there were no bishops of rome until 90 years after peter?

[steve_b]

I’ve read more about this group,thery claim the ECF were all binatarian,and that the church went apostate which Christ promised wouldn’t happen.

They prove they haven’t read the ECF’s.

I’ve heard that response in the past from some of my Protestant friends as well. They don’t use that argument with me anymore since my response to them was

So if Jesus couldn’t make do on THAT promise, (not even the gates of Hell will prevail against my Church that I build…) then that means Hell prevailed, and all His other promises aren’t going to happen either. Meaning your pastors/teachers lied to you as well, and you’re screwed. So what do you have to say NOW?

Each one realized how shallow their argument was

 

[po18guy]

I could actually buy the argument that Peter was a sort of head pastor in the Roman church and that they had a pastor with elders (very Presbyterian!) that evolved into a bishop-priest hierarchy that eventually grew historically into the papacy. Hypothetically I could accept that that might even have been the divine plan. But the overly hyped claims of things like a line of popes back to the beginning and things like the Donation of Constantine really turn me off to accepting legitimacy of the pope as any sort of leader. If he is really legitimate, then why so many lies, so many deceptions, so much ‘the ends justify the means’ to establish that?

Trace Calvinism back and it stops dead at Calvin. Big gap from there back to Christ. How to explain that? Can’t, without making things up.

Since neither you nor I am smarter or more illumined than those who study this for a living, have a watch of Dr. William Marshner, former Lutheran, dig into early Church history. Please pay particular attention to it from 17:00 to 20:00 minutes in, or so. All of the video is well worthwhile, especially if you have been trained to doubt Christianity prior to the reformation (and you have been).

From 17:00-20:00 in the video, take note of the fact that, of all known second century (100 AD -199 AD) Christian art, Christ is depicted 440 times. That is expected, right? But, there are many others also portrayed in Christian art. So, who is in 2nd place? God the Father? The Holy Spirit? Abraham? Moses? King David? Paul? No.

Peter.

312 times - 100 of those as a ‘type’ of Moses.

Paul 47 times.

Moses 37 times.

The twelve: 30 times.

Daniel and Elijah a few times.

Watch the video if you are interested in both truth and history. Ignore it if your denominational loyalty exceeds your desire for truth. To deny reality is to choose fantasy.

 

[steve_b]

1 Clement nowhere demonstrates a single bishop - his name is not even in the epistle. Rather, it was from the elders, not from the bishop of Rome. The letter indicates there was no bishop of Rome at the time. It was later generations that ascribed it to him, singularly. If you read it you will realize it does not contain the sort of language popes used later on. It is exhortation, not commandment.

I’m curious, who taught you this?
T:

I find it to be a good argument against papal claims of continuity from Peter. The idea of a singular pope was one that developed only later. Gregory the Great, a pope, rejected the idea of a universal papal monarch. He was horrified at the idea.

From the first century, you just jumped 500 years.

I’ll take the 2nd half of that on this respose

Re: Pope Gregory the Great and that statement you reference

Short answer: catholic.com/qa/did-pope-gregory-the-great-say-that-anyone-who-claimed-the-title-universal-bishop-was-the

Long answer: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num7.htm

 

[po18guy]

I’m curious, who taught you this?

From the first century, you just jumped 500 years.

I’ll take the 2nd half of that on this respose

Re: Pope Gregory the Great and that statement you reference

Short answer: catholic.com/qa/did-pope-gregory-the-great-say-that-anyone-who-claimed-the-title-universal-bishop-was-the

Long answer: biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num7.htm

Sadly, he is repeating the error that he has been taught. At this point, his mind seems closed. Time to invoke the Holy Spirit!

 

[steve_b]

And on suicide. He was not exactly right in the head. And how could he buddy up with the Christians everywhere he went if he was closely guarded by vicious guards? His story is suspect. A number of his epistles have been determined to be fraudulent, which suggests the others may be questionable.

Good grief! This is how you dismiss a bishop in the Catholic Church, a martyr, and direct disciple of John the apostle?

As far as his disputed (spurious) writings, those are clearly identified, as are his official writings

Ignatius of Antioch [SAINT]

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyrnæans
• Epistle to Polycarp
• The Martyrdom of Ignatius
• The Spurious Epistles

Re: one’s beliefs and disposition, a heretic after being warned once or twice, and continues in his heresy, is already self condemned.

Not my words but from Paul

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Point of information, The Presbyterian religion was invented by John Calvin the heretic, in the 16th century.

 

[steve_b]

1 Clement nowhere demonstrates a single bishop - his name is not even in the epistle. Rather, it was from the elders, not from the bishop of Rome. The letter indicates there was no bishop of Rome at the time. It was later generations that ascribed it to him, singularly. If you read it you will realize it does not contain the sort of language popes used later on. It is exhortation, not commandment.

Now to this part of your post,

Re: dating of Clement
catholicnewsagency.com/column/from-peter-to-clement-to-benedict-1487/

If we look at Bp Irenaeus of Smyrna, today called Izmir (that’s in Today Turkey,)

Bk 3, Chapter 3 , vs 2-3, ~180 a.d.
*
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 apostle , 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 who exist everywhere.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm
3. the apostles then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, …*

you can open the link Chapter 3 ] and read the complete context

For some added reference:
Irenaeus was a disciple of Bp Polycarp, who was also a disciple of John the apostle

Polycarp [SAINT]

• Epistle to the Philippians
• The Martyrdom of Polycarp

 

[steve_b]

I could actually buy the argument that Peter was a sort of head pastor in the Roman church and that they had a pastor with elders (very Presbyterian!) that evolved into a bishop-priest hierarchy that eventually grew historically into the papacy. Hypothetically I could accept that that might even have been the divine plan. But the overly hyped claims of things like a line of popes back to the beginning and things like the Donation of Constantine really turn me off to accepting legitimacy of the pope as any sort of leader. If he is really legitimate, then why so many lies, so many deceptions, so much ‘the ends justify the means’ to establish that?

Instead of hypothesizing, why not go with what actually happened?

Links are all operational

The Church has been Catholic from the 1st century. The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

So one THEN can ask, where does kata holos appear in scripture and particularly kata holos ekklesia ?

Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης ,τῆς ,Judea and Galilee and Sama’ria…" = Kataholos Church.

Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. He was ordained by the apostles, and was a direct disciple of St John. It was in Antioch where the disciples were first called Christian Acts 11:26 . And Ignatius in his writings uses both “Christian” and “Catholic Church” in his writings.

• St Ignatius, uses Christian in (ch 2) and Catholic Church in (ch 8) Epistle to the Smyrnæans of which schismatics won’t be going to heaven Epistle to the Philadelphians (ch 3) . As an aside, where would Ignatius learn to teach that warning and corresponding consequence for one’s soul, for commiting and remaining in the sin of schism / division from the Catholic Church? Paul condemned division / dissention from the Church Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 and that came from Jesus who does NOT approve of division in His Church John 17:20-23 , and since the HS only teaches what comes from Jesus John 16:12-15 no one can say the HS inspired all the division we see today in Christianity. There is no expiration date to that warning and condemnation
• St Polycarp, Bp Smyrna, disciple of St John called the Church the “Catholic Church” The Martyrdom of Polycarp
• Muratorian canon earlychristianwritings.co…uratoria n.html uses authority of “Catholic Church” in determining the canon
• Irenaeus ~180 a.d. wrote “Against Heresies” called the Church the “Catholic Church” Adversus haereses [Bk 1 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103110.htm”]Chapter 10 v 3], and also Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp, teaches all must agree with Rome [Bk 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm”]Chapter 3, v 2-3]
• Cyprian~250 a.d. calls the Church the Catholic Church Epistle 54
• The Nicene Creed, 325 a.d., it’s a matter of faith to believe in the “One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church”
• Augustine ~395 There are many other things that most justly keep me in her * bosom. . . . The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental (ch 5 v6)
• etc

The same Church Pope Francis is over today, 266th successor to St Peter.

Jesus started one Church. The Catholic Church. He gave all His promises to His Church. No one can argue the HS inspired them to divide from the Catholic Church because that would contradict Jesus.

And especially when considering the scandal of all the division we see that is called Protestantism, the HS isn’t the author of all that confusion.

Besides, As you can see from the links above from Paul, which ultimately came from Jesus, division is condemned as are those who do it and remain in it. For 2000 years division from the Catholic Church has been condemned. There is no expiration date to that. The consequences for disobedience, remain in force.*

 

[twf]

1 Clement nowhere demonstrates a single bishop - his name is not even in the epistle. Rather, it was from the elders, not from the bishop of Rome. The letter indicates there was no bishop of Rome at the time. It was later generations that ascribed it to him, singularly. If you read it you will realize it does not contain the sort of language popes used later on. It is exhortation, not commandment.

I find it to be a good argument against papal claims of continuity from Peter. The idea of a singular pope was one that developed only later. Gregory the Great, a pope, rejected the idea of a universal papal monarch. He was horrified at the idea.

Pope St Gregory the Great condemned the idea of a universal bishop. So did the Second Vatican Council 1500 years later. The apostolic authority of each local bishop must be respected. The local bishop is not a deputy or vicar of the Pope. Catholicism is clear on this point. That being said, St Gregory was firm that he held primacy among his brother bishops.

 

[twf]

I could actually buy the argument that Peter was a sort of head pastor in the Roman church and that they had a pastor with elders (very Presbyterian!) that evolved into a bishop-priest hierarchy that eventually grew historically into the papacy. Hypothetically I could accept that that might even have been the divine plan. But the overly hyped claims of things like a line of popes back to the beginning and things like the Donation of Constantine really turn me off to accepting legitimacy of the pope as any sort of leader. If he is really legitimate, then why so many lies, so many deceptions, so much ‘the ends justify the means’ to establish that?

Look at the history of the high priesthood…yet it was divinely established. St John tells us that Caiaphas, because he was high priest, spoke by the authority of the Holy Spirit, yet he condemned Christ to death (see John 11).
Papal authority is often exaggerated and shouldn’t be. Popes are also sinful men with freewill. Yet despite 2000 years of abuse and sin, the Pope of Rome remains one of the most powerful voices in the world. That has to mean something. I

 

[epostle]

The pagan Romans knew who the Popes were, they killed the first 40 of them.

The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome.
This is used as an excuse to claim there were no popes in the first few centuries.

The Donation of Constantine is a forged document.
So there is no need for a Catholic to shrink in fear when the words “Donation of Constantine” are brought up by an opponent in an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church and the papacy. A little knowledge of history is all one needs to deal with this myth. The Donation did not in any way change the Church’s understanding of the temporal power of the pope, and this understanding was clear from times long before the Donation first came to light of day.

 

[PluniaZ]

Sounds like we have another false dichotomy: evidence suggests there was harmonious consensus on all issues among the priests in early Rome … therefore there was not a bishop.

 

[Tomyris]

I put steve b on my Ignore list several weeks ago when he insulted a priest. Those who insult priests should take the log out of their own eye before working on the speck in someone else’s. I have seen a number of responses to his posts since that give me no encouragement to the idea of taking him off Ignore, so I will not be responding to him. I’m saying that because others may wonder why I am not responding to his posts.

I will return to the opening question.

The concepts of ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’ evolved over time. The English word ‘bishop’ is derived from the Greek term ‘episcopos’ which translated is ‘overseer’ or supervisor. Any church has some sort of ‘overseer’, generally called a pastor. The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bishop of Rome has evolved over time. To say that the first pastors of Rome understood their position as that of a modern pope would be to be speaking an anachronism. Mainly, I think, they were trying to survive, and there are different accounts of the lineage of popes. The first eight or so were all killed. In my mind it is admirable that anyone would take the job, seeing the predecessors had all been executed by the Romans.

I can buy the idea that there was a head-pastor (episcopos) in Rome, among elders, according to the Biblical model that was initially followed, or even more than one, such as the country-bishops (chorepiscopoi) mentioned in some writings. But I cannot buy the idea that it was a fully realized pope. That developed over centuries.

 

[Tomyris]

Sounds like we have another false dichotomy: evidence suggests there was harmonious consensus on all issues among the priests in early Rome … therefore there was not a bishop.

No.

 

[Wesrock]

I can buy the idea that there was a head-pastor (episcopos) in Rome, among elders, according to the Biblical model that was initially followed, or even more than one, such as the country-bishops (chorepiscopoi) mentioned in some writings. But I cannot buy the idea that it was a fully realized pope. That developed over centuries.

Of course the concept of the papacy developed some, as did the liturgical practices and organization of the Church, especially after Christianity was legalized, could move into the open, and working between multiple churches across the empire became a possibility. That does not mean the developments were false or superfluous, or that the Apostolic See was not given a pre-emimence across the whole Church, and communion with it was never seen as a certain ideal or bar for measureship of true doctrine, or that it didn’t exercise ecclesial authority in settling disputes between other churches.

Now, we could certainly discuss other metropolitans given additional respect, as was proper. But the bishop, presbyter, and deacon model was a very early development.

 

[PluniaZ]

The concepts of ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’ evolved over time. The English word ‘bishop’ is derived from the Greek term ‘episcopos’ which translated is ‘overseer’ or supervisor. Any church has some sort of ‘overseer’, generally called a pastor. The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bishop of Rome has evolved over time. To say that the first pastors of Rome understood their position as that of a modern pope would be to be speaking an anachronism. Mainly, I think, they were trying to survive, and there are different accounts of the lineage of popes. The first eight or so were all killed. In my mind it is admirable that anyone would take the job, seeing the predecessors had all been executed by the Romans.

I can buy the idea that there was a head-pastor (episcopos) in Rome, among elders, according to the Biblical model that was initially followed, or even more than one, such as the country-bishops (chorepiscopoi) mentioned in some writings. But I cannot buy the idea that it was a fully realized pope. That developed over centuries.

Evidence please.

 

[steve_b]

I put steve b on my Ignore list several weeks ago when he insulted a priest.

Who did I insult?

Be specific.

 

[po18guy]

I put steve b on my Ignore list several weeks ago when he insulted a priest. Those who insult priests should take the log out of their own eye before working on the speck in someone else’s. I have seen a number of responses to his posts since that give me no encouragement to the idea of taking him off Ignore, so I will not be responding to him. I’m saying that because others may wonder why I am not responding to his posts.

I will return to the opening question.

The concepts of ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’ evolved over time. The English word ‘bishop’ is derived from the Greek term ‘episcopos’ which translated is ‘overseer’ or supervisor. Any church has some sort of ‘overseer’, generally called a pastor. The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Bishop of Rome has evolved over time. To say that the first pastors of Rome understood their position as that of a modern pope would be to be speaking an anachronism. Mainly, I think, they were trying to survive, and there are different accounts of the lineage of popes. The first eight or so were all killed. In my mind it is admirable that anyone would take the job, seeing the predecessors had all been executed by the Romans.

I can buy the idea that there was a head-pastor (episcopos) in Rome, among elders, according to the Biblical model that was initially followed, or even more than one, such as the country-bishops (chorepiscopoi) mentioned in some writings. But I cannot buy the idea that it was a fully realized pope. That developed over centuries.

If you are unable to step outside of your anti-Catholic default; to temporarily remove your reformation lenses, further conversation is academic at best. You have been presented with substantial and verifiable history. A correct response would be to examine and ponder that history on the chance that it is correct. Rather, what I see is re-defining and disregarding. You have every right to do that, but it is difficult to see how the truth is served.

 

[Tomyris]

If you are unable to step outside of your anti-Catholic default; to temporarily remove your reformation lenses, further conversation is academic at best. You have been presented with substantial and verifiable history. A correct response would be to examine and ponder that history on the chance that it is correct. Rather, what I see is re-defining and disregarding. You have every right to do that, but it is difficult to see how the truth is served.

Is that the best you can do? I could say the same in reverse. I have examined history from a Catholic viewpoint and discovered it is overstated in its own favor. Have you looked at it impartially? You would of course have to remove your Catholic default in favor of truth, but you already maintain truth is Catholic and there is no other, so I guess you cannot. ‘Whatever the Catholic Church teaches is truth’, I suppose, so you cannot admit error on its part.

 

[pablope]

I
I will return to the opening question.

I can buy the idea that there was a head-pastor (episcopos) in Rome, among elders, according to the Biblical model that was initially followed, or even more than one, such as the country-bishops (chorepiscopoi) mentioned in some writings. But I cannot buy the idea that it was a fully realized pope. That developed over centuries.

Do you see anything wrong with this development?

 

[pablope]

I could actually buy the argument that Peter was a sort of head pastor in the Roman church and that they had a pastor with elders (very Presbyterian!) that evolved into a bishop-priest hierarchy that eventually grew historically into the papacy. t?

The so called “elders” of the early church were ordained and appointed, and has apostolic succession…and “elders” were the priests…it is not actually very Presbyterian…for as I understand it…the PCA do not have priests and bishops.

So, how can you term it “very Presbyterian”?