Jesus Says a Church Doesn't Need a Bishop

[Dale]

Jesus renamed Simon as Rock Jesus using words paralleling Isaiah 22, which every Jew of the time should have recognized. Then Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Rock (Peter) and to no other Apostle.
In Isaiah, the keys to the kingdom are given to the prime minister by the king so that the people know the prime minister has full authority when the king is absent.

Here is a question for Roman Catholics. The RCC’s official list of Popes says that Peter died in 67 AD, that is, he was executed by the Romans in 67 AD. According to the list of popes, the following popes are:

Reigned as Pope (AD)

Linus 67-76
Anacletus 76-88
Clement I 88-97
Evaristus 97-105



Traditionally, the Apostle John lived longer than any of the other original Apostles. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says that John died in Ephesus in 100 AD. Why didn’t John become Pope when Peter died? John was personally instructed by Jesus for three years. Are we supposed to believe that John was subordinate to the Popes Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, and Evaristus? Or that any of these men would be Pope while the Apostle John was still alive?

Catholic tradition says that Peter went to Rome. Since Peter was the highest ranking Christian in Rome, he was the Bishop of Rome. Yet I have never seen Catholics refer to the Apostle John as a Bishop. If he spent his last years in Ephesus, wouldn’t that make John the Bishop of Ephesus?

If the early Christian Church is a hierarchy, I cannot believe that John was lower ranking than the various popes who held that office between 67 and 100 AD.

Link
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes List of popes
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. John the Evangelist Apostle John

 

[timothyu]

If the early Christian Church is a hierarchy, I cannot believe that John was lower ranking than the various popes who held that office between 67 and 100 AD.

You are forgetting the word Roman

 

[Valletta]

Here is a question for Roman Catholics. The RCC’s official list of Popes says that Peter died in 67 AD, that is, he was executed by the Romans in 67 AD. According to the list of popes, the following popes are:

Reigned as Pope (AD)

Linus 67-76
Anacletus 76-88
Clement I 88-97
Evaristus 97-105



Traditionally, the Apostle John lived longer than any of the other original Apostles. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says that John died in Ephesus in 100 AD. Why didn’t John become Pope when Peter died? John was personally instructed by Jesus for three years. Are we supposed to believe that John was subordinate to the Popes Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, and Evaristus? Or that any of these men would be Pope while the Apostle John was still alive?

Catholic tradition says that Peter went to Rome. Since Peter was the highest ranking Christian in Rome, he was the Bishop of Rome. Yet I have never seen Catholics refer to the Apostle John as a Bishop. If he spent his last years in Ephesus, wouldn’t that make John the Bishop of Ephesus?

If the early Christian Church is a hierarchy, I cannot believe that John was lower ranking than the various popes who held that office between 67 and 100 AD.

Link
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: List of Popes List of popes
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. John the Evangelist Apostle John

The position of pope in the Catholic Church does not mean that the person is more holy than anyone else. We don't have an historical record of how the early popes after Peter were chosen.

 

[Albion]

Traditionally, the Apostle John lived longer than any of the other original Apostles. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says that John died in Ephesus in 100 AD. Why didn’t John become Pope when Peter died?

There was no mechanism existing at that time by which Popes were chosen. So the Roman Church later on simply stipulated that the next bishop of Rome was the second Pope. And I do mean "stipulated" because Peter didn't make Linus his successor, he wasn't even living in Rome at that time, and he of course had no idea that there was such a thing as a Pope. No one did.

However, the theory behind the Papacy, the Papal office, is that there has been an unbroken line of these men from Peter to the present, so it's necessary when making up a list like the one you presented to us, to make it look seamless.

John was personally instructed by Jesus for three years. Are we supposed to believe that John was subordinate to the Popes Linus, Anacletus, Clement I, and Evaristus? Or that any of these men would be Pope while the Apostle John was still alive?

Also, according the Catholic theory, the Pope is the bishop of Rome. The townsmen of Rome called for their favorite to be made Peter's successor as bishop--and John was nowhere near--so it was done.

Catholic tradition says that Peter went to Rome. Since Peter was the highest ranking Christian in Rome, he was the Bishop of Rome. Yet I have never seen Catholics refer to the Apostle John as a Bishop.

All the Apostles are considered to be bishops, the first ones, even if they were not installed as such. John didn't have jurisdiction over any diocese (a bishop's territory) however.

If he spent his last years in Ephesus, wouldn’t that make John the Bishop of Ephesus?

No, just like today, some cities are the headquarters of a territory under their oversight. But many others are not. It's very much like states with state capitals.

 

[Dale]

The position of pope in the Catholic Church does not mean that the person is more holy than anyone else. We don't have an historical record of how the early popes after Peter were chosen.

Roman Catholics tell me that Peter was the absolute ruler of the Christian Church after Jesus ascended into heaven. That isn’t what I see in the Book of Acts. When I look at the early part of Acts, over and over it says “Peter and John …” Peter and John said this, Peter and John said that, Peter and John did this, Peter and John did that. Peter and John are arrested together, are brought to trial together and defend themselves together.

I don’t see autocracy here, I see partnership.

 

[Dale]

The position of pope in the Catholic Church does not mean that the person is more holy than anyone else. We don't have an historical record of how the early popes after Peter were chosen.

In Acts 15, we have the Council of Jerusalem, where the Apostles gathered and discussed admitting gentiles to the church. Roman Catholics tell me that Peter was the ruler of the church at this gathering. In their eyes, various people spoke, including Paul and Barnabas, then Peter made the decision.

That’s not what Acts says. Various people speak, including Peter, Paul and Barnabas. It is actually James who sums up the consensus of the meeting.

“When they finished, James spoke up: “Brothers, listen to me. …” Acts 15:17 RSV

James continues through verse 21. In verse 19:

[James says,] “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them …”

James says that it is his judgment, not Peters. It seems to be a consensus.

It is also a collective decision when they decide who to send.

“Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” --Acts 15:22 RSV

There is no sign that the church has a single ruler, and certainly Peter is not the sole ruler.

 

[Dale]

The position of pope in the Catholic Church does not mean that the person is more holy than anyone else. We don't have an historical record of how the early popes after Peter were chosen.

The priesthood of all believers is a traditional Protestant belief. I’ve asked ministers where this comes from and they point me to this verse.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
praises of him who called you out of darkness into his
wonderful light.
I Peter 2:9 NIV

It is Peter himself who says that all Christians are called by God to be a “holy nation” and a “royal priesthood.”

 

[Albion]

Roman Catholics tell me that Peter was the absolute ruler of the Christian Church after Jesus ascended into heaven. That isn’t what I see in the Book of Acts. When I look at the early part of Acts, over and over it says “Peter and John …” Peter and John said this, Peter and John said that, Peter and John did this, Peter and John did that. Peter and John are arrested together, are brought to trial together and defend themselves together.

Not only that, but the first century church didn't consider Peter to be the ruler of the universal church, either. Or its leader. James and Paul were often said to be that person, but no matter who it might have been, the position of Pope wasn't even known at the time.

 

[Valletta]

The priesthood of all believers is a traditional Protestant belief. I’ve asked ministers where this comes from and they point me to this verse.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy
nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the
praises of him who called you out of darkness into his
wonderful light.
I Peter 2:9 NIV

It is Peter himself who says that all Christians are called by God to be a “holy nation” and a “royal priesthood.”

We are all priests in one sense of the word.

 

[Valletta]

Not only that, but the first century church didn't consider Peter to be the ruler of the universal church, either. Or its leader. James and Paul were often said to be that person, but no matter who it might have been, the position of Pope wasn't even known at the time.

Jesus was and is the ruler, Peter, as pope, was more of a prime minister.

 

[Albion]

Jesus was and is the ruler, Peter, as pope, was more of a prime minister.

That's just to recite the RCIA talking points.

 

[timothyu]

Jesus was and is the ruler, Peter, as pope, was more of a prime minister.

All and well if you build it in the image of the world, but what they had was of the Kingdom. Man's systems do not exist there.

 

[Valletta]

That's just to recite the RCIA talking points.

I've never been to RCIA. I don't consider the pope a ruler, he is a servant of the people. I, for example, disagree with many of his statements. On the rare occasions when a pope, after consulting with the bishops, speaks for the entire Church, as Peter did when he decided that Baptism would replace circumcision, then (just like the Apostles) I accept his decision.

 

[Albion]

I've never been to RCIA.

It really wouldn't matter. The point was that posting denominational arguments but not offering anything in addition that might make them persuasive is just testifying. It's not helpful on a discussion board since it leaves everyone else with nothing to comment on except to say "yes, we know that that's what you were taught."

 

[Trev T]

The problem with everything you said.. Catholic councils were used by God to set the Bible. I guess the options were limited, but how do you go "the Bible is infallible" if Catholicism was never for Heaven? Did "the mass" of believers go to hell until God lead Luther, Calvin, etc.? I don't know. It's very perplexing.. in one breath to go "Catholicism is evil! They worship the dead and statues!", then go, "The Bible is perfect, infallible, without error." I guess there were a book or two Luther didn't consider from God. I don't know. Where did Christians go after the Roman take-over? After the schism and the formation of east and west? Where do Catholics go now? Are 1.2 billion incapable of reaching God? Are all those Eastern Orthodox confused with history that has been recorded for 1000 years? And 1000 before that? I don't know. The reformation seems a bit of a stretch the more I think. How is Apostolic Succession so untrue because of that verse? If that's all it takes for you to form your foundation in Christ, why should i trust you?

 

[Dale]

Catholics consider the Bible the Word of God. There is no reason to avoid the Isaiah text Jesus was pointing toward in Matthew 16:19:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Isaiah 22:22: " I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."
As the Bible documents, Jesus gave these keys to Peter and to no other Apostle. As to copying the Bible by hand, remember you're talking to a Catholic, Catholics not only preached the Bible, but translated Biblical text into many common languages and copied script by hand century after century until a Catholic named Gutenberg gave us the printing press--his first printed book was the Bible. At the time of Jesus Greek was quite popular, in fact the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint for preaching Holy Scripture. There was a huge ORAL tradition among Jews, and many could read at least some Greek.

There’s no evidence that Peter ever was Bishop of Rome. Even if he was, it boggles my mind how Peter’s spiritual authority would be inherited by the next Bishop of Rome. Did Peter ever make out a will saying that his spiritual authority would be inherited by the next Bishop of Rome. I don’t think so.

If Peter had been the President of the Rotary Club, would his spiritual authority be inherited by the next President of the Rotary Club? I don’t think so.





Peter’s spiritual authority as an Apostle is not something that can be inherited.

 

[timothyu]

Peter’s spiritual authority as an Apostle is not something that can be inherited.

It can in an institution with a secular influence. Those who seek to avoid the Kingdom and be of the world, not just in it, wish to carry on religion made in man's image. Christianity (the institution) is made up of both aspects, one a wide path, the other the narrow.

 

[Dale]

The problem with everything you said.. Catholic councils were used by God to set the Bible. I guess the options were limited, but how do you go "the Bible is infallible" if Catholicism was never for Heaven? Did "the mass" of believers go to hell until God lead Luther, Calvin, etc.? I don't know. It's very perplexing.. in one breath to go "Catholicism is evil! They worship the dead and statues!", then go, "The Bible is perfect, infallible, without error." I guess there were a book or two Luther didn't consider from God. I don't know. Where did Christians go after the Roman take-over? After the schism and the formation of east and west? Where do Catholics go now? Are 1.2 billion incapable of reaching God? Are all those Eastern Orthodox confused with history that has been recorded for 1000 years? And 1000 before that? I don't know. The reformation seems a bit of a stretch the more I think. How is Apostolic Succession so untrue because of that verse? If that's all it takes for you to form your foundation in Christ, why should i trust you?

You’ve said or quoted a lot of things in your post that I did not say. You mention Martin Luther. I see Martin Luther as a saint of courage but I am not bound by what he believed. Catholics are taught that Luther and Calvin started the Protestant Reformation. It isn’t that simple. I was a member of the Moravian Church. (On paper I probably still am.) The Moravian Church started sixty years before Martin Luther. As far as I can tell, the Protestant Reformation started with John Wycliffe.

The Waldenses also broke away from the Roman Catholic Church before the Protestant Reformation.



Trev: “Catholic councils were used by God to set the Bible.”

It is far more likely that Catholic Bishops went by which books were being read, and dismissed those with Gnostic influence, which takes out quite a few.

Catholics do many things that can’t be supported by anything in the Bible. Jesus never prayed to saint or a prophet, and He did not tell his followers to do so.


Trev: “Are all those Eastern Orthodox confused with history that has been recorded for 1000 years?”

A major difference between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics is that the latter believe that Peter is the Chief Apostle. An article in the Catholic Encyclopedia describes Peter as “Prince of the Apostles.” In contrast, the EO say that Jesus gave authority to all the Apostles but there is no such office as Chief Apostle or Prince of the Apostles. I have read an article by a respected Orthodox priest who argued that no one among the Apostles was always the undisputed leader.



Trev: “If that's all it takes for you to form your foundation in Christ, why should i trust you?”

I don’t understand the question.

 

[Albion]

There’s no evidence that Peter ever was Bishop of Rome.

It's generally agreed among historians that he was.

Even if he was, it boggles my mind how Peter’s spiritual authority would be inherited by the next Bishop of Rome.

That is absolutely correct! That's why I am sorry whenever I read a discussion in which one side argues that Peter was the first Pope and, therefore, that a long line of successors as bishops of Rome are Popes also. The fact is that Peter's stay in Rome, even if true, does nothing at all to prove or bolster any argument about there being a Papacy in the minds of early Christians.

Did Peter ever make out a will saying that his spiritual authority would be inherited by the next Bishop of Rome. I don’t think so.

You are correct there, too. There was not a designated successor or even a presumed one, so the townspeople ultimately sent for a local favorite who was living elsewhere at the time.

If Peter had been the President of the Rotary Club, would his spiritual authority be inherited by the next President of the Rotary Club? I don’t think so.

 

[Valletta]

There’s no evidence that Peter ever was Bishop of Rome. Even if he was, it boggles my mind how Peter’s spiritual authority would be inherited by the next Bishop of Rome. Did Peter ever make out a will saying that his spiritual authority would be inherited by the next Bishop of Rome. I don’t think so.

If Peter had been the President of the Rotary Club, would his spiritual authority be inherited by the next President of the Rotary Club? I don’t think so.

Peter’s spiritual authority as an Apostle is not something that can be inherited.

Read Isaiah. When the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is chosen. This should not be shocking, the Apostles also chose a replacement for Judas.