Known for all ages?? NOT

[plmarquette]

then what was meant by Aaron and his seed in the mosaic temple...old testament

what is wrong with Peter and his successors...is it not the similar thought...

or Moses and the rulers of the congregation and the catholic magisterium...

now you have a "precident"...

 

[simonthezealot]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. *shrug*

Oh come on IBS this is a; key tenet, a fundamental of the roman belief system, one of the areas all the others in essence hinge on and your going to shrug it off? They make a claim and there is no evidence, let us get real and brush off these traditions and look up to the cross.

 

[simonthezealot]

I can furthermore provide proof of what people said, to show the contrary to what the Vatican stated. And I will not intentionally leave anything out, like so many quote miners do.
I have asked you guys to prove the Papacy over the whole church from 50 ad to 200 ad AND there is NOTHING.

 

[boswd]

I can furthermore provide proof of what people said, to show the contrary to what the Vatican stated. And I will not intentionally leave anything out, like so many quote miners do.
I have asked you guys to prove the Papacy over the whole church from 50 ad to 200 ad AND there is NOTHING.

So are you saying there never was a Bishop of Rome and are you also saying that before the East West Schism the Bishop of Rome was not declared First Among Equals and had Primacy?

let's not forgot oh Mighty word game player, that the term or word Pope was nothing more than a term of endearment, a nickname if you will. Bishop of Rome is the official title.

You always claim you are such an astute Christian Historian who lays claims that you know Christian history inside and out upside and down. And now you make claims there was never a Bishop of Rome who the others considered first among equals?

 

[simonthezealot]

So are you saying there never was a Bishop of Rome and are you also saying that before the East West Schism the Bishop of Rome was not declared First Among Equals and had Primacy?

let's not forgot oh Mighty word game player, that the term or word Pope was nothing more than a term of endearment, a nickname if you will. Bishop of Rome is the official title.

You always claim you are such an astute Christian Historian who lays claims that you know Christian history inside and out upside and down. And now you make claims there was never a Bishop of Rome who the others considered first among equals?

It's not about me boswd, read the OP.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Just doing some various study on Ignatius:

Chapter III.—Avoid schismatics. Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange (i.e., heretical) opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].

Of course, we know how much he and Clement, who are both taught directly by the apostles, exhort followers of Christ to be subject to the bishops. If you don't know... read it!

Ignatius condemns heretics outright.

One group believes dietary laws of Moses are in effect, while one does not? One of these is heretical.
One group believes you can separate the human and the divine natures of Christ, while one does not? One of these is heretical.
One group believes the human and divine natures of Christ are melded as one nature, while one does not? One of these is heretical.
One group believes the bread and wine are not the body and blood of Christ, while one does? One of these is heretical.

Elsewhere:

Epistle to the Philadelphians, Cap. 7: For when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice—the word is not mine, but God’s—Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. But if ye suspect that I spake thus, as having learned beforehand the division caused by some among you, He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I learned nothing of it from the mouth of any man. But the Spirit made an announcement to me, saying as follows: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be ye followers of Paul, and of the rest of the apostles, even as they also were of Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

They are contradictory. There are no extant records of the account. The first five or so "bishop" listings are contradictory. There's only vain pretending as Firmilian said. But don't feel bad, no one can produce their rolls of bishops, except for the apostles to Polycarp; there's no questions or contradictions there.

You mean of the resurrection? Or the bishops?

Not you too ...

 

[sunlover1]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen. *shrug*

We don't really believe men's traditions because they say so though right?

Church member: " Why should I believe such and such"

Pastor: "Because it's what we've always taught"

 

[boswd]

We don't really believe men's traditions because they say so though right?

Church member: " Why should I believe such and such"

Pastor: "Because it's what we've always taught"

church member : "how do I know God is real, I can't see him

Pastor: "Because you have to have Faith"

 

[Standing Up]

So are you saying there never was a Bishop of Rome and are you also saying that before the East West Schism the Bishop of Rome was not declared First Among Equals and had Primacy?

let's not forgot oh Mighty word game player, that the term or word Pope was nothing more than a term of endearment, a nickname if you will. Bishop of Rome is the official title.

You always claim you are such an astute Christian Historian who lays claims that you know Christian history inside and out upside and down. And now you make claims there was never a Bishop of Rome who the others considered first among equals?

Dude, EO agree with the OP. It's not as if Simon is making up something. He's asking for evidence of the claim by RC. It was known ... Well provide the evidence for that knowing. It should be easy. It was known, well show us.

Actually, if anything, the evidence shows that Rome was first 'ruled' by a 'college' of 'bishops', not by the later development of a singular Pope.

 

[simonthezealot]

Just doing some various study on Ignatius:

Of course, we know how much he and Clement, who are both taught directly by the apostles, exhort followers of Christ to be subject to the bishops. If you don't know... read it!

Ignatius condemns heretics outright.

I've read it...
Not sure what Iggys stuff has to do with anything?
Clement to the corinthians said himself who Corinth should submit to AND IT WAS NOT HIM.

Clement a great man of Gods epistle bleeds band of brother leadership not monarchical...

 

[boswd]

I've read it...
Not sure what Iggys stuff has to do with anything?
Clement to the corinthians said himself who Corinth should submit to AND IT WAS NOT HIM.

Clement a great man of Gods epistle bleeds band of brother leadership not monarchical...

But was Clement the Bishop of Rome and did not the early church regard the Bishop of Rome First Among Equals?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I've read it...
Not sure what Iggys stuff has to do with anything?

I just said, a 'variant study'... I was deviating a bit, and just posting what I came across as I found it interesting, while studying to maybe find some information regarding. There's no problem, is there?

 

[boswd]

Dude, EO agree with the OP. It's not as if Simon is making up something. He's asking for evidence of the claim by RC. It was known ... Well provide the evidence for that knowing. It should be easy. It was known, well show us.

Actually, if anything, the evidence shows that Rome was first 'ruled' by a 'college' of 'bishops', not by the later development of a singular Pope.

Dude the EO will even say if East and West got back together the Bishop of Rome would still have Primacy.

This is when I miss Anglian, he knew how to put you quote miners and fact twisters into place and he is an OO, and had no horse in this race. LOL

 

[ivebeenshown]

Not you too ...

Sorry for asking?

 

[simonthezealot]

I did you and your claims that the Bishop of Rome never existed and never had Primacy among Bishops.

You claim you know soo much of Christian History, so it's awfully interesting for you to be ignorant of this fact.

I"m assuming you also do not think Peter was First Among Equals as well.

Your ability to NOT understand a simple point perplexes me.
My view or any protestants view on Peter's position is irrelevant...
Back to the discussion. As you well know, what I am asking for is not at all unreasonable. This goes back 1700 years as Rome began to assert itself in a way that other Bishops did not agree with. Don't try to frame this as some kind of radical statement. What I am asking for is at the core of the Orthodox/Catholic split, is it not? At the core of this debate, is my request that Catholicism prove its claim of Papal supremacy. Everyone knows this is the primary issue that caused a massive split 1000 years ago. This is not a Simon invention. Reasonable people disagreed then and now. Do you think the Orthodox church is absurd as well for not believing this? I keep mentioning the Orthodox because most scholars in this particular area of the Papacy tend to be Catholic or Orthodox.
For most Protestants, who are content with a simplistic petra/petros argument, they never investigate further.

This is not a Simon argument. It is a debate that has raged on for 1700 to 1800 years, This stance of Catholicism must be proven. It has no room for development by their own decrees:
I can show you quotes that show how the early Church viewed this. I can provide quote after quote of how they viewed this. Remember, this doctrine does not develop according to their beliefs but has always been there.

First Vatican Council
"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. 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"

 

[simonthezealot]

I just said, a 'variant study'... I was deviating a bit, and just posting what I came across as I found it interesting, while studying to maybe find some information regarding. There's no problem, is there?

No sir friend, i just didn't want to miss something you may have thought was relevant...Sorry if it sounded short.

 

[simonthezealot]

did not the early church regard the Bishop of Rome First Among Equals?

Nope.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No sir friend, i just didn't want to miss something you may have thought was relevant...Sorry if it sounded short.

No problem, I just like to post my current readings as a sort of 'reminder' to myself, like when you study a book it's best to output some of the input to make it 'stick'.

But, a question: do you deny that 'apostolic succession' was a doctrine that was held early-on? And if you do not deny this, what makes you think a random bishop is going to get away with being appointed, who the congregation has not heard of or been acquainted with?

 

[Standing Up]

Dude the EO will even say if East and West got back together the Bishop of Rome would still have Primacy.

This is when I miss Anglian, he knew how to put you quote miners and fact twisters into place and he is an OO, and had no horse in this race. LOL

Funny stuff. You're arguing for your own salvific endangerment, according to Roman Catholicism. Read the OP document.