Who appointed Linus pope?

[Montalban]

No, a bishop cannot have two chairs.

That’s not the point.

Peter founded the See of Antioch and as others have evidenced it is a ‘Chair of Peter’. Your post ignores Catholics who here have evidenced this.

You can if you want disagree with them too!

*The feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, commemorating his foundation of the See of Antioch, has also been long celebrated at Rome, on 22 February. *
saints.sqpn.com/chair-of-peter/

Where the bishop is, there is the Church. If Antioch and Rome the same Church? No. Then they are two separate seats. Assuming the claim that Peter actually occupied the seat in Antioch and Rome, he couldn’t have done so at the same time. Therefore only one really would carry the weight of Peter’s office.

Antioch and Rome are the same church if you believe in ONE holy catholic and apostolic church.

whilst Peter ‘vacated’ the chair in Antioch and went to Rome it is still a ‘chair of Peter’ because it was founded by Peter.

The two feasts were included in the Tridentine Calendar with the rank of Double, which Pope Clement VIII raised in 1604 to the newly invented rank of Greater Double. In 1960 Pope John XXIII removed from the General Roman Calendar eight feast days that were second feasts of a single saint or mystery: one of them was the January 18 feast of the Chair of Peter.[6] The February 22 celebration became a Second-Class Feast. This calendar was incorporated in the 1962 Roman Missal of Pope John XXIII, whose continued use as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is authorized under the conditions indicated in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum In the new classification introduced in 1969 the February 22 celebration appears in the Roman Calendar with the rank of Feast. Those traditionalist Catholics who do not accept the changes made by Pope John XXIII continue to celebrate both feast days: “St Peter’s Chair at Rome” on January 18 and the “Chair of St Peter at Antioch” on February 22.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_Saint_Peter

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s not the point.

Peter founded the See of Antioch and as others have evidenced it is a ‘Chair of Peter’. Your post ignores Catholics who here have evidenced this.

You can if you want disagree with them too!

*The feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, commemorating his foundation of the See of Antioch, has also been long celebrated at Rome, on 22 February. *
saints.sqpn.com/chair-of-peter/

No, what I meant was that actively he can only have one chair. So if indeed his authority is passed through the Chair in Rome, then that is his only Episcopal Seat. The one in Antioch is celebrated for its historicity, not that it has any authority in relation to Peter today.

Antioch and Rome are the same church if you believe in ONE holy catholic and apostolic church.

Well, yes and no. Remember that the ecclesiology of the Church recognizes the separate existence of particular Churches. So there is the Church in Rome and the Church in Antioch. While they are both the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, they are also recognized as two distinct Churches. For one thing, they have separate bishops.

whilst Peter ‘vacated’ the chair in Antioch and went to Rome it is still a ‘chair of Peter’ because it was founded by Peter.

But the authority of Peter doesn’t rest on the episcopal seat for the sake of resting there. As believed by Rome, the authority was laid on the episcopate in Rome, not in Antioch.

 

[Mystophilus]

Then we might as well close this thread.

Sorry, because it is important to discriminate between what we can prove and what we can only speculate upon, we should stop talking about it???

What about Acts 15?

Πρεσβυτερος is used, but επισκοπος is not, and, in terms of structure, it has the added complication of the original αποστολοι being present. The conciliar nature of the discussion is evident, there and in Paul’s reference in Galatians 2.

What about Paul in Rome? Was he a leader there?

In terms of “individual leader”, I have not seen any ancient witness who describes him as having been such. Irenaeus does describe him as having been, with Peter, a founder and builder of that church, which suggests some significance, but Irenaeus follows the customary pattern of naming Peter first.

 

[Montalban]

Sorry, because it is important to discriminate between what we can prove and what we can only speculate upon, we should stop talking about it???

Okay, I’m happy to speculate

Πρεσβυτερος is used, but επισκοπος is not, and, in terms of structure, it has the added complication of the original αποστολοι being present. The conciliar nature of the discussion is evident, there and in Paul’s reference in Galatians 2.

Acts 15 is a Council

In terms of “individual leader”, I have not seen any ancient witness who describes him as having been such. Irenaeus does describe him as having been, with Peter, a founder and builder of that church, which suggests some significance, but Irenaeus follows the customary pattern of naming Peter first.

The ‘customary pattern’ is more selective use of evidence.

1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 for example

 

[Montalban]

No, what I meant was that actively he can only have one chair. So if indeed his authority is passed through the Chair in Rome, then that is his only Episcopal Seat. The one in Antioch is celebrated for its historicity, not that it has any authority in relation to Peter today.

Catholics don’t look to Antioch as an ‘authority’ of Peter, so it’s not an authority of Peter.
That’s circular reasoning only if I accept the Catholic position. I don’t.

The bishops in Antioch are deemed valid for their apostolic succession from Peter who’s see they sit

Pope Gregory noted the Sees to be sees of One; of Peter!

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors…
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one…
He himself stablished (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,** over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside**, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "
To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL

(emphasis added)

Well, yes and no. Remember that the ecclesiology of the Church recognizes the separate existence of particular Churches. So there is the Church in Rome and the Church in Antioch. While they are both the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”, they are also recognized as two distinct Churches. For one thing, they have separate bishops.

I agree that would work with you; I answered the fact that they are the same church!

But the authority of Peter doesn’t rest on the episcopal seat for the sake of resting there. As believed by Rome, the authority was laid on the episcopate in Rome, not in Antioch.

Only if you accept the Catholic notion of primacy as passed on only to one of the Sees of Peter.

As noted Pope Gregory recognised
a) a bishop in Antioch
and
b) that bishop being in a See of Peter!

 

[marlo]

I don’t know what you want to do here, You are Orthodox and it is fully accepted by the Orthodox tradition that from Peter to Linus is of accepted valid succession and Linus was a Bishop of Rome, We don’t have to prove it to you, your tradition accepts it.

It’s so sad that some Orthodox become Protestant and forget the Saints and Popes of Rome of the first century which is part of being an Orthodox. Know your identity

Are you saying that there was more than one bishop of Rome at the same time?

Who else was bishop of Rome at that time?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

St. Paul did alot of travel and established many churches.

When he left those churches he probably left them with priests.

It is not clear to me that he left all of them with bishops–many of those churches looked to Paul as being their bishop–course he also ordained bishops such as Timothy and Titus.

I guess what I’m saying is that churches didn’t always have only ONE bishop like they do today–the church was just getting started for heavens sake.

And when Peter was crucified in Rome there probably were alot of churches in Rome and around the city–some of them probably looked to St. Paul as a leader and undoubtedly also to Linus and Clement also.

There’s no doubt that Peter was the first Pope and bishop of Rome and there’s no doubt that he was also once the bishop of Antioch–now when he left Antioch did he immediately say another guy was bishop the second that Peter left or did they look to Peter as a leader just like all those churches that St. Paul started looked to St. Paul as a leader or could I say bishop?

In other words don’t look at the beginning of the Catholic church and think that everything was in perfect chronological order like today when it comes to saying who was bishop of what and the exact time of all these occurences–that is absurd!

This is just a guess of mine but maybe St. Paul was in prison in Rome when Peter was crucified–maybe before that happened he was able to communicate with Peter through people that visited him in prison and Peter in prison and maybe St. peter told him that since they were both in jail and might get martyred that someone should take over if they died–

St. Paul I’m sure told him that he was the prince of the apostles and that if he should die first that maybe Linus who maybe wasn’t in jail at the time should take over as leader of the church in Rome–in other words take over Peter’s place as leader of the church and maybe they told Linus that maybe he should always recommend to other bishops or priests in Rome who should take over if he were to be killed.

I’m sure when times were at least peaceful enough that at some time or another the bishop of Rome was probably elected.

In other words we don’t know everything about succession to Peter’s office but we do know the names of the list of popes so evidently the Holy Spirit guided the church in choosing Saint Peter’s successors.

I don’t know but I’ve always wondered if the Pope doesn’t in some official papers somewhere leave a suggestion as to who he thinks the next pope should be.

I’ve heard that is the case but most of the time the cardinals who will elect the next poipe do not follow his advice.

Does anyone know if this is true or not?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Who appointed Linus pope?

I’m an idiot. I thought you meant this guy-

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m going to go hide in a corner now.

 

[marlo]

The Catholic church knows and identify that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch are Seat’s of Peter, but the Church in Rome is where St. Peter leaves the Pastoral Care of the entire church together with the martyrdom of St. Paul, That is why the Pope seat’s in Peters chair.

Fast forward to today, The Original Seat of Peter in the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch does not belong to the Eastern Orthodox, but to the Oriental Orthodox, in fact, the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Church has a rival See of these churches, but the Seat of Peter in Rome has no other claimant, Even the Eastern and Oriental could not and will not dare create a rival See. This is how the Church in Rome is so respected, that is why this question of Apostolic Succession from Peter to Linus to Pope Benedict should never been raised by an Orthodox.

Catholics don’t look to Antioch as an ‘authority’ of Peter, so it’s not an authority of Peter.
That’s circular reasoning only if I accept the Catholic position. I don’t.

The bishops in Antioch are deemed valid for their apostolic succession from Peter who’s see they sit

Pope Gregory noted the Sees to be sees of One; of Peter!

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors…
Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one…
He himself stablished (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,** over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside**, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. "
To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria Book VII, Epistle XL

(emphasis added)

I agree that would work with you; I answered the fact that they are the same church!

Only if you accept the Catholic notion of primacy as passed on only to one of the Sees of Peter.

As noted Pope Gregory recognised
a) a bishop in Antioch
and
b) that bishop being in a See of Peter!

 

[Montalban]

I don’t know what you want to do here, You are Orthodox and it is fully accepted by the Orthodox tradition that from Peter to Linus is of accepted valid succession and Linus was a Bishop of Rome, We don’t have to prove it to you, your tradition accepts it.

Your post seems to have confused two points

a) why I believe something happened
with
b) why you believe something happened.

Let me, by way of analogy try and explain this.

Say we are both asked “Why is the sky blue”
and I said
Because of the angle of light refraction against the sky
and you said
Because little aliens paint it that way

We of course could both agree, and we could in fact both be wrong.

So I’d like to examine why you (Catholics) believe something.

It’s so sad that some Orthodox become Protestant and forget the Saints and Popes of Rome of the first century which is part of being an Orthodox. Know your identity

But all the time instead of answering questions Catholic apologetics seems here to be a list of

a) asking me to demonstrate why I need to know
b) pointing me in other directions
c) whining about why I’m here/speculating to my motives

In short, anything but discussing the point.

Eventually people like me go “Oh well!” and move on, and then other people here can go on triumphantly about how they beat me in discussing, and so on.

I’ve seen it all before.

 

[Montalban]

The Catholic church knows and identify that the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch are Seat’s of Peter, but the Church in Rome is where St. Peter leaves the Pastoral Care of the entire church together with the martyrdom of St. Paul, That is why the Pope seat’s in Peters chair.

So you’re saying in effect

“We know that Antioch is a Seat of Peter, but really it’s just ROme that is”

Fast forward to today, The Original Seat of Peter in the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch does not belong to the Eastern Orthodox,

That’s not true.

There’s a valid Orthodox bishop in Antioch.

If you want to go down this path then you should know that the RC Church in fact recognises THREE different bishops in Antioch (none are Orthodox) so your chuch has formalised division

 

[Montalban]

I’m an idiot. I thought you meant this guy-

No worries. I make these mistakes a few times myself. Especially in relation to the fact I’m not American and miss a lot of American references that are made

 

[Montalban]

St. Paul did alot of travel and established many churches.

When he left those churches he probably left them with priests.

It is not clear to me that he left all of them with bishops–many of those churches looked to Paul as being their bishop–course he also ordained bishops such as Timothy and Titus.

Paul certainly ordained
“Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens (Clement), after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.”
Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Book 7, Chapter XLVI – Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

“The blessed apostles (plural) having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.”
Eusebius The History of the Church - Book V Chapter VI. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.

Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles (plural)
Leo the Great
Sermon LXXXII. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).)

 

[Mystophilus]

Acts 15 is a Council

Yes, that is what “The conciliar nature of the discussion is evident” means: “conciliar” is the adjective for the noun “council”. I have no idea what you are on about here.

As I noted, the leadership structure of the council is complicated. Peter is the first speaker who is named (v.7), and he addresses not the general group but just its leaders, i.e. the apostles and elders; his address is followed by a general silence. This demonstrates his considerable auctoritas (“authority”, not “power”). However, after Paul and Barnabas’ contribution, James (v.19) apparently addresses the whole group, saying, “Εγω κρινω” (“I judge”), and his judgement is followed. This demonstrates his considerable auctoritas. Add to this the fact that, when Peter is released from prison, he directs the believers to tell “James and the brothers” (Acts 12:17). Those two are the only ones whom Luke bothers to name in these chapters, but he gives us no clear indication of precedence of one over the other, if there were any such thing, and the precise nature of any change from Acts 1-5, when Peter is singled out from the apostles, is far from clear in the very limited information which Luke gives us in Acts 15.

Perhaps James’ view was followed because everyone else thought it sensible. Perhaps James’ view was followed because James had taken over as general leader. Perhaps Peter had moved from being general leader to the leader just of the elders. Perhaps there was not yet any singular leader, and Luke was just recording who said what. We really cannot know from only this passage.

The ‘customary pattern’ is more selective use of evidence. 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 for example

As I have freely stated, “I have not seen any ancient witness who describes him [Paul] as having been” the singular leader at Rome. All that I am “selecting” is what I have seen, nor has any attempt been made to conceal anything.

If, therefore, you wish to accuse me of the dishonesty of selective use of evidence, I would very much appreciate you coming right out and making the accusation.

Yes, Paul refers to himself ahead of Peter in 1 Cor 3:22, and to James ahead of Peter in Gal 2:9, a verse within the passage which I did just reference. It remains nonetheless true that the customary (which does not mean “absolutely unvarying”) usage, both in the NT and in Early Church documents, was to put Peter at the head of lists of the apostles, q.v. Mt 10:2-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13. The same thing happens when Jesus allows only three disciples to follow him: it is “Peter, James, and John”, in that order. Irenaeus was following the Gospel pattern.

However, the comment regarding this customary usage was made in reference to your question whether Paul were a leader in the church at Rome, and the answer remains that we have evidence of his having played a significant role, but I have not seen anything which describes him as the singular leader.

I was assuming that you, being Orthodox, agreed “that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis [arrangement of the churches], and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos [first] among the patriarchs” (Statement of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic Commission, 15/11/2007, section 41), giving Rome primacy but not supremacy. Is this not the case?

 

[Montalban]

Yes, that is what “The conciliar nature of the discussion is evident” means: “conciliar” is the adjective for the noun “council”. I have no idea what you are on about here.

That’s fine. I’ve no idea what your on about either.

As I noted, the leadership structure of the council is complicated. Peter is the first speaker who is named (v.7), and he addresses not the general group but just its leaders, i.e. the apostles and elders; his address is followed by a general silence. This demonstrates his considerable auctoritas (“authority”, not “power”).

Yes, more selective evidence; they’re also silent when Paul speaks. It’s called politeness.

Further, if Peter had given a ‘ruling’ then Paul speaking after him is superfluous.

However, after Paul and Barnabas’ contribution, James (v.19) apparently addresses the whole group, saying, “Εγω κρινω” (“I judge”), and his judgement is followed. This demonstrates his considerable auctoritas. Add to this the fact that, when Peter is released from prison, he directs the believers to tell “James and the brothers” (Acts 12:17). Those two are the only ones whom Luke bothers to name in these chapters, but he gives us no clear indication of precedence of one over the other, if there were any such thing, and the precise nature of any change from Acts 1-5, when Peter is singled out from the apostles, is far from clear in the very limited information which Luke gives us in Acts 15.

And there’s the problem with your selective use of evidence: When Peter is ‘singled out’ or ‘praised’ it proves the papacy. When someone else is equally ‘singled out’ it’s not significant - why? Because

Perhaps James’ view was followed because everyone else thought it sensible. Perhaps James’ view was followed because James had taken over as general leader. Perhaps Peter had moved from being general leader to the leader just of the elders. Perhaps there was not yet any singular leader, and Luke was just recording who said what. We really cannot know from only this passage.

That’s why I’m not a ‘bible-only’ Christian
…“This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”
John Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33
(emphasis added)

As I have freely stated, “I have not seen any ancient witness who describes him [Paul] as having been” the singular leader at Rome. All that I am “selecting” is what I have seen, nor has any attempt been made to conceal anything.

What about ‘singular’ foundation of the church?
“He gave proof of His presence with us forthwith, and did most abundantly impart Himself to Paul, whose testimony we also believe when he says, ‘Unto me only is this grace given.’ For this is he who formerly was a persecutor of the Church of God, but who afterwards appeared openly before all men as a faithful minister of the Paraclete; by whose instrumentality His singular clemency was made known to all men, in such wise that even to us who some time were without hope the largess of His gifts has come. For which of us could have hoped that Paul, the persecutor and enemy of the Church, would prove its defender and guardian? Yea, and not that alone, but that he would become also its ruler, the founder and architect of the churches?..From the loving desire for the Saviour we have been called Christians, as the whole world itself attests, and as the apostles also plainly declare. Yea, further, that best master-builder of His, Paul himself, has laid our foundation, that is, the foundation of the Church and has put us in trust of the law, ordaining ministers, and presbyters, and bishops in the same, and describing in the places severally assigned to that purpose, in what manner and with what character the ministers of God ought to conduct themselves, of what repute the presbyters ought to be possessed, and how they should be constituted, and what manner of persons those also ought to be who desire the office of bishop.” (Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, 34, 51)

If, therefore, you wish to accuse me of the dishonesty of selective use of evidence, I would very much appreciate you coming right out and making the accusation.

I’ve already noted your posts selective use of evidence.

Yes, Paul refers to himself ahead of Peter in 1 Cor 3:22, and to James ahead of Peter in Gal 2:9, a verse within the passage which I did just reference. It remains nonetheless true that the customary (which does not mean “absolutely unvarying”) usage, both in the NT and in Early Church documents, was to put Peter at the head of lists of the apostles, q.v. Mt 10:2-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, and Acts 1:13. The same thing happens when Jesus allows only three disciples to follow him: it is “Peter, James, and John”, in that order. Irenaeus was following the Gospel pattern.

Again, selective use of evidence;

It’s ‘customary’ (or ‘normal’ as I might say) to name them in one way because it is. It’s like seeing 20 rabbits, 15 are white and saying that they’re all white. But what about the 5? Well they’re not significant because they’re not.

However, the comment regarding this customary usage was made in reference to your question whether Paul were a leader in the church at Rome, and the answer remains that we have evidence of his having played a significant role, but I have not seen anything which describes him as the singular leader.

(see above)

I was assuming that you, being Orthodox, agreed “that Rome, as the Church that “presides in love” according to the phrase of St Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis [arrangement of the churches], and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos [first] among the patriarchs” (Statement of the Joint Orthodox-Catholic Commission, 15/11/2007, section 41), giving Rome primacy but not supremacy. Is this not the case?

It’s irrelevant. Why I believe something is not the same as why you believe something

 

[Montalban]

It’s circular reasoning

Peter is named first is ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ because it is.

When Peter is not named first, well then it just isn’t the way he’s normally named.



Anyway to the relief of all I’m leaving this forum again. I came here to do some research for a book I’m writing*. I wanted to find evidence of writers who connect the single key of David (in Isaiah) to the several keys of Peter (in Matthew) - which seems to be what modern Catholic writers have chosen to do.

Unable to prove a negative (that no other person had written on this) I entered this forum, as well as wrote to PhilVaz (Catholic apologist). I also re-joined an Orthodox forum, and they actually came up with De Salles! SO they knew more about the history of this

I see the selective use of evidence is still going on.

Adios


{{unsubscribing from the entire site - until I next need some research}}

*-so far 56,791 words and growing. I started this after doing an article for Wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

 

[franc1sc0]

I guess some folks just want there to be a passage that says something to the fact of “Everyone, Peter is in charge and his successors will be in charge after that, got it?” Or “Peter you are the Pope and your successors will be Popes and alot of them will live it the Vatican. Here is a list of questions that will be asked through the centuries and make sure they get into the Bible in a few centuries.” I for one take the Catholic Church’s position on it and trust that the Holy Spirit guides her.

 

[lyrikal]

That’s why I’m not a ‘bible-only’ Christian
…“This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”
John Chrysostom Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33
(emphasis added)

Nice try.

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.” -St. John Chrysostom

What about ‘singular’ foundation of the church?
“He gave proof of His presence with us forthwith, and did most abundantly impart Himself to Paul, whose testimony we also believe when he says, ‘Unto me only is this grace given.’ For this is he who formerly was a persecutor of the Church of God, but who afterwards appeared openly before all men as a faithful minister of the Paraclete; by whose instrumentality His singular clemency was made known to all men, in such wise that even to us who some time were without hope the largess of His gifts has come. For which of us could have hoped that Paul, the persecutor and enemy of the Church, would prove its defender and guardian? Yea, and not that alone, but that he would become also its ruler, the founder and architect of the churches?..From the loving desire for the Saviour we have been called Christians, as the whole world itself attests, and as the apostles also plainly declare. Yea, further, that best master-builder of His, Paul himself, has laid our foundation, that is, the foundation of the Church and has put us in trust of the law, ordaining ministers, and presbyters, and bishops in the same, and describing in the places severally assigned to that purpose, in what manner and with what character the ministers of God ought to conduct themselves, of what repute the presbyters ought to be possessed, and how they should be constituted, and what manner of persons those also ought to be who desire the office of bishop.” (Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, 34, 51)

Awesome. Now show us more ECFs who said the same thing since one is not enough for you. Show us a consensus…ANY kind of consensus. This is exactly what you asked for so go ahead…

By the way, from that same book that you quote, he says:

“The Apostle Peter, however, the most eminent of all the disciples”

I’ve already noted your posts selective use of evidence.

And you’ve done the same thing above.

(see above)

All we see is one ECF which apparently, to you, is not enough. This means you believe in a novelty teaching.

IRONY.

 

[mercytruth]

There is no doubt in my mind from reading the NT, that the apostle Peter had the primacy of aposltleship and of teaching. If this was the case, I do not think the apostle Paul would have written his epistle to the church of Rome, if he himself had not ordained Linus as the first bishop of Rome. He would have been circumventing the apostle Peter’s authority.

The apostles were sent out to make disciples of men and to establish churches through the ordination of bishops. Their anointing from Jesus Christ was to give teaching instruction to the churches they had established via the local bishop which they ordained.

The Apostolic Constitutions say that the apostle Paul ordained Linus as the first bishop of Rome, and the apostle Peter ordained Clement as the second Bishop of Rome

On the other hand, the apostle Peter ordained Euodius as the first bishop of Antioch, and the apostle Paul ordained Ignatius as the second bishop of Antioch.

The evangelist Mark, sent from the apostle Peter ordained the first bishop of Alexandria, and the evangelist Luke, sent out from the apostle Paul, ordained the second bishop of Alexandria.

Clement of Alexandria per Bishop Eusebius states that Peter, James and John ordained James the Just as the first bishop of Jewish Jerusalem.

Now does anyone see a pattern? The apostle Peter’s ministry was to the Jews, the apostle Paul’s ministry was to the Gentiles.

In the sees of Rome, Anticoch and Alexandria we had a mixed population of Jewish believers and Gentile believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am assuming that the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul were given the authority to ordain the first and second bishops of these three sees before they had suffered martyrdom.

Has the primacy of apostolic teaching authority that was given to the apostle Peter been passed on to anyone? If it has, then it would seem to have passed on to the presbyters, or the Magesterium of the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria. However, this authority would be in conjuction with the apostolic teaching authority that was given to the apostle Paul in three of these four sees.

(One can read of the teaching authority of the apostles being **likened **to the Sanhedrin in their relationship to the High Priest in the epistles of Ignatius and in the Apostolic Constitutions.)

just my thoughts from the gathered readings

God’s peace

micah

 

[Mystophilus]

That’s fine. I’ve no idea what your on about either.

You asked questions about Christian history, and so I provided answers with references to Early Church sources. Now I find myself being slandered for promoting a political position which I do not even hold.

Yes, more selective evidence; they’re also silent when Paul speaks. It’s called politeness.

That is not “also”, because it is the same event, and so it is not selective because it does discuss that exact silence. In v.7, Peter stands up and speaks about God’s works among the Gentiles, and the many become silent, v.12, and listen to Barnabas and Paul (in that order) talking about God’s works among the Gentiles. Peter, Barnabas, and Paul are all talking about the same thing.

Further, if Peter had given a ‘ruling’ then Paul speaking after him is superfluous.

Yes, and James would be yet more superfluous. It was I who pointed out that James, not Peter, is the one who apparently gives the ruling. That is in no manner selective.

And there’s the problem with your selective use of evidence: When Peter is ‘singled out’ or ‘praised’ it proves the papacy. When someone else is equally ‘singled out’ it’s not significant - why?

Where have I said that any of this proves the papacy!?! We are talking about Jerusalem, not Rome!

Even in regard to Rome, what we have discussed is the Early Church and its representation of the line of Roman leaders. While that demonstrates a belief in the continuous existence of the office of Roman leader, it says nothing whatsoever about the position of that Roman leader in relation to other leaders in the ecumenical Church. I have not been providing “proof of the papacy”, but, instead, evidence of the early testimony regarding the governance of the church at Rome alone, and, just more recently, at Jerusalem.

You are evidently getting your wires crossed here, and conflating what I have been saying with what someone else has been saying.

Further, the reference to singling out was for Acts 1-5, in which Peter is very clearly singled out by Luke (q.v. 1:13, 1:15, 2:14, 3:1, 5:1-10, 5:15), not to Acts 15, in which there is this complex interplay between him and James, an interplay for which I offered a range of hypotheses without choosing any of them, and that, again, is most definitely not being selective.

That’s why I’m not a ‘bible-only’ Christian

Great! I am not either. I am, however, a student of history, which is what prompts me to say that Chrysostom is a good source for demonstrating a C4th view of James’ role, but I, for one, cannot read that all the way back into the C1st. I have just gone looking and found a corroborating reference (1.3) in Eusebius (C4th) to Clement of Alexandria (C2nd/3rd). Speaking of Eusebius, I did run into an instance where he lists Paul ahead of Peter.

nor has any attempt been made to conceal anything.

What about ‘singular’ foundation of the church? (Archelaus Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, 34, 51)

I could not conceal what I had never read before, and this C5th-7th text discusses Paul’s role in the ecumenical Church, not the governance of Rome or Jerusalem.

It’s ‘customary’ (or ‘normal’ as I might say) to name them in one way because it is. It’s like seeing 20 rabbits, 15 are white and saying that they’re all white.

No, it isn’t. It is like calling caucasian people white when they are clearly pinkish-brownish-off-white. All of the Evangelists do it, many of the Fathers do it, and Irenaeus does it. That Paul fairly consistently does not do it may suggest something about Paul’s relationship with Peter.

It’s irrelevant. Why I believe something is not the same as why you believe something

It is highly relevant. I presumed that I was talking with someone who already knew that primacy is not the same as supremacy, which was why I felt no need to point out that the indications of Peter’s significance in the Early Church are not justifications of the later claims for Roman supremacy.