Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the Roman Pope becomes the head of the Church partly by attrition, partly by doing a good job of selling his authority and partly by the whole Church wanting to have centralized leadership in one place.
And not trusting the headship of Christ and the leading of the Spirit. You missed that part. You also seem to think that any one apostle would have overall authority and that each congregation would have one "head bishop," which is not the way it was set up.
Julian658 responded post # 178 “Lest assume Peter was not the Bishop of Rome."
I am glad we can find agreement on this point, Historically, Peter was never the standing Bishop of Rome. The claim made by the Roman movement that Peter was the “First Bishop” who sat in the chair at rome was a false claim created to enhance their position inside an attempt to gain political power, influence and position. The Church Ignatius was referring to in his statement in 100 a.d. was different than the church referred to in this later Roman Religious movement that became the Roman Catholic Church.
NOT ONLY WAS PETER NEVER A STANDING BISHOP IN ROME, BUT THERE WAS NEVER ANY PERIOD APPROPRIATE DATA TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM
For example : The Patrologiae Graeca dedicates TWO ENTIRE VOLUMES to Clement, who was a Bishop over the Roman Congregation at most for only 10 years (and no one regarded Clement as important as Peter), yet when one turns to the earliest written traditions for Rome, the records speak of Clement and are silent on Peter.
If Peter stayed in Rome, ESPECIALLY if he actually became Bishop of Rome, then there should be a great deal of textual records as there are for Clement. However, I am asking : where are Peter’s sermons, his miracles, his conversations, is administrative acts, etc. The Clementine records write a great deal regarding personal daily interactions with Peter when Peter is in Palestine. But, upon leaving Palestine, even Clement loses sight of Peter and writes nothing of what happened to him. If Peter DID go to Rome, then the silence and void is even more astounding.
A) If Peter HAD BEEN a sitting Bishop in Rome and head of the church, then he would have written MORE than only first peter.
It is inconceivable that a “bishop” Peter would NOT have written something during the more than two decades it is claimed that he was Bishop. Remember, Peter does NOT have to write with his own hand, but need simply employ a few secretaries. Origen and Augustine kept several secretaries very busy taking their dictation in their prodigious production of texts. Paul doesn’t write his text, but leaves it to another to write. Also, as administrative support increases, the ease with which texts are generated increases, ease of transmission increases; ease of stationary storage increases; ease of distribution increases; and the ease and amount of copying improves.
B) During this time period, the Christian churches are experiencing amazing growth (which requires guidance and administration to a greater degree than churches in a “steady state).
It is inconceivable that Peter would not have provided this guidance and administration, much of it in the form of written text. If he was a bishop, I do not believe he would have written LESS than as an apostle-missionary, but he would probably have written MORE as administrative duties requiring textual communications grew (though the nature of and content of the texts would have been somewhat different).
C) The Apostle Peter would have continued to give many types of textual testimonies of Jesus to many groups in many contexts over a 20 year period and I believe that such texts would have been copied and distributed just as other sacred christian texts were copied and distributed widely.
D) There was continuing concern with growing apostasy and heresies and conflicting doctrines as the Christian movement took root among differing culture and countries and Peter, if he had been acting as a “general Bishop” would have continued to send textual letters (epistles) out to attempt to deal with such issues. The Galatians were not the only ones who were “soon removed” from the original teachings of the Apostles. Peter would have offered guidance and admonishment as other Bishops did (clement, ignatius, etc).
E) Much of this guidance would have been Doctrinal guidance in a textual form as Peter encouraged corrections to competing doctrines and questions that arise concerning the gospel.
F) Peter would have had at least a few public debates or at least public "disagreements" from detractors, such as his extraordinary debate with Simon Magnus, which were immortalized in the Clementine recognitions. Clement wrote of these early debates Peter had, others would have written about continuing debates in Rome had Peter been there.
G) Any Petrine administration in Rome would have generated textual records associated with mundane administrative affairs; the buying of supplies and food and records relating to the distribution of welfare. Such is the nature of the majority of the earliest hierarchal records of egypt from thousands of years previous. Some of these should be extant.
H) The continuing miracles which were to follow “those that believe” would have continued in Peter and many of them would have been textually documented and immortalized had he been in one place over a period of 20 years. Healing and miracles he continually wrought would have been written about by both the Christians and the non-christians in a community in which Peter lived for 20 years.
I) Textual records associated with other organizational and administrative tasks within a growing christendom itself, records of those who were directly ordained and sent by the Peter as a “bishop” to a certain task would have existed, (Certainly many more ordinations than Peters’ single ordination Clement alone)
J) At least some texts a hypothetical Petrine Bishopric sent out to different countries and congregations would not have been highly valued and retained.
It is very unlikely that all copies of all such documents created over 20 years as a Bishop of a rapidly enlargening religious movement in all places they were sent in allcities of an enlargening Religious movement would have undergone destruction. For example, we have a fair amount of the correspondence that took place between the Priests of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and the priests of it’s sister jewish temple in Egypt (Elephantine), why would none exist; be discussed; or at least be known of having at one time existing.
THE DEPTH OF HISTORICAL INCONCEIVABLENESS DEEPENS WITH ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND.
For example, it is NOT just PETER’S “writings” that we should find evidence of, but there should be writings generated ABOUT Peter the Bishop by others.
For example:
A) The ROMAN’S themselves, in their administrative duties, would have written ABOUT Peter as a Bishop and mention something about their interactions and knowledge of him as a Bishop of the Christian Church there. What are the chances, given the record keeping ability of the Roman government, that THEY would have lost all such records concerning Peter as well as all church records be lost in all parts of the world where such records would have been sent?
B) The ENEMIES of Christianity would have written about Peter and the Christians just as others (such as Celsus) had done. for years. For example: Why would the ongoing Jewish and Pagan leaders continued complaining about “Peter and the Christians” have no records?
C) What are the chances that none of the historians, “small or large”, altogether avoided writing about Peter as the head of the Roman Church. It is inconceivable to me that some historian, either small or great, living near the time of Peter, a “bishop of Rome” would not have written about him. Josephus, who returned to live in Rome doesn’t mention Peter as Bishop of Rome, Tacitus doesn’t, Suetonius' knew vespacian and he even he had access to the imperial archives (which presumably would have SOMETHING about Peter in them), yet his series of biographies (“Illustrious Men”) doesn’t mention Peter (though it included poets and orators), If Plutarch mentioned Peter as Bishop, this part of his textual history did not survive. Did Peter, as a bishop, not rate enough importance for ANY historian? If he DID rate, then were ALL such records destroyed?
D) At least ONE of the members of the Roman congregation would have written about Peter in a personal diary or a secular text that at least MENTIONED a famous "Bishop" Peter. For example, we know so much about what early Christianity taught and was like, even about the early martyrdoms through the diary of Perpetua. She writes about her Bishop Optatus (who is certainly NOT a famous person). Why would no other members of the church in rome or in any other place, congregation or local, discuss Peter as their bishop in some extant diary entry or letter? Many, many personal experiences should have and would have been written by many literate individuals who would have access and dealings with Peter as a standing bishop.
I think I’ve oversimplified this description as it is even more complicated than this, but it introduces other historical issues that one must consider besides the simple issue of whether Peter himself wrote or did not write texts. It introduces some context as to why very prominent scholars would teach that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome for 20 years as Catholic tradition suggests.
THE ROMAN CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT DID NOT RECEIVE NOR HAVE APOSTOLIC LEVEL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY
The Roman Movement’s motive in claiming to having the authority of Peter were simple
There were many early Christian congregations in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. In the centuries after the Apostles died. The Roman Religious movement historically, tried to distinguish themselves from other fellow schizmatics on the basis of at least two claims. They repeatedly claimed to have greater RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY and they claimed to have ORIGINAL CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS.
These claims make things VERY simple historically.
IF the Roman congregation actually DID and DOES have authentic religious authority from God and actually DOES teach the authentic and original Christian traditions, thenall other Christians not having authority from God and not possessing “original Christian traditions” should repent and turn toward roman catholic theology (as some other congregations did).
IF the derivatives from the Roman congregation DO NOT have authentic religious authority and DO NOT teach the authentic and original Christian traditions nowadays in any greater degree than any other of the various christianities, THEN claims based on special authority and original traditions are rendered moot (though OTHER claims may be valid) and we should look ELSEWHERE for religious authority and authentic christian theology (if those characteristics are what we are looking for...)
1) We've already discussed the point that HISTORICALLY, The Roman Congregation bishops (popes) were never given any special religious authority over Christianity. Their authority was NOT καθολικοσ/“Catholic” or “universal “in any sense.
καθολικος did NOT apply to the Roman Religious movement in 100 a.d.
Perhaps I can go on to discuss the attempt at achieving pre-imminence and also discussed the point that the Roman-derived theologies are not the same as original Christian traditions as the early Judao-Christians taught (some early traditions were changed by them, some new traditions were created and some of the old traditions are no longer taught by them). Thus, the organization that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church and it’s early evolution as it became a pre-imminent organization was NOT the church spoken of by Ignatius in 100 a.d. when he used the term καθολικος.
Even their doctrines were not “Catholic” or “universal”, but provincial in nature.
1) THE HISTORICAL CLAIM TO HAVE AUTHORITY, IT'S USE AND MISUSE
Anciently the claim to have “the Authority of Peter the Apostle” was used to attempt to trump the claim of other competing religious opinions. Eusebius, a century later, uses the claim to authority to improve the strength of his polemic against competing opinions, even clementine letters were created as proof of a "historical" transfer of this authority. However, later, these letters were shown to be faked. The use of this claim anciently is not so different than it's usage in modern disagreements
My wife just reminded me that I’m going out on a motorcycle ride with her to see how much the autumn leaves have changed (this is a 140 mile loop through some mountains…) so, if I live through this ride, I’ll have to return later and discuss how the attempt and mechanisms of attaining pre-imminent status among competing movements characterized the Roman Religious movement in ways that show it was not the organization spoken of by Ignatius in his use of καθολικος in 100 a.d.
Clear
ειειτωδραξω (julian - this same discussion is taking place in two threads, so I will simply cut and paste to the other thread on this same subject - I had thought NOT to contaminate this thread with the same data, but believe it probably is best to do so, let me know if you want to move to the other thread exclusively and I will do so...)
And not trusting the headship of Christ and the leading of the Spirit. You missed that part. You also seem to think that any one apostle would have overall authority and that each congregation would have one "head bishop," which is not the way it was set up.
Of course you are right. No apostle retains any authority from God unless he is being led and guided by God and Christ through the Holy Spirit or personal manifestation. I suppose I could have been more clear. The Roman Catholic Church's math doesn't add up. I'm actually conceding a few points that I do not necessarily agree with. I'm doing so because I'd like to see the RCC faithful demonstrate that the bishop of Rome really does have all the authority that he claims to have.
Peter clearly was the head apostle, but I don't know of a case where he just told the rest of the apostles what to do. They seem to have always met in council to sort things out. What has not yet been demonstrated is that Peter passed on his authority to one specific bishop. Analyzing the extent of Peter's authority is still worth discussing at length, but if you can't demonstrate that the Roman Pope ever got it then it's a moot point.
There are two possibilities:
A.) The Pope is the true successor to the apostle Peter.
B.) The Pope claims to be the true successor to Peter but he isn't, never was and the Pope's power is 100% the invention of mortal men.
Every indication I've seen points to option B, but I'm happy to continue to hear what Catholics have to offer on this point. IF they can establish that the bishop of Rome really is Peter's successor, then it becomes a good time to talk about the limitations or lack thereof for Peter's authority.
Of course you are right. No apostle retains any authority from God unless he is being led and guided by God and Christ through the Holy Spirit or personal manifestation. I suppose I could have been more clear. The Roman Catholic Church's math doesn't add up. I'm actually conceding a few points that I do not necessarily agree with. I'm doing so because I'd like to see the RCC faithful demonstrate that the bishop of Rome really does have all the authority that he claims to have.
Peter clearly was the head apostle, but I don't know of a case where he just told the rest of the apostles what to do. They seem to have always met in council to sort things out. What has not yet been demonstrated is that Peter passed on his authority to one specific bishop. Analyzing the extent of Peter's authority is still worth discussing at length, but if you can't demonstrate that the Roman Pope ever got it then it's a moot point.
There are two possibilities:
A.) The Pope is the true successor to the apostle Peter.
B.) The Pope claims to be the true successor to Peter but he isn't, never was and the Pope's power is 100% the invention of mortal men.
Every indication I've seen points to option B, but I'm happy to continue to hear what Catholics have to offer on this point. IF they can establish that the bishop of Rome really is Peter's successor, then it becomes a good time to talk about the limitations or lack thereof for Peter's authority.
Thanks for admitting Peter was the leader. Lets leave the biblical evidence aside. Here are a few references:
One honest Protestant historian and theologian -- Adolph Harnack -- wrote that "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is NOT BLIND. The martyr death of peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."
John Ignatius Dollinger claims that the evidence "St. Peter worked in Rome is a FACT SO ABUNDANTLY PROVED and so deeply imbedded in the earliest Christian history, that whoever treats it as a legend ought in consistency to treat the whole of the earliest church history as LEGENDARY, or, at least, QUITE UNCERTAIN" (The 1st Age of Christianity and the Church, London. 1867. P. 296).
It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter's death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The "trophies" of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. -- The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.
The belief that Peter was martyred in Rome was NOT due to the vanity or ambition of the LOCAL Christians, but was ADMITTED, at an early date, THROUGHOUT THE CHURCH. No testimony later than the middle of the 3rd century really needs to be considered; by this time the Roman church claimed to have the body of the apostle and NO ONE DISPUTED THE FACT.
George Edmundson, in his book The Church in Rome in the 1st Century, dogmatically repeats the same conclusion:
We do not have even the SLIGHTEST TRACE that points to any other place which could be considered as the scene of his [Peter's] death....It is a further important point that in the second and third centuries, when certain churches were in rivalry with the one in Rome, IT NEVER OCCURRED TO A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Indeed, even MORE can be said; precisely in the east, as is clear from the pseudo-Clementine writings and the Petrine legends, above all those that deal with Peter's conflict with Simon the magician [Magus] THE TRADITION OF THE ROMAN RESIDENCE OF PETER HAD A PARTICULARLY STRONG HOLD. -- London. 1913. Pp. 114-115.
From the 1st century an apocryphal work called the Ascension of Isaiah has come down to us; and this is probably the FIRST AND EARLIEST document that attests to the martyrdom of Peter IN ROME. In a passage (Chap. 4:2f) we read the following prediction:
...then will arise Beliar, the great prince, the king of this world, who has ruled it since its origin; and he shall descend from his firmament in HUMAN FORM, king of wickedness, MURDERER OF HIS MOTHER, who himself is king of this world; and he will persecute the PLANT which the 12 apostles of the Beloved shall have planted; ONE OF THE 12 WILL BE DELIVERED INTO HIS HANDS.
This is a clear reference to Emperor Nero who murdered his mother Agrippina in 59 A.D., and put Peter to death in February of 68 A.D. It cannot refer to Paul -- he was beheaded in January of 67 A.D. by Helius, one the prefects who was left in charge of Rome while Nero was away in Greece entertaining the fawning citizens of this vassal province.
The NEXT REFERENCE, in order of time, is the Epistle of Clement to James. Although many historians have placed this letter in the last ten years of the 1st century, there are some objections to this. The largest objection, of course, is that James could not have possibly been alive at that late a date. All indications are that James was killed during the interfactional warfare that occurred in Jerusalem just prior to the Roman destruction of the city in 70 A.D. Also, there is an abundance of material to show that Peter ordained Clement TO REPLACE LINUS as overseer of the Roman Church after the latter's martyrdom in 67 A.D. The list of bishops of Rome in the Ante-Nicene Fathers show that Clement was an overseer from 68-71 A.D.
Evidently, his first item of business as overseer was to inform James of Peter's death:
Clement to James, who rules [oversees] Jerusalem, the holy church of the Hebrews, and the churches everywhere excellently founded by the providence of God, with the elders and deacons, and the rest of the brethren, peace be always....He himself [Peter], by reason of his immense love towards men, HAVING COME AS FAR AS ROME, clearly and publicly testifying, in opposition to the wicked one who withstood him, that there is to be a good King over all the world, while saving men by his God-inspired doctrine, HIMSELF, BY VIOLENCE, EXCHANGED THIS PRESENT EXISTENCE FOR LIFE. -- Epistle of Clement to James, "Ante-Nicene Fathers." Translated by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. Vol. VIII. New York. 1926. P. 218.
In the first few years of the 2nd century an Ebionite document, called The Preaching of Peter, was written. Its time-frame is indicated by the fact that the Gnostic Heracleon used it in his writings during the time of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). According to John Ignatius Dollinger, The Preaching of Peter brings "St. Peter and St. Paul together AT ROME, and divides the discourses and utterances which took place there between the two...it is notoriously founded on the UNIVERSALLY ADMITTED FACT of St. Peter having laboured AT ROME."
Thomas Lewin, in The Life and Epistle of St. Paul, mentions that a work entitled Praedicatio Pauli -- ascribed to the second century -- tells of PETER and Paul meeting AT ROME (Vol. 2. London. 1874).
The events which led up to the death of Peter are described at length in a work called the Acts of Peter, which was in circulation at Rome approximately 85 years after the apostle's death. Once again, those who would have read this work would have been second-generation Christians, whose parents would remember the places and personalities concerned.
In the 2nd century Dionysius of Corinth, in the epistle to Soter Bishop of Rome, states, as a FACT UNIVERSALLY KNOWN and accounting for the intimate relations between Corinth and Rome, that Peter and Paul BOTH TAUGHT IN ITALY, and suffered martyrdom ABOUT the same time. In short, the churches most nearly connected with Rome and THOSE LEAST AFFECTED BY ITS INFLUENCE, which was as yet but inconsiderable in the east, CONCUR in the statement that Peter was a joint founder of that church [Rome], and SUFFERED DEATH IN THAT CITY.
The writer and philosopher Origen (185-254) (known as the father of the Eastern Church's science of Biblical criticism and exegesis in the early part of the 3rd century) writes that, after preaching in Pontus and other places to the Jews of the Dispersion, Peter "finally CAME TO ROME, and was crucified with his head downward."
Likewise Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Gaul (circa 202) claims (Cont. Haeres, iii.1) that "PETER and Paul were preaching AT ROME, and laying the foundation of the church." Further on, in Cont. Haeres, iii.2, he adds: "Indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, very ancient, and universally known church, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious apostles, PETER and Paul."
Tertullian, the eminent church father mentions, around the year 218, "those whom Peter baptized IN THE TIBER [RIVER] (On Baptism, 4). In his work Prescription Against Heretics (36), he says that the church of Rome "states that Clement was ORDAINED BY PETER."
Clement of Alexandria (circa 220), as cited by Eusebius, adds another detail when he mentions PETER'S VISIT TO ROME to contend with SIMON MAGUS.
A little later, in the 4th century, Arnobius (307 A.D.) says: "IN ROME ITSELF...they have hastened to give up their ancestral customs, and to join themselves to Christian truth, FOR THEY HAD SEEN THE CHARIOT OF SIMON MAGUS, AND HIS FIERY CAR BLOWN INTO PIECES BY THE MOUTH OF PETER" (Adv. Gentes, ii. 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Down through the years, numerous Protestant groups have gone to great lengths in trying to prove that the apostle Peter never set foot in the city of Rome. Flying in the face of historical, traditional and archaeological evidence to the contrary, they have even gone so far as to say he never set foot in Italy.
Ephesians 2:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Acts 1:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Mark 6:30
King James Version (KJV)
30 And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus, and told him all things, both what they had done, and what they had taught.
Matthew 10:1-5
King James Version (KJV)
10 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Julian658 I do appreciate your efforts to provide an answer, but here's the problems:
1.) Peter having ministered in Rome does not invest his apostolic authority in that geographical location. Peter ministered and did many miracles in many other places. It is possible that Peter was never in Rome at all and that accounts of him being there are pious revisionist histories. But if Peter was in Rome, he was not there for very long. He never lived there, but he did live in Jerusalem, Galilee and Antioch. Peter doing miracles in Rome does not grant Rome Peter's authority.
2.) Peter dying in Rome does not invest his apostolic authority in that geographical location either. Quite the opposite I should think. The city of Jerusalem did not become more authoritative for killing the Son of God. That city was doomed to bloody destruction for such a despicable deed. Why would Rome be blessed for killing an apostle??
3.) Having the corpse of St Peter does not grant anybody his power. It's just a corpse. To suggest that the bones of Peter have grant the possessor his power and authority suggests that anyone murdering a prophet, apostle or other messenger of God can steal their power/authority. That power of St Peter could in turn be stolen by somebody else. That line of thinking just doesn't make any sense, and there is no precedent for it anyways.
Let's look to prior examples.
1.) When Moses left Israel, there was no question who was in charge: Joshua had been designated by Moses to succeed him. There were some passages that hinted at this transfer of authority, but the best evidence of this is the fact that Israel unfailingly followed Joshua's leadership.
2.) When Elijah ascended in a chariot of fire, his mantle fell upon Elisha. This was witnessed by others. Elisha then proceeded to do the same sorts of works and miracles that Elijah had done before him.
3.) Yes Peter is another example of this. We have several cases where Christ does designate him as leader of the apostles and leader of the Church. After Christ's ascension into heaven, the apostles and the Church followed Peter's lead. Peter proceeded to do many of the same sorts of miracles that Jesus had done before him.
The reason that you cannot point to a clear transfer of power from Peter to Bishop Linus (or any other Bishop of Rome) is because no such historical account exists. The Church did not follow the Bishop of Rome as their overall leader and the Bishop of Rome did not attempt to lead them as such. Not for many hundreds of years. Hundreds of years after Peter was dead, the Bishops of Rome seem to come out of nowhere claiming absolute authority to supreme leadership over the Church. Similar claims were made by Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and many others. But there does not seem to be any clear singular leader of the whole Church after the apostles died off. Everyone seems to be doing their own thing.
Quote:
Ephesians 2:20
King James Version (KJV)
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
So in order to have the proper foundation to build the true Church and Kingdom, you need apostles and prophets. Okay, sounds fair. Where are the RCC's apostles and prophets? If you cannot name your living apostles and prophets then you're in the same boat as every other branch of Christianity: You must try to get your authority for "We're the real true Church," from words, deeds and legacies of apostles and prophets now 1900 years dead.
Julian658 I do appreciate your efforts to provide an answer, but here's the problems:
1.) Peter having ministered in Rome does not invest his apostolic authority in that geographical location. Peter ministered and did many miracles in many other places. It is possible that Peter was never in Rome at all and that accounts of him being there are pious revisionist histories. But if Peter was in Rome, he was not there for very long. He never lived there, but he did live in Jerusalem, Galilee and Antioch. Peter doing miracles in Rome does not grant Rome Peter's authority.
The concept of revisionist history does not fly because some of those documents were written before Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire. Further more many of those historical writings are extremely ancient and quite close to the biblical era. Therefore, revisionism at a time when there was no notive to be a revisionist is highly unlikely.
Quote:
2.) Peter dying in Rome does not invest his apostolic authority in that geographical location either. Quite the opposite I should think. The city of Jerusalem did not become more authoritative for killing the Son of God. That city was doomed to bloody destruction for such a despicable deed. Why would Rome be blessed for killing an apostle??
The leadership of peter was delineated in the Gospels. And as per Matthew 16:18 he was the main Apostle. Whether he was all his life in Rome or whether it was a short time is moot. He is the first leader of Christianity in our neck of the woods.
Quote:
3.) Having the corpse of St Peter does not grant anybody his power. It's just a corpse. To suggest that the bones of Peter have grant the possessor his power and authority suggests that anyone murdering a prophet, apostle or other messenger of God can steal their power/authority. That power of St Peter could in turn be stolen by somebody else. That line of thinking just doesn't make any sense, and there is no precedent for it anyways.
OK, there are a ton of ancient writings very close to the era of Pete.
Quote:
The First Epistle of Clement, (literally, Clement to Corinth; Greek, Κλήμεντος πρὸς Κορινθίους, Klēmentos pros Korinthious) is a letter addressed to the Christians in the city of Corinth. The letter dates from the late 1st or early 2nd century, and ranks with Didache as one of the earliest — if not the earliest — of extant Christian documents outside the canonical New Testament.
Relics of people considered saints were often conserved in old Christianity. As per Clement people in those days had devotion for the saints. Just read his letters.
Quote:
3.) Yes Peter is another example of this. We have several cases where Christ does designate him as leader of the apostles and leader of the Church. After Christ's ascension into heaven, the apostles and the Church followed Peter's lead. Peter proceeded to do many of the same sorts of miracles that Jesus had done before him.
So what is the problem? It sounds you are been way too picky. As I said before, there was no formal papacy at the time of Peter. His leadership is simply bestowed by Jesus. From a biblical standpoint there is Petrine Supremacy. And Peter and the apostles practiced apostolic succession which is one of the cornerstones of the Catholic Church.
Quote:
So in order to have the proper foundation to build the true Church and Kingdom, you need apostles and prophets. Okay, sounds fair. Where are the RCC's apostles and prophets? If you cannot name your living apostles and prophets then you're in the same boat as every other branch of Christianity: You must try to get your authority for "We're the real true Church," from words, deeds and legacies of apostles and prophets now 1900 years dead.
What????????????????????
You need to go back and read all the ancient letters by the second and 3rd generation apostles.
CHAPTER 42 -- THE ORDER OF MINISTERS IN THE CHURCH.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done sol from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."
Here are some excerpts. This is Christian to the core and written at a time when the Canon of the NT had no been put together.
CLEMENT OF ROME, First Epistle
Letter of Clement to the Corinthians
CHAPTER 1 -- SALUTATION, AND PRAISE FOR THE CORINTHIANS BEFORE SCHISM BROKE FORTH AMONG THEM.
The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.
CHAPTER 5 -- NO LESS EVILS HAVE ARISEN FROM THE SAME SOURCE IN THE MOST RECENT TIMES. THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER AND PAUL.
CHAPTER 7 -- AN EXHORTATION TO REPENTANCE.
Let us attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us. Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world.
CHAPTER 9 -- EXAMPLES OF THE SAINTS.
So let us yield obedience to His excellent and glorious will; and imploring His mercy and loving-kindness, while we forsake all fruitless labours, and strife, and envy, which leads to death, let us turn and have recourse to His compassions. Let us steadfastly contemplate those who have perfectly ministered to His excellent glory.
CHAPTER 13 -- AN EXHORTATION TO HUMILITY.
Let us therefore, brethren, be of humble mind, laying aside all haughtiness, and pride, and foolishness, and angry feelings; and let us act according to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit says, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, neither let the rich man Story in his riches; but let him that glories glory in the Lord, in diligently seeking Him, and doing judgment and righteousness" ), being especially mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus which He spoke, teaching us meekness and long-suffering. For thus He spoke: "Be merciful, that you may obtain mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven to you; as you do, so shall it be done to you; as you judge, so shall you be judged; as you are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you; with what measure you measure, with the same it shall be measured to you." By this precept and by these rules let us establish ourselves, that we walk with all humility in obedience to His holy words. For the holy word says, "On whom shall I look, but on him that is meek and peaceable, and who trembles at My words?"
CHAPTER 16 -- CHRIST AS AN EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY.
CHAPTER 17 -- THE SAINTS AS EXAMPLES OF HUMILITY.
CHAPTER 18 -- DAVID AS AN EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY.
CHAPTER 21 -- LET US OBEY GOD, AND NOT THE AUTHORS OF SEDITION.
CHAPTER 22 -- THESE EXHORTATIONS ARE CONFIRMED BY THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, WHICH PROCLAIMS THE MISERY OF SINFUL CONDUCT.
Now the faith which is in Christ confirms all these [admonitions]. For He Himself by the Holy Ghost thus addresses us: "Come, you children, listen to Me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What man is he that desires life, and loves to see good days? Keep your tongue from evil, and your lips from speaking guile. Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears are [open] to their prayers. The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cried, and the Lord heard him, and delivered him out of all his troubles." "Many are the stripes [appointed for] the wicked; but mercy shall compass those about who hope in the Lord."
CHAPTER 23 -- BE HUMBLE, AND BELIEVE THAT CHRIST WILL COME AGAIN.
CHAPTER 28 -- GOD SEES ALL THINGS: THEREFORE LET US AVOID TRANSGRESSION.
CHAPTER 30 -- LET US DO THOSE THINGS THAT PLEASE GOD, AND FLEE FROM THOSE HE HATES, THAT WE MAY BE BLESSED.
CHAPTER 36 -- ALL BLESSINGS ARE GIVEN TO US THROUGH CHRIST.
This is the way, beloved, in which we find our Saviour, even Jesus Christ, the High Priest of all our offerings, the defender and helper of our infirmity. By Him we look up to the heights of heaven. By Him we behold, as in a glass, His immaculate and most excellent visage. By Him are the eyes of our hearts opened. By Him our foolish and darkened understanding blossoms up anew towards His marvellous light. By Him the Lord has willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge, "who, being the brightness of His majesty, is by so much greater than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." For it is thus written, "Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire." But concerning His Son the Lord spoke thus: "You are my Son, today have I begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You the heathen for Your inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession." And again He says to Him, "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool." But who are His enemies? All the wicked, and those who set themselves to oppose the will of God.
CHAPTER 37 -- CHRIST IS OUR LEADER, AND WE HIS SOLDIERS.
CHAPTER 40 -- LET US PRESERVE IN THE CHURCH THE ORDER APPOINTED BY GOD.
GodofThunder9010 said in post # 180 “ Peter's succession would have passed on to the surviving apostles immediately following his death. Most likely, the highest ranking apostle would take Peter's place. When Peter dies in 68 AD, John would have been the highest ranking surviving apostle. When John dies in about 100 AD, he was the last apostle. At that point, where does the authority vested in Peter go? There are several possibilities:
1.) The highest ranking surviving office in the Church is Bishop. The typical assumption is that the apostolic authority is then passed on to all bishops equally. There were dozens of bishops at this point. This is where things get messy. Previously, only apostles could ordain bishops. With no apostles left, sometimes existing bishops ordained new bishops over congregations that needed one. Sometimes the congregation just nominates a bishop for themselves. So are the apostle-ordained bishops higher in authority than those that were not? Were further ordinations of bishops even valid at all? Nonetheless, the assembly of all bishops in the Church was the highest remaining authority. If Petrine authority survives, it would have passed to all bishops equally and collectively.
2.) The authority vested in Peter simply ends with the apostles. You could assume that the need for centralized authority had ended and it was now up to each individual Christian. You could assume that Christ's authorized Church ceases to exist with no more surviving apostles.
The problem with the Roman Catholic Church's point of view: They presume that Peter's authority get's passed on to only one bishop, the Bishop of Rome. This is how they justify the Pope's right to excommunicate other bishops, kings, emperors, rulers, etc. The Bishop of Rome has gradually over time taken upon himself more and more and more authority, but clearly the Bishop of Rome did not start out with that authority.
I suppose that the whole of the Church wanted to have centralized leadership again. Why else would bishops from all over the Empire eventually accept the preeminence of just 5 bishops -- men who really had no more authority than they themselves did. With 5 uber-bishops, the Church must have felt more organized Once 4 of those 5 bishops were overrun by the Muslim Jihads, the only one of those uber-bishops remained. Oh the other 4 still continued on of course. They each have their own unbroken line all the way back to Christ's apostles, as do several other bishops. Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople both claim authority over all Christendom too. Tens of millions in Africa acknowledge the authority of the Pope of Alexandria. Hundreds of millions acknowledge the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But all four of them were now in Muslim occupied territory and Rome was/is not.
I think the Roman Pope becomes the head of the Church partly by attrition, partly by doing a good job of selling his authority and partly by the whole Church wanting to have centralized leadership in one place. “
GodofThunder : I think your discussion of authority is good.
The claim that a good, but obscure man Linus, would be given authority over the apostle John the revelator is quite silly when viewed from hind-sight. And this, in view of the fact that God continued sending revelations and epistles through John and not Linus. We do not hear of “Linus the Revelator”, but it is upon John that the mantle of authority and revelation and guidance rested. I like the logical consideration as to where the mantle of authority would then rest after John. However, you might also consider a hypothetical where John does not pass his apostolic power on to another when he died and very legitimate reasons for this loss.
I believe that Julian658 is correct, that traditionally, Peter eventually returns to rome before he dies. However, the many textual witnesses telling us Peter died in Rome are entirely irrelevant to the Roman claim to have acquired Peters’ authority.
Also, repeating dogmatic claims that Jesus told Peter he is given the “keys of the kingdom of the heavens (pl)…” (κλειδαςτηςβασιλειαςτωνουρανων) is also quite irrelevant since Peter never historically gave his level of authority or those keys to a roman congregation before he died.
If we are not careful, we will spend post upon post dealing with such “irrelevants” and “changes of subject”, instead of focusing on the difficult truth that he did not give authority to Rome and what that means : The Roman Christian religious movement never had any special authority that the other congregations did not have. Without the guidance of Prophets and Apostles, the original roman congregation was just as confused as all other congregations and were left to make their way as best as they could.
Authentic original Christian leadership in the original Christian movement differed from that of the Roman Catholic Church in important ways. For examples :
The original Christian religious movement was led by prophets under direct, divine inspiration whereas the Roman religious movement came to be led by theologian-philosophers. Tertulian himself describes the roman theology of his day as having lost the “power” while retaining merely the forms of godliness.
Once the “general” authority and guidance from Apostles was no longer available, the congregations turned to their highest remaining congregational office; that of their congregational Bishops. However, the type of guidance from a bishop of a congregation was NOT the same at all. Tertullian describes the distinction between authentic early Christianity and the type of Christianity the Roman theology had evolved into.
He says that both types of authority (apostolic level and bishops level) were good and necessary, but the higher one the earlier church had was no longer in the roman type of christian church.
The higher authority was apostolic and prophetic and its underlying genius was power; true and authentic “potestas”. In contrast, the later roman type of church, (according to Tertullian), could only set up a succession of bishops with discipline, “officium”, in the place of authentic “potestas”. (Tertullian , De Pudicitia 21, in PL 2:1077-80) He is describing the loss of "living, breathing guidance" in the form of living, on-going revelation.
The original Christian church had “imperium” that characterized it’s authority to create organization and doctrinal theology, while the later roman church had substituted “ministerium” , (a prescribed routine) instead. Again, the characterization is the doing of a thing “because it had been done” (i.e. a "routine") and a creation of doctrine and theology by the efforts of philosopher-theologians who are creating doctrine, rather than the revelation of doctrine by God through apostles and prophets who are delivering doctrines from their original source (God). The differences between the original Christian Church and the Roman Church begin to accumulate to the point that we have a very different organization. The two are not the same.
Revelation was the source of doctrine anciently, whereas in the later roman theology, the education, reason and logic of theologians became the necessary source for roman doctrines once they no longer had Apostolic and Prophetic sources for revelation. There were no more, Gnosis, tongues, and prophecy. “To James the Just and to John and Peter, the Lord gave the gnosis after his resurrection,” Clement said. “they gave it further to the other apostles, and the rest of the apostles in turn gave it to the seventy,” but what has always been missing was any legitimate historical account of its’ ever being passed on to the Bishops of Rome (Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiatica 2.1.4, in PG 20:136)
In the original Christian religious movement, the Spirit and revelation was the highest guide, whereas the Roman Christian movement were ultimately left with only texts and traditions and their personal and official interpretations of the texts. Even Julian658, almost as a "reflexively" and "routinely", offers us Matt 16:14-19 as an answer to a question no one is really asking in this thread. He also offers the later Roman interpretation instead of the version held by the early Christian movement as described by Origen. Even the later textual interpretations of the text inside the Roman religious movement were not the same as the Original Christian movement. These are not the same organisations.
For example : Tertulian describes “Enthusiasmus” as an original guiding principle of interpretation in the early Christian movement, which shifted to allegorical interpretation in the roman type of Christianity.
The congregational bishops were not given the authority of apostles because they did not do the work of apostles. Both Clement and Ignatius publically taught that they (as bishops) were not equivalent to the apostolic level of authority. It was only in the later roman theology that a position of bishop was created that claimed apostolic level of authority. The Roman position of “Bishop” borrowed the same name as the early position of “Bishop” in the original Christian movement, but the position was not the same at all. It had been changed to something else entirely.
It is for reasons like these that I say that Ignatius, in 100 a.d., when using the adjective “ΚαΘολικος”, was NOT referring to the later Roman religious movement and the church it had created and which, at some point, took on the title, “καθολικος” as a noun.
WHEN JERUSALEM AND ANTIOCH HAD PRE-EMINENCE AND ROME WANTED PRE-EMINENCE
Just as we all tend to feel our own religious views are the correct ones, it was only natural for the Roman Religious movement to feel the same and to desire to promulgate and proselyte its’ evolving version of Christianity. In order to “win out” over other versions of Christian worldviews, it needed to become the dominant doctrinal worldview and the most powerful proselyting organization if its doctrinal and administrative views were to compete and dominate other views. In context of AUTHORITY, the early Roman congregation felt the need to demonstrate superior ecclesiastical authority which they did not, in fact, have. The pressure to “create the fascade” of authority mounted until patriots of the roman congregation began manipulating textual history to this end.
1) Existing texts were changed to benefit and support the roman claims to pre-eminence.
For example : Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23, says, “The brother of the Lord, James, took over the church along with [μετα + genitive] the apostles.” (PG 20:197) Yet Jerome translates this passage : “suscepit ecclesiam Hierosolymorum post [μετα + accusative] apostolos frater Domini Jacobus” –(Jerome De Viris Illustrtibus 2, in PL 23:639) p 32 – which translation changes James position, making him appear to be a successor to the apostles, (whom he did not succeed at all). Yet such corruption of history was necessary if they were to establish an apostolic succession through bishops.
2) NEW texts were created to support the emerging Roman Claims to pre-eminence.
For example : The text of “The Gospel of the twelve apostles” has Christ ordain Peter an “archbishop” though such an office did not exist until it was created centuries later. (Gospel of the 12 apostles, in PO 2:147) Yet, such manipulations and counterfeiting was necessary if one was to create a historical basis to justify the roman claim over the other congregations.
For example : According to the apostolic constitutions, when the church was being formally organized, a fictitious Peter suggested first of all ordaining a bishop in the presence of all the apostles, including Paul and James, bishop of Jerusalem – pouring all their united authority into one vessel, and then doing homage to him!. (Constitutiones Aposolicae 8.4-5, in PG 1:1069-76);
Another example are the Several letters of "Clement" containing counterfeit history were foisted on the other Christians. There are several versions of spurious letters supposedly written by the third bishop of Rome (Clement). In one fictional account Peter says of Clement : “I transmit to him [Clement] the power to bind and loose, etc.” (epitome de Gestis Sancti Petri 145; in PG 2:577).
Before this statement, the fictious Peter had always reserved these powers to himself. Yet the record tells us that “Linus” and “Cletus” already “sat on the great throne of Rome” BEFORE the fictitious Peter gives this power to Clement. Since neither Linus, nor Cletus had that authority, then the Peter's presidency of the church is something quite apart from the bishopric of Rome.
In each version of this letter, the fictitious Peter makes Clement promise that “… when I die you write a letter to James, the Lords brother, telling him how close you have been to me…Let James be assured that after my death the seat will be occupied by a man not uninstructed in nor ignorant of the doctrines and the canons of the church.” (ibid) as a justification for Peter not having simply dictated a letter to the other apostles, telling them that they, as apostles and prophets, now answered to a simple bishop (who was neither an apostle, nor a prophet).
Even these letters use the designation for James as “the ruler of the Holy church of Christians in Jerusalem AND of the churches…everywhere.” (ibid). The contradictions are rife in these counterfeits, such that they were discarded as legitimate history very quickly. Instead of enhancing the claim to authority, they became an embarrassment as they revealed machinations that would not have occurred in the early Christian movement. However, it is clear that if there was a "Bishop of Bishops", it was James in Jerusalem and NOT Linus in Rome. IF there was a succession of bishop to bishop authority, then James successor would have taken this authority with them to Pela where the early saints in Jerusalem fled.
This story of bishop Clement duplicates the earlier (and better authenticated) story written by the same Clement of how Peter had already ordained Zaccaeus bishop of Caesaria. (homiliae Clementinae 3:60-72; in PG 2:149-57). This historian Carl Schmidt concluded that “the homilist created this section [homilae Clementinae 3.59-62] independently in order to fill in an emerging void caused by the loss of the original, disputed material.
In that account, Peter had already ordained Zaccaeus as the bishop of Caesarea (1); Zaccaeus had already mounted the throne of Peter (2); Zaccaeus had already been hailed by Peter as vicar of Christ (3) and Zaccaeus had already sat on the throne of Christ (4), which is, according to Peter, analogous to the judgment seat of Moses BEFORE Clement underwent the same process.
Though such letters do not represent authentic history, still, such attempts to create counterfeit history DO tell us much about the motives and methods of the Roman movement as well as its’ deep desire to gain pre-imminence by multiple means that would Not have been acceptable to the organization Ignatius was referring to as “καθολικος” in 100 a.d.. The two are not the same organisations.
The Roman congregation was not the first or most ancient congregation but was simply one of many schisms from the earliest Christian congregation in Jerusalem. The roman congregations' bishop and his “successors” were not given greater authority than James, bishop of Jerusalem and his “successors”.
The Roman congregation and the Christian doctrines created by the theologians associated with it became popular and pre-eminent, but they were never the “mother church”.
Such dogmatic claims of being “the original church” were part of their struggle to gain pre-eminence and credibility for their theology and political position.
In saying all of these things, no one need suppose that I am saying that the roman motives were simply evil in attempting pre-eminence by such devices. I think the Romans wanted pre-eminence and power and influence just as we all want our personal theologies to gain pre-eminence and to be influential. I’m not saying that by doing these things, the Romans were trying to do evil things, I do not believe that, but I am simply that they are not historically correct claims.
Clear
ειειδρτζφυω
Last edited by Clear lens; 09-18-2013 at 11:15 AM..
Is it Biblical for a Church to Call Itself-THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?
The question is misdirecting the debate by asserting "Biblical" as the criterion for identification . . . at most it should ask is it Christian. In my mind there is no organization with a hierarchy that deserves to be called the Church of Christ. The church of Christ is the assemblage of believers (wherever they are) who actually follow Christ and His instructions to His disciples to "love God and each other" daily and repent when they don't, period. If they embody as goals and revere the principles expounded by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and try to adopt the attributes in 1Cor 13 . . . they are Christians and His followers.
I admire and respect the scholarship of Clear lens and others here. Clear has sifted through similar material to my own efforts and correctly discerns that God has never stopped talking to us. Where Clear and I differ is in how we see that happening. He seems to accept that it is possible for mere humans to organize around a group of people who can claim to be prophets or apostles through some magical process of apostolic succession . . . like the RCC . . . but that the RCC got it wrong. I reject that entire line of belief as magical thinking, naive, and credulous. God speaks to us all . . . but we differ in our sensitivity to Him. No one can or should claim to be special in some authoritative way . . . as an apostle or prophet or any other ridiculous claim of God's special favor, period. We are all God's children and equal in His eyes . . . despite our unequal sensitivity to and willingness to follow His inner guidance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it Biblical for a Church to Call Itself-THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?
