Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[MamaZ]

I agree, you should not follow any man who self-appoints himself a speaker for Christ. Nor are you obligated to follow any traditions of men. Amen.

Speaker for Christ is much different than setting oneself up as ruler.. Claiming headship over the body of Christ.. For all who are Christs are to be ambassadors of Christ. But never are we told to be head and ruler.

 

[Trento]

Speaker for Christ is much different than setting oneself up as ruler.. Claiming headship over the body of Christ.. For all who are Christs are to be ambassadors of Christ. But never are we told to be head and ruler.

Only if you blind youself to historical christianity.


Eusebius of Caesarea was an Early Church Historian AD 267

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to the apostles. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

 

[MrPolo]

We broke the RC's "code" a long time ago here on CF, they just don't know it yet

Yeah, I know....in some other thread somebody leaked about our Knights of Columbus super secret meetings. I'm still grieving over that...

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, I know....in some other thread somebody leaked about our Knights of Columbus super secret meetings. I'm still grieving over that...

Yeah, after all total transparency is the norm, right?
All the little guys are privy to everything they need to be and trust me, the big guys know what they're doin'.
And anybody who says different is paranoid.

 

[Standing Up]

Only if you blind youself to historical christianity.


Eusebius of Caesarea was an Early Church Historian AD 267

"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor, Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to the apostles. After him Evaristus ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

I changed what you bolded to what is now bolded.

That is a mighty confession, corresponding to this:

"Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitiones". But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain. "

Why is it that Newadvent so strongly denies what you/Eusebius affirms, should you think?

Incredible.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Trento;Only if you blind youself to historical christianity.

Far easier to be blinded by historians.

Eusebius of Caesarea was an Early Church Historian AD 267
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus,

Shouldn't Linus have served?

" (Poem Against the Marcionites 276–284 [A.D. 267]).

Yes, poetic license is in full career.

 

[Standing Up]

Far easier to be blinded by historians.

Shouldn't Linus have served?

Yes, poetic license is in full career.

That's what Peter told the elders.

1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Incredible.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Joachim; There were no "denominations" until people decided to secede from God's church.

Amen. First best reason not to "belong" to one.

The Arians could have been another but that one ended because of political action.

Secular power marries Ecclesiastical power. Or was it a one-nighter?

Then came the Great Schism of 1054 because the Byzantine emperor wanted to make a political point to the pope,

Pointing to the pope is a popular pastime for plenty of people.

and then finally, the Protestant schism of Luther's rebellion in the 1500s.

Revisionist characterization. It was a Great (& complete) Reformation of the soteriology of The Church if not of it's ecclesiology & sacramentology.

If people hadn't been involved in various heresies (and admittedly, the EO was more of a political thing than a theological one) then there would be no splits.

Maybe, but not probably.

See at Jesus time, all were unified, the same for the apostles. The first division wasn't until the 100s.

They were unified in spite of their differences.

 

[MrPolo]

Amen. First best reason not to "belong" to [a denomination].

Wow, Rick is going to become Catholic.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

LOL, I never said that there were no CHRISTIAN PEOPLE prior to the 4th century. Actually, I think Adam and Eve were the first believers and that Our Blessed Lady may well be the first specific CHRISTIAN (just one of MANY reasons why I venerate Her).

Did Paul ever write to the Roman Catholic Denomination? Not that we have any record of. He wrote to PEOPLE - and called THEM the church in that place/time. Classic Protestant understanding. Now, there IS a sense in which congregations can (and often eventually do!) become institutions (more accurately, create them). I think we can AT LEAST see the proto to this in some cases in the Epistles (including Acts and Revelation). But I mentioned nothing of congregations.


I hope that clarifies. I hope we can get back to the subject at hand, because it is absolutely foundational to the RCC and to what divides the RCC from all others and us from the RCC.

.

There were no "denominations" until people decided to secede from God's church. First came the Nestorians. Then the Miaphysites (it is an error to call them mono). The Arians could have been another but that one ended because of political action. Then came the Great Schism of 1054 because the Byzantine emperor wanted to make a political point to the pope, and then finally, the Protestant schism of Luther's rebellion in the 1500s.

1. If there was no denomination in 31 AD, then it's IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have founded the RCC one at that time; therefore, the claims of the RCC denomination for the Papacy are baseless.

2. IMHO, your observation is false. While there's no evidence of a denomination prior to the 4th century, there is evidence of such before 1521 when the RC denomination kicked Luther out of it. To argue that before 1521, all the world's congregations were entirely nondenom, autonomous, independent, with no institution among or above them simply is contrary to history.

3. If you have an 'issue' with the Pope that split his denomination in 1054 or the one that did it again in 1521, take that up with those popes. That's not the issue here.


The topic is the statements of the Orthodox Archbishop of North America about the papacy.


.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Wait a minute, you keep calling us unseperated bretheren.

I'm so confused.

Back to the topic..........

That's because we are.

Back to the topic.............




.

 

[Rhamiel]

1. If there was no denomination in 31 AD, then it's IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to have founded the RCC one at that time; therefore, the claims of the RCC denomination for the Papacy are baseless.

not a denomination, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

not a denomination, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,

That's the Protestant view.


Now, if you agree with Protestants on this, what does that say about the human leader of the RC denomination - the bishop of the diocese of Rome? Let's review what the Orthodox ARCHBISHOP of North America wrote....

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

.

 

[TraderJack]

.


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.

Only through considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.

And it is with even greater imagination and eisegetical inventiveness that the conclusion of Rome that passage also applies to the popes of Rome as the exclusive reciprients of the "chair of Peter".


excellent article, by the way.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[TraderJack]

From the Canons of the Council of Chalcedon (considered Ecumenical by both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church):



From the Canons of a Council considered ecumenical by both our churches, it says that Rome was given Primacy because of her political situation, and that Constantinople was Rome's equal.

And that is in conformity with canon VI of Nicea I, which decreed that there is no jurisdictional supremacy by any one See.

THE CANONS OF THE 318 HOLY FATHERS ASSEMBLED IN THE CITY OF NICE, IN BITHYNIA.


CANON VI.
LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon VI confirmed an equality of jurisdiction of all Sees.

Those two councils alone repudiate any claim by the Roman bishops of Roman papal supremacy.

 

[Rhamiel]

That's the Protestant view.


Now, if you agree with Protestants on this, what does that say about the human leader of the RC denomination - the bishop of the diocese of Rome? Let's review what the Orthodox ARCHBISHOP of North America wrote....






.

were the Apostles leaders of a denomination?

 

[Trento]

I changed what you bolded to what is now bolded.

That is a mighty confession, corresponding to this:

"Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect. Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitiones". But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain. "

Why is it that Newadvent so strongly denies what you/Eusebius affirms, should you think?

Incredible.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. IrenaeusJulius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

Protestant Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)


Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome , along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199

 

[TraderJack]

Is that those lists are unreliable, having been altered, changed and composed by Roman Catholics during the medieval period to appear to validate Rome's claims.

In short, they are spurious and not reliable at all.

 

[TraderJack]

Agreed. There is no question that many institutions claim that they are "the Church" - so it goes without saying that merely making the claim is not the same thing as the claim actually being true. In fact, it is, in theory, possible that none of those making the claim are actually "the Church" (especially if the only basis for their claim is the claim itself). However, IF one of those making the claim happens to actually be "the Church" - yes - without question there are "a lot of ramifications" to say the least. But the claim, of and by itself, is fairly meaningless since anyone can claim anything.

A word of caution here, though. While it is understandable that many people would roll their eyes and say "Oh great, another church claiming to be 'the church' - now I know they are false"...well...they are guilty of another thing: assuming that such a claim should be equated *necessarily* with falsehood. Just as we should not be gullible and assume that any given church is "the Church" merely because they claim it, so too we should not be so cynical as to assume that no church that claims it could possibly be what it claims. Do you see what I mean?

And we know from Scripture and history that the claim of the Roman Catholic religion to be "the Church" as you propose, is a false claim.

The bottom line for me is this: any church that claims to be "the Church" may or may not be what they claim (depending on the merits of their evidence, etc...)

See the above.

 

[Trento]

Is that those lists are unreliable, having been altered, changed and composed by Roman Catholics during the medieval period to appear to validate Rome's claims.

In short, they are spurious and not reliable at all.

Your opinion.


I can make claims as an amateur historian too, but the difference is that I back them up with scholars, and almost all Protestant ones, lest I be accused of Catholic bias. No one cares what I think because I am not a scholar. But they should care about the informed opinions of the experts in the field. The choice we face is clear, and I urge readers to ponder the manifest absurdity of the "case" you are making.
Seeing that the historians who are familiar with the Fathers; who specialize in patristics and Church history and history of theology or of doctrinal development of same, completely contradict you. Who shall we trust as an authority for the views of the Church Fathers concerning the Rule of Faith, or the relationship between Bible, Tradition, apostolic succession, and the Historical Church?