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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lion_of_judah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
References to the “head” of the church in scripture are always about Christ and never about Peter. Such an office as earthly head of the church is never mentioned in scripture. Would the most important position on earth be left unmentioned if true?
It wasn’t unmentioned. You just refuse to accept the evidence.
  1. Peter is named the rock on which the church will be founded. So he used “rock” instead of head. that doesn’t negate the position.
  2. He is given the keys to heaven
  3. he is told to tend to the sheep
  4. In Acts 15, Peter makes the claim that out of the Apostles, he was chosen to speak to the Gentiles. This is not disputed by anyone at the council, including Paul
  5. in Galations 2;7, Paul recognizes Peter as the lead Apostle to the Jews.
Christ is the head of the church. Peter is his representative on Earth, the leader of his Christ’s church.
 
Heh…yeah, right.

Acts 11:1-18
1The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.”

4Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened: 5"I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision. I saw something like a large sheet being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to where I was. 6I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air. 7Then I heard a voice telling me, ‘Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.’
8"I replied, ‘Surely not, Lord! Nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’
9"The voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’ 10This happened three times, and then it was all pulled up to heaven again.
11"Right then three men who had been sent to me from Caesarea stopped at the house where I was staying. 12The Spirit told me to have no hesitation about going with them. These six brothers also went with me, and we entered the man’s house. 13He told us how he had seen an angel appear in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. 14He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.’
15"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized witha]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" 18When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.”

Peter silenced this argument about Gentile believers, didn’t he? :yup:

Acts 15:1-3
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3The church sent them on their way

The Church sent Paul and Barnabas where? To see Peter in Jerusalem? Gee, why couldn’t Paul settle this on his own by his own authority if he was equal to Peter, hmmmmmm? :dancing:

Oh…how about this incident?

Acts 5:1-11
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” 10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Who spoke for the Holy Spirit to whom Ananias and Saphira lied? Peter? Who pronounced judgment on them? Peter?

Acts 5:12-15
12The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade. 13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by.

Whose shadow did the people try to touch? Peter?

Finally, consider this passage:

Acts 5:29-32
29Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Peter and the other apostles. Consider that phrase. The other eleven apostles are reduced to simply being mentioned as “the other apostles”. Peter is always mentioned by name.

Why, Dan? Why is Peter always mentioned first? Why is Peter mentioned more frequently than all other apostles combined? Peter’s boat, Peter’s house, Peter’s mother-in-law. Peter’s faith, Peter’s denials, Peter’s redemption. Peter on Pentecost. Peter and Cornelius. Peter to the Jews. Peter to the Gentiles. Peter in Rome (Babyon). Peter, keeper of the keys. Peter, the rock. Peter, shepherd of the Church. Peter, vicar of Christ. Peter. Peter. Peter.

This appears to be the rock that has made you stumble.
Peter had an important and prominent role, but was he regarded as head of the church on earth by anyone, including himself? If so, why would no one happen to mention it?
 
All who claim to have a tradition from the apostles must give scriptural evidence of such.
2 Thessalonians 2:15

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the *traditions *which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Philippians 4:9

“What you have learned and *received *and *heard *and *seen *in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.”

1 Corinthians 11:2

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the *traditions *even as I have delivered them to you.”

2 Timothy 1:13

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have *heard *from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;”

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/image.cfm?img=1A91E87D2826C0A5BCE6FDF4C3BCB993A
 
Chrysostom overstated in using the terms ‘preside’ and ‘presidency.’
Ignatius of Antioch 1st century bishop also used presidency for the see of Peter, in Ignatius letter to the Church of Rome. To no other Church did he say this.
40.png
Dan:
Paul went up to see Peter because he was the apostle to the circumcized, not because he was the head of the church.
Peter was BOTH. He wasn’t made head of the Church by council or vote. Jesus made him head of the Church. You haven’t done your scripture homework.
40.png
dan:
Let’s ask Paul some questions about this from Galatians 1 & 2:
  1. Paul, did you go up to Jerusalem immediately after you were set apart to take the gospel to the Gentiles?
    REPLY: 1:17 **nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those **who were apostles before I was
  2. Why did you go up to Jerusalem three years later?
    REPLY: 1:18-19 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem **to get acquainted **with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
Paul specifically went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Catch that? And Paul stayed with Peter for 15 days. All you anti Peter is not pope crowd, point to James is the bishop of Jerusalem NOT Peter, therefore, James is the head. Well, Paul didn’t go to Jerusalem to meet with James. He went there to meet with Peter, the head of the entire Church.
40.png
dan:
  1. Why did you go up to Jerusalem 14 years later?
    REPLY: 2:2 I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
  2. Did you regard any of the other apostles as being any more important than you were?
    REPLY: 2:6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message.
  3. Did you require their approval?
    REPLY: 2:7 **On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted **with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.
  4. Did Peter have any special role?
    REPLY: 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
  5. Was Peter the head of the Jerusalem church or a singular bishop there or head of the whole church on earth?
    REPLY: 2:9 James, Cephas and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.
.
Regardless of your mischaracterizations
  • Paul in the beginning avoided the areas where the apostles were working for one obvious reason. As it says in Galatians
:“He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” [Gal 1:23]
  • Paul 14 yrs later goes up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus this time to be evaluated, and after being approved, it was decided to divide up the territory to make for more efficient work preaching to Jews and Gentiles…
 
Ignatius of Antioch 1st century bishop also used presidency for the see of Peter, in Ignatius letter to the Church of Rome. To no other Church did he say this.
You are absolutely correct. Here is the Greek:

ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙΣ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ

Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ ἐν θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος τὰ πάντα, ἃ ἔστιν, κατὰ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος, ἀξιεπίτευκτος, ἀξίαγνος καὶ προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης, χριστώνυμος, πατρώνυμος, ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ πατρός· κατὰ σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις πάσῃ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμένοις χάριτος θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως καὶ ἀποδιϋλισμένοις ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος πλεῖστα ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν, ἀμώμως χαίρειν.

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”

Ignatius also uses the word preside in his Epistle to the Magnesians, where he says, “Let the bishop preside in the place of God, and his clergy in place of the apostolic conclave” (6,1), ροκαθημένου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τόπον θεοῦ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων. Clearly an authoritative position.

“It has been well argued by F. X. Funk that the word ἀγάπη, ‘love’ has often the meaning in St. Ignatius of ‘the community.’ The Greek verb προκάθεμαι, ‘I preside over,’ is always found followed, as in Plato (Laws 758 D), by some such word as ‘city’ and never by a merely abstract noun like ‘love.’ Whether St. Ignatius has in mind a pre-eminence of authority or charity, the context seems to imply that he means a universal not merely a local pre-eminence” (Glimm et al., Apostolic Fathers, 107, n. 2.)*
 
2 Thessalonians 2:15

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the *traditions *which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Philippians 4:9

“What you have learned and *received *and *heard *and *seen *in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.”

1 Corinthians 11:2

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the *traditions *even as I have delivered them to you.”

2 Timothy 1:13

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have *heard *from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;”

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/image.cfm?img=1A91E87D2826C0A5BCE6FDF4C3BCB993A
Yes, from inspired apostles, not their so-called successors who are uninspired.
 
Daniel -

Matthew 16:13-20
"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah and others Jeremiah or one of the Prophets”. He said to them,* “But who do you say that I am?” *Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him,

*“Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
  • Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ."
Daniel - there you have it from Jesus. They are His words. He said these words which clearly show his intentions of putting Peter in charge. If you cannot see it you are not being honest. Perhaps you believe what you WANT to believe. You have to humble yourself and submit to the truth.:gopray2::highprayer:
If it was Jesus intention to put Peter in charge of the whole church on earth, the church did not get it or reflect it in sacred scripture.
 
It wasn’t unmentioned. You just refuse to accept the evidence…

Christ is the head of the church. Peter is his representative on Earth, the leader of his Christ’s church.
  1. Peter is named the rock on which the church will be founded. So he used “rock” instead of head. that doesn’t negate the position.
REPLY: Rock here refers to Peter WITH the confession of Christ, no successors stated or necessary inference of such.
  1. He is given the keys to heaven
REPLY: Yes which he used to open the kingdom to Jew and Gentile.
  1. he is told to tend to the sheep
REPLY: Yes, Peter was a bishop/presbyter and apostle all of whom are shepherds to tend the flock. No reference here to Peter as head of the church.
  1. In Acts 15, Peter makes the claim that out of the Apostles, he was chosen to speak to the Gentiles. This is not disputed by anyone at the council, including Paul
REPLY: Indeed Peter was chosen to first speak to the Gentiles. He was NOT chosen to be head of the church on earth.
  1. in Galations 2;7, Paul recognizes Peter as the lead Apostle to the Jews.
REPLY: Yes, an apostle but no mention of Peter here as head of the church
 
Ignatius of Antioch 1st century bishop also used presidency for the see of Peter, in Ignatius letter to the Church of Rome. To no other Church did he say this.
**REPLY: It is more significant that Ignatius does not address the bishop of Rome at all let alone refer to the church at Rome as the seat of the head of the church on earth. **
Peter was BOTH. He wasn’t made head of the Church by council or vote. Jesus made him head of the Church. You haven’t done your scripture homework.
REPLY: No reference to Peter as head of the church and no recognition of him as such by any NT writer.
Paul specifically went to Jerusalem to meet with Peter. Catch that? And Paul stayed with Peter for 15 days. All you anti Peter is not pope crowd, point to James is the bishop of Jerusalem NOT Peter, therefore, James is the head. Well, Paul didn’t go to Jerusalem to meet with James. He went there to meet with Peter, the head of the entire Church.
REPLY: I am pro-Peter. Paul went to get acquainted with Peter and sought cooperation with Jerusalem which was achieved. Why Peter? because as Paul says Peter was apostle, not pope, to the Jews and he Paul to the Gentiles.
*]Paul in the beginning avoided the areas where the apostles were working for one obvious reason. As it says in Galatians
*]Paul 14 yrs later goes up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus this time to be evaluated, and after being approved, it was decided to divide up the territory to make for more efficient work preaching to Jews and Gentiles…
REPLY: You make the same error as some ECF’s: adding to the word of God when you say Paul went up to Jerusalem to be “evaluated” and “approved”.
 
You are absolutely correct. Here is the Greek:

ΡΩΜΑΙΟΙΣ ΙΓΝΑΤΙΟΣ

Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ ἠλεημένῃ ἐν μεγαλειότητι πατρὸς ὑψίστου καὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μόνου υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἠγαπημένῃ καὶ πεφωτισμένῃ ἐν θελήματι τοῦ θελήσαντος τὰ πάντα, ἃ ἔστιν, κατὰ ἀγάπην Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων, ἀξιόθεος, ἀξιεπίτευκτος, ἀξίαγνος καὶ προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης, χριστώνυμος, πατρώνυμος, ἣν καὶ ἀσπάζομαι ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ πατρός· κατὰ σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα ἡνωμένοις πάσῃ ἐντολῇ αὐτοῦ, πεπληρωμένοις χάριτος θεοῦ ἀδιακρίτως καὶ ἀποδιϋλισμένοις ἀπὸ παντὸς ἀλλοτρίου χρώματος πλεῖστα ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν, ἀμώμως χαίρειν.

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”

Ignatius also uses the word preside* in his Epistle to the Magnesians, where he says, “Let the bishop preside in the place of God, and his clergy in place of the apostolic conclave” (6,1), ροκαθημένου τοῦ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τόπον θεοῦ καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων. Clearly an authoritative position.

“It has been well argued by F. X. Funk that the word ἀγάπη, ‘love’ has often the meaning in St. Ignatius of ‘the community.’ The Greek verb προκάθεμαι, ‘I preside over,’ is always found followed, as in Plato (Laws 758 D), by some such word as ‘city’ and never by a merely abstract noun like ‘love.’ Whether St. Ignatius has in mind a pre-eminence of authority or charity, the context seems to imply that he means a universal not merely a local pre-eminence” (Glimm et al., Apostolic Fathers, 107, n. 2.)

REPLY: Ignatius does not refer to a seat or see of Peter, nor does he address a singular bishop or a head of the whole church. The most one can say is that Ignatius regards the importance of the church at Rome in the centre of the empire. The absence in Ignatius of any reference to the authoritative head of the whole church on earth is very sigificant as this would have been the obvious argument against the gnostic docetic heresy he was fighting. Remember, Ignatius was very keen on the monarchial bishop as the key to unity against heresy.
 
  1. The ability to receive gifts of the Holy Spirit, e.g. prophecy and revelation, ends with the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid their hands.
  2. After #7, no new inspired writing or revelation is received. All who claim to have a tradition from the apostles must give scriptural evidence of such.
Dan-

Please show us the chapter and verse which declares that the gifts of the Holy Spirit and public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

Thanks in advance.
 
References to the “head” of the church in scripture are always about Christ and never about Peter. Such an office as earthly head of the church is never mentioned in scripture. Would the most important position on earth be left unmentioned if true?
Your question begins with the presupposition that the office is never mentioned in scripture.

You have been shown repeatedly that it is.

Peter receives the keys of the office of Prime Minister from the King, Jesus Christ.
Peter receives the crozier of the shepherd of the Church from the Good Shepherd Himself.

I don’t think there’s a whole lot more that can be done for you at this point, but I thank you for providing a great springboard for Catholics to reaffirm their confidence in and understanding of the history of the papacy. A lot of great material has been shared in this thread, and all of us are stronger in our faith as a result.
 
Peter had an important and prominent role, but was he regarded as head of the church on earth by anyone, including himself? If so, why would no one happen to mention it?
You mean other than Jesus? 😛

A. Because it was common knowledge so it didn’t need to be mentioned?
B) Because both the Jews and the Romans were killing the leaders of the Church as fast as they could so why put Peter at risk?
 
Yes, from inspired apostles, not their so-called successors who are uninspired.
This is clearly false. Read your Bible, Dan.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

Paul clearly envisions that future generations would hear the gospel preached by reliable men to who it had been entrusted. This is how Apostolic Succession was put into action.
 
REPLY: Rock here refers to Peter WITH the confession of Christ, no successors stated or necessary inference of such.
You keep saying this over and over like a broken record.

Okay. You have the affirmative and the burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

From the scriptures only, mind you. Prove that “Rock” refers specifically to “Peter WITH the confession of Christ.”

I won’t accept anything extra-biblical. You must prove your position by the same standard that you apply to us - sola scriptura.
 
REPLY: Yes, Peter was a bishop/presbyter and apostle all of whom are shepherds to tend the flock. No reference here to Peter as head of the church.
Then why did Jesus specifically ask Peter, “Do you love me MORE than these [other apostles]?”

Couldn’t Jesus have simply asked, “Do you love me as these others do”? Wouldn’t this have sufficed to show Peter’s equality?

Why did Jesus ask Peter for MORE unless it was because Jesus expected MORE from Peter?

Dan, Jesus described your predicament when He told the Jews in John 6:63, “Your flesh (human reasoning) counts for nothing.”
 
Yes, from inspired apostles, not their so-called successors who are uninspired.
2 Timothy 2:2

“And what you have **heard **ἀκούω again] from me through many witnesses entrust παρατίθημι] to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”
  1. paratithemi par-at-ith’-ay-mee from 3844 and 5087; to place alongside, i.e. present (food, truth); by implication, to deposit (as a trust or for protection):–allege, commend, commit (the keeping of), put forth, set before.
Timothy was charged with appointing successors. The Apostles “appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” (1 Clem, 44)
 
The absence in Ignatius of any reference to the authoritative head of the whole church on earth is very sigificant as this would have been the obvious argument against the gnostic docetic heresy he was fighting.
And that is how St. Irenaeus later proves the orthodoxy of his doctrine, by appealing to the lineage of the Church of Rome.
 
REPLY: Ignatius does not refer to a seat or see of Peter, nor does he address a singular bishop or a head of the whole church. The most one can say is that Ignatius regards the importance of the church at Rome in the centre of the empire. The absence in Ignatius of any reference to the authoritative head of the whole church on earth is very sigificant as this would have been the obvious argument against the gnostic docetic heresy he was fighting. Remember, Ignatius was very keen on the monarchial bishop as the key to unity against heresy.
There was no need to refer to the See of Peter. In each of his letters, St. Ignatius addresses the Church, e.g.to the holy Church which is at Tralles, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, to the Church…which is at Philadelphia, in Asia. Only one was to a particular bishop. The exhortations to each Church to follow their respective bishops he dares not to give to the Roman Church, for “not, as Peter and Paul, do I issue commandments unto you.”

Further, this particular letter, in contrast to the others, was to ask them not to prevent his martyrdom. So exalted does he think the Roman Church that he gives them no instruction on defeating heresy. St. Ignatius makes many demands of the other Churches—he exhorts and orders them in numerous ways: “Obey your bishop”, “partake of one Eucharist”, “never allow yourselves to be led astray by false teaching”, “avoid schism”, etc. He gives no orders to the Romans, though he was bishop of the largest Church in the Roman Empire save Rome itself, and was himself a disciple of St. John. In fact, he goes on to say “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].” He entrusts the Roman Church to care for his See in Antioch.

“[Perler] points out that the Roman Church alone, among those addressed in Ignatius’ extant letters, is expected to have ‘oversight’ or ‘care’ for the distant Church of Antioch—just as the same Roman Church had shown maternal concern for the Church of Corinth in its distress.” (B.C. Butler, The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged “Salmon” [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1954], 131.)
 
REPLY: It is more significant that Ignatius does not address the bishop of Rome at all let alone refer to the church at Rome as the seat of the head of the church on earth.
Your error is that
  • Ignatius instructions to the Churches he writes to is, “do nothing without the bishop”. (letters to the Trallians, and Magnesians)Therefore, Ignatius (himself a bishop) won’t be hypocritical when writing to the Church of Rome and leave out the bishop of Rome.
  • Common sense tells us that one doesn’t just send letters to a “Church” in yonder direction, hoping the letter gets to the right destination.
40.png
dan:
REPLY: No reference to Peter as head of the church and no recognition of him as such by any NT writer.
Excuse me?

Due to space,

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3544884&postcount=964

said a bit differently in different ways
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3684508&postcount=364
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3688786&postcount=385

You were probably thinking I was going immediately to Mt 16? 😉
40.png
dan:
REPLY: I am pro-Peter.
Not as Pro Peter as God the Father.
40.png
dan:
Paul went to get acquainted with Peter and sought cooperation with Jerusalem which was achieved. Why Peter? because as Paul says Peter was apostle, not pope, to the Jews and he Paul to the Gentiles.
Regardless of your mischaracterizations

Paul is not going to undo what Jesus did for Peter, nor will Jesus allow that.
40.png
dan:
REPLY: You make the same error as some ECF’s: adding to the word of God when you say Paul went up to Jerusalem to be "evaluated" and “approved”.
It’s you who is in error. Here’s the sequence

1* Then after fourteen years I went up*** again*** to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. [Gal 2: 1-2]

IOW, Paul’s preaching was presented for evaluation lest he teach error

when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; [Gal 2:9]

IOW, Paul’s preaching was approved AFTER it was examined
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top