Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The presumption is that all of the Churches are tribes, but the RCC alone is of the Levitical tribe.
Metaphorically or actually? Look, we don't claim to be Levites. We do claim that the New Covenant priesthood (conferred via the laying on of hands going back to the Apostles) succeeded the Levitical priesthood - but it is NOT the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood was destroyed along with the Temple in 70 AD.
God's Peace,
NewMan
Not sure I understand. How is the RCC of the Levitical Tribe :confused:
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
quote=JoabAnias;I don't know anyone alive who knows for sure what happened to those who walked away from Jesus in John 6.
That is one of the most open-minded things I've ever heard said. Awesome, Joab. I am impressed.

They might be saved, they may not, I don't know or have any way to find out. I expect they had more choices to make after that.
What a thought. Mind blowing, in fact. You could write a movie about it. What are you drinking this morning?(lol), no seriously, tho. That is fertile ground for a creative imagination.

Joh 6:66 From this time many of His disciples went away into the things behind, and no longer walked with Him.
This is what all false teaching denominations do.
Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe Him:
Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this, I have told you that no one is able to come to Me except it is given to him from My Father.
Ok, so far so good.
What you claim is that false teachings, as only one teaching can be true, can somehow constitute a foundation for a valid Church which is contrary to the Bibles teaching and a foundation of sand that continues to crumble and divide exponentially.
Did I realy claim that? That doesn't sound like the me I know.
Which is it; either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both.
Ok then,... it's true! (Did I get that right?)
We can't make up new or false teachings contrary to the Bible and what has been apostolically handed down to create a Church based on them and culpably expect thats good enough.
But we did. Anicetus started it with Polycarp over the part of the faith regarding Easter celebration when he rejected Polycarp's extension of apostolic tradition regarding that, unless you believe the apostles were authorized to start 12 different tradition streams allowing Peter's to be different than John's.
Jesus says otherwise. No one has a right to change the teaching of the Bible for any reason.
You're preachin' to the choir...
Thats exactly what all the denominations from the Church who teach falsely attempt to do. Its impossible. God changes not and promises to never let the Church go into error.
And yet we can't name one that hasn't. Maybe you better review that promise. I don't remember seeing it in scripture. I think the gates of hell prevailing sounds a little more ominous than an error.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (We know who they are though you would not agree).
Then maybe you only think you know & you need to agree.
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; "depart from Me, those working lawlessness!"
And yet they were full members of the visible church?
Denying what has been infallibly handed down in Sacred Holy Scripture is essentially stating that the Bible lies when it says:
Mt 16:18 And so I say to you, you are "Rock", and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
No, the lie is in interpreting that in a way that gives God's sovereignity over to a man instead of where scripture says it belongs.
You are in a circular position that is condemned by my Sacred Holy Scriptures as He commands us to do.
Then we should be great friends because you are in a dead-end position that God's Holy Scriptures condemns and commands you not to be a part of. First round is on me.
Changing the teaching of the Scripture is hardly hearing the Lords voice.
Then quit.
 
Upvote 0

NewMan99

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity
Mar 20, 2005
5,642
1,009
Earth
✟18,235.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But we did. Anicetus started it with Polycarp over the part of the faith regarding Easter celebration when he rejected Polycarp's extension of apostolic tradition regarding that, unless you believe the apostles were authorized to start 12 different tradition streams allowing Peter's to be different than John's.

First of all, Anicetus permitted the Asian churches to continue their LITURGICAL tradition of observing Easter based on the Jewish calendar.

Secondly, we are talking about LITURGICAL traditions - NOT doctrinal Sacred Tradition. Liturgies can change. Sacred Tradition and the Immutable Truths found within do not. WHEN the Church chooses to observe a given Feast Day is not a doctrinal matter. Merely changing an observance DATE does not turn a Truth into a falsehood.

Thirdly, there were FAR MORE than 12 different tradition "streams" (however that might be defined) when it came to liturgical matters, unless you want to claim that every city-church throughout Christianity said the same prayers, read the same readings, observed the same Feast Days ON THE SAME DATES, had the same devotions, used the same theological expressions, and so on. The liturgical traditions...the HOW and WHEN the various city-churches worshipped was as varied as the number of city-churches themselves. But they ALL flowed from the same Apostolic Deposit of Faith...they all "streamed" back to that.

Fourthly, the Easter (liturgical) tradition followed by the Roman Church and Anicetus was given to them by Peter and Paul...therefore it was just as valid and just as Apostolic as John's tradition followed by Polycarp and the Asians.


God's Peace,

NewMan
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I am not Joab, but I would like to take a stab at this...
Leave it to NewMan to bring a knife to a gun-fight.;)
We see it as a both/and. We would not say that the Church was built on Peter alone to the exclusion of the other Apostles.
The elasticity of Peter's pre-eminance puts Spandex to shame!
From Christ Himself who commissioned Peter to a special ministry. But again, nobody is saying that the Church was not ALSO built on all the Apostles.
Everybody is special! Peter is just more special, but not (depending).
And yet does Clement claim anywhere in his letter that he was assuming a new sort of authority that was of his own design???
Of course not. He has to make it look like something that was always there, just not obvious to the uninspired eye,

Now look carefully at the first sentence above.
OK:
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God."

Clement says that "The Apostles have preached the Gospel to us..." ... and this doesn't seem very unique does it? No. We, too, can say the same thing.
No we can't.

When we read the Bible we HEAR the preaching of the Apostles. Right?
Yeah, it may be the same information, but it isn't the same experience.

But in this case, Clement has a very big advantage over us...because when he says that the Apostles preached "TO US" - what he means is that he PERSONALLY learned DIRECTLY from the Apostles (as a co-worker of Peter and Paul) and that the Corinthians ALSO learned directly from an Apostle (Paul). So it adds a rather extra dimension into the context, doesn't it?
You would have to name the dimension it adds because on the one hand you equate it & then on the othe you say it adds a new dimension. Who are you trying to confuse?;)
And what does Clement go on to say? He said that God sending forth Jesus, who then sent forth the Apostles to preach to the nations was made "in an orderly way"...and when the Apostles went forth they eventually appointed others who would then continue the SAME ministry "afterwards."
But it isn't the same ministry. Clement goofed.
This scenario was "not a new thing". New things, in this context, is not even in the picture. The whole thrust of this argument by Clement is FIDELITY to the mission given to any given person in the chain.
That's why he screwed up. His loyalty outstripped his intelligence. He didn't understand his mission so he was over-reaching.
So, with that being said, on what basis are we to make the rather huge leap to say that Clement was making up new powers and a new level of authority that he knew from PERSONAL experience and PERSONAL witness that the Apostles did not claim for themselves or their successors?
well, he didn't "know" it from experience or witness, he fabricated it from his own ambition driven misconceptions if he thought there was supposed to be a "boss" apostle. It was all done with the best of intentions, I'm sure.
If Clement was "re-making" his Bishopric into a new office with new prerogitives...loosely similar to the office of the papacy as we know it...then what makes him any different than those "power-grabbers" in Corinth he was rightfully chastising???
Not a darn thing, except he was asserting his being the biggest one of 'em.
...he is only doing so because that is the duty of the office that he already occupies.
Like I say, I'm sure he had the best of intentions.
He would know the distinction between presuming a new authority and assuming an authority that was already his by the very nature of the office itself.
Not necessarily.
Clement was too plugged into the mission given to him by the Apostles start something NEW on his own.
No, that is why new things had to be included in the interpretation of what the mission was, to allow "developements" that keep the new stuff from looking like it wasn't germain to, & didn't naturaly grow out of, what was already in place.

You are right - but then again - as I have said several times in this thread - Clement's Letter to the Corinthians was never intended to be a theological treatise on the Papacy. Therefore there is no reason to expect he would mention things like Keys, or rock, or chair, or whatever. What we would be looking for would be whether or not he exercised authority over the Corinthians...and he did. And since he did, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that Clement acted in papal fashion (which is something that you are even implying yourself).
It not unreasonable if your reason is to turn the authority of brotherly love into the anathema pronouncing power of office. It would seem reasonable to conclude that Clement was acting on the authority of wisdom & love, not the power of institutional office. I don't think Clement was grabbing or execising power. I think that is just the perspective from a power position.:cool:

Pass the ketchup...;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
quote=NewMan99;First of all, Anicetus permitted the Asian churches to continue their LITURGICAL tradition of observing Easter based on the Jewish calendar.
I think it was Polycarp who allowed Anicetus to continue in error without anethema.
Secondly, we are talking about LITURGICAL traditions - NOT doctrinal Sacred Tradition.
We are talking about Apostolic Tradition regarding the practice of the faith.
Liturgies can change. Sacred Tradition and the Immutable Truths found within do not.
Men's tradition exchanged apostolic tradition for their own.
WHEN the Church chooses to observe a given Feast Day is not a doctrinal matter.
It is a matter of Apostolic Tradition regarding the practice of the faith as recieved. Pope Anicetus didn't care for it. He rejected it. Polycarp allowed it. Maybe Polycarp should've insisted he repent.
Merely changing an observance DATE does not turn a Truth into a falsehood.
It changes the truth of Apostolic Tradition into a discardable option.

Thirdly, there were FAR MORE than 12 different tradition "streams" (however that might be defined) when it came to liturgical matters, unless you want to claim that every city-church throughout Christianity said the same prayers, read the same readings, observed the same Feast Days ON THE SAME DATES, had the same devotions, used the same theological expressions, and so on.
That would sound plausible if bishop Victor of Rome hadn't attempted to declare the Nisan 14 practice heretical and excommunicate all who followed it. Your claim that 'it's only about Liturgy so it's no big deal' falls flat in Victor's hands.

The liturgical traditions...the HOW and WHEN the various city-churches worshipped was as varied as the number of city-churches themselves. But they ALL flowed from the same Apostolic Deposit of Faith...they all "streamed" back to that.
Sorry, no. The liturgical traditions of the faith were either apostolic or not. Polycarp's was apostolic. Anicetus' was not.

Fourthly, the Easter (liturgical) tradition followed by the Roman Church and Anicetus was given to them by Peter and Paul...
That isn't what we're told, We have no evidence of that. Only an assumption that put's Apostolic tradition at odds between John & Peter. What we know about Anicetus is that he chose to follow the traditions of his elders, neither Peter nor Paul is named by Anicetus, whereas John IS NAMED by Polycarp. It didn't become a controversy by being unimportant.

therefore it was just as valid and just as Apostolic as John's tradition followed by Polycarp and the Asians.
Not until substantiated that Peter & Paul weren't quartodecimans as was John.
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That isn't what we're told, We have no evidence of that. Only an assumption that put's Apostolic tradition at odds between John & Peter. What we know about Anicetus is that he chose to follow the traditions of his elders, neither Peter nor Paul is named by Anicetus, whereas John IS NAMED by Polycarp. It didn't become a controversy by being unimportant.

Not until substantiated that Peter & Paul weren't quartodecimans as was John.



Early Church Historian Eusebius tells us where the traditions come from.


Eusebius ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207

CHAPTER XXIII.

The question then agitated respecting the passover.*

There was a considerable discussion raised about this time,
in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observ-
ance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by
a remote tradition,
supposed that they ought to keep the four-
teenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover,
in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ;
and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of
the fast on this day, on whatever day of the week it should hap
pen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this
manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who
observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition
until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate
our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Sa-
viour.
Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops
on this question ; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical
decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places,
that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated
on no other day than the Lord's-day ; and that on this day alone
we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an
epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time;
among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Ce-
sarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem.



If St. Anicetus was such a bad Bishop why would St. Ignatius who was a diciple of St. John in His letter To the Trallians say that Anicetus fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry.

For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anicetus and Clement to Peter?"
Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69



 
  • Like
Reactions: MrPolo
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
"But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Saviour."
No apostle being named is very suspicious at least, and at most, it is contradictory to the apostolic tradition of John.
So now according to Eusebius, you have two apostolic traditions that are not in agreement.
If St. Anicetus was such a bad Bishop why would St. Ignatius who was a diciple of St. John in His letter To the Trallians say that Anicetus fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry.
First of all, nobody accused Anicetus of being "a bad bishop". I accused him of not following the Apostle John's tradition as taught to Polycarp, a disciple of John. St. Ignatius had no more respect for apostolic tradition than Anicetus.
For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority,
That much right there should raise red flags...
so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God?

Add copy. Total puff.
And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop?
Disingenuous glad-handing.

And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anicetus and Clement to Peter?"
This guy was full of himself. Get a clue.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Early Church Historian Eusebius tells us where the traditions come from.


Eusebius ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 207

CHAPTER XXIII.

The question then agitated respecting the passover.*

There was a considerable discussion raised about this time,
in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observ-
ance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by
a remote tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the four-
teenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover,
in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ;
and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of
the fast on this day, on whatever day of the week it should hap
pen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this
manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who
observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition
until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate
our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Sa-
viour. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops
on this question ; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical
decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places,
that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated
on no other day than the Lord's-day ; and that on this day alone
we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an
epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time;
among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Ce-
sarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem.


If St. Anicetus was such a bad Bishop why would St. Ignatius who was a diciple of St. John in His letter To the Trallians say that Anicetus fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry.

For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anicetus and Clement to Peter?"
Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69



You answer your own question (if Anicetus was a bad bishop) in the next sentence--the Bishop was above all others; that thought developed from circa 100ad and lead to the Papacy. A bishop can do whatever he wants.

Anyway, for the eightyth thousandth time, I've answered these quotes, but one last time. Quit asserting this. The fact is they did not always follow what came to be known as the Roman way. They did not always follow the apostles. They made it up when they say they always followed Rome and always followed apostles.

They asserted apostolic tradition; they asserted they always followed Rome's way. The truth is that they didn't. EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE CHURCH AT ROME, AT FIRST FOLLOWED THE APOSTOLIC WAY. But somewhere between 70 ad and 170ad a FALSE TRADITION AROSE. DO NOT BE AFRAID. THE BIBLE TOLD US IT WOULD HAPPEN. The first clash between the Quartodecimans and Rome is with Pope Sixtus. The next Pope (and only early Pope) was martyred for "allowing" the Quartodeciman practice. So circa 120ad the battle was already joined.

So, how can I say there was a 'falling away'? One last time, here's the reply again (you can find this at CCEL, it is not quoted (of course) at NewAdvent). (ALL ASIA refers to your first bolded part of the quote. This DIRECTLY CORRECTS your quotes' assertions.)

[a.d. 180.] When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history.

SEE IT! Read it, the Palestinian BISHOPS AFTER THE JEWISH DOWNFALL (70ad--Rome-people of the prince to come, Daniel) seem to have been the FIRST TO COMPREHEND (do you!!!!!) the propriety (get in line, these are powerful people) of ADOPTING THE MORE CATHOLIC (read ROME) usage.

There was a DAY and a FAST they argued about. But, there is NO FAST associated in Scripture with PASSOVER. There is one, however, associated with PENTECOST (40 days of Moses on the mountain, the law giver). 40 days of Lent FAST was tied with the wrong DAY hundreds of years ago.

Anyway, the Palestinian Synod admit they changed and cited Alexandria as their authority. They didn't always follow the Roman way; they didn't change because of apostles.

Polycarp and Anicetus clashed over this. Polycrates and Victor clashed over the truth. If it was just a liturgical issue, why did they clash? Why was it so important for Victor to excommunicate the churches? Who cares? Different churches, different ways of celebrating Christ. Right? Wrong; why did all the churches in 325 declared heretical the Apostolic line? 341 they excommunicate them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
First of all, Anicetus permitted the Asian churches to continue their LITURGICAL tradition of observing Easter based on the Jewish calendar.

Secondly, we are talking about LITURGICAL traditions - NOT doctrinal Sacred Tradition. Liturgies can change. Sacred Tradition and the Immutable Truths found within do not. WHEN the Church chooses to observe a given Feast Day is not a doctrinal matter. Merely changing an observance DATE does not turn a Truth into a falsehood.

Thirdly, there were FAR MORE than 12 different tradition "streams" (however that might be defined) when it came to liturgical matters, unless you want to claim that every city-church throughout Christianity said the same prayers, read the same readings, observed the same Feast Days ON THE SAME DATES, had the same devotions, used the same theological expressions, and so on. The liturgical traditions...the HOW and WHEN the various city-churches worshipped was as varied as the number of city-churches themselves. But they ALL flowed from the same Apostolic Deposit of Faith...they all "streamed" back to that.

Fourthly, the Easter (liturgical) tradition followed by the Roman Church and Anicetus was given to them by Peter and Paul...therefore it was just as valid and just as Apostolic as John's tradition followed by Polycarp and the Asians.


God's Peace,

NewMan

It simply rings hollow. Victor, you know, excommunicated them for this supposedly minor liturgical point. ALL the churches gathered in 325 to declare heretical this apostolic truth. All the churches gathered in 341 to excommunicate again this apostolic liturgy. You may not understand the point, but minimizing it doesn't help.

Why don't you consider that the argument was over a DAY and a FAST? What fast is associated with Passover? Lent? NOT. There is no fast associated with Passover. There was unleavened bread because of haste. But the 15th was a Feast day (the 14th is Passover). So what was going on?

What day and fast are associated in Scripture? Clement of Rome was probably a Hellenistic Jew (per Lightfoot). What did he know that we gentiles don't know? Why did he assert the Levitical rod blooseming? Christ wasn't even of Levi, nor was Peter!!!!!!!

Pentecost---40day fast; today, tomorrow, and the third day in the morning...

Passover---three days and three nights
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
SUP:The presumption is that all of the Churches are tribes, but the RCC alone is of the Levitical tribe.
NewMan99: Metaphorically or actually? Look, we don't claim to be Levites. We do claim that the New Covenant priesthood (conferred via the laying on of hands going back to the Apostles) succeeded the Levitical priesthood - but it is NOT the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood was destroyed along with the Temple in 70 AD.


Not sure I understand. How is the RCC of the Levitical Tribe :confused:

It is the metaphorical model of the RCC. IMO it started with Clement of Rome and developed from there into what is known as the Papacy today.

The Levites were above the other tribes. RCC makes the same claim to be "above" the other Churches via Peter. Of course, there are counter claims to the keys, chair, rock, etc, but the point is that the OT clergy/laity or Rome/churches is the model for RCC.

It all ties together. Rome destroyed Jerusalem as predicted. As NewMan99 carefully points out, Rome succeeded the Levites. The Palestinian bishops were the first to understood the propriety of adopting the Roman custom and abandoning the apostolic way of celebrating the resurrection.

The truth is we are of the Melchizedek priesthood, not Levite. Their (and really the other Churches) whole model is incorrectly based.

Peter too in his letters says, we are living stones being built on the confession of faith. He called the elders of Asia Minor and instructed them to feed the flock (they too eventually agreed with Rome, though; even though 1054 both split). From Peter's pen to our eyes versus the Roman (and other Churches) traditions. Who ya gonna believe?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ave Maria

Ave Maria Gratia Plena
May 31, 2004
41,082
1,968
41
Diocese of Evansville, IN
✟106,997.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Here's another citation to confirm that all followed the Apostolic Tradition

Note grave questions, hardly minor liturgical issues

Note Polycarp did go to correct Rome

The whole world was turning to Rome:


Polycarpus, in those years of extreme old age, was regarded as the President of the Church of Asia. Some grave questions, which at first had barely been stated, began to agitate these Churches. With his ideas of hierarchy and of ecclesiastical unity, Polycarpus naturally thought of turning towards the Bishop of Rome, to whom almost the whole world about that time acknowledged a certain authority in composing the divisions in Churches. The controversial points were numerous; it appears, moreover, that the two heads of the Churches—Polycarpus and Anicetus—had some petty grievances against one another. One of the questions in controversy was in regard to the celebration of Easter. In the early days, all the Christians continued to make Easter their principal feast. They celebrated that feast on the same day as the Jews, the 14th Nisan, no matter on what day of the week that day fell. Persuaded, according to the allegations of all the ancient Gospels, that Jesus, on the eve of his death, had eaten the Passover with his disciples, they regarded such a solemnity rather as a commemoration of the supper than as a memorial of the resurrection. When Christianity became separated more and more from Judaism, such a manner of viewing it was found to be much out of place. First, a new tradition was circulated, according to which Jesus before his death had not eaten the Passover; but died on the same day as the Jewish Passover, thus substituting himself for the Paschal Lamb. Besides this, that purely Jewish feast wounded the Christian conscience, especially in the Churches of St Paul. The great feast of the Christians was the resurrection of Jesus, which occurred, in any case, the Sunday after the Jewish Passover. According to this idea, the feast was celebrated on the Sunday which followed the Friday next after the 14th of Nisan/
History of the Origins of Christianity. Book VI. The Reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. (A.D. 117-161) | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So when the other citation shows that the Palestinian Bishops comprehended things (70ad), does it become clearer what happened very early on?
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You answer your own question (if Anicetus was a bad bishop) in the next sentence--the Bishop was above all others; that thought developed from circa 100ad and lead to the Papacy. A bishop can do whatever he wants.

No! Bishops and their authority are Bibical.



Apostles, like Barnabas or Timothy, will stay with us in every age and that they top the list for bringing "the unity of the faith" (Ephesians 4:11-13), suppressing "winds of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14), and thus preventing "division in the body" (1st Corinthians 12:24-25). Yet additionally, though not having the same power and glory of the twelve (Matthew 19:28, Revelation 21:14), this growing family of apostles still has tremendous authority:
  • “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians...we did not seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority” (1st Thessalonians 2:6)
  • “[Timothy] command certain persons not to teach different doctrines” (1st Timothy 1:3)
  • “command and teach these things” (1st Timothy 4:11)
  • “command [the faithful] before the Lord to avoid disputing over words” (2nd Timothy 2:14)
  • “brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we [apostles] may appoint to this duty [of the diaconate]” (Acts 6:3)
  • “the apostles Barnabas and Paul ...appointed elders for the saints in every church” (Acts 14:14.23)
  • “I [Paul] left you in Crete, that you [Titus] might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5)
  • “And his heart [Titus] goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him” (2nd Corinthians 7:14-15)
  • “[Titus] declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Titus 2:15).
From the last five verses above, where Titus has the "obedience of all" with "all authority" and appoints ministers like an apostle, we infer the apostleship of Titus. Indeed the fourth century "Church History" of Eusebius records the apostolic role of Titus in the chapter "First Successors of the Apostles" wherein Titus as a Bishop is responsible for the Christians of Crete (book III, chapter IV).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Here's another citation to confirm that all followed the Apostolic Tradition

Note grave questions, hardly minor liturgical issues

Note Polycarp did go to correct Rome

The whole world was turning to Rome:


on?


Irenaeus' letter records that Polycarp and Anicetus took the Lord's Supper together. It didn't matter to them what season or day it was. Taking the Lord's Supper together symbolically showed their unity in Christ. After this, "they parted from each other in peace."
We can be certain that this happened because Irenaeus' letter, written only a few decades after the original event, called on another bishop of Rome to repent and follow the well-known example of his predecessor.

Though the Nicene Council dealt primarily with the issue of the Word's eternal divinity, it also considered and rebuked the Quartodeciman position. Where once churches found unity despite their diversity, some types of diversity were now beginning to be seen as a threat to unity.
The passage of several hundred years since John's death saw the church combat many heresies. Not every diversity had proven healthy to the faith. As persecution became less of a problem, the church spent more time defining orthodoxy. The Nicene Council decreed that Christians should celebrate Jesus' resurrection on a Sunday.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sempervirens

Regular Member
May 17, 2005
411
51
✟9,401.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The truth is we are of the Melchizedek priesthood, not Levite. Their (and really the other Churches) whole model is incorrectly based.

The church fathers understood Christ restored the fallen priesthood to the pattern of Melchizedek, as seen in the ancient eucharistic prayer of the Roman canon

Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek.

The priesthood followed from father to the first-born son, but after the Israelites worshiped the golden calf, the priesthood fell to the Levites and animal sacrifice. In the liturgy we are made present at Christ's sacrifice which restores the fallen priesthood to its original pattern for all time.


Peter too in his letters says, we are living stones being built on the confession of faith.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, arial]"Something quite remote from anything the builders intended, has come out of their work, and out of the fierce little human tragedy in which I played; something none of us thought about at the time; a small red flame - a beaten-copper lamp of deplorable design relit before the beaten-copper doors of a tabernacle; the flame which the old knights saw from their tombs, which they saw put out; that flame burns again for other soldiers, far from home, farther, in heart, than Acre or Jerusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning anew among the old stones."

[/FONT]
Happy Memorial Day everyone!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NewMan99

New CF: More Political, Less Charity, No Unity
Mar 20, 2005
5,642
1,009
Earth
✟18,235.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It all ties together. Rome destroyed Jerusalem as predicted. As NewMan99 carefully points out, Rome succeeded the Levites.

I must not have been very careful in what I supposedly pointed out. For I never once said that ROME succeed the Levites. What I said is that the PRIESTHOOD of the New Covenant Church succeeded the Levites. Not Rome to the exclusion of the other Churches or the priesthood of the others.

All THAT being said, please let me clarify further. If you recall, what I ALSO said was that the Levitical priesthood was "destroyed along with the Temple in 70 AD" - PLUS - I was very careful to note that the Priesthood of the New Covenant was NOT - I repeat NOT - the Levitical priesthood. When I said "succeeded" what I meant was that it "replaced" the Levitical priesthood...for if the Levitical priesthood was "destroyed" then what was left to "succeed" in an organic sense? My fault for being imprecise...but our priesthood is NOT Levitical. So what is it? It is a restoration of the Melchizedekan priesthood.

The Palestinian bishops were the first to understood the propriety of adopting the Roman custom and abandoning the apostolic way of celebrating the resurrection.

Nope. Both LITURGICAL customs were EQUALLY apostolic.

The truth is we are of the Melchizedek priesthood, not Levite. Their (and really the other Churches) whole model is incorrectly based.

Hmmm...do you really want to go down this road? I can provide pretty compelling evidence that the Melchizedek priesthood fits pretty neatly in the Catholic/Orthodox wheelhouse, but not so well in non-Catholic/non-Orthodox schemas.

Peter too in his letters says, we are living stones being built on the confession of faith.

But of course. This contradicts us...how?

He called the elders of Asia Minor and instructed them to feed the flock (they too eventually agreed with Rome, though; even though 1054 both split). From Peter's pen to our eyes versus the Roman (and other Churches) traditions. Who ya gonna believe?

Uhhh...I am going to believe the Church founded on the Apostles. And that Church tells us that both liturgical traditions are equally Apostolic.

You have yet to explain what doctrine it is that Polycarp and others were disputing with the Roman Bishops. And if it was a doctrinal matter, then WHY would any Roman Bishop begin to allow the Asians (among others) to contradict the doctrines of the Romans (among others) - or vice versa? Where, in ANY of the Patristic writings do we find a dispute about DOCTRINE when it came to this specific controversy?

God's Peace,

NewMan
 
Upvote 0

DD2008

Well-Known Member
Oct 3, 2008
5,033
574
Texas
✟8,121.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

JoabAnias

Steward of proportionality- I Cor 13:1, 1 Tim 3:15
Supporter
Nov 26, 2007
21,200
3,283
✟82,874.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
JoabAnias--

How do you understand the "falling away", the apostasy prophesied to come in Thessalonians?

Its rather simple I think.

Its willful rejection.

"Willful" being the key word which is ultimately subjective to what one has been told and or deceived by no fault of their own into believing or rejecting. Ever hear that the blind can lead the blind or that the road to hell can be paved with good intentions. There is truth in those warnings.

I do think that there are lesser degrees of culpability to rejection of Jesus and His doctrine that we are admonished to hold fast to. We must repent of all of it to the last bit.

Refer to the parable of the seed.

Not all truth lands on fertile ground. ;)

I think the Lord is quite clear how He will turn His back to those who willfully hold to a hardened heart.

Its not easy to pummel a hardened heart back into fertile soil.

Once the hardness has set in, we are not sanctified until every last stone is softened.

Otherwise we die in a disposition that is anything but humble toward the Lord.

As I gain a bit of fertile ground I uncover more rocky ground that I need to pummel into fertility.

This is what its like for over coming our flesh; i.e.: our emotions, pride, vices, etc etc. The race is long, we must die to selves and with Christ if we are to run it to completion.

What is bigotry or obstinance other than a despondent defeat?

The Holy Spirit doesn't stop lifting us up in this life or the next until we are perfectly united with the Father but we have to submit to Him.

As He wills it so, our rejection of the Holy Spirit is an obstacle, which by the way, may not always be a conscious choice but still made of free will.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CaliforniaJosiah

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2005
17,466
1,568
✟206,695.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
.


The following is from an article by a Greek Orthodox Archbishop. The Archbishop is exploring the text about Jesus, the "keys," Peter's Confession and Peter and the concept of "pope." I found it interesting and perhaps worthy of an ecumenical discussion...



Now let us see what we can learn from the original account of the events in question:

(a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt. 16) when He asked His Disciples: “Whom do men say that I am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for the flesh and blood hath not revealed it into thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16:13-18)

It is quite evident from these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He would have clearly said, “Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my Church,” but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed. Christ our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

(b) It is also clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Gal. 2:11) Further down St. Paul elaborates by saying, “ . . . when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all) if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:14) On the basis of these words of St. Paul we may justly question, “Is there even a trace of recognition here of Peter’s authority to teach without the possibility of error?”

(c) Concerning the foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church. He mentioned this in his epistle to the Romans, “. . . from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation ... for which, cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey.” (Rom. 15:19-20, 22-23)

From this passage, therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that Peter was in Rome or that St. Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary, he says that he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the Church of Rome. Actually St. Peter served the Church for many years in Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered martyrdom with St. Paul.

(d) In conclusion it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire, nothing more. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

The Schism of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox - Church History





Comments?



Pax!


- Josiah





.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.