Part 5 (this is a continuation from Post #302, Post #296, Post #357, and Post #415)
Let us now move on to the second part of the premise:
2. That the Bishops of Rome in the early Church succeeded to this same "Petrine" ministry.
To answer this challenge, I will call five early Christians to the "witness stand" and we shall examine what they had to write. Before I do so, I must point out, though, that their words on the topic at hand are merely *incidental* - that is to say - they were not writing specifically about Petrine or Roman supremacy, per se. These were not theological treastises devoted to the developing office of the Papacy or its ontological charisms. So there are no full-blown examinations of the specific topics were are trying to explore. That said, with regard to the various topics that they WERE actually writing about, they make mention of certain aspects of Petrine prerogative that came into play incidently. Therefore the only way their words or actions make sense is if they viewed Peter's successors as having the same special ministry that Peter had - and that us Catholics claim for him and his successors. But you don't need to take my word for it...let's look at theirs...
First let me introduce the five "witnesses" I am going to call, and what their relationship was to the Apostles, either directly or indirectly:
1. The first is Clement - who is someone we have recently been discussing in this thread. Clement, of course, wrote somewhere between 88 AD-97 AD. He was a disciple of both Peter and Paul. He is referenced in Philippians 4:3 (Paul calls him his "co-worker"), and upon the deaths of the Apostles, Clement became one of the earliest Bishops of the Roman Church.
Clement wrote approximately 25 years after Peter's death. He was very much a contemporary of the Apostles, and had a direct personal relationship with two of them.
2. The second witness I will call to the stand is Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote between 100 AD-107 AD. Ignatius was a direct disciple of St. John, and the second Bishop of Antioch who succeeded Evodius, who was a disciple of St. Peter. Ignatius was eventually martyred in the arena in Rome.
Ignatius wrote approximately 40 years after the death of Peter. He, too, was a contemporary of the Apostles, and is connected with two of them (John and Peter).
3. The third witness will be Polycarp of Smyrna. He, too, was a direct disciple of St. John. He was also a close friend and associate of Ignatius of Antioch. Polycarp lived a very long life was primarily active from 107 AD-165 AD, until he, too, was martyred.
Polycarp, too, began giving his witness through his ministry about 40 years after Peter's death. He, too, was a contemporary of the Apostles with a direct connection to John (even though Polycarp was young while John was old).
4. The fourth witness will be Irenaeus of Lyon, who was a disciple of Polycarp (who was, as I said above, a diciple of the Apostle John). He was active from 160 AD onward. He wrote his most famous work "Against Heresies" circa 180 AD.
Irenaeus' witness comes approximately 90 years after the death of Peter. While he was not a contemporary of the Apostles, he is but one generation removed and therefore has an indirect connection (through Polycarp) with John.
5. The fifth, and last, witness in this analysis will be Dionysius of Cornith (yes - that Corinth - the same Church that received Clement's letter just a generation previously). He wrote before 170 AD, and hence was a contemporary of Irenaeus.
His witness comes 90 years after the death of Peter.
So here we have five different men, all of them writing within living memory of the Apostles. If anybody knew how the Early Church viewed the ministry of Peter and his successors, it would be these men. So what do they say about the authority of Rome?
Let's start with Clement. As we have already discussed here in this thread, Clement wrote a letter to the Church in Corinth about 90 AD. He was, of course, a successor to Peter, and hence was one of the Bishops of Rome we are discussing.
Why did Clement write to Corinth? It was because that Church had fallen into a state of schism. Some (not all) members of the Church had deposed and overthrown the legitimately appointed presbyters of their congregation (thus contradicting Acts 14:23), and were refusing to be obedient to them (thus contradicting Hebrews 13:17).
So, Clement, way over in Rome, wrote a letter to them. It began:
"Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (1 Clement Chapter 1)
Let's first point out that it is the Corinthians who initially appealed to Rome (just as the Church in Antioch had turned to Jerusalem years earlier - see Acts 15:2 - when the Apostles and Church "HQ" was there at the time, before the destruction of Jerusalem). But that begs the question: why would they appeal to Rome at a time when no Apostle lived there? The Antiochan Church appealed to the Apostles in Acts 15. There was a living Apostle (John), almost certainly, living in nearby Ephesus at the time. So why didn't the Corinthians appeal to Ephesus (as they did in 1 Cor 7:1 and 16:8) at a time when John was still alive and still presiding there?
Clement goes on:
"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth.” (1 Clement Chap. XLVI)
And...
"Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue.” (1 Clement Chap. LVII)
Here Clement is not speaking as just one ticked-off Bishop among many other Bishops in the Church. Rather, he is issuing them a COMMAND. He ORDERS the disobedient and troublesome presbyters to SUBMIT to their local legitimately-appointed presbyters. Furthermore, he writes in a universal context - speaking for the Church when he spoke of the "grief to us all."
So...WHY does he do this? Where does he get this kind of authority from to expect obedience from a faction of people who are not even willing to obey their own local presbyters???
So in this example we can see (in 90AD) the Church in Rome, through the teaching office of the Bishop of Rome, teaching and issuing an authoritative command to another Church that is not in Rome's geographical vicinity or ordinary local jurisdiction. Clement doesn't ask them to submit as a favor or because he has a merely "honorary" position in the Church, rather he commands them to submit as if it is expected of them. Not only did the Corinthians appeal to Rome (instead of Ephesus where an Apostle lived), but the Bishop in Rome issued a command that carried the weight of binding authority even though Corinth had their own Bishops.
I will continue this analysis in subsequent posts when we will call the other four witnesses to the stand.
God's Peace,
NewMan
