Why is Peter considered the first "Pope", if it was James who Peter and Paul answered to?

[Daniel_Keeran]

True. But there is more to support Peter’s primacy than mere prominence…

True. We simply see Peter acting in that role while the others acquiesce.
REPLY: Paul fulfilled the role as leader, as did James and John. Peter and Paul were very visible but the others were no less leaders.
True. And by your logic, we cannot conclude strictly from the scriptures that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Nowhere is it state that He is. Perhaps He was God who only APPEARED to be a man.
REPLY: Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

And yet, of the three, Paul specifically mentions that he spent time with Peter because Paul knew that the Galatians knew that Peter was the man.
REPLY: Does it say the Galatians knew that Peter was “the man.” What man did they know he was? Apostle to the circumcised, but NOT head of the whole church on earth.

Actually, given Jesus’ clear teaching that the Apostles should be servants of all (cf. Mark 9:33-35), I would be surprised to find Peter blowing his own horn. Paul’s touting of his own credentials comes across as quite arrogant by comparison. Perhaps that’s why God gave him a “thorn” to keep him humble!
**REPLY: You discredit Paul, yet both he and Peter did state their full credentials in the beginning of every letter. It would not have been the least prideful for Peter to give credit to Jesus for appointing him as the “servant of servants” or “head of the church.” **

Really, Daniel? Is that what scholars and ordinary believers have concluded down through the centuries?
REPLY: Where are the pastoral letters of the immediate successors of Peter preserved for us? Why are they not preserved within sacred scripture?
Isn’t the REAL issue that you need Peter to be nothing special because if the primacy of Peter is legitimate, then you have to deal with the possibility that the papacy is of God? And if the papacy is from God, then the Catholic Church must…whoa!
REPLY: Of course, that is the question. To start, you must prove from scripture that: 1) Peter was appointed head of the church on earth 2) the office of head of the church was established, having successors and qualifications for such office.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

“To open the gate of the city.”

Gee, that’s kind of simplistic, don’t you think? The person to whom the king gave the keys to the city held an OFFICE with great authority to act in place of the king.

Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Isaiah says, “open” and “shut”; Jesus says “bind” and “loose”. See the parallel? Jesus has given Peter - individually - the same authority that the second in command to the king held in the ancient kingdom of Israel.

Is Jesus a king? Absolutely. Did He name Peter second in command? You bet.

Where do we find in scripture that Peter used the keys? Perhaps in Acts 2 and Acts 10. But neither Peter nor any writer of sacred scripture EVER refer to him or appeal to him as head of the church on earth. In Revelation 3:7, Jesus has the key to the house of David, so perhaps this means Peter gave the key back or that there were no successors?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent,

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
REPLY: Perhaps early seeds of the papacy are seen here but not a clear statement that Peter was head of the church.

Tertullian

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
REPLY: Seeds of a developing papacy but not a clear statement and no reference to successors or to the bishop of Rome.

Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
REPLY: Is this the same pseudo-clementine letter that names James as “bishop of bishops”?

Origen

"f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
REPLY: Origen does not say Peter was head of the church or that he had successors that Origen knew of or could mention. The office of pope is missing.

Cyprian

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
REPLY: Cyprian gives credence to the idea of a chair, implying succession of Peter’s “office,” so here is a fuller development of the idea of papacy.

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386 AD)

“the chiefest and foremost of the apostles” (Catechetical Lectures, 2, 19).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis” [Acts 9:32–34] (Catechetical Lectures, 17:27 [A.D. 350]).
REPLY: Missing in this quote is Peter as head of the church, and the office and succession of Peter as head of the church

Ephraim

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
REPLY: After the imperialization of the church, Ephraim describes Peter as having the role of head of the church on earth, but there is no mention of a continuing office in this quote.

Ambrose

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
**REPLY: After imperialization, Ambrose calls Peter the foundation of the church, going beyond scripture. **

**Thanks for supplying this documentation. But there is a conspicuous absence of any mention of the papacy in First/Second Clement, Barnabas, Didache, Justin Martyr, Hermas (mentions Grapte with Clement), and other earlier writings. The process and rationale for gradual development is clear from your quotes **

 

[paul_c]

I agree completely. List all the truths of christian doctrine and we’ll have a look. The primacy of Peter is a Catholic doctrine, so we may need to distinguish Christian from Catholic, but it will be interesting.

Do you recognize the Apostle Creed in your denomination?

 

[Randy_Carson]

When the early Christians were struggling with matters of faith, did they consult Peter? Did they consult the bishop of Rome re gnosticism and a myriad of heresies and false gospels? No, **they consulted the scriptures **that had been circulated, and we know this from the writings of the ECF’s. And in the case of Corinth in c.90 AD, they asked for the advice of the church at Rome re the leadership challenge in the congregation at Corinth.

Gee, why would the local Church in Corinth look to the Bishop of Rome (Clement was the fourth pope, FWIW) to solve their internal problem? Why did they accept his interference in a local matter? Could it be because they accepted his primacy as the successor of Peter as head of the whole Church? :yup: They didn’t consult with the Bishop of Jerusalem did they? NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority to settle the matter - they accepted his decision and guidance…so much so that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was considered by many to be inspired scripture for many, many years. Maybe it’s just me, but this example doesn’t seem to help your case at all.

In view of all the issues that emerged in the early centuries and the myriad of heresies, where are the general pastoral letters to the whole church from the bishop of Rome? Since we have the letters of the first apostles and prophets, and if there was a succession of the bishop of Rome as Chief Shepherd of the flock of Christ in the whole world, where are the **preserved pastoral letters **of the bishop of Rome after Peter?

I just cited one. But perhaps you forget that the popes were martyred fairly routinely for a couple of centuries…would this be conducive to leaving a paper trail that might lead the authorities to the leaders of the underground Church?

But lest you doubt that the early Church recognized the primacy of Rome:

Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Rome

Arguments about the authority of the papacy eventually return to the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and of the See of Rome. Did early Christians recognize this primacy, or was it something that developed only centuries after our Lord’s time and in response to political concerns? These quotations may help you decide.

**Clement of Rome **

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.” (ibid. 58:2, 59:1).

“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (ibid. 63:2).

**Ignatius of Antioch **

“You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

**Hermas **

“Therefore shall you write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty, and Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But you shall read it in this city along with the presbyters who are in charge of the Church” (Vision 2:4:3 [circa A.D. 140]).

**Dionysius **

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . Thus custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Epistle to Soter [Bishop of Rome] 4:23:9 [inter AD. 166-174]).

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [in church]. Whenever we do read it, we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid. 4:23:11).

I have more…

 

[Randy_Carson]

The difference in “trinity” and the phrase “head of the church” is that the latter CAN be found in scripture, and it refers to Christ alone.

Catholics understand that Christ is the head of the Church - the whole Church. You don’t understand that Jesus left Peter in charge as the “prime minister” as illustrated by Jesus’ reference to Is. 22:22 - a passage that you have failed to grasp or respond to adequately.

What did the “keys” mean in terms of authority in the ancient kingdom, Dan?

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (and blessed Peter represents Christ on earth?)

Yes, Peter represents Christ on earth? How does this escape you? Does Jesus walk upon the earth in flesh and blood today? No. Yet, the Church is a visible organization, and not the purely spiritual entity that Protestants are forced to believe because of their doctrinal disunity. A visible organization needs a visible head. Jesus anticipated this.

If Matt 16 terms “rock” and “keys” refer to Peter as head of the church on earth, no New Testament writer seems to know it.

No, the problem for you is that no NT writer QUESTIONED Peter’s authority as head of the Church and thus no one felt compelled to expand on something that no one doubted.

You don’t think the NT is a systematic theology book, do you?

The evidence you seek is there and has been presented. If you take off your Protestant-colored lenses, it might be easier for you to see the truth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Do you recognize the Apostle Creed in your denomination?

We say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible; as the scripture speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

If you like, take one doctrine at a time and we can examine in light of scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

True. We simply see Peter acting in that role while the others acquiesce.

Why should I deny this? All the apostles had universal authority. However, the apostles all deferred to Peter. Simply denying it over and over is not an argument.

True. And by your logic, we cannot conclude strictly from the scriptures that Jesus was fully God and fully man. Nowhere is it state that He is. Perhaps He was God who only APPEARED to be a man.

REPLY: Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Easy for you to say now that Catholics have defeated the heresy, isn’t it? But that verse didn’t seem to impress the Nestorians too much.

And yet, of the three, Paul specifically mentions that he spent time with Peter because Paul knew that the Galatians knew that Peter was the man.

REPLY: Does it say the Galatians knew that Peter was “the man.” What man did they know he was? Apostle to the circumcised, but NOT head of the whole church on earth.

One obvious reason we know this is because Peter is name-dropping in a bid to build up his own credentials in the eyes of the Galatian church. Did the lesser go to see the greater or vice-versa? Do we see Peter chasing after Paul to verify his doctrine? Where is that in scripture?

Actually, given Jesus’ clear teaching that the Apostles should be servants of all (cf. Mark 9:33-35), I would be surprised to find Peter blowing his own horn. Paul’s touting of his own credentials comes across as quite arrogant by comparison. Perhaps that’s why God gave him a “thorn” to keep him humble!

**REPLY: You discredit Paul, yet both he and Peter did state their full credentials in the beginning of every letter. It would not have been the least prideful for Peter to give credit to Jesus for appointing him as the “servant of servants” or “head of the church.” **

I do nothing of the sort. Paul himself admits that he is “pushing the envelope” in his letter to the Corinthians:

“What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.)” (2 Co. 11:21-23)

“Speaking like a fool”…“boast”…“out of my mind.” Yes, Paul was forced to flaunt his credentials…something we do not find in Peter’s short epistles.

Really, Daniel? Is that what scholars and ordinary believers have concluded down through the centuries?

REPLY: Where are the pastoral letters of the immediate successors of Peter preserved for us? Why are they not preserved within sacred scripture?

Because such documents were not considered scripture? Just because someone is a pope, it does not mean that what they wrote was inspired.

However, isn’t this an argument from silence? “If you can’t show me letters from the earliest popes, this means that Peter was not a pope”? I don’t think that flies.

Isn’t the REAL issue that you need Peter to be nothing special because if the primacy of Peter is legitimate, then you have to deal with the possibility that the papacy is of God? And if the papacy is from God, then the Catholic Church must…whoa!

REPLY: Of course, that is the question. To start, you must prove from scripture that: 1) Peter was appointed head of the church on earth 2) the office of head of the church was established, having successors and qualifications for such office.

Then the real problem is not that such evidence does not exist but that you simply deny the evidence that exists.

We can lead a horse to water, but we can’t make him think. Know what I mean?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why should I deny this? All the apostles had universal authority. However, the apostles all deferred to Peter. Simply denying it over and over is not an argument.

Easy for you to say now that Catholics have defeated the heresy, isn’t it? But that verse didn’t seem to impress the Nestorians too much.

One obvious reason we know this is because Peter is name-dropping in a bid to build up his own credentials in the eyes of the Galatian church. Did the lesser go to see the greater or vice-versa? Do we see Peter chasing after Paul to verify his doctrine? Where is that in scripture?

Actually, given Jesus’ clear teaching that the Apostles should be servants of all (cf. Mark 9:33-35), I would be surprised to find Peter blowing his own horn. Paul’s touting of his own credentials comes across as quite arrogant by comparison. Perhaps that’s why God gave him a “thorn” to keep him humble! I do nothing of the sort. Paul himself admits that he is “pushing the envelope” in his letter to the Corinthians:

“What anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about. 22Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.)” (2 Co. 11:21-23)

“Speaking like a fool”…“boast”…“out of my mind.” Yes, Paul was forced to flaunt his credentials…something we do not find in Peter’s short epistles.

Because such documents were not considered scripture? Just because someone is a pope, it does not mean that what they wrote was inspired.

However, isn’t this an argument from silence? “If you can’t show me letters from the earliest popes, this means that Peter was not a pope”? I don’t think that flies.

Then the real problem is not that such evidence does not exist but that you simply deny the evidence that exists.

We can lead a horse to water, but we can’t make him think. Know what I mean?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Where do we find in scripture that Peter used the keys? Perhaps in Acts 2 and Acts 10. But neither Peter nor any writer of sacred scripture EVER refer to him or appeal to him as head of the church on earth. In Revelation 3:7, Jesus has the key to the house of David, so perhaps this means Peter gave the key back or that there were no successors?

You haven’t really answered the question, have you? Will this be a pattern in our discussions?

Why don’t you reflect on the following and share your thoughts with us, okay?

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.”

The author?

Martin Luther.

(*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Gee, why would the local Church in Corinth look to the Bishop of Rome (Clement was the fourth pope, FWIW) to solve their internal problem?

REPLY: Paul founded both churches.

“Gee, why would the local Church in Corinth look to the Bishop of Rome (Clement was the fourth pope, FWIW) to solve their internal problem? Why did they accept his interference in a local matter? Could it be because they accepted his primacy as the successor of Peter as head of the whole Church? :yup: They didn’t consult with the Bishop of Jerusalem did they? NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority to settle the matter - they accepted his decision and guidance…so much so that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was considered by many to be inspired scripture for many, many years. Maybe it’s just me, but this example doesn’t seem to help your case at all.”
**REPLY: The letter called First Clement does not say it is from Clement. Also, the letter indicates the church in Rome was having similar problems around challenges to leadership. The letter does not relate their communication to any special authority of the bishop of Rome nor if there is a singular bishop in Rome, In fact, the letter refers to plural bishops used interchangeably with the term presbyters. Ch44: “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course…” **

“I just cited one. But perhaps you forget that the popes were martyred fairly routinely for a couple of centuries…would this be conducive to leaving a paper trail that might lead the authorities to the leaders of the underground Church?”
REPLY: Peter and James and many others were martyred but this did not prevent them from writing letters preserved for all time. If there was a singular Roman bishop as successor of Peter and head of the whole church, there would be letters preserved for all time.

But lest you doubt that the early Church recognized the primacy of Rome:
Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Rome

Arguments about the authority of the papacy eventually return to the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and of the See of Rome. Did early Christians recognize this primacy, or was it something that developed only centuries after our Lord’s time and in response to political concerns? These quotations may help you decide.

**Clement of Rome **

“The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace from almighty God be multiplied unto you through Jesus Christ. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved” (Epistle to the Corinthians, circa A.D. 80]).
REPLY: Clement’s name or a singular bishop is not mentioned in the letter. It says, "…we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…"

“Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect.” (ibid. 58:2, 59:1).
REPLY: This is not a statement of Roman primacy but a statement of the primacy of God’s word. The Corinthians are to submit to their presbyters, not to a singular bishop there or in Rome.

“You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy, in accord with the plea for peace and concord which we have made in this letter” (ibid. 63:2).
REPLY: Again no primacy of Rome is asserted; obedience and primacy of God’s word is primary.

**Ignatius of Antioch **

“You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
REPLY: It is significant that Ignatius writes to no singular bishop in Rome as he does to other churches.

**Hermas **

“Therefore shall you write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty, and Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans. But you shall read it in this city along with the presbyters who are in charge of the Church” (Vision 2:4:3 [circa A.D. 140]).
REPLY: Clement and Grapte shared leadership; again, no singular bishop is identified in Rome.

**Dionysius **

“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . Thus custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Epistle to Soter [Bishop of Rome] 4:23:9 [inter AD. 166-174]).
REPLY: No reference to a singular bishop of Rome as head of the whole church nor of acting in such capacity.

“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [in church]. Whenever we do read it, we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid. 4:23:11).
REPLY: No reference to a singular bishop of Rome nor to primacy of Rome over the whole church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible; as the scripture speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

Except that in actual practice you accept non-biblical traditions.

If you like, take one doctrine at a time and we can examine in light of scripture.

We are at your bidding. You are our guest. If you have a specific topic you’d like to discuss, start a thread.

It’s like baseball…the visitors get to bat first. Good luck!

 

[Randy_Carson]

REPLY: Paul founded both churches.

Truncated due to character limitations.

Dan-

Two points:

1. You’re simply repeating yourself. There is no argument being made.
2. Learn to use the quote function. It’s a pain responding to your posts since the quote feature is not being used properly.

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Why don’t you reflect on the following and share your thoughts with us, okay?

“So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matthew 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing.”

The author?

Martin Luther.

(*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.) *

No office is mentioned in Matt.16, Peter was given keys, and what does it mean? We can only look to how it was played out in scripture. Peter first preached the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10. We cannot say from Matt 16 that Peter was appointed head of the church or that such an office was established. If so, such a fundamental central role or office would have been referred to by Paul, James, John, and Peter himself. In the absence of such reference, we must conclude that Matt 16 means something other than that Peter was appointed head of the whole church and that such an office was established.

 

[Randy_Carson]

REPLY: Paul founded both churches.

**Irenaeus **

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

“Gee, why would the local Church in Corinth look to the Bishop of Rome (Clement was the fourth pope, FWIW) to solve their internal problem? Why did they accept his interference in a local matter? Could it be because they accepted his primacy as the successor of Peter as head of the whole Church? :yup: They didn’t consult with the Bishop of Jerusalem did they? NO ONE questioned Clement’s authority to settle the matter - they accepted his decision and guidance…so much so that Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was considered by many to be inspired scripture for many, many years. Maybe it’s just me, but this example doesn’t seem to help your case at all.”

**REPLY: The letter called First Clement does not say it is from Clement. Also, the letter indicates the church in Rome was having similar problems around challenges to leadership. The letter does not relate their communication to any special authority of the bishop of Rome nor if there is a singular bishop in Rome, In fact, the letter refers to plural bishops used interchangeably with the term presbyters. Ch44: “For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate **those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course…”

The Gospel called the Gospel of Matthew does not say it was written by Matthew, either. Yet we believe that it was. This is a red herring.

“I just cited one. But perhaps you forget that the popes were martyred fairly routinely for a couple of centuries…would this be conducive to leaving a paper trail that might lead the authorities to the leaders of the underground Church?”

REPLY: Peter and James and many others were martyred but this did not prevent them from writing letters preserved for all time. If there was a singular Roman bishop as successor of Peter and head of the whole church, there would be letters preserved for all time.

And this is the reason for assuming that Peter was not the first pope? Because letters from a few of his successors have not survived the ravages of history? Is this the best you’ve got?

The rest of your “argument” is represented (poorly) by this quote:

REPLY: No reference to a singular bishop of Rome nor to primacy of Rome over the whole church.

Yeah. Okay…here is what Irenaeus had to say…you remember Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons? He was a disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Pretty early in the life of the Church, wouldn’t you say?

**Irenaeus **

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [inter AD. 180-190]).

So, at this very early date, the names of the first twelve Bishops of Rome are already recorded.

As an aside, does YOUR “church” have anything like this pedigree to commend it? :nope:

 

[Randy_Carson]

REPLY: Paul founded both churches.

More from an ECF:

Tertullian

“Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles” (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).

 

[LionHeart777]

We say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible; as the scripture speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

But what is Scripture, what is the Bible? Which Books? Set aside Luther’s and later Calivin’s versions for a minute. How do you know what Scriptures belong in there? The early Christians didn’t or weren’t unanimous according, at least to Eusebius. How do you know what is Scripture? I know you said before that Scripture was passed along, but how do you know which books make up Scripture? Can you deduce it from the ECF’s/ Can you deduce it from the Potestant Bible?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No office is mentioned in Matt.16, Peter was given keys, and what does it mean? We can only look to how it was played out in scripture. Peter first preached the gospel to Jews in Acts 2 and to Gentiles in Acts 10. We cannot say from Matt 16 that Peter was appointed head of the church or that such an office was established. If so, such a fundamental central role or office would have been referred to by Paul, James, John, and Peter himself. In the absence of such reference, we must conclude that Matt 16 means something other than that Peter was appointed head of the whole church and that such an office was established.

No office, eh?

Well, what does scripture say? I’ll switch the the KJV since the NIV is biased in this regard:

1. 
   *]Romans 12:4
   For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
   Romans 12:3-5 (in Context) Romans 12 (Whole Chapter)
   *]1 Timothy 3:1
   This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
   1 Timothy 3:1-3 (in Context) 1 Timothy 3 (Whole Chapter)
   *]1 Timothy 3:10
   And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
   1 Timothy 3:9-11 (in Context) 1 Timothy 3 (Whole Chapter)
   *]1 Timothy 3:13
   For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
   
   But before you spend too many keystrokes on THOSE verses, deal with this one first:
   
   Acts 1:20
   20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
   
   Peter (yeah, Peter) properly interpreted the scripture which stated that Judas Iscariot’s bishoprick needed to be filled. That’s because the Apostles held an established office.
   
   But you denied that above, didn’t you?

 

[paul_c]

We say, “No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible; as the scripture speaks we speak, where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

If you like, take one doctrine at a time and we can examine in light of scripture.

What you are saying is clearly not true. You do more than quote the Bible. You interpret it as well. And we have no idea, therefore what you believe because there is no consistency or base in those interpretations. They are as you desire, not based on any authority. Why should we believe you.

In any case, lets shart here. What is your basis on the Trinity? Do you even believe that God is a Holy Trinity? If so, where does it say so explicitly in the Bible?

Better yet, " where does it say , " no creed by Christ, no book but the Bible, and that all knowledge is contained in the scripture?

 

[Randy_Carson]

‘But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, **we shall confound all **those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and **organized at Rome **by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).’

In the above quote Irenaeus chooses Rome to demonstrate where truth can be found, rather than enumerate all the true churches. Irenaeus is writing against heresy, so he uses the argument of succession of bishops from the apostles to say truth can be found in those churches. He is not saying Rome has singular authority over the whole church but rather that it can certainly be trusted as a source of truth becasue of its origin in both Peter and Paul. It is very significant that what is missing is the Catholic argument of Peter and his successors as head of the Church. This would have been the most important argument against heresy if Irenaeus knew about it.

To be clear, you should read on in the very next paragraphs of Irenaeus’ Letter.
"3The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anencletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded. . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.

“4Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1-4 [A.D. 189])…

Maybe it’s just me, but it certainly SOUNDS like Irenaeus provides what you claimed to be missing: “the Catholic argument of Peter and his successors as head of the Church.”

First, Irenaeus writes, “With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world”. If all churches must agree with Rome, then Rome is the head of the universal Church.

Next, Irenaeus lists the successors of Peter: Linus, Anencletus, Clement, and so on.

So, we have Rome as the Church which all others must follow, and the successors of Peter listed.

You stated the following: “This would have been the most important argument against heresy if Irenaeus knew about it.”

I believe Irenaeus has silenced you, and if this were a game of chess, now would be a good time to tip your king.