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.
In Post # 94 Priscilla Martin said : “ I remember the καθολικοσ / Catholic thread and thought excellent points were made. I have spent hours combing through Catholic apologetics websites and they are obsessed with Matthew 16:18-19, yet completely ignore Matthew 18:18 where Jesus gives all the disciples the same ability as Peter is given in Matthew 16:19 Additionally, the keys to the kingdom OF heaven is different than keys to the kingdom TO heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 are the go to verses to justify everything from we're first, we gave you the bible, and most importantly apostolic succession. These apologetics websites make little or no attempt to delve any deeper than superficially. I don't know if they simply hope no one will dig deeper or what.“
Thank you for the kind words in your post Priscilla.
1) REGARDING REPEATING THE INCORRECT HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN CONGREGATION OBTAINED "PETERS AUTHORITY"
I think this has always been the critical flaw in the Roman Christian Movements claim from the point at which they began claiming Peters authority. While Peter and other apostles did have authentic authority, I was never, historically, given to the Romans.
Thus, it doesn’t matter how many times one refers to authority given to Peter. Peter never gave it to the Romans. At some point, when one repeats the point that Peter had authority and then implies that somehow, they got that authority (and no one else did), then it feels like a disingenuous “bait” with one principle and then “switch” to another claim, as though no one can see the obvious “sleight of hand” in this logic.
The flaw in this claim was noted early on, thus this underly the Roman motive to produce the counterfeit pseudo-clementine letters which have Peter, giving Clement his Authority. However, there were many fatal anachronisms and other flaws in them so they were recognized, very early on, as counterfeits and thus, damaged the roman reputation and it's claim, rather than improved it. I think that, in this day and age, the constant referral to Peter, as having authority, but then not being able to connect that claim to the early Roman Congregation, (at least for me), feels like it is also a counterproductive strategy.
Thus, until Julian658 or the Catholic historians can make this connection, the repeated claim that Peter had authority has little specific application or connection to modern Catholicism.
REGARDING THE "KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS"
I also liked your point that the Keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens (in Greek NT, it is almost always plural) are not the same thing as the keys of leadership of Christs' church (since they were two different things).
3) REGARDING THE VALUE OF A STUDY OF EARLY SCHISMATIC CHRISTIANITIES
I actually believe that “old Christianities” like the copts, the “eastern groups” and the early Catholicisms are quite valuable in a study of the evolution of doctrines and schisms of the Christian movement into differing theologies, but not as “original Christianity” in the sense they would like to claim. For me, it is fascinating to see how the great evolution away from early doctrines and practices did NOT occur, in the main, from "rejection" of Christianity, but of "contamination" of Christianity by Issues of politics, money and power.
Some of the eastern Christian movement have quite legitimate claims to being older and more original than the Roman Movement. (e.g. the First "pope" was not Roman, but coptic) I believe that a study of these groups may have more value in many ways, then in a study of the Roman Movement since all of them took away different doctrinal debri from the early Judeo-Christian movement with them as they split into their different directions.
Good spiritual journey Priscilla
Clear
σετωσιω
p.s. The biblical Priscilla (πρισκιλλα) was quite important in early judeo-christian tradition. The wonderful Historian Harnack was the first (that I know of) to suggest that Πρισκιλλα / Priscilla was the writer of Hebrews (since no one knows who actually authored it...).
Last edited by Clear lens; 10-27-2013 at 12:13 PM..
In Post # 94 Priscilla Martin said : “ I remember the καθολικοσ / Catholic thread and thought excellent points were made. I have spent hours combing through Catholic apologetics websites and they are obsessed with Matthew 16:18-19, yet completely ignore Matthew 18:18 where Jesus gives all the disciples the same ability as Peter is given in Matthew 16:19 Additionally, the keys to the kingdom OF heaven is different than keys to the kingdom TO heaven. Matthew 16:18-19 are the go to verses to justify everything from we're first, we gave you the bible, and most importantly apostolic succession. These apologetics websites make little or no attempt to delve any deeper than superficially. I don't know if they simply hope no one will dig deeper or what.“
The concept of the Pope did not exist during the time Jesus was on Earth. When Jesus spoke to Peter; Jesus did not elect Peter Pope. Furthermore, he also spoke to the other disciples. Nevertheless, the NT mentions Peter much more often than all the other disciples. This is easy to verify in any version of the Bible. Peter is always mentioned first whenever the Apostles are reunited with Jesus. This is not up for debate.
That the Church is apostolic is not up for debate either.
Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
Furthermore the concept of Apostolic succession is reinforced later by 2nd and 3rd generation Christians. And, yes Priscilla is correct, the other Apostles were included. No one has said this only included Peter.
And the NT was written by Jews for Jews. The RCC simply put the canon of the NT together for ALL Christians in the world.
Quote:
1) REGARDING REPEATING THE INCORRECT HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN CONGREGATION OBTAINED "PETERS AUTHORITY"
I think this has always been the critical flaw in the Roman Christian Movements claim from the point at which they began claiming Peters authority. While Peter and other apostles did have authentic authority, I was never, historically, given to the Romans.
The key here is that Peter died a martyr in Rome and was crucified heads down. This is a true irrefutable account. if you study ancient Christianity you will see that dying a martyr was huge. Christians of that era believed martyrs were favored by God. Ignatius a disciple of Peter yearned to die a martyr.
The moment that Peter died a martyr in Rome and the fact that Jesus spoke directly at Peter was enough to consider Peter as the most eminent Apostle. Peter had competition from Paul who was also a martyr, but Paul never knew Jesus (vision of Jesus excluded).
Peter was buried in Rome and folks remember where Peter was buried because Peter walked with Jesus, and Peter was considered Peter the leader of the Apostles.
When Constantine converted to Christianity the Church asked for funds to build a church over the tomb of Peter. The tomb was on hilly ground and it would have been easier to build the church next door. But, the Christians wanted the church built over the tomb of Peter ana a lot of soil had to be removed by to make the land flat for construction. Petrine supremacy was a given in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, no doubt.
Why do you say Peter and the other Apostles did not have authority? (see bold).
Quote:
Thus, it doesn’t matter how many times one refers to authority given to Peter. Peter never gave it to the Romans. At some point, when one repeats the point that Peter had authority and then implies that somehow, they got that authority (and no one else did), then it feels like a disingenuous “bait” with one principle and then “switch” to another claim, as though no one can see the obvious “sleight of hand” in this logic.
All apostles get authority, but the NT implies Peter was the leader and Jesus mentioned him directly by name. This is verifiable by simply counting how often Peter is featured in the NT.
Quote:
The flaw in this claim was noted early on, thus this underly the Roman motive to produce the counterfeit pseudo-clementine letters which have Peter, giving Clement his Authority. However, there were many fatal anachronisms and other flaws in them so they were recognized, very early on, as counterfeits and thus, damaged the roman reputation and it's claim, rather than improved it. I think that, in this day and age, the constant referral to Peter, as having authority, but then not being able to connect that claim to the early Roman Congregation, (at least for me), feels like it is also a counterproductive strategy.
Why would the Christians of that era lie and alter history? What was the purpose? Did they know that Protestants were going to challenge Petrine supremacy 1800 years later? There was no motive to create a massive conspiracy among Christians of that era. Your conspiracy theory makes no sense. History moved in the direction of Peter with virtually no resistance. You might as well say the NT was also falsified. This point is very weak.
Quote:
Thus, until Julian658 or the Catholic historians can make this connection, the repeated claim that Peter had authority has little specific application or connection to modern Catholicism.
It is what it is. The prevalence of evidence favors Peter. The evidence against Peer is very weak. But, in the end it does not matter. The CC could have elected another disciple as leader or even Paul-------- and the CC would still be the CC. It would simply have a bit less pedigree, no big deal.
Post #101 Clear said : “While Peter and other apostles did have authentic authority, I was never, historically, given to the Romans. “ Post # 102 Julian658 asked : “Why do you say Peter and the other Apostles did not have authority? (see bold). “
Hi Julian658 :
I think you misread my sentence. My sentence indicates that “Peter and other apostles DID have authentic authority” .
My point was the apostolic level authority that Peter had, was never historically, given to the Roman congregation, (from which location the movement which became the Roman Catholic Church eventually evolved). The claim that Peter gave the roman bishop his authority was a “back claim” from later centuries and historically, never happened. The Roman claim that Peter was a standing bishop of Rome for 20 plus years also, historically, never happened.
The claim to have Peter’s apostolic level authority has always been the claim which the Romans desperately have wanted to prove historically, but never could. The rest of your post #102 are irrelevant to showing that Peter gave Linus or any other bishop in Rome his apostolic level of authority. It doesn't matter if Peter was the presiding apostle or not, or if he died in Rome or not since the Romans cannot, historically lay claim to Peter's authority from any data available in the earliest centuries.
Julian658; I honestly and truly wish you the best possibly spiritual journey in this life as you come to your own conviction about what you are to believe and do in this life. Good luck Julian658.
Post #101 Clear said : “While Peter and other apostles did have authentic authority, I was never, historically, given to the Romans. “ Julian658; I honestly and truly wish you the best possibly spiritual journey in this life as you come to your own conviction about what you are to believe and do in this life. Good luck Julian658.
Clear
σεσεσεω
Julian, I second that. We can only continue to point you toward truth. The rest is between you and God.
I think you misread my sentence. My sentence indicates that “Peter and other apostles DID have authentic authority” .
OK, maybe I misread. I am glad you agree that Peter and the other Apostles had apostolic authority and good enough to pass it down.
The King James bible which is highly favored by Protestants affirms the concept of Apostolic succession and Sacred Oral Tradition with just one verse:
Quote:
2 Timothy 2:2
King James Version (KJV)
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
Quote:
My point was the apostolic level authority that Peter had, was never historically, given to the Roman congregation, (from which location the movement which became the Roman Catholic Church eventually evolved). The claim that Peter gave the roman bishop his authority was a “back claim” from later centuries and historically, never happened. The Roman claim that Peter was a standing bishop of Rome for 20 plus years also, historically, never happened.
As you know during those early days the CC was RCC. So I am assuming you are talking about the every early congregation of Christians in that area. I seriously doubt that immediately after the resurrection of Jesus there was a well organized Church. At this time the Church was still very Jewish and whatever organization they had was in its infancy.
Furthermore the concept of the Pope did not exist. The Pope was a term later applied to the Bishop of Rome because Rome was considered the center of the world.
However, we know Peter was the chief apostle and he was named by Jesus as the leader of his Church. And Jesus was speaking to Peter. I don't believe Jesus was telling a parable about rocks.
We know that Peter became a martyr and was crucified upside down in Rome. If Peter died in Rome he was obviously in Rome even if history is sketchy about his whereabout before that. History tells us that dying a martyr for Jesus was extremely special in early Christianity. Many Christians like Ignatius yearned to die a martyr.
More on the leadership of Peter.
Quote:
Peter is immediately conspicuous as the leader of all, and is henceforth constantly recognized as the head of the original Christian community in Jerusalem. He takes the initiative in the appointment to the Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death and resurrection of Christ to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26). After the descent of the Holy Ghost on the feast of Pentecost, Peter standing at the head of the Apostles delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and wins a large number of Jews as converts to the Christian community (Acts 2:14-41). First of the Apostles, he worked a public miracle, when with John he went up into the temple and cured the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about the two Apostles, he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings new increase to the flock of believers (Acts 3:1-4:4).
Quote:
The claim to have Peter’s apostolic level authority has always been the claim which the Romans desperately have wanted to prove historically, but never could. The rest of your post #102 are irrelevant to showing that Peter gave Linus or any other bishop in Rome his apostolic level of authority. It doesn't matter if Peter was the presiding apostle or not, or if he died in Rome or not since the Romans cannot, historically lay claim to Peter's authority from any data available in the earliest centuries.
Ignatius was a disciple of Peter and yearned to be a martyr for Christ. Ignatius was named Bishop of Antioch by Peter. I assume that means a lot! Later on Ignatius wants to be martyred in Rome. In his letter to the Roman Church Ignatius says:
Quote:
"I do not command you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a disciple"
Here Ignatius clearly indicates that Peter commanded the Church in Rome.
Hope, that helps
God Bless!
Last edited by Julian658; 10-28-2013 at 06:58 PM..
In post # 105, Julian658 said : Ig to Romans : “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul : they were apostles, I am a convict, they were free, but I am even now, still a slave.4:3 Here Ignatius clearly indicates that Peter commanded the Church in Rome.
Hi Julian658
You remain confused and lack historical context regarding Ignatius.
As I have said, historians have known for many, many, years, that Peter was never a Standing Bishop of Rome. READ the sentence you quoted. Ignatius is an apostolic father AND he is speaking in the context of BOTH Peter and Paul. Historically, the only time such a context existed was at the founding of the Roman congregation. . It s Irenaeus who tells us that BOTH Peter and Paul were involved in founding the Roman congregation and that Linus was their first Bishop. The early Apostolic constitutions tell us it was Paul who Ordained Linus and not Peter. (ANF 7:477-8) Not only this text indicates LINUS as the first standing bishop of Rome, but Eusebius, Anastasius and the Liberian Catalogs ALL list Linus as the first Bishop of the Roman congregation.
Peter is nowhere to be found as a standing Bishop of Rome and Ignatius is not indicating that Peter and Paul were standing bishops. In the early Christian Church, Bishops were local officers of a congregation and never “general authorities” in the manner that Apostles were and Ignatius realizes he does not have the authority to command as an apostle.
For example, Ignatius wrote similar words to to your quote to the Ephesians, saying: “ I am not commanding you as though I were somebody important. “ (3:1).
To the Magnesians, after discussing some of their rebellions, Ignatius writes : “ Now I write these things, my dear friends, not because I have learned that any of you are actually like that, but, as one who is less than you,…” (11:1) In early Christian tradition, to be an apostle, one needed to be ordained an apostle. Real and authentic early bishops understood that they were NOT apostles.
Thus Ignatius is describing pre-roman-catholic theology when writing the trallians : “…though I could write more sharply on his behalf. But I did not think myself qualified for this, that I, a convict should give you orders as though I were an apostle.” Ignatius to the Trallians 3:3
In all such writings, Bishops knew that their position was not the same as apostles, nor did they possess the same authority as the apostles. Bishop Clement, (who eventually did become a Bishop of the Roman Congregation) writes to other congregations, in the same spirit as Ignatius; writing that he is not writing from a position of authority, but rather, “out of love”.
Clement tells us almost prophetically that “…there would be strife over the bishop’s office.” He relates that the office of “bishop” should “continue” (i.e. “succeed”), but NOT that it would “TRANSFORM” and re-define itself from powers of a bishop to “apostlic powers” as the catholic theologians eventually did with the office of bishop. Perhaps it was in anticipation of the Roman religious movements change in doctrine that Clement warns the brothers against “overstepping the designated rule of his ministry…” 1st Clement 41:2
The roman movement created a position of Bishop that claimed a differing administration of authority. This simply represents another difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the earlier Church of Jesus Christ.
Julian658, the majority of your posts continues to be irrelevant in terms of being able to show any transfer of Peter's authority to any Bishop of the Roman Congregation from any of the earliest historical texts. As I said, the claim was created and pursued in later years as a "back claim".
I appreciate the effort you are making to support your convictions. However, it is very inefficient to bring up irrelevant issues. Unless you can show that Peter transferred his authority to a Bishop of Rome, it will not matter if Peter presided over Paul as Paul ordains Linus first Bishop of Rome, or even if Peter had ordained Linus himself. This simply makes Linus and Clement bishops, just like the other Bishops they may have ordained in any other congregation such as Antioch, Jerusalem, Ephesus, Galatia, etc. It does not give the relatively unknown local congregational bishop, authority over all apostles and the keys held by Peter.
I appreciate the information, the claim of the Roman Catholic movement, that Peter transferred his presiding apostolic authority over all other apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, to an obscure and relatively unknown local officer is a dead issue unless you become the first person in history to demonstrate it.
In any case Julian658, "good journey". I'm going to be gone for a couple of day and may check in if/when I have internet again.
Clear
σιιφυω
Last edited by Clear lens; 10-29-2013 at 01:23 AM..
You remain confused and lack historical context regarding Ignatius.
As I have said, historians have known for many, many, years, that Peter was never a Standing Bishop of Rome. READ the sentence you quoted. Ignatius is an apostolic father AND he is speaking in the context of BOTH Peter and Paul. Historically, the only time such a context existed was at the founding of the Roman congregation. . It s Irenaeus who tells us that BOTH Peter and Paul were involved in founding the Roman congregation and that Linus was their first Bishop. The early Apostolic constitutions tell us it was Paul who Ordained Linus and not Peter. (ANF 7:477-8) Not only this text indicates LINUS as the first standing bishop of Rome, but Eusebius, Anastasius and the Liberian Catalogs ALL list Linus as the first Bishop of the Roman congregation.
You misinterpret obvious points to make your point look stronger.
There was no papacy after Jesus ascended. If you wanted to deny Peter his rightful place in Christianity that would be your best bet. There was no formal CC after Jesus ascended. However, we know Peter and Paul continued to spread Christianity to the best of their abilities.
There was no Vatican in Rome after Jesus ascended. Church hierarchy as you are trying to imply was just developing. However, at that time the Apostles were the maximum authority in the church.
Quote:
The Primitive Church had no organization, but was very soon conscious of the necessity of organizing. At first the apostles appointed deacons; later, in imitation of the organization of the synagogue, they appointed presbyters, sometimes called bishops in the Gentile churches.
Catholic Encyclopedia
In those early days the top dogs were the Apostles and inn fact, I personally believe Peter the leader of the Apostles never considered himself a Bishop or a Pope.
Peter was simply the Chief Apostle and as such was the first leader of the Church. Furthermore, during those days the hierarchy of the Church was not established. Some churches were founded without presbyters, others without bishops, and others again where the heads of the community are called sometimes bishops and sometimes presbyters.
The data suggests that the earliest so called Bishops or Priests were below the Apostolic Fathers in hierarchy. As I said, I don't think Peter was considered a Bishop. He had a much higher title, he was the Prince of the Apostles.
More importantly Peter and Paul founded the Roman congregation.
And lastly, Peter was martyred and buried in Rome. From that point on Peter was recognized by the entire Christian world of that era as the first leader of the Church. And yes, there was no papacy at that time.
Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor.
Quote:
Peter is nowhere to be found as a standing Bishop of Rome and Ignatius is not indicating that Peter and Paul were standing bishops. In the early Christian Church, Bishops were local officers of a congregation and never “general authorities” in the manner that Apostles were and Ignatius realizes he does not have the authority to command as an apostle.
For example, Ignatius wrote similar words to to your quote to the Ephesians, saying: “ I am not commanding you as though I were somebody important. “ (3:1).
There you go! You are making my point. To call Peter a Bishop would be a demotion. Peter was an Apostle. In fact, he was the leader of the Apostles and hand picked by Jesus to be the Vicar of Christ.
Quote:
Real and authentic early bishops understood that they were NOT apostles.
Exactly!
Quote:
In all such writings, Bishops knew that their position was not the same as apostles, nor did they possess the same authority as the apostles.
You are making my point despite writing with a great amount of confidence.
So we agree. Peter was never bishop of rome. Peter never gave rome his authority. Good.
The title Bishop was well below an Apostolic Father. You said so at nauseam. What really matters is that Peter was the Chief Apostle and first leader of the Church after Jesus went back to heaven.
What really matters is that Peter was in charge and martyred in Rome. He was immediately recognized as the first Pope when the term Pope became in vogue.
You are making your argument using a play of words. But, I congratulate you for the exchange and I tell you I learned a great deal from this. Furthermore, since you are well versed in Catholicism and early Christianity I suggest you consider the RCIA.
The title Bishop was well below an Apostolic Father. You said so at nauseam. What really matters is that Peter was the Chief Apostle and first leader of the Church after Jesus went back to heaven.
This is by no means absolute, but it does seem to be true that Peter was a "greatest among equals" among the apostles. It's a Biblical uncertainty.
Quote:
What really matters is that Peter was in charge and martyred in Rome.
In charge? Possibly. But what earthly difference does it make where he died??? Jesus, the Son of God died at Jerusalem. So did Stephen and the apostle James. If the location of your death matter even a little, this would without question make the Bishopric of Jerusalem the preeminent Bishopric in all Christendom. But despite having the "highest quality" blood of the Christian martyrs spilled by it's inhabitants, Jerusalem was condemned and destroyed in 70AD. Jerusalem was not blessed or empowered or exalted or anything of the sort. It was annihilated for it.
Murdering the apparent chief apostle would do more to condemn and vilify Rome than anything else.
Quote:
He was immediately recognized as the first Pope when the term Pope became in vogue.
Which Pope was he? Rome's or Alexandria's? Ultimately, Pope is just another word for "Bishop of Rome" and historically RCC defenders and apologist have always declared that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. In reality, this is the only means whereby they can claim apostolic succession. This is the entire basis for the RCC's claim to divinely given preeminence over all Christianity. Peter was never Bishop of Rome. Nor was he Bishop of anywhere else. Why would Peter -- an apostle possessing authority in the entire Church -- become a residential congregational leader?
The claim that this apostle or that apostle was a bishop is a popular contrivance. It is a rather obvious attempt by certain bishops to validate authority and power that they had grabbed up for themselves.
It is unsurprising that after the Church became massively secularized and politicized that the two Roman capital cities became the de facto leaders of all Christianity. But what if the UN eventually evolves into an actual world-wide government? Wouldn't that necessitate the removal of the Papacy from Rome to New York City (or whatever other city becomes the capital of the world)?
It is also curious that we never see Peter exercise the same sort of absolutist dictatorial authority that Roman Popes eventually exercised. Peter was even wrong on spiritual matters on occasion. How does that square with the concept of Papal Infallibility? Peter's presumed rulership of the earliest Christian Church looks nothing like the rulership of the Popes centuries later.
The real reasons that Rome and Constantinople became and still remain the two head-cities of Christendom lies entirely in their political power within the Roman Empire. There have been countless pious revisionist histories that have been fabricated over the years to make it seem like these cities were invested with their authority by the apostles, but any honest study of history leads us to the same conclusion: If the investment of Petrine/Apostolic authority to the See of Rome ever actually happened, nobody ever mentioned it at the time. Seems like a pretty important event to me, yet nobody bothers to mention it ...
As I've said, I have little interest in religion bashing of any kind. This is different. The RCC's claim to divinely granted preeminence effectively invalidates all other Christian religions. If Petrine Apostolic Succession was the act and will of God, then the RCC is right and everyone else is wrong, and no other Christian religion has any business existing. I simply cannot agree with that.
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.
