ([urlhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp) (accessed 6/ 16/ 09)

I’ve also posted this (below) before by Jimmy Akin, which is relevent to the terms “Bishop”, “Presbyters”, and “Deacons”

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

The term deacon was not fluid in the apostolic age. The terms bishop and presbyter (priest?) refer to the same position, one denoting function (overseer) the other age (older man). Ignatius appears to be encouraging the singular bishop concept by repeatedly referring to it, almost as if he is re-inforcing a new strategy perhaps to combat docetism.

A fascinating piece is that in Polycarp’s own letter to the Philippians, he refers to their plural presbyters but no bishop, and he refers to himself and those who with him are presbyters in Smyrna. Polycarp was one of several presbyters, but when Ignatius writes to Smyrna, he refers to their singular bishop as if he is wanting to sell his new system of the singular bishop. This would be typical of his arrogance also seen in his acting as a kind of apostle and in his deliberate boastful martyrdom.

Regarding Rome, even if he had not yet met with the singular bishop there, he surely would have referred to the head of the whole church or the bishop of bishops if there was one, but obviously there was none.

 

[paul_c]

Ignatius did not write by inspiration. His reference to singlar bishops is not in scripture and is therefore a human invention, with the only biblical precedent found in Diotrephes. His deliberately planned martyrdom, going to Rome to be eaten by beasts, is contrary to the spirit of Paul who said he would stay alive, rather than die, so he could be of service. This kind of eager martyrdom smacks of arrogance and selfish pride on the part of Ignatius. His attitude of acting as a kind of apostle in his letters to many churches, also smacks of arrogance.

How do you come to believe that Ignatius planned his own martyrdom? Eusebius says in Book 3, chapter 36 that Ignatious was arrested in Antioch and transferred to Rome under a strict and unsympathetic squad of 10 roman soldiers (Ignatius refers to them as Leopards). He had absolutely no choice in his sentence. He had a long journey, in which he had time to write his last letters. And yes, he willingly embraces his martyrdom because he has true faith in God and is an example to the many others that will share his faith. If he acted fearful, wouldn’t that have suggested that he didn’t believe in eternal life?

The papacy did begin as a seed with Ignatius but did not reach full flower until Stephen in 250AD, preceeded by the arrogance of Victor, then finally found imperial support under Damasus with his bold claims. The fact Ignatius knows nothing about the head of the church in the bishop of Rome, speaks loudly that there was no such thing or he would have made at least a tiny reference in at least one of his letters (that urged unity) and especially in the letter to Rome.

I think we have shown conclusively that the Papacy started with Jesus Christ telling Peter, " you are Rock and on this Rock I will build my church". And in Ignatius’ letter to Smyrna, (Eusebius book 3, chapter 36) he says,
I know and am convinced that even after the Resurrection He was in the flesh. Whe he came to see Peter and his companions He said to them: Take hold, handle me and see that I am not a bodiless phantom. And they at once touched him and were convinced.".

Note how he singles out Peter from the other apostles…

 

[paul_c]

The term deacon was not fluid in the apostolic age. The terms bishop and presbyter (priest?) refer to the same position, one denoting function (overseer) the other age (older man). Ignatius appears to be encouraging the singular bishop concept by repeatedly referring to it, almost as if he is re-inforcing a new strategy perhaps to combat docetism.

A fascinating piece is that in Polycarp’s own letter to the Philippians, he refers to their plural presbyters but no bishop, and he refers to himself and those who with him are presbyters in Smyrna. Polycarp was one of several presbyters, but when Ignatius writes to Smyrna, he refers to their singular bishop as if he is wanting to sell his new system of the singular bishop. This would be typical of his arrogance also seen in his acting as a kind of apostle and in his deliberate boastful martyrdom.

Regarding Rome, even if he had not yet met with the singular bishop there, he surely would have referred to the head of the whole church or the bishop of bishops if there was one, but obviously there was none.

Why are you suddenly so active in trying to discredit Ignatius?
Remember, there was a transition that had to occur as the Apostolic Age came to a close. At the beginning of the Apostolic Age, the Apostles were the ones to commission the leaders of local communities to carry out the sacraments in their absence. They did this first in Jerusalem and then as they spread through the empire. But as they spread out and ultimately were martyred, the Apostles role of making new priests and bringing new members into full communion had to be passed on to successors. Thus the new role of Bishop emerged.

This has nothing to do with St. Peter’s role as head of the church or that this role would have to be passed on to successors. That was established by Christ. The hierarchy that developed underneath Peter to keep order in the church necessarily evolved as the church grew and expanded. The organization required for 3000 people all in Jerusalem (its state at Pentecost) was necessarily different than that required only 20-30 years later when the church had grown to the 100,000s and crossed the entire empire

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Polycarp does, and the Phillipians seemed to be very interested in him since they specifically asked Polycarp for his letters. As for your comment about Jerome, I would again refer you to the decisive and unifying role of the apostles.

The Didache knows only plural bishops and deacons. (Didache 15: Appoint therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…) At this early period, Polycarp (died 155 AD) is one of several presbyters and writes to the plural presbyters of Philippi but no singular bishop as Ignatius does. In his references to Ignatius, Polycarp exhibits his usual humility/affection and does not take issue with Ignatius’ new system of the singular bishop.

What about Dyonisius’ letter to Soter?

Yes. There was a singular bishop in Rome by 170 AD and elsewhere under Ignatius 50 years earlier.

Read over Ignatius’ letter and you will find that he names no one in the letter to Rome. Nor does he name any office whatsoever. Not deacon, not priest, and not bishop. There is no evidence at all for your position as stated above.

God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west…Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me…

Ignatius arrogantly refers to himself as the singular bishop of the entire Province of Syria and that with his departure only God can be their Shepherd. So he does in fact refer to a major singular bishop (himself) but does not even refer to the Chief Bishop of the whole church on earth in Rome…because there was none.

 

[utunumsint]

The Didache knows only plural bishops and deacons. (Didache 15: Appoint therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…) At this early period, Polycarp (died 155 AD) is one of several presbyters and writes to the plural presbyters of Philippi but no singular bishop as Ignatius does. In his references to Ignatius, Polycarp exhibits his usual humility/affection and does not take issue with Ignatius’ new system of the singular bishop.

And yet Ireneaus, his disciple, recalls Polycarp as a singular bishop. You are very decisive in your claims about the early church. Can you point to any evidence showing disenfranchised priest/bishops who complain about Ignatius? Can you point to any angry letters from the Phillipians rejecting the obviously arrogant letters of Ignatius? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever?

Yes. There was a singular bishop in Rome by 170 AD and elsewhere under Ignatius 50 years earlier.

We know from the Muratorian Fragement that Pius occupied the episcopal (singual) chair of Rome. His reign dates to 144 Leaving bearly 30 years between Pius and Ignatius!!!. Were is the evidence of a monarchical bishop userping power from the oligarchical presbeters? You have none!!!

Ignatius arrogantly refers to himself as the singular bishop of the entire Province of Syria and that with his departure only God can be their Shepherd. So he does in fact refer to a major singular bishop (himself) but does not even refer to the Chief Bishop of the whole church on earth in Rome…because there was none.

What a fall this must have been for the once glorious church of Antioch to have produced such a heretic!! But wait, we have no evidence that Ignatius was considered heretical…from anyone!!! None!!!

God bless,
Ut

 

[paul_c]

The Didache knows only plural bishops and deacons. (Didache 15: Appoint therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord…) At this early period, Polycarp (died 155 AD) is one of several presbyters and writes to the plural presbyters of Philippi but no singular bishop as Ignatius does. In his references to Ignatius, Polycarp exhibits his usual humility/affection and does not take issue with Ignatius’ new system of the singular bishop.

Yes. There was a singular bishop in Rome by 170 AD and elsewhere under Ignatius 50 years earlier.

Ignatius arrogantly refers to himself as the singular bishop of the entire Province of Syria and that with his departure only God can be their Shepherd. So he does in fact refer to a major singular bishop (himself) but does not even refer to the Chief Bishop of the whole church on earth in Rome…because there was none.

This is Didache 15:

QUOTE]Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Two points here.

1. This does not necessarily mean that there are multiple bishops in a single church. It could easily mean that there are multiple churches each with a bishop.
2. this was written while there were still apostles going from Town to Town with the role of setting up the leadership and bringing in new converts: Here is Didache 11:

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there’s a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him.

This was written during the transitional period between Apostles carrying out the functions of ordination and when the position of Bishop was defined to do it. Again, this has everything to do with Churhc function and nothing to do with the position of Peter and his successors as leader of the church.

By the way, did you notice Didache 7:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before

Note that immersion was not necessary in the Apostolic Age.

 

[utunumsint]

I wanted to add a few points about the Apostles.

Jesus appointed twelve apostles, to represent the twelve tribes, and the new Isreal. They were in a constant position of authority. Churches with issues would turn to them for help, and these apostles were in charge of large areas. For example, James was in charge of Jerusalem, and Peter spent much time in Samaria, Antioch, and finally Rome, where issues were addressed to him to resolve. Their answers were authoritative.

But then others were also associated with their apostolic ministry. Some of these were Matthias who replaced Judas, then Paul, and then Barnabas. Paul’s first missionary journey was really Barnabas’ missionary journey. They had authority over large areas of land. Paul appoints presbyters, in much the same was as a Catholic Bishop would. He then instructs Titus in 1:5 to appoint presbyters.

For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.

He also tells Titus in 2:15 “Say these things. Exhort and correct with all authority. Let no one look down on you.”

Is this an authority given to all presbyter/bishops? Was this kind of authority ment to simply vanish after the apostles left?

Now I ask you to consider this for a moment. Titus is three times removed from the Apostles, and he is acting the role of Bishop as described by Ignatius of Antioch!! Ignatius was in charge of Asai Minor, but Titus was in charge of all of Crete!! Was Titus being arrogant? Was Paul arrogant in appointing Titus to this position?

One thing for sure is that it goes a long way to explain why no one was suprised and offended when Ignatius wrote his letters. The people of God were used to appealing to higher authorities to resolve their issues, and to receive guidance.

Others who collaborated with the apostle Paul were Silas, and Timothy, who co-authored both letters to the Thessalonians. Silas (Silvanus) also served Peter and helped him write his first epistle. Silas was also appointed by the apostles to promulgate their decision at the Jerusalem councel over many Greek and Jewish areas. Then there was Apollos, whom Paul called a servant of the Gospel like himself.

All of the apostolic co-workers take part in this direct line of succession and share in the apostles’ authority.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

And yet Ireneaus, his disciple, recalls Polycarp as a singular bishop. You are very decisive in your claims about the early church. Can you point to any evidence showing disenfranchised priest/bishops who complain about Ignatius? Can you point to any angry letters from the Phillipians rejecting the obviously arrogant letters of Ignatius? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever?

We know from the Muratorian Fragement that Pius occupied the episcopal (singual) chair of Rome. His reign dates to 144 Leaving bearly 30 years between Pius and Ignatius!!!. Were is the evidence of a monarchical bishop userping power from the oligarchical presbeters? You have none!!!

What a fall this must have been for the once glorious church of Antioch to have produced such a heretic!! But wait, we have no evidence that Ignatius was considered heretical…from anyone!!! None!!!

God bless,
Ut

There was an emerging pattern of attempts to unseat the plural bishop/presbyters. This was the whole theme of the letter from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth in 96 AD. This phenomenon in Corinth was also happening in the church at Rome.

Chapter 7: These things, beloved, we write unto you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us.

 

[PRmerger]

His deliberately planned martyrdom, going to Rome to be eaten by beasts, is contrary to the spirit of Paul who said he would stay alive, rather than die, so he could be of service. This kind of **eager martyrdom **smacks of arrogance and selfish pride on the part of Ignatius. His attitude of acting as a kind of apostle in his letters to many churches, also smacks of arrogance.

Hence martyrdom is also the exaltation of a person’s perfect “humanity” and of true “life”, as is attested by Saint Ignatius of Antioch, addressing the Christians of Rome, the place of his own martyrdom: “Have mercy on me, brethren: do not hold me back from living; do not wish that I die… Let me arrive at the pure light; once there I will be truly a man. Let me imitate the passion of my God”. Veritatis Splendor

 

[LionHeart777]

I think we are totally in sync. How exactly that happened is speculative. But it is clear, (to me, if not to Daniel) that the Top (Peter and his successors) and the bottom (the priests that administered the sacraments to the faithful) were in place from the beginning. Additional structure (Bishops and eventually archbishops) were necessary as the church grew and the Apostles, who were providing some of that structure, were martyred.

I agree that “…its perfectly logical that the churchc hierarchy was in development as the church grew…”

I like that picture of the mustard seed and the plant.

I have no problem with the addition of Archbishops and Cardinals because it would seem practical as the Church grew even bigger.

 

[LionHeart777]

Daniel,

regarding “deacons” being fluid I assume that the author I quoted meant in the sense that,

“…Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (‘servant’ or ‘minister’; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle…”

(catholic.com/library/Bishop_Priest_and_Deacon.asp) (accesses 6/ 17/ 2009)

I can’t speak for him/her

 

[guanophore]

The American churches of Christ are the result of returning to biblical roots from Protestant sectarianism.

This is a very good point you make, Daniel. The Church of Christ, along with all of it’s Protestant sectarian ancestors, are indeed based upon what they call “biblical roots”. They all emanate from the error of Sola Scriptura, ultimately, and though they believe they are “bible based”, they are really based upon someone’s (or group of someone’s) interpretation of the Scripture.

This is what differentiates them from the Catholic Church, which was based upon the foundation of the Apsotles and Prophets, and was functioning under the guidance of the HS prior to the creation of the Bible. The Catholic Church is not “bible based”, but based on the Person and Work of Christ HImself.

All “bible based” Churches such as these will inevitably suffer some degree of error and departure from the Apostolic Teaching because they believe that the entire deposit of faith is found in it’s pages.

 I do not encourage people to leave the Roman Catholic church but to contribute to ongoing movements for change within that historic denomination.

Great! foment rebellion against the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ from within, as well as without!

 

[guanophore]

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

Theodosius is not needed, really. Scripture is clear that Jesus promised to lead the Church into “all truth”. He promised that He would not leave them orphans, and that the gates of hell would not previal. The reason Catholicism thrived is that all those who were not Catholic were not considered Christians at all, but heretics.

 

[utunumsint]

There was an emerging pattern of attempts to unseat the plural bishop/presbyters. This was the whole theme of the letter from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth in 96 AD. This phenomenon in Corinth was also happening in the church at Rome.

Chapter 7: These things, beloved, we write unto you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but also to remind ourselves. For we are struggling on the same arena, and the same conflict is assigned to both of us.

Clement always refer to several userpers, unseating the multiple presbyters. He never mentioned anything about a move to install monarchical bishops.

God bless,
Ut

 

[guanophore]

Where is this documented and from what year? What is the earliest reference to John being appointed by Peter?

This question does not make any sense. John was chosen to be an Apostle by Christ…why would Peter need to do anything?

He had to do something about the vacancy left by Judas. Apostolic vacancies were filled by ordained bishops.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

This question does not make any sense. John was chosen to be an Apostle by Christ…why would Peter need to do anything?

beats me!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ignatius did not write by inspiration. His reference to singlar bishops is not in scripture and is therefore a human invention, with the only biblical precedent found in Diotrephes. His deliberately planned martyrdom, going to Rome to be eaten by beasts, is contrary to the spirit of Paul who said he would stay alive, rather than die, so he could be of service. This kind of eager martyrdom smacks of arrogance and selfish pride on the part of Ignatius. His attitude of acting as a kind of apostle in his letters to many churches, also smacks of arrogance.

Daniel, you’re still speculating, or assuming, without a source to state specifically your assumptions. Isn’t this very similar to what you say about Catholics believing in the primacy of Peter.

It also appears you are juding Ignatius…

A real man-made invention is sola scriptura and private interpretation of scriptures.

The papacy did begin as a seed with Ignatius but did not reach full flower until Stephen in 250AD, preceeded by the arrogance of Victor, then finally found imperial support under Damasus with his bold claims. The fact Ignatius knows nothing about the head of the church in the bishop of Rome, speaks loudly that there was no such thing or he would have made at least a tiny reference in at least one of his letters (that urged unity) and especially in the letter to Rome.

Isn’t funny how God has allowed the Papacy to exist for hundreds and hundreds of years, and yet no one Protestant Church has survived as a whole without some sort of schism?

Just as you say there is no reference, I still say you are speculating and assuming without something to support what you say. Where is the specific scriptures stating there will be no one to head the Church Christ built? It’s not there.