Known for all ages?? NOT

[ivebeenshown]

You should go back and read the OP, Ireneaus was addressed as well...

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

I know what you have to say about Irenaeus but your 'challenge' in the OP was apparently to prove that someone else took Peter's office.

Irenaeus acknowledges that there was a list of successors of Peter's office. There ya go. For your reading pleasure:

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 .

It should be noted that in Catholic thought, the keys are in a way 'tied' to the Papal office. Peter didn't 'hand them over' to anyone in Antioch. He ordained a bishop, sure, but he didn't 'hand over' the keys to them which would be effectively handing over his office. Rather Peter died, and then his office was succeeded by Linus.

 

[simonthezealot]

I know what you have to say about Irenaeus but your 'challenge' in the OP was apparently to prove that someone else took Peter's office.

Irenaeus acknowledges that there was a list of successors of Peter's office. There ya go. For your reading pleasure:

It should be noted that in Catholic thought, the keys are in a way 'tied' to the Papal office. Peter didn't 'hand them over' to anyone in Antioch. He ordained a bishop, sure, but he didn't 'hand over' the keys to them which would be effectively handing over his office. Rather Peter died, and then his office was succeeded by Linus.

That Peter gave directly the keys to the next in Rome where universal authority was to be maintained? IOW where is it that Rome holds the authority? Where is it that Peter alone held and passed it to Rome alone? ...
That Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome

 

[plmarquette]

So what is your point....?

as with Aaron and his seed, one seat, one family, the will of God in the wilderness
the rulers of the congregation via Moses

Jesus gave peter oversight of the 12 ...

any growing group needs some form of church government and a means to keep message on track....

Moses started rulers of 50-10-0-1000 Peter and 12 did same deal and it became known as the "magesterium"

so how do you spin it?

 

[simonthezealot]

So what is your point....?

as with Aaron and his seed, one seat, one family, the will of God in the wilderness
the rulers of the congregation via Moses

Jesus gave peter oversight of the 12 ...

any growing group needs some form of church government and a means to keep message on track....

Moses started rulers of 50-10-0-1000 Peter and 12 did same deal and it became known as the "magesterium"

so how do you spin it?

Look Rome in the first vat council makes a mighty bold claim, I'm simply saying prove it... Here it is again..
For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

 

[sunlover1]

Look Rome in the first vat council makes a mighty bold claim, I'm simply saying prove it... Here it is again..
For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges,to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

Then Scripture is broken.
Jesus brought the kingdom of God,
I have the kingdom of God within me..
Bummer that I have no keys?
Bah

 

[ivebeenshown]

That Peter gave directly the keys to the next in Rome where universal authority was to be maintained? IOW where is it that Rome holds the authority? Where is it that Peter alone held and passed it to Rome alone? ...
That Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome

Well that's it... 'passing the keys' as you call it, it's not like he physically hands keys over, it has to do with succeeding him in his office. Irenaeus says that Linus succeeded Peter in his office. When Peter ordained a bishop in Antioch, that bishop didn't take Peter's office.

 

[simonthezealot]

Well that's it... 'passing the keys' as you call it, it's not like he physically hands keys over, it has to do with succeeding him in his office. Irenaeus says that Linus succeeded Peter in his office. When Peter ordained a bishop in Antioch, that bishop didn't take Peter's office.

Have you read Ireneaus? that's what he does and not just at Rome...This has nothing to do with universal authority and furthermore he says from Peter and Paul

 

[ivebeenshown]

Have you read Ireneaus? that's what he does and not just at Rome... This has nothing to do with universal authority and furthermore he says from Peter and Paul

I was not discussing 'universal authority', I was discussing who succeeded Peter's episcopal office, that's what your challenge was, right? Evidence that Peter's episcopal office was succeeded by someone?

But your premise is invalid anyways:
That Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome

Peter didn't 'hand over the keys' in Antioch, he simply ordained a bishop there. Then in Rome, Peter resided as the bishop, and it was Linus who succeeded Peter in his episcopal office.

 

[simonthezealot]

I was not discussing 'universal authority', I was discussing who succeeded Peter's episcopal office, that's what your challenge was, right? Evidence that Peter's episcopal office was succeeded by someone?

But your premise is invalid anyways:
That Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop... (we know it happened in Antioch) prove it happened in Rome

Peter didn't 'hand over the keys' in Antioch, he simply ordained a bishop there. Then in Rome, Peter resided as the bishop, and it was Linus who succeeded Peter in his episcopal office.

Eusebius:
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.

 

[simonthezealot]

.I'm not seeking anything difficult only what Rome claims...
Look Rome in the first vat council makes a mighty bold claim, I'm simply saying prove THIS..

For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges,to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm not seeking anything difficult only what Rome claims...
Look Rome in the first vat council makes a mighty bold claim, I'm simply saying prove THIS..

For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges,to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

So all we need to know is:
1. how is it known to all ages
2. The Holy See of Rome was founded by him
3. Jesus instituted primacy among the apostles.

#3 seems suspect on the grounds of how Jesus responded when the aspostles discussed who was greatest among themselves. (and they did so at seemingly inappropriate times as well)
Luke 22:20: Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. 24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Luke9:42: And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

That forces a different concept of the necessity & nature of both ecclesiastical unity & apostolic succession. External form is not where essential unity resides.
He instituted the authority OF truth, not anyone's authority OVER truth.
The authority men wield is only as legitimate as whatever truth they hold in righteousness. No profligate sinner can be inerrant on faith & morals despite his impeccable pedigree or the collusion of his peers.
The previous scriptures illustrate this pretty plainly.
The rationalizations for papal authority rely on almost cryptic symbology & overbearing OT, pre-grace modeling.

 

[simonthezealot]

So all we need to know is:
1. how is it known to all ages
2. The Holy See of Rome was founded by him
3. Jesus instituted primacy among the apostles.

#3 seems suspect on the grounds of how Jesus responded when the aspostles discussed who was greatest among themselves. (and they did so at seemingly inappropriate times as well)
Luke 22:20: Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! 23 And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. 24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Luke9:42: And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,44 Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.46 Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

That forces a different concept of the necessity & nature of both ecclesiastical unity & apostolic succession. External form is not where essential unity resides.
He instituted the authority OF truth, not anyone's authority OVER truth.
The authority men wield is only as legitimate as whatever truth they hold in righteousness. No profligate sinner can be inerrant on faith & morals despite his impeccable pedigree or the collusion of his peers.
The previous scriptures illustrate this pretty plainly.
The rationalizations for papal authority rely on almost cryptic symbology & overbearing OT, pre-grace modeling.

Love this comment you said, "The authority men wield is only as legitimate as whatever truth they hold in righteousness."

You've pretty soundly defeated #3, i'd just like to see some type of an inkling as to how any catholic WILL respond to #1. Which is worthy of having it's own thread... What say you defenders of the indefensible papacy?
how is it known to all ages?

 

[sunlover1]

Love this comment you said, "The authority men wield is only as legitimate as whatever truth they hold in righteousness."

You've pretty soundly defeated #3, i'd just like to see some type of an inkling as to how any catholic WILL respond to #1. Which is worthy of having it's own thread... What say you defenders of the indefensible papacy?
how is it known to all ages?

If it can be proven that it was "known to all ages" I will convert.

 

[Rick Otto]

Does "all ages" mean kids & adults? (I keed, I yoos keeding)

 

[simonthezealot]

If it can be proven that it was "known to all ages" I will convert.

#metoo