D
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mich2
Guest
I saw only the first part of the video which didn’t speak of the 2nd century church structure. I will try to see the rest later. I found the person to be honest and not judgemental. I do respect his sense of history although I disagree with it.If you have the time, could you analyze a few points about the video?
He does mention the first century church as being structured, having deacons, presbyters and episcopates. He sometimes distinguishes between the office of the episcopate and presbyter, as in the writings of John, and at other times, he believes the two offfices to be the same, as he understands it in the writings of
Peter and Paul.
This comment disagrees with the writings of Clement who writes
Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
and there would be strife on account of the office of the
episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they
had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they
appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and
afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall
asleep, other approved men should succeed them in
their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those
appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men,
with the consent of the whole Church, and who have
blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble,
peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long
time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly
dismissed from the ministry
Andre
T
tdgesq
Guest
It is a common Protestant tactic to arbitrarily choose a time period (the first two centuries) and then claim that there isn’t evidence of some Catholic doctrine during that time period (the papacy). I’ve found that the most effective response comes in two parts:Anyways, about the Pope, he was saying there was no Pope during the first 2 centuries of Christianity, only bishops, or an “arch-bishop,” but nowhere was there called any “Pope” in the line of catholic successions. And that the early Christians gave testimony to this.
- demonstrate that they believe matters of faith that are found after that same time period; and
- demonstrate that there is more evidence in that time period for the Catholic doctrine than their own.
The earliest possible date is the canon as contained in a letter from St. Athanasius in 367. Agreement by the western Church as a whole actually came in the Council of Rome and the Council of Hippo in the fifth century. You don’t need to provide that though. Just ask them to show you an early writing setting forth the undisputed canon of the New Testament. You, on the other hand, if you search, can find several church fathers from the fourth century disputing whether certain books (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.) are canonical.
On to #2, the pope. Here is Tertullian (ca. 220):
I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too [by the bishop of Rome]. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” (1)
. . .
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter 21.
Tertullian disagreed with Pope Callixtus I unilaterally granting forgiveness to repentant adulterers and fornicators into the Church. Of course, Tertullian was a heretic at this time, following the private revelation of Montanus and his followers. The point is, in ca. 220 Callixtus unilaterally exercised authority in the name of St. Peter and under the title Pontifex Maximus.
Depending on which source you consult, the term “pope” was being used by the Bishop of Rome as early as 304. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#History_2
The title “pope” was used by the bishop of Rome in the fourth century. In the early third century Callixtus claimed the authority of St. Peter, unilaterally exercised it, and apparently was being called Pontifex Maximus. All of this happened as a matter of historical record before agreement upon the New Testament Canon.
M
mich2
Guest
Great post,tdgesq.
The attack of Tertullian on the Roman bishop is my personal favorite argument as to what the bishop of Rome meant to the Church in the second century. The term “Pontifex Maximus”, which people take as being a pagan title, simply means “high priest”, that is bishop of bishops. The Pope’s argument, as you pointed out, was sourced from Matthew’s verse
“Thou art Peter…”.
As I finished listening to Paul Pavao’s “Apostolic succession” video, I did find him to be sincere in what he taught,and I will applaud a protestant for using early church documents to confirm an early christian belief, However, I disagree with his interpretation of the documents.
First, Paul starts by saying that the Pope’s apostolic succession, according to the Catholic Church, but which he himself denies,comes from Matthew 16. However, it’s exactly the argument the Pope uses against Tertullian…something that Paul seems to be unaware.
In part 1, Paul does a good job in describing apostolic succession as a tool against heretics.However, part 1 finishes with the argument that while Catholics refer to Irenaeus as the source for the emminence of the Church of Rome, he goes on to quote Irenaeus in order to show this not to be true, but leaves out quoting :
Adv. Haer. 3: 3: 1-4:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
I will stop here for part 1 of the video.
Andre
The attack of Tertullian on the Roman bishop is my personal favorite argument as to what the bishop of Rome meant to the Church in the second century. The term “Pontifex Maximus”, which people take as being a pagan title, simply means “high priest”, that is bishop of bishops. The Pope’s argument, as you pointed out, was sourced from Matthew’s verse
“Thou art Peter…”.
As I finished listening to Paul Pavao’s “Apostolic succession” video, I did find him to be sincere in what he taught,and I will applaud a protestant for using early church documents to confirm an early christian belief, However, I disagree with his interpretation of the documents.
First, Paul starts by saying that the Pope’s apostolic succession, according to the Catholic Church, but which he himself denies,comes from Matthew 16. However, it’s exactly the argument the Pope uses against Tertullian…something that Paul seems to be unaware.
In part 1, Paul does a good job in describing apostolic succession as a tool against heretics.However, part 1 finishes with the argument that while Catholics refer to Irenaeus as the source for the emminence of the Church of Rome, he goes on to quote Irenaeus in order to show this not to be true, but leaves out quoting :
Adv. Haer. 3: 3: 1-4:
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
I will stop here for part 1 of the video.
Andre
D
Dark_Warrior
Guest
Interesting. Good post.It is a common Protestant tactic to arbitrarily choose a time period (the first two centuries) and then claim that there isn’t evidence of some Catholic doctrine during that time period (the papacy). I’ve found that the most effective response comes in two parts:
For #1, take the canon of the New Testament. Nearly all Protestant denominations believe that 27 books make up the New Testament Canon. Where in recorded history do we find for the first time that the Christian Church decides that these 27 books are in fact scriptural?
- demonstrate that they believe matters of faith that are found after that same time period; and
- demonstrate that there is more evidence in that time period for the Catholic doctrine than their own.
The earliest possible date is the canon as contained in a letter from St. Athanasius in 367. Agreement by the western Church as a whole actually came in the Council of Rome and the Council of Hippo in the fifth century. You don’t need to provide that though. Just ask them to show you an early writing setting forth the undisputed canon of the New Testament. You, on the other hand, if you search, can find several church fathers from the fourth century disputing whether certain books (Hebrews, Revelation, etc.) are canonical.
On to #2, the pope. Here is Tertullian (ca. 220):
I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too [by the bishop of Rome]. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” (1)
. . .
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter 21.
Tertullian disagreed with Pope Callixtus I unilaterally granting forgiveness to repentant adulterers and fornicators into the Church. Of course, Tertullian was a heretic at this time, following the private revelation of Montanus and his followers. The point is, in ca. 220 Callixtus unilaterally exercised authority in the name of St. Peter and under the title Pontifex Maximus.
Depending on which source you consult, the term “pope” was being used by the Bishop of Rome as early as 304. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#History_2
The title “pope” was used by the bishop of Rome in the fourth century. In the early third century Callixtus claimed the authority of St. Peter, unilaterally exercised it, and apparently was being called Pontifex Maximus. All of this happened as a matter of historical record before agreement upon the New Testament Canon.
M
mich2
Guest
After viewing part 2 of Paul Pavao’s “Apostolic succession” video,I found that he did indeed read the full quotation of Ireneaus’
I found that He is also a non-denominational christian (not a protestant),In my opinion, Mr. Pavao could very well be a positive influence for the non-denominational christians. So far, all I’ve heard from them is that the Catholic Church is a pagan religion which took the name Christian after Constantine.
Paul seems to accept a form of structural organization which started at the very beginning of the church era. He did quote from Clement concerning this; in part 2, he goes as far as agreeing that the Roman church, in the second century had indeed a pre-eminent authority over other churches. This , in my opinion, could advance the train of thoughts of most non-denominational christians.
The part that I disagree with mr. Pavao, is that he seems to point to the pre-eminence of the Roman Church being due to the
church’s historical foundation and not so much because of the authority being given to the bishops as such. Clement wrote that there was to have discord on account of the office of the bishop,being the reason as to why the apostles gave specific instruction as to how the succession of bishops was to be followed. Ignatius speaks amply concerning the dignity of the holy office, especially that of the bishop.
Therefore, it shouldn’t take very much for mr. Pavao to identify the pre-eminence of the Roman Church, wherein “every church need to agree with”, to the position of the Roman bishop, and not so much because of the historical foundation of the church only,
The next question would be why would the Roman bishop be held in such a superior light? Ignatius, being from Antioch, a church founded by Peter himself, is asking the Roman church not to interfere with his awaiting martyrdom. The Roman church could not have had any political influence over the martyrdom of Ignatius, so, what was he speaking about? In my opinion, the Roman Church could have had the position to stop Ignatius from overthrowing himself to the lions if it meant that his position was suicidal and not martyrdom in essence.
I do agree with Paul that the writings of Irenaeus speaks of both Paul and Peter as founders of the Church, giving some potential problems with Matthew 16. However, Tertullian clearly identifies the Roman bishop’s position was believed in context with Matthew 16.
So what about Irenaeus? Since Peter was identified as being the apostle for the jews, and Paul as being the apostle for the gentiles, the unity of both would symbolically represent the Catholicity of the Church. Since both established a church (or churches, one, gentile christian in essence, and the other jewish christian in essence), I would understand Irenaeus’ logic.
However, nowhere is it brought to our attention that both Peter and Paul, together, elected a bishop to succeed them. My opinion is that the church (or churches) of Rome were instituted by both Peter and Paul,their successors beginning with Linus, however, the succession of Peter, as to the office of Peter and not simply bishop of Rome, started only with Clement as identified by Tertullian. Therefore the first pope would have been Peter, and the second would have been Clement, being the 3rd bishop of Rome, but the second “Catholic pope”.
Andre
I found that He is also a non-denominational christian (not a protestant),In my opinion, Mr. Pavao could very well be a positive influence for the non-denominational christians. So far, all I’ve heard from them is that the Catholic Church is a pagan religion which took the name Christian after Constantine.
Paul seems to accept a form of structural organization which started at the very beginning of the church era. He did quote from Clement concerning this; in part 2, he goes as far as agreeing that the Roman church, in the second century had indeed a pre-eminent authority over other churches. This , in my opinion, could advance the train of thoughts of most non-denominational christians.
The part that I disagree with mr. Pavao, is that he seems to point to the pre-eminence of the Roman Church being due to the
church’s historical foundation and not so much because of the authority being given to the bishops as such. Clement wrote that there was to have discord on account of the office of the bishop,being the reason as to why the apostles gave specific instruction as to how the succession of bishops was to be followed. Ignatius speaks amply concerning the dignity of the holy office, especially that of the bishop.
Therefore, it shouldn’t take very much for mr. Pavao to identify the pre-eminence of the Roman Church, wherein “every church need to agree with”, to the position of the Roman bishop, and not so much because of the historical foundation of the church only,
The next question would be why would the Roman bishop be held in such a superior light? Ignatius, being from Antioch, a church founded by Peter himself, is asking the Roman church not to interfere with his awaiting martyrdom. The Roman church could not have had any political influence over the martyrdom of Ignatius, so, what was he speaking about? In my opinion, the Roman Church could have had the position to stop Ignatius from overthrowing himself to the lions if it meant that his position was suicidal and not martyrdom in essence.
I do agree with Paul that the writings of Irenaeus speaks of both Paul and Peter as founders of the Church, giving some potential problems with Matthew 16. However, Tertullian clearly identifies the Roman bishop’s position was believed in context with Matthew 16.
So what about Irenaeus? Since Peter was identified as being the apostle for the jews, and Paul as being the apostle for the gentiles, the unity of both would symbolically represent the Catholicity of the Church. Since both established a church (or churches, one, gentile christian in essence, and the other jewish christian in essence), I would understand Irenaeus’ logic.
However, nowhere is it brought to our attention that both Peter and Paul, together, elected a bishop to succeed them. My opinion is that the church (or churches) of Rome were instituted by both Peter and Paul,their successors beginning with Linus, however, the succession of Peter, as to the office of Peter and not simply bishop of Rome, started only with Clement as identified by Tertullian. Therefore the first pope would have been Peter, and the second would have been Clement, being the 3rd bishop of Rome, but the second “Catholic pope”.
Andre
T
tdgesq
Guest
I’m glad it was helpful. There was also a question about the legitimacy of the succession of the Bishop of Rome and the authority he holds. Part of this was already quoted for you by another poster, but I wanted to include a couple of other relevant portions:
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3):
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html
The fact is, St. Irenaeus in the second century affirms the apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome from St. Peter and St. Paul to Linus, then Anacletus, then Clement. He also affirms that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority . . . .”
The Catholic Church to this day shows this as the beginning of the apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome down to the present: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3):
- Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings**; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.**
- 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.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html
The fact is, St. Irenaeus in the second century affirms the apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome from St. Peter and St. Paul to Linus, then Anacletus, then Clement. He also affirms that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority . . . .”
The Catholic Church to this day shows this as the beginning of the apostolic succession of the bishop of Rome down to the present: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
M
mich2
Guest
In Part 3, Paul Pavao continues with Ireneaus, and focuses on apostolic succession and mostly agrees with the Catholic teaching, except in that he doesn’t mention the existance of ecclesiastical authority, but speaks only of the passing of truth.
He quotes Ireneaus:
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth have come down to us…"
He goes on to say “notice that he’s concerned about truth and not authority”…
However, ecclesiastical tradition, being separate from the preaching of truths, refers to official structures or legal and organizational aspects of the Church, which implies necessarily the passing on of authority.
The Catholic Church focuses on apostolic succession in which the successor of the Church of Rome is successor to Peter.
What is important is** not **that Peter established a church in Rome, for he did so in many other cities, but passed on his authority as Peter to Clement, which can be found in early christian writings.
Paul Pavao mentioned that all of the successions of all of the apostles lead to the apostolic church, not only the Roman Church. I fully agree with this, but, this doesn’t diminish Ireneaus’
statement that all churches, that is, the faithfull everywhere, need to agree with the church of Rome…the question he needs to ask himself is why Rome? To say that all apostolic churches agree with each other in their teachings, by preserving the teachings of the apostles, doesn’t take away Irenaeus’ claim that the church of Rome is to be the nucleus of the Catholic Church,the source of unity, wherein the faithfull everywhere need to agree with this Church.
Paul ends by saying that the preservation of apostolic truth is what is important, and not the ecclesiatical structure of the Church. However, he claims that such apostolic succession is no longer valid, but, why? Should it not still exist today, somewhere, if we are to believe the words of Jesus?:" After I leave, the Paraclete will come and guide you into all truths". (paraphrase)
In other words, it seems that, for Paul, biblical truth can only be found through apostolic tradition, since we have thousands of different churches teaching different doctrines. His apostolic tradition is the early christian writers. I personally believe this to be a first great step for born- again christians to take as this will eventually lead them to see that the teachings found in the church fathers agree with those of the Catholic/ Orthodox churches,and are not what their legends suggest; such as; the belief that the real presence within the Eucharist did not come from Mithraic mystical teachings, or the efficacy of baptism was not a belief which was brought about by a pope in the middle ages in order to gain control and power, or even the honor given to Mary and her being seen as the New Eve might help to, at least, foster some respect for the Cathoic Church.
Andre
He quotes Ireneaus:
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth have come down to us…"
He goes on to say “notice that he’s concerned about truth and not authority”…
However, ecclesiastical tradition, being separate from the preaching of truths, refers to official structures or legal and organizational aspects of the Church, which implies necessarily the passing on of authority.
The Catholic Church focuses on apostolic succession in which the successor of the Church of Rome is successor to Peter.
What is important is** not **that Peter established a church in Rome, for he did so in many other cities, but passed on his authority as Peter to Clement, which can be found in early christian writings.
Paul Pavao mentioned that all of the successions of all of the apostles lead to the apostolic church, not only the Roman Church. I fully agree with this, but, this doesn’t diminish Ireneaus’
statement that all churches, that is, the faithfull everywhere, need to agree with the church of Rome…the question he needs to ask himself is why Rome? To say that all apostolic churches agree with each other in their teachings, by preserving the teachings of the apostles, doesn’t take away Irenaeus’ claim that the church of Rome is to be the nucleus of the Catholic Church,the source of unity, wherein the faithfull everywhere need to agree with this Church.
Paul ends by saying that the preservation of apostolic truth is what is important, and not the ecclesiatical structure of the Church. However, he claims that such apostolic succession is no longer valid, but, why? Should it not still exist today, somewhere, if we are to believe the words of Jesus?:" After I leave, the Paraclete will come and guide you into all truths". (paraphrase)
In other words, it seems that, for Paul, biblical truth can only be found through apostolic tradition, since we have thousands of different churches teaching different doctrines. His apostolic tradition is the early christian writers. I personally believe this to be a first great step for born- again christians to take as this will eventually lead them to see that the teachings found in the church fathers agree with those of the Catholic/ Orthodox churches,and are not what their legends suggest; such as; the belief that the real presence within the Eucharist did not come from Mithraic mystical teachings, or the efficacy of baptism was not a belief which was brought about by a pope in the middle ages in order to gain control and power, or even the honor given to Mary and her being seen as the New Eve might help to, at least, foster some respect for the Cathoic Church.
Andre
M
mich2
Guest
I have just realized that I was viewing a different video series called “Apostolic succession” by Paul Pavao . Although the issue is similar, I will quickly respond to his serie called “The Pope and first 2 centuries”.
Part 1 focuses on the letters of Paul and Peter identifying the role of presbyter and episcopate as being the same. For the most part, I believe that he is right, but for a different reason the one he seems to believe.
In the beginning, the apostles chose and ordained individuals to teach and in helping them establish the Church. They were called “elders”, taken from the same idea found in the old testament where 70 elders were chosen and ordained by Moses as teachers. Such elders, in the beginning, were indeed, at the same time, overseers of the congregation they would help the apostles to establish, and, there was more than one elder in one city; also, when the christians came to meet on the 1st day of the week, at first, it was in the homes of some individuals. Therefore, the presbyters were also overseers of these small early community churches.Now, when the christian community began to grow in such a high number of people, an elder among the many elders, was chosen to oversee the churches within that city, which is what we find in the writings of Ignatius.Eventually, there came to be bishops over bishops, which we call archbishops, they, being responsible for the unity over a much greater jurisdiction. Finally, as Ignatius mentions manty times in his letters, there was to be one bishop only representing the church. If we extend this view to the whole Catholic Church, it seems natural for it to also have only one bishop responsible in keeping unity over the whole Universal Church. Within the writings found in Ireneaus, Tertullian and others, The bishop of Rome seems to have jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church.
`In one of his epistles, Cyprian wrote what some christians, once alienated from the Church, asking to return in union,confessed to the bishop of Rome, Cornelius:
"We know that Cornelius is bishop of the most holy Catholic Church elected by Almighty God, and by Christ our Lord."
Andre
Part 1 focuses on the letters of Paul and Peter identifying the role of presbyter and episcopate as being the same. For the most part, I believe that he is right, but for a different reason the one he seems to believe.
In the beginning, the apostles chose and ordained individuals to teach and in helping them establish the Church. They were called “elders”, taken from the same idea found in the old testament where 70 elders were chosen and ordained by Moses as teachers. Such elders, in the beginning, were indeed, at the same time, overseers of the congregation they would help the apostles to establish, and, there was more than one elder in one city; also, when the christians came to meet on the 1st day of the week, at first, it was in the homes of some individuals. Therefore, the presbyters were also overseers of these small early community churches.Now, when the christian community began to grow in such a high number of people, an elder among the many elders, was chosen to oversee the churches within that city, which is what we find in the writings of Ignatius.Eventually, there came to be bishops over bishops, which we call archbishops, they, being responsible for the unity over a much greater jurisdiction. Finally, as Ignatius mentions manty times in his letters, there was to be one bishop only representing the church. If we extend this view to the whole Catholic Church, it seems natural for it to also have only one bishop responsible in keeping unity over the whole Universal Church. Within the writings found in Ireneaus, Tertullian and others, The bishop of Rome seems to have jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church.
`In one of his epistles, Cyprian wrote what some christians, once alienated from the Church, asking to return in union,confessed to the bishop of Rome, Cornelius:
"We know that Cornelius is bishop of the most holy Catholic Church elected by Almighty God, and by Christ our Lord."
Andre
- Status
- Not open for further replies.