Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Standing Up]

Questions:

1-IF St Irenaeus wrote the list of the successors to Peter but said it would be too lengthy to write all the successions - but the important one was from Peter - did he do so in vain because it was actually unimportant?

2-And why did he then say, the Church of Rome had the truth and all should follow it?

3-Why would anyone even know the successions WHEN requested to write them if they didn't exist?

4-AND finally, how did he even know about St Clement l knowing the Apostles [having been ordained by Peter himself] if all of that is unimportant?


Written in 175 AD

Also a list composed by Eusebius exists of the same names...
So why did two people write the same list - if there were no successors?

No, no, no.

Per the same letter, But Polycarp also ... had the truth, rule of faith, etc.

Later, Polycrates said when told by Rome to submit said, "I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.' Acts 5:29 "

Peter ordained Clement of Rome!? Not Linus? Not Anicletus? I think not. NewAdvent says Peter died circa 67ad and Clement ruled from 88-97ad.

 

[Albion]

The "keys" symbolize the authority to open the way of salvation through the preaching of the gospel to all those who are bound in darkness and sin. Peter was first entrusted with the keys because he was the first to give this confession of faith in Jesus and was instrumental in initially opening the door of salvation to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 2), as well as the Gentiles at Cornelius' house (Acts 10). This is not about RCC but rather believers of Jesus Christ.

Right. And we know that the keys are not the same as the key of David for several reasons. First, they are keys, not key. Second, they are not political, whereas David's are connected to Earthly kingship. Peter was not make a king.

The keys given to Peter are about opening something. And let's not forget that Jesus gave them to Peter, not to anyone else (such as a supposed "successor"). Also that Jesus said that he would BUILD his church on Peter in some way, not FOUND it or OPERATE it.

The miraculous events of Pentecost Sunday are the only possible answer to this, with Peter BUILDING the church from a few hundred Palestinians to thousands of followers from all over the Roman world in a single day!

 

[Albion]

If you prefer to not follow the one who holds the keys and sits of the Chair of Peter, does not negate the fact the entire Church thru ALL ages have.

1. No one but Peter held the keys.
2. The "one who sits of the Chair of Peter" does not hold Peter's keys.
3. The "entire Church thru ALL ages" NEVER accepted the bishop of Rome as the head of the Church.

And we cannot now disregard the truth of the meaning of those keys handed to one man.

Right...and with emphasis upon "one man." Peter was told he would "build" the Church, and he did. That's it.

Self serving?

It's interesting to note, its hardest to obey someone - than it is to serve the self.

To refuse to consider the truth because a myth (or maybe three of them?) is easier to understand certainly qualifies as self-serving, yes.

 

[Albion]

Then why did Jesus say to obey the Chair of Moses and those who sit on it?

He said to obey the Scribes and Pharisees. Peter was not mentioned and neither was the Chair of Moses. What you said here is nothing but a fabrication, and a very willful one since you've had this explained to you and with the wording of the verse before your eyes.

Unless Jesus didnt know what He was saying when He said to obey those sitting on the Chair of Moses.

Moses was dead - yet the authority on earth lived on.

So why are you not obeying the scribes and Pharisees?

 

[Albion]

There is nothing that countered any claims that the Pope was not who we claim he is.

We have the writings of a number of Early Church Fathers in which those claims are rejected in no uncertain terms. So you are wrong about that.

In fact, there is evidence that i already posted that St Irenaeus wrote that ROME is the Church with the truth.

Against which we have other Church Fathers saying the James was the head of the Church. And others who said Peter and Paul together. And others who said all three shared it. And others yet who said that the bishop of Rome was not the head of the Church.

So if no one in all the years - ever suggested the Pope didnt exist, but now CJ claims that because of the absense of anyone stating the Pope exists, that we can conclude he didnt exist.

By your logic, you could argue that the bishop of Mars was the universally accepted head of the Church since, after all, no one said he wasn't or that there wasn't one. But it's moot since plenty of Church Fathers wrote that the bishop of Rome wasn't the head of the Church.

JUST because the ECF's didn't sit down and write a full discertation that the Pope existed and he was the Church leader - that we need conclude the Pope didnt exist until the 4th Century?

Well, this may be mainly a misunderstanding. There was a bishop of Rome from the early days, but none of them claimed to be a Pope until around AD 400.

So are we talking about a Pope existing...or men you want to imagine having been Popes before the idea was created?

 

[Rick Otto]

But for that to be true, it would actually have to be first, wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, that's beside the point. Speaking of all churches as denominations is perfectly acceptable usage.

m,hmm...:

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel Contextually - the first Church is not classed seperately of itself.
Being first, it is not in a denomination.
But any under the original are classified as such.

Hi, darlin.
Only problem I see with that is, "first" comprises a "class" and susequent groups with distictives would be "sub-class". Which isn't realy a disagreement, just a quibble, sis.
The OP pretty much lists the points of distinction over which we disagree about how to interpret & understand what we've come to identify as "first".

de⋅nom⋅i⋅na⋅tion  /dɪˌnɒm

əˈneɪ

ʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-nom-uh-ney-shuh

n] Show IPA
–noun 1.a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination. 2.one of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination. 3.a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.4.a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.5.the act of naming or designating a person or thing.
​

 

[JoabAnias]

If you obey Jesus you get all the perks of the one true Church.

 

[racer]

Racer,

The word "Romish" is a COMMONLY KNOWN religious slur. The fact you are seemingly unaware of its offensive nature to Catholics speaks volumes.

I disagree. Most people are not even aware of the terms "Romish, Popish, etc . . . It's not a commonly known religious slur--unless perhaps you are referring to those of the RCC faith.

Here's a little explanation of the meaning of the suffix "-ish:"

Etymology: From Old English-isc. Cognate with German and Dutch -isch, Latin -icus, -isce and -ice, Ancient Greek -ικος (-ikos), Slavic -ic, -ich, etc.

[edit] Pronunciation

• (UK) IPA: /ɪʃ/, SAMPA: /IS/
• Audio (US)help, file

[edit] Suffix


-ish

1. (appended to many kinds of words) Typical or similar to. Her face had a girlish charm.
   • 1859, Harriet Parr (as Holme Lee), Against Wind and Tide, volume 1, p. 273: […] ; for she had recently developed a magpie[-]ish tendency to appropriate and conceal trifling matters; […]
2. (appended to adjectives) Somewhat. Her face had a greenish tinge.
3. (appended to numbers, especially times and ages) About, approximately. We arrived at tennish or We arrived tennish. (A few minutes before, to a few minutes after.) I couldn't tell his precise age, but he was fiftyish.
4. (appended to roots denoting names of nations or regions) Of a nationality, or the language associated with a nationality. Danish, English, Spanish

You shouldn't need to ask anyone if it is offensive.

Hey, "YOU" said:

You would have ask them on an individual basis. When I was a Methodist I considered myself a Protestant...but my Evangelical relatives never called themselves Protestant.
​

Assume it is offensive - BECAUSE IT IS.

LOL! I'm sure you miss the absurdity of this statement.According to you, "Protestants" should be asked on an individual basis, but we should all be aware of what terms offend RCs without asking. We should automatically know what offends that particular group of people.

Labels and particular words become "offensive" in nature due to the intent of those who use the words and those who choose to be offended by "words."

Would you ask a person of color if it is okay to use the "n" word? No. You should already know that it is not okay.

Completely absurd question and you know the reason and answer without asking.

So let me ask you this, do you use the term Protestant even though you cannot help but know that some evangelicals and non-RCs are offended by the term?

If you don't get that simple concept then I feel sorry for you.

Well, I'm praying for you. Because, you choose to spend your life being offended and living in a state offense because particular words injur your sensibilities.

 

[vanshan]

The true Apostolic Succession was not of office but of doctrine. There is no succession of apostolic gifts because they were nontransferable commission given to the Apostles directly by Jesus Christ. When they died, it was over. They have no permanent activity in the life of the church. There is apostolic succession in the context that the truth entrusted to the apostles is now passed on to others such as bishops and elders. In 1 Timothy 3:15: The church is "...the pillar and support of the truth." This is apostolic succession. We are proclaiming the truth that was given to the apostles and prophets and has been passed down by God's grace through history to us today. We are called to be in the line of apostolic succession. A truth has been communicated. It is contained in this word. Its focus is Christ and what He is doing in the church today. That is what this church is about. It is about truth.

Excellent conclusions. This is the Orthodox view of apostolic succession, which I guess you've come to on your own. Each successive bishop, and the apostles as the first bishops, are commissioned by Christ through the laying on of hands. It's by His authority alone that they operate, not by some power passed on from the first bishops in their line. The idea that some bishop today carries the apostolic authority of Peter or Andrew is ludicrous. All bishops opperate under the authority of Christ alone.

Apostolic succession is only valid if the successive bishops retain the apostolic doctrines of Christ--if they move too far from those teachings and anathematize themselves from the Body of Christ by their arrogance, they loose any apostolic authority to act as bishops of Christ's single unified universal Church. Apostolic succession comes from both having been commissioned by the laying on of hands from valid canonical bishops of Christ's Church and preservation of the true faith.

Basil

 

[racer]

They do not offend just me - they are considered offensive by the vast majority of all Catholics. Just like the "n" word is offensive to the vast majority of people of color (as it is to me too). Words mean things.

You still did not explain why you and other Catholics find these terms offensive. Care to give it a shot?

I am not easily offended at all.

If words and labels offend you, then you are easily offended.

I am actually very thick-skinned.

Couldn't tell.

But that doesn't mean we should not be civil with each other.

Civilty is all about perception. If people expect those with whom they are conversing to "know" what terms offend them, and become offended when particular terms are used, then there will always be at least one person who considers our interaction "uncivil."

If a person of color objects to the use of a racial slur, would you also accuse them of being "easily offended"?

I'm sorry, but there is simply no comparison here no matter how much you continue to liken yourselves with this particular racial group.

Why do you attempt to defend the indefensible?

Again, I ask, how am I attempting to defend anything here? I've simply asked you why you find these terms "offensive, and you have not answered."

What I am saying is that if you can't play nice with others, then you should not play at all.

And, if you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. What is commonly known around here is that discussion in GT gets a tad hairy and often down right ugly. So, if one is going to let words offend him, maybe he should avoid GT.

Using an offensive slur is not playing nice.

Well, who really gets to determine what words are offensive slurs?

And if you don't know that it is a slur in the first place, then you run the risk of hurting others (unintentionally) like a bull in a china shop.

Oh, good grief, does the drama and exaggeration among Catholics never cease?

It is better to learn something about the people you are trying to converse with first before you put your foot in your mouth.

Really? Let me remind you what I told you before, I don't use those terms. They never come to mind, still, I fail to see how they are offensive. I was hoping you would shed some light on the issue.

Anathematizations apply to very few people on this board. First of all, you have to already be a Catholic in communion with the Church, and you have to knowingly, willfully, and obstinantly disobey the Church before any level of culpability is applied. Is

Where would one find this qualification or disqualification among the Catholic information system? Because, when one reads the "anathemizations" he doesn't find this exception being declared.

that you? I highly doubt it. Who is being easily offended now?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall stating that I was offended by the term. Can you refresh my memory and show me where I said this?

That is not a negative term. It acknowledges a reality: we are not in full communion, but we are still brethren who are imperfectly joined due to our shared union with the grace of Christ.

Oh, I see, according to you Catholics get to tell us what is offensive to them and declare that we should all be aware of the offenses without asking. Then, they also get to tell us what should or shouldn't be offensive to us. Simply amazing!!! Do you really use explanations like the label "separated brethren" is not offensive . . . because it simply means we are imperfectly joined with the church?

But if you don't want to be called that - fine.

I don't care what you choose to call me. But, I find the term to be condescending and very telling of the "exclusivity" the RCC practices. It basically relegates us to the outer edges of the Spiritual Body of Christ. But, like I said before, if I must serve as a pinky finger or little toe on the Body of Christ, I will humbly do so.

I wouldn't hold it against you or presume to tell you what you should find offensive or not.

LOL! You just did in the very sentence preceding this one.

Actually I do understand. I spent over 40 years of my life as a Methodist...with a very large extended family of "Bible Christian" Evangelicals. I get it. And whenever someone says they don't like the term Protestant - I am more than happy to accomodate their request and I don't try to make them feel badly for it.

However, you do use the term Protestant until someone tells you that he personally is offended by the term? But, when it come to terms that offend you we should already know and not use them at all?

I am not offended by your beliefs or opinions. But I am offended when people use religious slurs...

You are beginning to sound like a broken record.

words that are commonly known to be slurs...

Again, it is not commonly known to be a slur. Have you ever once seen a person use the "n" word in CF or GT? Do you think that if an Afro-American were engaged in a discussion that "any" person in these forums would use the "n" word? If not, why would you suppose that is?

and I should not be forced to permit others to use them in my presence - especially at a place with a stated mission of Christian ecumenism.

There will always be someone who will be or is offended by something no matter how large or how small the issue is.

If you have done your homework, then why are you unaware that those words are offensive to Catholics???

For approximately 9 or 10 years studied Catholicism and conversed on these boards, you're the first I've seen make an issue of these terms. How should we go about doing homework in this matter? Google for all words/labels considered offensive to Catholics? Ask in advance of conversing with Catholics for a list of all words they find to be offensive.

Didn't you say that all should "assume" that particular words are offensive BECAUSE THEY ARE?" Doesn't sound like homework would be required in this instance.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone go to those places to participate...I suggested that if you go there you will see that "frothing-at-the-mouth" sort of anti-Catholics use those words all the time - and they use them as weapons because they know how hateful those words are...just like people in the KKK will intentionally use racial slurs in public.

Again, exaggeration and dramatization. I can accept that you find these words to be derisive, but the statement above goes overboard regarding these particular terms.

What do you think? Of course I have. I spent a year as the Catholic Affairs Director when Erwin owned this board.

Oh, I forget, I should already know particular issues about you . . . what was I thinking.

OBOB members are supposed to be held to the same standards as any other Congregational Forum. If they use a slur against another group of people, then report it.

OBOB is a Catholic sub-forum. And, if I find something so offensive that my emotions are stirred, I simply avoid the sub-forum or thread topic. I don't like to use the report button and have done it very few times.

And, btw, there are plenty of hateful things said against Catholicism in almost every other forum at CF. Intentional use of slurs should be stopped across-the-board.

Yes, yes, we know. Catholics are the only persecuted Christians there are.

Why are words like "Romish" considered a slur by Catholics? I thought you did your homework. If you did - you would know the answer to that question.

So, in reality, not even you can really say why?

The short answer is that it is commonly intended as an insult by the very people who most often use it.

You know this how?

Why is the "n" word considered a slur?

There goes that broken record again?

Because it is commonly intended as an insult by the very people who most often use it. When people who are known rabid bigots (of any variety, whether it be racial or religious or whatever) use certain terms when referring to those they despise...and when the people who are objects of that derision never ever use those terms when speaking of themselves...it's a pretty good clue that the bigotted person is using terms that are, objectively speaking, offensive slurs. And just to be clear here...I am just speaking IN GENERAL - I am NOT calling anyone in this thread a bigot.

The comparison does not compute.

That depends on who I am talking to. There are plenty of people who PREFER to be called Protestant. To most people in the Reformed category the word is considered perfectly fine. If that is what they want to be called - I will call them that. If someone dislikes the term - I will never call them that. I have ZERO problem with people telling me what they prefer to be called. In fact, I prefer it when they tell me how best to address them in a way that they will find respectful. Why should I presume to tell others what they should or should not find offensive or what they should or should not call themselves?

According to your logic, you shouldn't use the term "at all" if it is considered by some people to be offensive.

Not at all. Catholics are one group - so it is natural that "all" Catholics would be offended by terms that are COMMONLY known to be religious slurs used as weapons by rabid anti-Catholics.

This is a certain sign you may be suffering from what is know as the "martyr syndrome."

But non-Catholic Christians (whether you call them Protestant or not) are not one group...they are diverse and distinct.

So, each of us here have a profile, most of them list the particular faith of each user. I "do" educate myself in this way. When conversing with someone new, I always check their profile to see to what particular faith he belongs.

So what is offensive to one group may be acceptable to another group.

Again, if it is possible that a term is offensive to some, and we all know that the term "Protestant" was slapped on those who defected from the early church and clearly intended as a slur, then "you" should "assume that it offensive BECAUSE IT IS." This is according to your own logic, not mine.

And if I know that one group has a preference for what they want to be called - then I will gladly accept their wishes without problem.

It is simply that those not of the RC faith have risen above, and choose not to be offended and let the term roll off them like water.

What is so wrong with being respectful?

Nothing. But, as we all know, GT is not the place for over-sensitive people.

Why is the "n" word offensive?

Do you really not know?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Dear WarriorAngel -

First I propose another question. [so far havent had any answered]

You haven't answered my question:

Here's what you stated,

Isaias says He [Jesus] will be taking the authority off the Pharisees and it will be given to Jesus, WHo makes it known to all the witnesses that He is handing that authority to Peter...
​

Again, quote me where Isaiah states that...
YOU said we cannot change Scripture; I agree. That applies to you, too.
So, quote where Isaiah stated what you said he said.

Anyway - when did the Church suddenly erect the Pope into an office?

1. Your questions are not substantiation for the DOGMA of the Catholic Papacy - perhaps the single most divisive issue in Christianity. No more than my question of where lost socks go.

2. If your dogma is correct, then your _______________ first elected Linus as the second Pope - regarded as the exclusive holder of Peter's keys in some unique sense, infallible, unaccountable, superior over all, lord of all, the authority and vicar of Christ by virtue of his being bishop of a specific, singular diocese - the one of Rome. Now, where's your documentation of that? THAT is the issue we're addressing.

St Irenaeus [AD 175] and Eusebius who already showed the line of the successors because it was important...

1. I asked you for the quote of that, but you have yet to supply it. The quote NewMan99 gave said NOTHING about ANY Papacy, it merely said that the congregation in Rome once included Peter AND PAUL. No one debates that, and that's entirely moot to the discussion. The issue here is not if Peter AND PAUL were once in Rome, the issue is whether the DOGMA of the CATHOLIC PAPACY was created by Jesus in or before 30 AD and was embraced by all from that date, so that Linus was embraced as the infallible, unaccountable, supreme, authority over all, lord of all, BY VIRTUE OF his being the bishop of a specific, singular particular diocese - that of Rome.

2. Your emphasis on this quote from ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS after the fact does little to confirm that Jesus established this dogma and office in or before 30 AD. It's rather like quoting one Mormon from the year 1970 that says that Joseph Smith once lived in the USA. Would that single Mormon making that comment in 1970 about Smith in 1820 be regarded by YOU as resounding evidence that THEREFORE Smith found those plates and founded THE Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? IF not, then why should we regard this snippet from 150 years after that fact - that Peter AND PAUL once were in Rome as resounding evidence that Jesus therefore created the Office of the Catholic Papacy in 30 AD and all regarded whoever happened to be the bishop of a specific, particular, singular diocese to be the "holder of the keys" and the infallible, superior, authoritative lord over all Christians? I hope you see my point....

I would like to see proof that there was NO successor.

Again, my friend, you have it REVERSED. There's only one _____________ (insert desired word for denomination) that insists on the dogma of The Catholic Papacy - and it is probably the single most divisive issue in Christianity, and has been for well over 1000 years. The burden of proof is SOLELY that of the RCC for it is SOLEY it's dogma.

To argue, as you continue to do, that something MUST be dogmatic fact unless it can be proven otherwise is an apologetic NO CATHOLIC ON EARTH would or do accept from anyone - so why should we accept it from The Catholic Church? It's absurd (sorry to be so blunt) to argue that it's a dogmatic fact of highest certainty that Jupiter is made of Cheddar Cheese because no one has proven that it's not. Do you understand this point?







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.





Dear NewMan99


CF Admin Tonks, former high Catholic staffer and now Orthodox, in his announcement about the return of the Nicene Creed as the definition of "Christian," posted this:

The Creed is given high importance in the majority of Christian

denominations (both East and West) to include the following churches: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, many Reformed churches, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and many non-denominational Protestant churches.

NewMan, you were soooooooooooo offended, insulted, disgusted by my use of the word "denomination" (defined by me very positively) in reference to The Catholic Church that you went on a rant for days - and finally left the discussion here. It's a religious slur, you argued, a violation of the rules of CF, the equal of posting the "n" word, unbearably insulting and disgusting to Catholics and so offensive that you were compelled to not discuss your witnesses to The Catholic Papacy but to leave because the word "denomination" had been used in this thread. STRONG public personal rebukes were directed at me because of that word.

I assume you are equally insulted, disgusted and offended by the Admin Tonks and will be posting the same things about slurs, insults and the "n" word to Tonks in that thread as you did to me here.






.

 

[Rick Otto]

You still did not explain why you and other Catholics find these terms offensive. Care to give it a shot?

Oi! (lol) Don't be such a glutton for punishment, sis. Half of it is because we're not RC. We're talkin' about human nature here, not rocket science. The sensitivity will dissipate when the he realizes how sweet a gal I know you are, and that takes a little time & minimal effort like complimenting him on his checkered bow tie & mentioning you like how his short pant legs show off his argyles & pennyloafers.
NewMan has taken my abuse over the rep function in good spirit. I told him his avatar looked like that guy was about to eat that baby.
He said somethin' like, "Yeah, I was just trying to decide ...ketchup or mayo."

So now I get to beat him over the head with my rants about the structure of Corpus Christi, literalizing sacramentology & pontificating the life out of ecclesiology... (right?) .
Give 'im some respect, he can roll with our punches, especialy when he knows we're not tryin' to deck him. I anticipated some recoil when I saw "Romish". I think I might've even said to brace for incoming on his rep function.
It's a fair deal.

 

[Albion]

Dear Racer and CalJosiah--

There's really nothing mysterious or unknown about the use of this term here.

Roman Catholics on CF have previously said that they want--by not using the term "denomination"--for it to be understood that their church is the one and only version of Christ's Church that he founded.

By agreeing to avoid using the term, we therefore would be submitting to their church's theology and version of history, at least so long as the word is to be used for OUR churches...and I've seen not one Catholic poster suggesting that the use of the word for Protestant churches will be discontinued by themselves! No, there is still, on these threads, a steady use of offensive terms on directed at the churches of the Reformation.

And as CalJosiah has pointed out there is no CF policy which considers it an offensive term. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So we come to the second aspect of this demand. I refer to NewMan's feeling that if he asks us not to use an otherwise normal term because it offends HIM, personally, we are expected to do that, even if the term is benign. There is no word that is immune to that demand, then.

But how can we even operate this kind of kindergarten game, assuming that we agree to it?

Is it to be one-sided as these complainers wish it to be? Are we to remember forever what any particular poster wanted done at some time in the past? And if not, is this a sensible standard at all, i.e. allowing any poster to rule out of order, at any time, any word that is not normally considered offensive...because he himself feels offended by it?

To be clear, I don't see this as a new problem or one caused by a particular individual. It has been raised before, which leads me to think it will surface again. But really, how can one faith demand that acceptance of the unique theology of the other church be a prerequisite for others to debate here? It makes no sense.

 

[Rick Otto]

It would've been more genuous to offer an alternative. Preferably one with hard consanents (lol, I'm Germanic).
I've been using "congregation" hoping to stretch it to cover the meaning & avoid the down & dirty demon of denominizing.

 

[Albion]

It would've been more genuous to offer an alternative. Preferably one with hard consanents (lol, I'm Germanic).
I've been using "congregation" hoping to stretch it to cover the meaning & avoid the down & dirty demon of denominizing.

But Rick, "congregation" is not a synonym for "denomination." It suggests the local church ekklesia, whereas the word "denomination" is used for the bigger church organization.

I tried using the word "communion" at one time because of the whining about "denomination," and I still think it is not a bad choice, although I am still not inclined to favor any one-sided resolution of this.

 

[sunlover1]

But Rick, "congregation" is not a synonym for "denomination." It suggests the local church ekklesia, whereas the word "denomination" is used for the bigger church organization.

I tried using the word "communion" at one time because of the whining about "denomination," and I still think it is not a bad choice, although I am still not inclined to favor any one-sided resolution of this.

I think they prefer that you use "The Church" when referring to their ...

 

[WarriorAngel]

So, you would agree with the Bible that says, Jesus still has the key?

No.

THE only reason Jesus obtained the keys was because He became human. These are human keys....for earth and authority.
Notice it didnt say He would already have the keys in Isaias... because He had to become human, and doing so He took the keys in humanity and handed them back to His new Authority on earth.

So, your observation is that Philadelphia has the keys, not the church in Rome?

Revelation 3
6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. 7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.

IF you really slowly read this, Jesus is speaking [for one thing] and then He tells us it is the ONE whom HE gave the keys to...whom He loves.
AND when the whole world is being tested - only this one will remain faithful to Him.
BECAUSE as He promised in the beginning to KEEP the gates of hell from prevailing - again HE says He will keep him from the hour of temptation [the end of the world] which be upon the whole world.

AGAIN - it is the Chair of Peter who can open and shut - and no one else...
And it will be that Chair that remains faithful - in the last days.

[Are we in those days?]

All I know - is that no matter how the world presses against the doctrines of Christ to change - to get with the times, the more ancient our Church seems and remains faithful.

In the 60's contraception became acceptable to everyone else.
Not to Catholics.
In the 70's abortion became acceptable to everyone else. Not to Catholics. Not even for rape or incest.

She will not change to suit the changes of the world.

We have to be careful with terminology, else we talk past each other. We both assume we love the truth. Here's a summary:

There were two traditions. One was based on the bishopric and one was based on the Apostles. The former developed into the RCC. It obviously helped to be HQ of the Roman Empire and all that entailed.

Circa 100 the office of Pope was developed by Clement of Rome (Aaron's rod bloomed, the others didn't; but the Phoenix resurrection issue of course belies him). He most likely was a Hellenistic Jew. He understood what had happened with the rise and fall of OT priesthood and what could happen with the new.

The battle had begun between Rome and the Quartodecimans. Rome held to celebrating a Sunday resurrection. The Quartodecimans to death on the 14th. (Still no answer on the underlying assumption there!) Rome cited the bishops as authority (Trento pointed out that "bishop is above all others possessing all power and authority"). Quartodecimans cited John, Phillip, and the other Apostles. These are historically valid citations.

All Churches, but Rome, understood the death, burial, and resurrection one way. But, the Palestinian Synod was "the first to comprehend the propriety of ADOPTING the Roman usage". Why? Daniel 9:26- people of the prince to come destroys Jerusalem. The rest of the Churches followed, except for the only verifiable apostolic line. 325ad they declare the quartodecimans heretics. 341ad they (all Churches who trace their lineage to Nicea) excommunicate the Apostles, the quartodecimans, the seven churches of Revelation.

But, then per ?? 300-400 or so a backlash develops against setting up the Chair of Moses, I mean Peter. First among equals. The Assyrians leave. The Oriental Orthodox leave. The Great Schism 1054. The Reformation 1500s. Today, all the old heresies, divisions, schisms, etc. Time to be of one accord again.

Any questions?

Nice revision.

The Chair of Peter has not been 'invented'...it always was and will be.
The keys didnt just take a hiatus until someone felt like putting someone in Rome...
Again, read the early writers speak of Rome.
The city itself was not the authority or the teacher - it was the Pope...[Patriarch] OF the city of Rome.

No, no, no.

Per the same letter, But Polycarp also ... had the truth, rule of faith, etc.

Later, Polycrates said when told by Rome to submit said, "I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.' Acts 5:29 "

Peter ordained Clement of Rome!? Not Linus? Not Anicletus? I think not. NewAdvent says Peter died circa 67ad and Clement ruled from 88-97ad.

Peter ordained Clement when Clement was young, but Linus [spoken of in the Gospel] was the one to succeed Peter immediately ..Clement had not yet been given the See.

BUT when he was Pope - he was the one directly to answer the East who traveled to find his counsel.

Polycarp was speaking at the council before his martyrdom, and it was not about Rome the Church but Rome the secular city.
Polycarp interests me...
CHURCH FATHERS: Martyrdom of Polycarp

Greeting

The Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God sojourning in Philomelium, and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place: Mercy, peace, and love from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, be multiplied.
Chapter 1. The subject of which we write

We have written to you, brethren, as to what relates to the martyrs, and especially to the blessed Polycarp, who put an end to the persecution, having, as it were, set a seal upon it by his martyrdom. For almost all the events that happened previously [to this one], took place that the Lord might show us from above a martyrdom becoming the Gospel. For he waited to be delivered up, even as the Lord had done, that we also might become his followers, while we look not merely at what concerns ourselves but have regard also to our neighbours. For it is the part of a true and well-founded love, not only to wish one's self to be saved, but also all the brethren

~~~
Chapter 5. The departure and vision of Polycarp

But the most admirable Polycarp, when he first heard [that he was sought for], was in no measure disturbed, but resolved to continue in the city. However, in deference to the wish of many, he was persuaded to leave it. He departed, therefore, to a country house not far distant from the city. There he stayed with a few [friends], engaged in nothing else night and day than praying for all men, and for the Churches throughout the world, according to his usual custom. And while he was praying, a vision presented itself to him three days before he was taken; and, behold, the pillow under his head seemed to him on fire. Upon this, turning to those that were with him, he said to them prophetically, I must be burnt alive.
Chapter 6. Polycarp is betrayed by a servant

And when those who sought for him were at hand, he departed to another dwelling, whither his pursuers immediately came after him. And when they found him not, they seized upon two youths [that were there], one of whom, being subjected to torture, confessed. It was thus impossible that he should continue hid, since those that betrayed him were of his own household. The Irenarch then (whose office is the same as that of the Cleronomus ), by name Herod, hastened to bring him into the stadium. [This all happened] that he might fulfil his special lot, being made a partaker of Christ, and that they who betrayed him might undergo the punishment of Judas himself.

 

[JoabAnias]

Ditto for me. Have fun slamming the Romish denomination and the Papacy. Maybe I will just go post at CARM instead.

Is everyone who still talking to Newman 6 pages after he left trying to convince him or themselves?

One can't understand our Bible we wrote unless your part of those who wrote it.

All your doing is disagreeing with the authors.

Or did I just mean something else entirely?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Pope St. Linus

(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79).

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius 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 Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.
​