Known for all ages?? NOT

[simonthezealot]

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages? Papal primacy is integral to Catholicism...
HERE

from there I found this...
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

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith...

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

 

[ivebeenshown]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

(Note: this does not explicitly claim any primacy of Peter in itself as far as I can see, but does claim primacy of the Roman See.)

 

[simonthezealot]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

(Note: this does not explicitly claim any primacy of Peter in itself as far as I can see, but does claim primacy of the Roman See.)

This is particularly important. 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 their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul

 

[ivebeenshown]

Not because Peter had a specific successor

But he did have a specific successor, and Irenaeus records around ten of them.

Peter
Linus
Anacletus
Clement
Evaristus
Alexander
Sixtus
Telephorus
Hyginus
Pius
Anicetus
Soter
Eleutherius (Irenaeus lists as the current bishop of Rome in his time of writing.)

 

[simonthezealot]

But he did have a specific successor, and Irenaeus records around ten of them.

Ireneaus does this with the bishops of the other churches as well, it's what he does.
This is no acknowledgment of primacy, Antioch lists Peter in the line of bishops as well.
Eusebius:
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Ireneaus does this with the bishops of the other churches as well, it's what he does.
This is no acknowledgment of primacy, Antioch lists Peter in the line of bishops as well.
Eusebius:
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

...but Irenaeus did acknowledge that Rome has the pre-eminence. Peter may have ordained a bishop in Antioch, but he was present in Rome as the bishop of Rome until his death.

EDIT: To which of the Churches does Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, salute for presiding (being in a position of authority) over love?
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

 

[simonthezealot]

...but Irenaeus did acknowledge that Rome has the pre-eminence. Peter may have ordained a bishop in Antioch, but he was present in Rome as the bishop of Rome until his death.

based on what they had happening their that could be Paul excellent teaching that stuck...
Remember as i mentioned above it was because of this....

inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously


at the time Irenaeus was writing, which is similar to scripture which shows Rome being the area with more money and more followers...Nothing to do with Peters Primacy known for all ages...Your making excessive leaps only a seasoned catholic apologists who can't step away from their presuppositions would make.

 

[ivebeenshown]

based on what they had happening their that could be Paul excellent teaching that stuck...
Remember as i mentioned above it was because of this....

inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously

You mean, including the tradition of laying on of hands? One of those things Paul declares to be an essential and foundational doctrine?

Your making excessive leaps only a seasoned catholic apologists who can't step away from their presuppositions would make.

.....or we all have our own presuppositions and tend to make some leaps, no matter how long we've been affiliated with any group.

 

[Standing Up]

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

(Note: this does not explicitly claim any primacy of Peter in itself as far as I can see, but does claim primacy of the Roman See.)

Irenaeus also highlights Polycarp. And highlights Ephesus. Not Rome alone.

 

[Standing Up]

But he did have a specific successor, and Irenaeus records around ten of them.

Peter
Linus
Anacletus
Clement
Evaristus
Alexander
Sixtus
Telephorus
Hyginus
Pius
Anicetus
Soter
Eleutherius (Irenaeus lists as the current bishop of Rome in his time of writing.)

Tertullian records a different succession. Peter to Clement.

The two are contradictory. Therefore they cannot be relied upon with any certainty.

Moreover, there's this:

Again, there are even now but seven deacons at Rome, answering precisely to the number ordained by the apostles, of whom Stephen was the first martyr; whereas, in other churches, the number of deacons is a matter of indifference.
NPNF2-02. Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Evidently even the idea of one successor at Rome is a later fabrication, even as the contradictory evidence from Irenaeus and Tertullian prove.

 

[simonthezealot]

You mean, including the tradition of laying on of hands? One of those things Paul declares to be an essential and foundational doctrine?

.....or we all have our own presuppositions and tend to make some leaps, no matter how long we've been affiliated with any group.

Well why when i first started looking at the catholic church as the true church i began to peruse the first Christians and instead of seeing what your trying to squeeze out, i saw these writings in there plain context and could see clearly that the Roman Catholic church we now have was a much later invention and many of their historical claims were laughable under any minute scrutiny.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The two are contradictory. Therefore they cannot be relied upon with any certainty.

This is a logical fallacy -- unfortunately, I do not know the name of this particular fallacy. Using this logic one might assume that both Christianity and Islam are false because they contradict.

Well why when i first started looking at the catholic church as the true church i began to peruse the first Christians and instead of seeing what your trying to squeeze out, i saw these writings in there plain context and could see clearly that the Roman Catholic church we now have was a much later invention and many of their historical claims were laughable under any minute scrutiny.

I don't think you would say that adhering to the Catholic Church is a damnable decision, is it? I am attracted to it in the first place because of its uniformity, and in the second place because I see an obvious implication behind the doctrine of 'laying on of hands.'

 

[simonthezealot]

I don't think you would say that adhering to the Catholic Church is a damnable decision, is it?

Well friend they teach a different gospel than that which is read in scripture, they confound sanctification with justification. It is a means to steal God's glory, many of the sacraments of the RCC deny the atoning nature of Christs work on the cross. Why not join the LDS they have structure and lineage? That church lost it's way when it separated from being a band of elders and moved into a monarchy.

I am attracted to it in the first place because of its uniformity, and in the second place because I see an obvious implication behind the doctrine of 'laying on of hands.'

Do you know where those hands have been?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I don't think you would say that adhering to the Catholic Church is a damnable decision, is it?

To put it succinctly, he thinks Catholicism is outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy. He also thinks that the Church teaches another gospel (as he just told you himself). I'm sure you can figure out the logical end of that train of thought.

 

[Standing Up]

This is a logical fallacy -- unfortunately, I do not know the name of this particular fallacy. Using this logic one might assume that both Christianity and Islam are false because they contradict.

Different argument; we're not contrasting two different beliefs, but only one belief. It is that you're trying to establish a singular link between Peter and bishop X. The fact is that we don't know who that was; was it Linus (Irenaeus) or Clement (Tertullian) or was it the case that it was a college of deacons who ruled Rome (Sosumen)?

 

[simonthezealot]

Different argument; we're not contrasting two different beliefs, but only one belief. It is that you're trying to establish a singular link between Peter and bishop X. The fact is that we don't know who that was; was it Linus (Irenaeus) or Clement (Tertullian) or was it the case that it was a college of deacons who ruled Rome (Sosumen)?

And furthermore out of libraries of early writings none show the false claim that the petrine primacy was known for all ages as the vat statement i linked above indicates.
If i were a catholic i'd be greatly troubled by this false claim.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And furthermore out of libraries of early writings none show the false claim that the petrine primacy was known for all ages as the vat statement i linked above indicates.
If i were a catholic i'd be greatly troubled by this false claim.

I knew in April when I believe in Christ that I would be ready to die for him, and now I know from this last couple of weeks that this is the Church I am willing to die for. So just because you've got several years of studying under your belt whereas I have around two-thirds of a year or so of even believing on Christ, don't think I'm giving up on my faith just yet. I'm determined to become a great apologist for whatever the truth may be, God willing.

 

[simonthezealot]

I knew in April when I believe in Christ that I would be ready to die for him, and now I know from this last couple of weeks that this is the Church I am willing to die for. So just because you've got several years of studying under your belt whereas I have around two-thirds of a year or so of even believing on Christ, don't think I'm giving up on my faith just yet. I'm determined to become a great apologist for whatever the truth may be, God willing.

It's precious to hear that you have come to a saving faith and know Christ personally ...Praise Him for that
I am just truly saddened that you having such a keen understanding of scripture for such a young age would find it necessary to feel the necessity of validation through the ever changing traditions of men and not levied on Holy Scripture alone by His grace alone through faith in Him alone on the work of the Christ alone. To HIS Glory alone! AMEN.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I am just truly saddened that you having such a keen understanding of scripture for such a young age would find it necessary to feel the necessity of validation through the ever changing traditions of men and not levied on Holy Scripture alone by His grace alone through faith in Him alone on the work of the Christ alone. To HIS Glory alone! AMEN.

Paul put sects in the same class with fornication, murder, and idolatry. Paul said the laying on of hands was a necessary doctrine.

Jesus breathed the Spirit onto the apostles as a separate event prior to the day of Pentecost, giving them the authority to retain and remit sin.

The Holy Ghost directed the apostles to later lay hands on Paul, as a separate event from his initial conversion where Ananias put hands on him, setting him aside for the work of the ministry.

Paul acknowledged that he and the apostles had authority. Paul appointed both Titus and Timothy. He told Titus to rebuke with all authority. He also instructs Timothy to rebuke those that sin before everyone in the church, and makes mention that the presbytery had laid hands on Timothy.

This 'laying on of hands' is one thing that really hit me. If repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of baptisms, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment are solid and sure, why would there be an exception to the laying on of hands?

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Show ECF's prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognized that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome... this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

It is not claimed that this happened. It is not like a monarchy in which a king must choose his successor. Bishops don't choose their successors. Rather, the pope is the successor of St. Peter because he is the Bishop of Rome and it was at Rome that Peter was martyred.