Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My reference to EO teachings was only to add credibilty to the line of the bishops of Rome. It was not to show proof of a supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Though the EO will at times agree that there was or maybe is a primacy with the Bishop of Rome.
Agree. Somewhere along the way in this thread, the topic changed (for some posters) from "Is there a line of bishops?" to "Is there a line of Popes?" I agree that the line of bishops of Rome is essentially established, but of course that doesn't make them Popes--which I hope you agree is correct.
Augustine of Hippo wrote a letter (#53) where he mentions the succession of Popes. This letter is from 400 AD.
More on Augustine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_hippo
Letter 53 Quote:
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius."
Additional works by Augustine: http://www.augustinian.villanova.edu/AugustinianStudies/august5.htm
That my friend is the contention between East and West.
I have seen where the "Keys" to the Kingdom given Peter and his 'seat' a supreme authority over the other Bishops based on similiar powers given to the holder of the Key of the House of David. That is where Simon and I left off long ago...
What about Pope Clement I who was the Bishop that first took the chair of Peter. What does he say regarding the succession of Bishops. About 80 AD, and John (the Apostle) was still around until 100 AD.
More on Pope Clement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_I
His Letter to the Corinthians:
Quote 42:
he apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."
Quote 44:
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.
It's really the difference between the Church of Rome and every other Christian church.
Right. That's not so easily decided. But at least we can agree that listing bishops does not--in itself--a case for the Papacy make.
This quote shows two things. First is shows that there was recognized and recorded a line of Bishops in Rome and that the church felt it important to keep track of a line of Bishops to Peter who they placed a special authority in.
Secondly it shows that Peter was of prime importance to Jesus in starting his church
and that Peter is the only Apostle we know of where Jesus gave a special name as though as a title, "Cephus". No record of any having been called Cephus before and in direct relationship to Peter being the first of all the Apostles. Being the first also shows a Primacy.
If there is any question as to the Keys and Peter in so far as Peter's primacy (if not supremacy) then let Origen be heard.
Origen who lived from 185 AD to 254 AD and is a scholar and theologan of the Church.
More on Origen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#Exegetical_writings
Quote from Origen's commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:
"Only, it seems to be indicated that the things, which above were granted to Peter alone, are here given to all who give the three admonitions to all that have sinned; so that, if they be not heard, they will bind on earth him who is judged to be as a Gentile and a publican, as such an one has been bound in heaven. But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens," has been specially set before the words, "And what things soever you shall bind on earth," etc. And, indeed, if we were to attend carefully to the evangelical writings, we would also find here, and in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter and those who have thrice admonished the brethren, a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. The better, therefore, is the binder, so much more blessed is he who has been loosed, so that in every part of the heavens his loosing has been accomplished."
This whole quote addresses Peter as being an authority with more power than the other Apostles. This shows a primacy and supremacy in regards to Peter and so to with his successors since those same Charisms are passed on in a dynastic fashion.
So what? Origen wrote a century after the Apostolic Age closed and was an controversial thinker whose views were championed by Arians. At best, this is one man's personal opinion established much too late to tell us anything about what the bishop of Rome was supposed to be or not to be.
I can see some logic in your claims and how some one could take the stance that you are.
But this is but one author and one letter.
What about the others?
For the moment let us set the ECF letters aside.
Now let us look at the Keys to the Kingdom.
We know Jesus gave his Keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We cannot say that these Keys were given to anyone else with certainty because they are mentioned once and that is with Peter alone.
Now let us consider a possible meaning for the "Keys".
What I propose is that we look at Isaias 22:22. In this passage we have almost identical text to that in Matthew where the Keys are given to Peter. In Isaias the Key of the House of David is given to one person and the Key is given to show that this one man has the powers of the King. This person is a Minister of the kingdom and with the Key to the House of David he has the authority of the King. For the Lord of the Rings fans we see this with the "Return of the King" where another is placed in charge of the Kingdom until the King returns. Any wonder why we see similiarities in the Lord of the Rings as to scripture?
So, we can see the possibility that the Key in the House of David gives that man the authority of the King. Before receiving the Key the minister would be as other ministers that are judges over the people and law makers. They bind and loose. But when one minister is given the Key he becomes the authority because of the King until the King returns.
NOW follow me in my thinking and ask yourself is it POSSIBLE.
We know Jesus is in Heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father. Jesus could be said to have left Peter the Keys to the Kingdom so Peter could rule in Jesus' place here because Jesus entrusted that to his lead Apostle. Of course when Jesus returns he will take his Keys back.
But also consider that the Keys are dynastic as with the House of David so that when one Bishop leaves another takes his place.
You say,
What I propose is that we look at Isaias 22:22. In this passage we have almost identical text to that in Matthew where the Keys are given to Peter. In Isaias the Key of the House of David is given to one person and the Key is given to show that (this one man) has the powers of the King.
I say,
I see a conflict of interest here "that man" was just a man.
My point is that I am asking for consideration. It is plausible and if you look closely you will agree.
Then you are giving up the idea that subsequent bishops of Rome have that power, assuming that there is some. All right. No Papacy.
It might be...if the comparison were as you are making it out to be. However, it is not as good a comparison as you say. David received political authority. The Popes supposedly are the administrators of the Church, not government. In the OT, David received a "key." Peter got "Keys." Then too, keys appear in scripture elsewhere symbolising nothing to do with either David or Peter. No, the comparison is not convincing.
And he "could" have had an angel write the Book of Mormon and stash it in a hill in New York state. He "could" have done almost anything, but we can only deal with what he advised us that he actually chose to do.
You've already pointed out that Peter was the only one to receive what Jesus was offering. In addition, the bishops of Rome are NOT a dynasty. They are not blood relatives of each other as in a royal lineage, and you cannot overlook the fact that the Popes are spiritual rulers in theory while the House of David was, as you noted, a poltical line and jurisdiction.
In Isa. 22:22 it says, "The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder. So he shall open, and one one shall shut, and he shall shut, and no one shall open."
By this I believe that they are saying that steward had the "key" that gave him an audience with the king.
(See Matt. 16:19 and Rev. 3:7).
Our Lord Jesus Christ said to Peter, "I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Now we can look at this verse as being a means of opening up His Kingdom to the various groups of people, such as Jews in Acts 2 & 3; the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17, and the Gentiles in Acts 10.
Those keys would open doors to lost people. And the binding and loosing is referring to what we can do and cannot do, or permitted or not permitted to do.
This passage could therefore refer to those judgements that Peter may have to make about what would be permitted or forbidden in the Church, the body of believers of his time. Much the same today, as we all have the "keys to heaven".
Rev. 3:7 is talking about the Faithful Church, not man!
In Luke 11:52 it speaks about "taking away the key of knowledge", as the people are not brought to a good understand of our Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ.
In Rev. 20:1, it speak about the "having the key to the bottomless pit", and this doesn't point to man!
And in Rev. 1:18, it talks about our Lord Jesus Christ "having the keys of Hades and of Death", which no doubt it is talking about HIS eternal existence, HIS becoming of a man, and dying on the cross, and HIS glorified resurrection state. This also refers to HIS authority over those who had died physically.
I can't see how man of today can be placed in the same realm of the "keys" or "key" as in the case of what I have posted above.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?