The Primacy Of Peter

[JacktheCatholic]

For complete context....
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html
Jack you and RCs are known to be good at misrepresenting the writings of the early Christian theologians to favor your bias.
This one is no exception.

Looking into the whole of chapter 3 what does it speak of?
Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but by their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice Peter and Paul. So it speaks of traditions derived from the apostles. Yet the RCs we know now have traditions other than that derived from the apostles. Exalting Mary and the Pope just to name 2 of the 62 or more.
It speaks of a universally known Church founded and organized at Rome. This is obviously the churches in Rome. According to Irenaeus, it was co-founded by two most glorious apostles: Peter and Paul.
If Peter was truly a Pope how come Peter and Paul were considered as equals here? Again this blows against the RCs who misuse it.
It speaks how the churches in Rome came by succession of Bishops. It doesn't say of succession of Popes for if it was so, then the RCs have a case but no it came by Bishops, this is the way it should be.
It speaks of a necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority. Of course it was pre-eminent because of the Empire which sat in Rome. This whole passage blows away the argument that there was only one Church and that was the Roman Church..
Lastly it speaks of the apostolical tradition that has been preserved continuously by faithful men who exist everywhere. Again it speaks of apostolic tradition that is continuously preserved. Like stated earlier, we know that the RC of today is far removed from the churches in Rome then. Because the RC today has accumulated man-made traditions thus making insignificant the tradition of the apostles.

Bias... I think we all tend to read things and taint it with our bias, you and me and anyone else. With that in mind I was trying to keep it simple and I only wanted to point out that the writing made a point to show the apostolic succession of the leaders. If this were not important then I think the writer would have left it out.

I agree that Irenaeus is stressing an adherence to Apsotolic Tradition. He is obviously speaking to certain people because of certain falsehoods they have taken on as truths. But we can ignore all that and look at why he made it a point to reference a chain of people going back to the Apsotles. This I think is worth looking at deeper and I believe we will see an importance in Apostolic Succession.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

2 things...
1st.
Origen refers to Matthew 16:18-19 being applicable to *all* Christians. Having I assume read this you know
He has said, repeatedly, that all Christians are rocks upon whom the church is built and that all Christians possess the keys of the kingdom. Thus, Peter can be said to have a chronological or symbolic primacy, but not a jurisdictional primacy.

2nd Origen further tells us about the universal urisdiction of Paul
"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)

Your first point is noted and I do not disagree that Origen states that certain powers of the Keys is inherited by the Church or those in it. But that in no way takes away from who the holder of the Keys is and that person's primacy or supremacy. I do NOT see where all have the Keys.

Your second point is a bit confusing for me??? I realize the importance of Paul's role in bring Gentiles into a once exclusive religion to Jews. I also realize how he was a prominent figure and many wrote of Peter and Paul as having an authority in Rome. Rome was and still is a focal point of Christian teaching and understanding. But Paul never had a station as high as Peter's.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The authority of Rome was unquestionably respected in the early Church, and there are many writing which demonstrate the Church’s submission to that authority. However, what evidence demonstrates that this authority was respected as emanating from the chair of Peter as opposed to emanating from this chair’s apostolic succession, in addition to the sociopolitical landscape of the time? How can there be question that agreement must be made with the church at Rome due to its apostolic succession? On the other hand, the exclusive rite due to Peter’s chair appears to have been questioned from very early on.

I agree to an extent but I see the Orthodox Churchs as Catholic and yet they stopped seeing Rome as having any authority. This schism also started in the early church with the Filique. So Rome was not always seen 'unquestionably' as the Authority.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[simonthezealot]

Your second point is a bit confusing for me??? I realize the importance of Paul's role in bring Gentiles into a once exclusive religion to Jews. I also realize how he was a prominent figure and many wrote of Peter and Paul as having an authority in Rome. Rome was and still is a focal point of Christian teaching and understanding. But Paul never had a station as high as Peter's.

Just showing you at which LEVEL he placed Paul.

"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Just showing you at which LEVEL he placed Paul.

"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)

I see your 'bias' in your reading of Origen. How?

Well I read the same words but I understand Origen as saying Paul is a founder but not saying he is the only founder. If I did not mention it earlier I see Peter and Paul as the founders of the church in Rome. From my point of view Origen is but mentioning one of these founders simply because the point he is making is centering around Paul being the 'chief sinner' before following Christ.

With that said I would like to add that this can show support that the Church in Rome holds an Authority above all by Origen stating it is the Churches of Christ or all Churches. For what are ALL churches in Christ if not Universal? Hence the Catholic Church.

 

[tblaine74]

the Orthodox Churchs...stopped seeing Rome as having any authority.

“Any authority”? I doubt that could be demonstrated. I believe the East and West are still attempting to agree. It would seem apparent that neither respects the other’s authority as they should, or they would have found agreement by now.

Rome was not always seen 'unquestionably' as the Authority.

I did not use the word “always”.

 

[simonthezealot]

So Rome was not always seen 'unquestionably' as the Authority.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't believe that your view is in agreement with what is stated in Vat 1, you know that part I frequently quote that states that it's position has been "known for all ages" part...I'll find it again.

...Here it is
2. For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I don't believe that your view is in agreement with what is stated in Vat 1, you know that part I frequently quote that states that it's position has been "known for all ages" part...I'll find it again.

...Here it is
2. For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

I think Peter was seen as that in his time and it is unquestionable and there is no proof contrarey to it.

However as time passed and Peter became history and no one of Peter's time was around during later times AND we have churches so far away from Rome that there was inevitably to come a time that the teachings would not be as strong in the far reaches as in the closer realms. That was a factor of communication and the time and difficulty of having developed understandings of the teachings reach far distance lands of the Catholic Church. That is why the Orthodox started to schism in my humble opinion.

Since I see the early church as being of the times up to about 800 AD I also see the ealry church during the times of the Filique dispute from the Orthodox. Of course that was hundreds of years after Jesus and my statement above played a big part in that.

But with all that said both the EOC and the OOC still to this day have good teachings and all seven sacraments of the church. What they do not have is the fullness of the Truth as it has become better understood through the head of the Mother Church, that being Rome where the Chair of Peter resides and where the Pope (vicar of Christ) still holds the Keys to the Kingdom until Jesus' return.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

“Any authority”? I doubt that could be demonstrated. I believe the East and West are still attempting to agree. It would seem apparent that neither respects the other’s authority as they should, or they would have found agreement by now.

True enough. I should have chosen my words better. Of course the East and West saw authority in Rome and even a Primacy. They simply felt that they had a 'vote' and that Rome was not Supreme.

I did not use the word “always”.

OK...

 

[tblaine74]

I am a fool. I don’t believe I will ever doubt the papacy again. I just read the following abridgement at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22

…Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers…Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before [who was] Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

…when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession [papacy].

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I am a fool. I don’t believe I will ever doubt the papacy again. I just read the following abridgement at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22

…Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers…Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before [who was] Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

…when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession [papacy].

Amen brother! Keep the light shining bright.

 

[Brennin]

I am a fool. I don’t believe I will ever doubt the papacy again. I just read the following abridgement at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22

…Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers…Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before [who was] Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

…when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession [papacy].

Please. Jesus gives all the apostles the keys in Matthew 18:18. Peter was never "pope." "Pope" is a dark ages invention.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I am a fool. I don’t believe I will ever doubt the papacy again. I just read the following abridgement at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now the House of David is like, you know, the House of Bourbon. It's a dynastic reference. The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22

…Hezekiah was at the time, the king over Israel. He was the son of David, hundreds of years after David had died. He was in the line of David and also he was ruler over the House of David. Now all kings in the ancient world had, as kings and queens have these days, cabinet officers, a cabinet of royal ministers…Hezekiah, as King, had as his Prime Minister before [who was] Shebna who proved unworthy. So he was expelled, but when he was expelled, he left an office vacant. Not only did you have dynastic succession for the king, but you also have a dynastic office for the Prime Minister. When Shebna is expelled, there is an empty office that needs to be filled and that's why Eliakim is called to fill it.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister's position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it's the key of David; it's the House of David.

…when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister's office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession [papacy].

I'll be praying for you, sir!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Please. Jesus gives all the apostles the keys in Matthew 18:18. Peter was never "pope." "Pope" is a dark ages invention.

Matthew 18:18 mentions the Keys???

Which bible you reading because the ones I have seen do not mention "keys" at all in Matthew 18?

MATTHEW 18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

 

[Brennin]

Matthew 18:18 mentions the Keys???

Which bible you reading because the ones I have seen do not mention "keys" at all in Matthew 18?

MATTHEW 18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.

It does not need to mention keys since "binding and loosing" is what the "keys" are all about.

 

[tblaine74]

It does not need to mention keys since "binding and loosing" is what the "keys" are all about.

From the same article at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say.

 

[Brennin]

From the same article at http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp :

Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king's cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say.

You place more weight on the word "keys" than it can bear. Remember what Jesus said to the apostles when they were squabbling over which was greatest. (Luke 22:24-30). Peter may have been primus inter pares but he was not the first "pope."

 

[Brennin]

Here is the commentary of Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Geneva]
19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven--the kingdom of God about to be set up on earth
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven--Whatever this mean, it was soon expressly extended to all the apostles (Matthew 18:18); so that the claim of supreme authority in the Church, made for Peter by the Church of Rome, and then arrogated to themselves by the popes as the legitimate successors of St. Peter, is baseless and impudent. As first in confessing Christ, Peter got this commission before the rest; and with these "keys," on the day of Pentecost, he first "opened the door of faith" to the Jews, and then, in the person of Cornelius, he was honored to do the same to the Gentiles. Hence, in the lists of the apostles, Peter is always first named. thing is clear, that not in all the New Testament is there the vestige of any authority either claimed or exercised by Peter, or conceded to him, above the rest of the apostles--a thing conclusive against the Romish claims in behalf of that apostle.[/FONT]

 

[tblaine74]

Why would Jesus have said what was written in Isaiah 22:22 to Simon if he did not mean what was meant by it? Was Jesus being careless?

 

[Brennin]

Why would Jesus have said what was written in Isaiah 22:22 to Simon if he did not mean what was meant by it? Was Jesus being careless?

What are you talking about? Isaiah 22:22 does not refer to Peter. And, as I previously wrote, the same authority is given to the other apostles in Matthew 18:18, which knocks down the house-of-straw RC claims.