Here's the pattern....

[simonthezealot]

One thing at a time.

Did my quote help to validate what I posted?

Not for me
Here it is..

So when I quote Irenaeus who was taught in the first generation of the Apsotles and in full accord with the Apostles teachings I think it proof of the correct way to understand church and to avoid being deceived.

 

[simonthezealot]

Let us go to Primacy of Rome then.

Cyprian

About the mid 3rd century, many of the North African bishop convened in a council to support a doctrine that the bishop of Rome opposed, among other people. In that context, Cyprian denied that there's any Pope:

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage.

In regards to his view of the primacy of Peter, note that he explains that the primacy is not jurisdictional it is symbolic and chronological:

"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)

Cyprian viewed every bishop as successors of Peter, and that all of them possess the keys and having the words of Matthew 16 applied to them:

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." (Epistle 26:1)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Not for me
Here it is..

I have used teachings from Irenaeus that should show credibility to what the Catholic Church teaches. His writing alone may not be construed as proof but it is evidence.

When we discuss difference between Catholicism and some Christian denomination from the Protestant era we can look to those closest to the Apostles for further understanding.

When a Protestant brings something to me from the ECF of the first three hundred years that supports their teaching today and contradicts the RCC teaching then it to can be evidence.

Catholics have many such 'evidence' to procure. Yet, when do we see Protestants procure anything from Christianity in it's infancy?

Let us gather some evidence and formulate a proof.

 

[holdon]

As I have said and many others for close to 2,000 years.

The Catholic Church is the Church we look to for Truth for it is the teachings of God, undefiled and free from perversion.

But I don't find much of "undefiled" stuff there....

And I am not looking to the Roman Church for Truth.... It would be a disaster.

 

[Trento]

I see your being remiss in mentioning his views on church government, papal legitimacy and roman primacy. Once you understand that, the above comment takes on a different meaning...I'd gladly share this with you if you wish.

I'll gladly share these Protestant Church Historical Scholars who have spent a lifetime studying Patristics.




Protestant Historical scholar Harnack says about Rome,

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954
Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). When even a liberal Protestant scholar such as Dr. Harnack makes such a concession as this, how can we argue about this issue?

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954

Pay close attention to this nnext one on St Irenaeus

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy: ​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot ProtestantChurch historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.



Protestant Philip Schaff states in History of the Christian Church, volume 2 (Eerdmans, 1910)
"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, page 157)

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising St. John, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)
​

​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

....

Before we begin let us agree that for the sake of argument here that 'Pope' means the Bishop that holds a primacy to other Bishops.

*If you wish we can even add that it is the Bishop of Rome since that is where Peter and Paul were martyred and where the early church looked for teaching.

 

[simonthezealot]

Before we begin let us agree that for the sake of argument here that 'Pope' means the Bishop that holds a primacy to other Bishops.

*If you wish we can even add that it is the Bishop of Rome since that is where Peter and Paul were martyred and where the early church looked for teaching.

Fair enough. I'm heading out shortly for a family force five concert with some new Christians shortly so it may be tomorrow...I promise to follow up.

***note no offense to trento but I need to put him on ignore for this as his monster fonts tend to sidetrack me.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Cyprian

About the mid 3rd century, many of the North African bishop convened in a council to support a doctrine that the bishop of Rome opposed, among other people. In that context, Cyprian denied that there's any Pope:

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage.

In regards to his view of the primacy of Peter, note that he explains that the primacy is not jurisdictional it is symbolic and chronological:

"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)

Cyprian viewed every bishop as successors of Peter, and that all of them possess the keys and having the words of Matthew 16 applied to them:

"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." (Epistle 26:1)

The bold in your post would signify your understanding and the quote below would be a snipet from something Cyprian wrote...

With this in mind I would like to show that your snipets could have a duplex meaning and that in no way would it be a contradiction to the Bishop of Rome having a Primacy among equals.

To do that I would only need one good quote from Cyprian where he admonishes a primacy to the Bishop of Rome or Rome itself.


Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


I think it is plain that Cyprian gives a Primacy to Peter. We also see that there is but one Chair which is a source of his authority and one that when we look at history and consider the Chaor of Moses that we will see a dynastic relationship to the "Chair".

In this snipet we see both a Primacy and one that is not for Peter alone but also his successor becuase of the Chair.

So shall we question the location as being Rome or would we argue Antioch vs Rome at this point?

I think it clear that in writing a message can contain two meanings and for these meanings to have no contradiction. It is in this manner that some of Cyprian's writings could seem duplex and contradictory. But I think that is far fetched when we see the same duplexity that one would claim to be contradictory in the same letter.

So, it seems kind of conclusive to me that Cyprian not only saw a primacy in Peter but anyone that sits in the Chair afterwards.

 

[Melethiel]

No, they went out. St. Andrew, for example, is claimed by the Slavs as evangelizing them, while St. Thomas is commonly held to have gone to India.

They were to go out in the whole world. They were only to stay in Jerusalem till they would receive the power of the Holy Spirit.
They stayed in Jerusalem.
Later, they went out, except those killed, but mostly not of their own will, but bound in chains etc...

 

[holdon]

No, they went out. St. Andrew, for example, is claimed by the Slavs as evangelizing them, while St. Thomas is commonly held to have gone to India.

"Claimed" is the word. We have no inspired text to confirm that. But maybe they did. However not at first in Acts 8.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Fair enough. I'm heading out shortly for a family force five concert with some new Christians shortly so it may be tomorrow...I promise to follow up.

***note no offense to trento but I need to put him on ignore for this as his monster fonts tend to sidetrack me.

I will look for you tomorrow.

We will need to pull a whole copy of the "Unity of the Church" I think.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic
Before we begin let us agree that for the sake of argument here that 'Pope' means the Bishop that holds a primacy to other Bishops.

*If you wish we can even add that it is the Bishop of Rome since that is where Peter and Paul were martyred and where the early church looked for teaching.

Well, we know the Jews couldn't look toward the rulers of Jerusalem for teachings shortly after they died.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him.
And shall be coming the Romans/rwmaioi <4514> and they shall be taking away of Us and the Place and the Nation.

Reve 6:6 And I hear as a-sound in midst of the four living-ones, saying: "choinex of grain of Denarius/dhnariou <1220> and three choinex of barleys of Denarius/dhnariou <1220> and the olive-oil and the wine no you should be injuring".

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival and the city was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers,...........
.......The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins

 

[E.C.]

"Claimed" is the word. We have no inspired text to confirm that. But maybe they did. However not at first in Acts 8.

Many things do not have texts to support them and not all things about the first century of Christianity is in Acts.

 

[holdon]

Many things do not have texts to support them and not all things about the first century of Christianity is in Acts.

And your point is?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, we know the Jews couldn't look toward the rulers of Jerusalem for teachings shortly after they died.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

John 11:48 "If-ever we may be be letting Him thus, all shall be believing in Him.
And shall be coming the Romans/rwmaioi <4514> and they shall be taking away of Us and the Place and the Nation.

Reve 6:6 And I hear as a-sound in midst of the four living-ones, saying: "choinex of grain of Denarius/dhnariou <1220> and three choinex of barleys of Denarius/dhnariou <1220> and the olive-oil and the wine no you should be injuring".

http://www.davieapostolicchurch.com/studies/destuct/

The day on which Titus encompassed Jerusalem, was the feast of the Passover. At this season multitudes came up from all the surrounding country, and from distant parts, to keep the festival and the city was at this time crowded with Jewish strangers,...........
.......The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins

And come 70 AD there would be no Temple for sacrifices for the Jews. I wonder why they never figured that one out.

 

[E.C.]

And your point is?

Just because something was not written does not mean that it never happened.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Many things do not have texts to support them and not all things about the first century of Christianity is in Acts.

Like what for instance as they all generally quoted from the OC Scriptures.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Y@sha`yah 53:7 He-is-oppressed/exacted. And-he one-being-humbled, and-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him.
As-flockling to-slaughter he-is-fetched. And-as-ewe before/faces ones-shearing-her she is mute. And-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him. [Acts 53:7]

Acts 8:32 The yet contexts of the Scripture which He read was this: `As a-sheep/flockling/probaton<4263> onto slaughter/sfaghn <4967> he was led; and as a-Lamb/amnoV <286> before of the one shearing Him, soundless, thus not opening the mouth of Him; [Isaiah 53:7]

http://christianforums.com/t5858522&page=13&highlight=isaiah

 

[sunlover1]

I will look for you tomorrow.

We will need to pull a whole copy of the "Unity of the Church" I think.

I believe that there is already unity in the church.
If Christ is the head, and we have the mind of Christ...

What lake did that big fish come out of Jack?
And how do you like this nonstop slip sliding?

 

[holdon]

Just because something was not written does not mean that it never happened.

And the reverse is true too: because something was written does not mean it ever happened.....

 

[ScottBot]

And the reverse is true too: because something was written does not mean it ever happened.....

Just because something was not written does not mean that it did happen.