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

[Daniel_Keeran]

Anyone can give thanks for the bread and cup,but only a priest of the Church can call down the Spirit to transsubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
It is for that purpose,and for baptism and the forgiveness of sins,that priests are ordained with the Spirit. The word “sacrament” means “to make holy;to set apart”. The bread and cup can only be a valid sacrament if the one who administers them has been made holy and set apart in the sacrament of holy orders.

Only a priest can baptize in Catholicism?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Like a broken record I will repeat part of my earlier posting from page 39:

*Peter was:

• First to preach the gospel Acts 2:14
• First to work miracles Acts 3:6
• Judge of Ananias and Saphira Acts 5:1-10
• First to preach to the gentiles Acts 10
• First to receive pagan convert Acts 10
• Presides at the Council of Jerusalem even though James was Bishop Acts 15

Peter goes on to say Acts 15:7 “…Peter stood up and said to them "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you that I should be the one through whom the gentiles would hear this message of the good news*…”

Why don’t we advance now Daniel? Try answering the questions put to you. :ehh:

1. Peter’s being first to do a thing does not make him head of the church.
2. His being judge of Ananias and Sapphira does also not make him head of the church.
3. He in fact DID NOT preside at the Jerusalem council, but rather clearly James did preside as your friends have said, in that he was bishop of his diocese but which I also deny. If Peter was in fact the one who presided at the council, this would be good evidence, but not enough to prove, that he was the head of the church. But it is very significant and clear that Peter DID NOT preside at the council.
4. Peter’s stating that God chose him to first speak to the Gentiles also does not make him the head of the church.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Couldn’t have answered it better myself! LOL!

I rest my case, says tqualey - and we all second that I am sure:thumbsup:

Originally Posted by tqualey
Hi, Daniel

Randy presented an excellent message when he quoted from 2 Timothy…

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.

…and, I do not recall you arguing against this.

1. Paul laid hands on Timothy and Titus to receive a gift of the Spirit.
2. Paul told them to do the work of an evangelist (1 Tim 4:5)… they were not bishops.
3. Paul told them to set in place elders in every church and gave qualifications for elders and deacons.
4. Thereafter, any who occupied these roles would be men having the above qualifications.

The concept of Apostolic Succession is firmly estabished. The Apostles were inspired by God to select certain men who were to carry on the leadership of the multiple flocks that continued to come to Christ despite hardship and persecution. Christ knew all this would happen - and to make sure that all of these leaders kept the Heavenly Crown in focus - Christ set up the Leader of the leaders for His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) - who we now call the POPE.

There is nothing described as apostolic succession in sacred scripture.

Is there any organization that you know of that is run without a recognized head? Doesn’t a family have a head and that is the man (Eph 5:22)?

It is again very significant that Paul when discussing heads in Eph.5:22, does not say, "and the head of the church is Cephas."

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm
< As for Paul’s use of the term “Kephas” for Peter, this is a classic Jewish pun referencing Peter’s headship. True, “Kephas” (frequently rendered as “Cephas” in English Bibles) is merely a Greek form of the Aramaic name “Kepha” (Rock); but in Greek it also implies Headship, in that “Kephale’” is the Greek word for head. And we can see this pun (a pun that’s never lost on Greek-speaking readers) all throughout the New Testament (e.g. John 13:8-9; 1 Cor 9:5; 1 Cor 15:5; Gal 2:9; Gal 2:11,14; etc). All these as veiled references to Peter’s “headship” and when understood in Greek and in context, one cannot miss them. >

< “You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed, which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter 3)

So, coming from the other side of the known world (Antioch in Syria), St. Ignatius is familiar with Rome’s teaching authority. I wonder why that is? Perhaps it’s because Ignatius also says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and how it “presides in love” or “holds the presidency of love” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter 1). Here, Ignatius uses the Greek word “prokatheemai,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position; and this is the meaning of the word “presides” whenever Ignatius uses it (e.g. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1).

Also, what about St. Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170 AD), who writes to Pope Soter of Rome, and says:

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

Here we not only see the church of Corinth taking instruction from the church of Rome, but we see that the Corinthians had a long-standing tradition of taking such instruction – still retaining the epistle of St. Clement, which was sent to them some 80 years before. And Dionysius continues to address the Roman bishop, saying:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).

So Dionysius compares the teaching of Pope Soter to that of Peter and Paul. And, he continues:

“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…This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father [to] his children, the brethren who are journeying.” (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius’ Church History 4:23:9 [AD 170])

So Dionysius refers to the bishop of Rome as a “father” ( i.e. the root of the word “Pope” cf. 1 Cor 4:15; Phil 2:22; 1 Thess 2:11; 1 Tim 5:1; etc), speaking of the Christians in every city as his “children,” whom he “urges,” “consoles,” and provides for – Dionysius says that this has been the custom of the Roman church “from the beginning.” >

So if we exclude First Clement that does not refer to any singular head of the Roman church, the earliest such reference is 170 AD?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

St. Clement of Alexandria

“…the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples …” (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [AD 200]).

St. Cyprian of Carthage

“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 [Peter] 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; first edition [AD 251]).

See John Chapman on Cyprian and the Papacy for much greater detail.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem

“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly.” (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [AD 350])

St. Ephraim the Syrian

“[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 [the Church] 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 [AD 351])

St. Ambrose of Milan

“[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 [AD 379]).

St. Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well… one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division.” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [AD 393])

St. Augustine of Hippo

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies.” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [AD 415])*

So the earliest reference ABOUT Peter is 200 AD? The question here is about the alleged office of the head of the church on earth who speaks infallibly for Christ himself yet having not a single perserved document from his pen since Peter’s departure?

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi Daniel,

I read the following today by Jimmy Akin, and the part I quoted talks about Evangelits/Bishops. It’s worth a read, his explanations on the subject;

"…A second issue the apologist will encounter when discussing the office of bishop concerns its historical origin with respect to the office of priest. The New Testament appears to use the terms bishop (episkopos) and priest (presbuteros) interchangeably (Acts 20:17 with 20:28, Tit. 1:5-7). It also speaks of there being more than one bishop in a given church (Phil. 1:1). From the end of the first century onward there appears to have been only one bishop (see the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, A.D. 107) or one main bishop plus assistant/auxiliary bishops, such as the chorepisopus.

There is more than one way to account for the transition from one state of affairs to the other. However, it seems most likely that the individuals referred to in the New Testament as bishops or presbyters did not possess the fullness of holy orders but were equivalent to modern priests. As the apostles began to pass from the scene, they appointed certain non-apostles-e.g., Timothy, Titus, Mark, Philip, and Apollos-to oversee multiple local congregations and to appoint (Tit. 1:5) and discipline (1 Tim. 5:19-20) individual presbyters within them.

At the time, these individuals were called evangelists (Acts 21:8, Eph. 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5). By the end of the first century the term overseer (bishop) may have gravitated to them because they oversaw the individual congregations and presbyters. The term bishop, on this hypothesis, thus supplanted the earlier term evangelist.

To understand why this happened, one should note that in the apostolic age, all of the terms now attached to Catholic ministry-episkopos (overseer, bishop), presbuteros (elder, priest), diakonos (servant, minister, deacon)-were fluid in meaning and could apply to different offices. Anyone who had an oversight role could be called a bishop, anyone who was an elder in the community could be called a presbyter, and anyone in the community who served or ministered could be called a deacon.

This was true even if the person in question had the highest office of all: that of apostle. The apostles Judas and his successor Matthias could be described as having a “bishopric” (Acts 1:20). The apostle Peter could describe himself as a “fellow elder” (1 Pet. 5:1); and the apostle Paul could describe himself as a “servant” or “minister” (diakonos, 1 Cor. 3:5, 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23, Eph. 3:7, Col. 1:23, 25). The terms had not acquired the technical senses they did over the course of the first century.

The evidence would seem to indicate that the functions of overseeing, serving as elders, and ministering to the Christian community were all exercised by the apostles. As the Church grew, they began to discharge these functions, beginning with the lowest (which is the typical pattern with any corporation-the founders delegate the lowest functions to others first, the highest functions last). Thus the apostles appointed first deacons (Acts 6:1-6), then elders (14:23), and lastly evangelists (cf. Acts 21:8).

As the terms for these offices began to acquire their technical meanings, the servile term servant (diakonos) naturally attached itself to the lowest of these three ranks, as the more senior term elder (presbuteros) did to the second office. The high term overseer (episkopos) at first attached itself to the office of presbyter when these men were the highest ministers in local churches. Later overseer became attached to the office of evangelist when the apostles began to appoint men with the higher authority to appoint and discipline presbyters.

The understanding is further supported by the strong tradition of the Church Fathers that the three offices date from the time of the apostles, to whom early Church writers who attribute the ordination of specific, individual bishops (e.g., Ignatius [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:36], Symeon [ibid. 3:11]). The understanding is also supported by later writers’ recognition as bishops of those known in the New Testament as evangelists (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:4).

Whichever account of the origin of the office is correct, bishop was a distinct office by the late first century, the end of the apostolic age. This is evident because at the beginning of the second century, Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of letters (A.D. 107) to local churches as he journeyed to Rome for his execution. In these letters, he repeatedly attests that each local church he passes has the three-fold hierarchy of a bishop, several priests, and several deacons.

He is so confident of this usage that he can say that without these three offices a local body cannot be called a church (Trallians 3:1-2). These facts show that the usage was already widespread at the dawn of the second century, so it must have first been established in the late first century, at the close of the apostolic age."

link to the whole work:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

I’m reading Eusebius’, “The History of the Church”, right now and I believe I read and will try to dig up that info for you, at least the pg #'s.

Nick

 

[steve_b]

So the earliest reference ABOUT Peter is 200 AD? The question here is about the alleged office of the head of the church on earth who speaks infallibly for Christ himself yet having not a single perserved document from his pen since Peter’s departure?

You want early?

You asked about Clement of Rome, successor to Peter, writing in apostolic times (St John is still alive living either in Ephesus or over on Patmos). Those who were affected by sedition wrote to Clement about those who caused sedition

Clement said the following (blue) in his letter to the Corinthians. My comments (black)

“You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, …”

If all bishops are the same, Corinth could have settled their sedition by asking other bishops elsewhere in Greece for assistance. Those bishops were established by apostles also. And they were MUCH closer to Corinth than Clement over in Rome Italy. Corinth didn’t do that because it was already understood that they needed the authority of the bishop of Rome to settle the matter. If you say baloney, just remember, St John is still alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement in Rome was… by a LOOOOOOOOONG shot. They could have sent word to John to settle the matter. But Corinth goes to the chair of Peter.

You need to also know, this statement of Clement would be highly offensive for bishops in Corinth Greece to submit to Clement’s correction from Rome Italy if Clement wasn’t packing the authority to d0 so. . Especially as you also consider the following

“Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue”

Tough language to tell other bishops, unless you have the authority to do so and it’s understood you have that authority…

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin…”

Imagine THAT!!! Clement speaking for Jesus? as vicar of Christ?

Here’s the other kicker.

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.”

Catch that? Clement is expecting immediate resolution as he laid out AND he expects speedy verification that it has happened. This is not just some friendly letter of encouragement, take your time, and don’t worry about getting back to us, just keep us posted kind of letter. … Nope! Clement was feeding AND ruling the Church just as Jesus commanded of His first pope Peter.

Obviously this sedition was settled, so we don’t have to test this matter any further. But it shows that DURING apostolic times, the bishop of Rome is ruling like a pope

Clement’s letter was written ~80 AD, before St John wrote the book of revelation, thought to have been written ~ 95-100 AD. You want early examples? Is that early enough for you?

Here’s Clement’s letter for context
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[LionHeart777]

“…Then there is Clement’s story (Outlines Book V) in which he says that Cephas - of whom Paul writes: 'When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face’4 - was one of the seventy disciples, who happened to have the same name as Peter the Apostle…”

“…4. Gal. ii. II.” * I added the footnote

all from, “The History of the Church”, Eusebius. (Tranlsated by Williamson, G.A. and revised/edited/new intro. by Louth, Andrew.) Penguin Books, 1989. (pg. 29.)

 

[LionHeart777]

This quote from Eusebius, also challenges a protest made by the OP. Is anyone aware of evidence that would oppose what is written in my last post?

I don’t know honestly, but it seems possible (even probable) to me that Clement (via Eusebius) is correct.

 

[SHW]

So the earliest reference ABOUT Peter is 200 AD? The question here is about the alleged office of the head of the church on earth who speaks infallibly for Christ himself yet having not a single perserved document from his pen since Peter’s departure?

Actually we have the Bible! I hope that is good enough for you.

The chief steward holds the keys to the kingdom’s treasury. (Isaiah 22:20-24) Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter alone because he was chosen to be the head of Jesus’ Church. (Matthew 16:16-19)

More info:

Since the early Church taught orally, it was not necessary to have it “all” written down. They were too busy trying to stay alive during the persecutions to worry about future generations questioning their authority. When Constantine made Christianity legal, and they could then stop fearing for their lives, then they had time to write. Not only that, the early manuscripts were written on materials that did not hold up to the ravages of time. It was not until Constantine legalized Christianity that the Church decided which manuscripts were inspired and then “canonized” them into the Bible as we have it today.

Pax,
SHW

 

[Randy_Carson]

Only a priest can baptize in Catholicism?

Normatively, yes; however, in case of an emergency, any Christian may baptize.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Paul laid hands on Timothy and Titus to receive a gift of the Spirit.
2. Paul told them to do the work of an evangelist (1 Tim 4:5)… they were not bishops.
**3. Paul told them to set in place elders in every church and gave qualifications for elders and deacons. **
4. Thereafter, any who occupied these roles would be men having the above qualifications.

Paul specifially warned Timothy about being too hasty in the laying on of hands. Paul clearly expected Timothy and Titus to lay hands on some people after careful, prayerful reflection.

There is nothing described as apostolic succession in sacred scripture.

Sure there is, and I already pointed this out to you previously.
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.

---

Titus 1:5

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

Apostolic Succession is illustrated here as Paul had appointed Titus and left him in charge of appointing elders in the Cretan church.

It is again very significant that Paul when discussing heads in Eph.5:22, does not say, "and the head of the church is Cephas."

Christ is the head of the Church which includes the Church Triumphant in heaven and the Church Militant here on earth. Peter is the head of the latter portion.

You’ve already had this explained to you.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You want early?

You asked about Clement of Rome, successor to Peter, writing in apostolic times (St John is still alive living either in Ephesus or over on Patmos). Those who were affected by sedition wrote to Clement about those who caused sedition…

Was Clement the successor to Peter or was it supposed to have been Linus? Is the letter identified as from Clement or does it speak in the plural?

Clement said the following (blue) in his letter to the Corinthians. My comments (black)

“You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, …”

It is very significant that there is no singular bishop in Corinth but a plurality of bishop/presbyters just as at Rome.

If all bishops are the same, Corinth could have settled their sedition by asking other bishops elsewhere in Greece for assistance. Those bishops were established by apostles also. And they were MUCH closer to Corinth than Clement over in Rome Italy. Corinth didn’t do that because it was already understood that they needed the authority of the bishop of Rome to settle the matter. If you say baloney, just remember, St John is still alive and living much closer to Corinth than Clement in Rome was… by a LOOOOOOOOONG shot. They could have sent word to John to settle the matter. But Corinth goes to the chair of Peter.

It is an assumption that John was still alive and if so that he was lucid. Corinth may have written to Rome because it was established by the same apostle Paul, and the church of Corinth no doubt had Paul’s long letter written to the Romans. It is also significant to know the writers of the letter from Rome refer to a very similar problem of those trying to unseat the body of presbyter/bishops.

You need to also know, this statement of Clement would be highly offensive for bishops in Corinth Greece to submit to Clement’s correction from Rome Italy if Clement wasn’t packing the authority to d0 so. . Especially as you also consider the following

“Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue”

Tough language to tell other bishops, unless you have the authority to do so and it’s understood you have that authority…

Those writing the letter to Corinth are clearly upset by the sedition taking place just as it was being threatened in Rome. The strong words are for those undermining the government of the church in Corinth.

“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Jesus) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin…”

Imagine THAT!!! Clement speaking for Jesus? as vicar of Christ?

**See my comments above. Also, it is the words of Jesus just as the words of the Hebrew writer are the words of God when saying, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.”… no pope there or in Rome.(Hebrews 13:17). **

Here’s the other kicker.

“Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus; that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.”

Catch that? Clement is expecting immediate resolution as he laid out AND he expects speedy verification that it has happened. This is not just some friendly letter of encouragement, take your time, and don’t worry about getting back to us, just keep us posted kind of letter. … Nope! Clement was feeding AND ruling the Church just as Jesus commanded of His first pope Peter.

Obviously this sedition was settled, so we don’t have to test this matter any further. But it shows that DURING apostolic times, the bishop of Rome is ruling like a pope

There was no singular bishop in Rome at this time, and those who wrote to Corinth wanted reassurance of peace because they care about their brethren.

Clement’s letter was written ~80 AD, before St John wrote the book of revelation, thought to have been written ~ 95-100 AD. You want early examples? Is that early enough for you?

There is a date range for this letter, but in any case no singular bishop and no one having the authority of head of the whole church on earth. If so, it would have been mentioned and invoked, which we do not see until centuries later. There are no letters written from a singular bishop of Rome let alone anyone claiming to be head of the whole church. If Christ was speaking through a successor to Peter, the church would be hearing from him continuously from Peter onward saying, “Here I am. I’m still here, tending, feeding, and protecting my flock, Peter’s successor, representing Christ on earth… so don’t be afraid little flock.” But there is nothing but silence until Victor blunders onto the scene.

 

[steve_b]

“…Then there is Clement’s story (Outlines Book V) in which he says that Cephas - of whom Paul writes: 'When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face’4 - was one of the seventy disciples, who happened to have the same name as Peter the Apostle…”

“…4. Gal. ii. II.” * I added the footnote

all from, “The History of the Church”, Eusebius. (Tranlsated by Williamson, G.A. and revised/edited/new intro. by Louth, Andrew.) Penguin Books, 1989. (pg. 29.)

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,

1. 
   *]Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
   *]In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
   *]Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
   
   Catch that? Paul rebukes Peter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved [1 Cor 9: 20-25]. This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…
   
   St Jerome points out.
   
   “O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter
   for hypocrasy because he withdrew himself from the
   Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
   James, why are you, not withstanding your own
   doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
   Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”
   
   Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you
   according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]
   
   I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly on paragraphs 4-18 of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

 

[steve_b]

Was Clement the successor to Peter or was it supposed to have been Linus? Is the letter identified as from Clement or does it speak in the plural?

Linus is the successor to Peter as is Clement

dan:

It is very significant that there is no singular bishop in Corinth but a plurality of bishop/presbyters just as at Rome.

• Everybody a pope ordains doesn’t make each one a pope. Just look at how many men a pope ordains in their pontificate.
• The term bishop/presbyter was more fluid in the 1st century than today, but more importantly, populations and distances dictate the coverage of a bishop.

dan:

It is an assumption that John was still alive and if so that he was lucid.

Can you show where a reputable source gives an early date to Revelation, say before 90 AD? Are you suggesting John was not in his right mind when he wrote revelations?

dan:

Corinth may have written to Rome because it was established by the same apostle Paul, and the church of Corinth no doubt had Paul’s long letter written to the Romans. It is also significant to know the writers of the letter from Rome refer to a very similar problem of those trying to unseat the body of presbyter/bishops.

1. • Paul established many Churches. Why didn’t Corinth go to Ephesus, Thessoloniki, Galatia, etc ALL closer to Corinth than Rome was?
   • Rome was under severe persecution by Nero, Vespasian, Titus, Domition…
   
   dan:
   

   Those writing the letter to Corinth are clearly upset by the sedition taking place just as it was being threatened in Rome. The strong words are for those undermining the government of the church in Corinth.

   There was no sedition in Rome. It was persecution that Clement was writing about. And yes the strong words were for the seditionists
   
   
   dan:
   

   There was no singular bishop in Rome at this time, and those who wrote to Corinth wanted reassurance of peace because they care about their brethren.

   Peter was one of 12 apostles. All the apostles were apostles hand picked by Jesus, At times they were all in one location, , but not every apostle was Peter.
   
   
   dan:
   

   There is a date range for this letter, but in any case no singular bishop and no one having the authority of head of the whole church on earth. If so, it would have been mentioned and invoked, which we do not see until centuries later.

   Using the royal we, doesn’t mean that there is no single successor to Peter. It just means One is speaking for all.
   
   
   dan:
   

   **There are no letters written from a singular bishop of Rome let alone anyone claiming to be head of the whole church. **

   Where is your source
   
   
   dan:
   

   If Christ was speaking through a successor to Peter, the church would be hearing from him continuously from Peter onward saying, “Here I am. I’m still here, tending, feeding, and protecting my flock, Peter’s successor, representing Christ on earth… so don’t be afraid little flock.” But there is nothing but silence until Victor blunders onto the scene.

   How many times does God have to repeat himself before you believe Him? I gave the passages several times. You ignored them.

 

[Cinette]

1. Peter’s being first to do a thing does not make him head of the church.
2. His being judge of Ananias and Sapphira does also not make him head of the church.
3. He in fact DID NOT preside at the Jerusalem council, but rather clearly James did preside as your friends have said, in that he was bishop of his diocese but which I also deny. If Peter was in fact the one who presided at the council, this would be good evidence, but not enough to prove, that he was the head of the church. But it is very significant and clear that Peter DID NOT preside at the council.
4. Peter’s stating that God chose him to first speak to the Gentiles also does not make him the head of the church.

I asked you way back to please give me the passage in scripture that proves that James was the head of the Church?

 

[anthony022071]

Only a priest can baptize in Catholicism?

Baptism is a priestly responsibility. It is not only for the remission of original sin,it is also for entry into the Catholic Church,which is the Kingdom of God on earth. If it is not done within the Catholic Church by persons who themselves have been sacramentalized for administering the sacraments,it is not much a sacrament.

Council of Carthage VII (A.D. 258):
“And in the Gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, “Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” This is the Spirit which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit…Unless therefore they receive saving baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.”

Hippolytus:
“And the bishop shall lay his hand upon them [the newly baptized], invoking and saying: ‘O Lord God, who did count these worthy of deserving the forgiveness of sins by the laver of regeneration, make them worthy to be filled with your Holy Spirit and send upon them thy grace [in confirmation], that they may serve you according to your will” (The Apostolic Tradition 22:1 [A.D. 215]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage:
"From baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . . n the second birth, that through baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit" (Treatises 6:14:4 [A.D. 340]).

 

[paul_c]

Normatively, yes; however, in case of an emergency, any Christian may baptize.

Actually, Deacons can baptize as well as Marry people in the Catholic Church

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Daniel

This could almost pass for an answer… but, it misses the poiint. Please, don’t dodge, just answer the question: *Is there any organization that you know of that is run without a recognized head? Doesn’t a family have a head and that is the man (Eph 5:22)? *

1. Paul laid hands on Timothy and Titus to receive a gift of the Spirit.
2. Paul told them to do the work of an evangelist (1 Tim 4:5)… they were not bishops.
3. Paul told them to set in place elders in every church and gave qualifications for elders and deacons.
4. Thereafter, any who occupied these roles would be men having the above qualifications.

It is again very significant that Paul when discussing heads in Eph.5:22, does not say, "and the head of the church is Cephas."

You almost go to great lenghts to show that the various Churches were under the guiding and nurturing hands of their individual Bishops - yet, fail to connect the ‘last dot’ - all of these Bishops are under the guiding and nurturing hand of the Bishop of Rome - the Pope.

If this is not the case - as you claim - and the basis for your entire argument is the fact that there is no specific text in Scripture that you will accept that identifies Peter as the leader of the other Apostles and that Christ will come back to His Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) and find it leader-LESS becasue … Peter died!!! What kind of long-range planning and organization do you think Christ provided under your view of this history?

All I can say is that Paul was not inspired to use your words when he wrote to the Ephesians. Whatever was going on - specifically identifying in the words you want: “Peter is Leader and Peter’s Successors will be the future Leaders (Popes).” was not the Will of God. What is necessary, is that you look at all of the other organizaitons - especially those that have sprung up since the 16th Century - and continued to spring up ever since - and appreciate the chaos, disorganization and fragmentation give to the Body of Christ. When Christ prayed to His Father that all could be one - He was aware of what was going to happen - hence, the prayer.

Please, just answer the question above. Thanks.

God bless

 

[Cinette]

As I glanced at my bookshelf my eyes fell on a book I purchased about 18 months ago and I have not got down to reading it. It is about sprictural basis for the papacy.

Here is something that caught my eye:

• Jesus is our High Priest and the Apostles are also priests: Heb 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5, 10; 6:20; 7:26;…Acts14:22, … 1 Tim 5:17,
  19 and a whole lot more
• Jesus is the foundation of the Church and so are the Apostles: Eph2:20 / 1 Cor 3:11
• Jesus is the rock of the Church and Peter is as well: 1 Cor 10:4 / Mt 16:18
• Jesus has the keys to the kingdom and he gives these keys to Peter: Apoc 3:7 / Mt 16:19
• Jesus binds and looses and so does Peter: Apoc 3:7 / Mt 16:19
• Jesus is the divine Shepherd of the Church: Jn 10:11, 14-16 and he appoints Peter to feed his sheep…

I will read more and share with you but I have a heavy day ahead (yes even Saturday).

I would appreciate that if people debate they must support their beliefs with scripture and not make statements and say no and repeat themselves and must ANSWER questions. I have seen some compelling arguments and painstaking explanations supported by scripture on one side only.



10: