Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

Rebekah30 said:

Clement was a swell guy but no pope.


Clement is a great example for pastors and everyone else! he exemplifies how we are to help, admonish, exhort fellow brothers in the Lord.

Click to expand...

Wasn't Clement the Bishop of Rome? That is the title of the Pope, Bishop of Rome, right?

Trento said:

Rebhekah30 said:

Clement was a swell guy but no pope

Click to expand...

.Philip Schaff (January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893, was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian and a historian of the Christian church, who, after his education, lived and taught in the United States. " His History of the Christian Church" can be found in most Protestant siminaries.

The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. .

Click to expand...

Trento,

This is why we get nowhere.
The note was made that there's no evidence that Clement was a POPE of The Roman Catholic Church.
You quote from some guy no one on the planet has heard of, who gives the RCC list of who served as bishops of the diocese of Rome - and say, "Ahha! Clement was a pope!"
You are connect invisible dots.
You have substantiated NOTHING.
The point was not that Clement 1 never existed.
The point was not that Clement 1 was never a bishop in Rome.
The point was that he was not a Pope.
Of the specific, particular, singular Catholic denomination.
And you provided NOTHING to suggest that he was.
Not even that he was a nice guy, lol.



.

Trento said:

Major Protestant Patristic Scholars agree with NewMan99.

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church 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'

Click to expand...

Trento,

So, you see NewMan99 arguing that with Clement, we have "the first step toward papal dominion." Hum.

MY position is that the bishop in Rome EVOLVED into what we now think of as the Pope of The Catholic Church. Bob's position is that the bishop of that diocese has been regarded as having the two characteristics he's stressed (infallibility and the "entire universal church" being bound to such) from at least 30 AD so that it is at least theoretically possible that Jesus founded such.

Thus, it seems to ME, what you are substantiating is that I'm right, my unseparated Catholic brother. And you seem to be suggesting that this STARTED not with Jesus in 30 AD or before, but with Clement in 90 AD or so (some 60 years after the death/resurrection of Jesus), a process of evolution of claims we can see at least through 1870 as the denomination claims that such is "infallible" (one of the two marks of the papacy, as NewMan99 noted).




.

CJ,

You quote from some guy no one on the planet has heard of,

Click to expand...

No one has heard of Philip Schaff??? Ignorance of one of the most pre-eminent church historians ever is not something I would brag about. If you never heard of him then you have some SERIOUS holes in your library. He was a PROTESTANT historian (who was NOT very favorable to Catholicism as a general rule I might add). And because he was not favorable to Catholicism as a general rule - and because he is so widely respected among patristic scholars and church historians (especially from the Protestant side) it says something worth noting when he has enough scholarly integrity to admit certain historical points that support certain claims made by Catholics. I am not saying he is right about everything he says (indeed - he was very much pro-Protestant so I disagree with a lot of his conclusions), but at least he was not given to polemics on everything and he is willing to grant a few Catholic points when he thinks that the historical evidence demands it.

Here are two of his most famous works - still widely in use by scholars:

History of the Church (8 Volumes)

Ante-Nicene Fathers and two series of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (38 Volumes)

He was a professor at Union Theological Seminary and held the chair for the school's theological encylopedia and he was also the president of the committe that translated the American Standard Version of the Bible. He was also the editor for the European Hergoz Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge for the American audience (he was a native Swiss and immigrant to America). He was a Reformed theologian - hardly friendly to Catholicism.

The point was not that Clement 1 was never a bishop in Rome.
The point was that he was not a Pope.

Click to expand...

Huh? What's the difference? As I have said repeatedly, just because the early Popes did not have the same papal style that later Popes had, does not mean that they were not Popes (read: supreme pastor of the Church, whose special ministry was given by Christ to Peter and his successors to keep the Church in unity and orthodoxy).

NewMan99 said:

Part 4 (this is a continuation from Post #302, Post #296, and Post #357)

For the sake of clarity, I'd first like to recap the premise I am providing supporting evidence for:

The papacy, defined as "the ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian church," was created by Christ, through the apostle Peter, and this ministry was thereafter succeeded to by the bishops of Rome.


This premise is really broken down into two parts:

1. The "ministry of supreme pastor with jurisdictional authority to maintain universal authority and orthodoxy within the Christian Church" was bestowed upon Peter by Jesus.

- and -

2. That the Bishops of Rome in the early Church succeeded to this same "Petrine" ministry.


My previous posts in the analysis have focused on the first part of the premise. I have provided Scriptural proof-texts which Catholics claim support our view that not only was this special ministry bestowed on Peter by Jesus, but also that the Early Church during the Apostolic era (as per examples drawn from the Book of Acts) recognized this special ministry as Peter exercised his authority (sometimes acting unilaterally) in ways that are consistent with someone who was, indeed, the supreme pastor of the Church.

Obviously, many non-Catholics interpret these Bible passages in a different light, within the context of their own faith traditions (just as we interpret them within the light of ours). But whose interpretation is right? And what about the Early Church itself - and by this I mean those within living memory of the Apostles themselves? What did those people do or say who were either direct disciples of an Apostle (or more than one), or perhaps those who were only one generation removed...the disciples of the disciples of the Apostles?

So that brings us to the second part cited above. For if non-Catholics are right in their Biblical interpretations (and we Catholics are wrong about the Biblical evidence I cited with regard to part one above), then we would not find any evidence of these Apostolic disciples/wintnesses deferring to any supposed universal jurisdictional claims by the Roman Church or its Bishops. We would not see them appealing to the Bishop of Rome to definitively settle matters pertaining to the faith and its unity and orthodoxy.

But what if we did see them acting precisely as we would expect them to act IF the Bishop of Rome was, in fact, the supreme pastor of the Church? What would that tell us - not only about how the Apostolic disciples and early Church viewed the matter, but also about the correct interpretation of the Bible passages we have been examining in this analysis?

For if we Catholics have the correct Biblical interpretation, then these Apostolic witnesses in the Early Church would behave in a certain way --- and --- conversely --- if non-Catholics have the correct Biblical interpretation, then the Apostolic witnesses - those within living memory of the Apostles and learned from the Apostles DIRECTLY - these witnesses would behave in an entirely different way.

So which is it? How did they behave? What did they write?

Click to expand...

NewMan99,


1. YOU are the one who stressed that the Papacy has to do with two things: infallibility (remember: I said authority and you replaced that with infallibility) and also that "the entire universal church" is "bound" to him (interesting word you chose, there). I don't see those things you've stressed in the definition you give here.


2. I'm respectfully very disappointed. You are an outstanding Catholic apologist, among the best I've known, and this is THE foundational, keystone claim of the RCC. You have - for quite some time now - promised that you would supply the evidence for this claim of the RCC. I assume this and the following post are that "evidence" and yet neither provides any evidence whatsoever. Nothing. Just "remember what I said" and some "ergo" commentaries. I have been waiting for evidence, confident that you would provide such. That's it? Lots of "if" statements, lots of question marks, lots of "Catholics claim?" No Scriptures (just the unique and IMHO problematic and self-serving interpretation of Matthew 18:16)? No history form at least 30 AD? Nothing that indicates that form at least 30 AD, we have confirmation that the Bishop in Rome is to be regarded as SUPREME, infallible, the Vicar of Christ, who alone as the "keys", and is the head of The Catholic Church institutional _____________ (whatever term you choose to use in stead of denomination)? Nothing that shows that JESUS founded this, rather than my view that the papacy is a concept that EVOLVED in that specific denomination and cannot be traced to Jesus or the Apostles.


3. We've seen the 3-4 Scriptures you provided. We discussed the first, Matthew 18:16, which even you admitted isn't going to get us anywhere (I think it actually undermines the Catholic argument). The other verses you supplied where ignored because they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. So, it seems, all you have is the unique, new interpretation of the RCC itself for a single passage of Scripture - one that seems weak to problematic vis-a-vis the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone - to all but the RCC alone.


4. INTERESTING you ascribed "POWER" to the papacy; wasn't it you that told me that papacy has nothing to do with power and I was wrong to say it had to do with lordship? Now YOU make it an essential part of the definition of the papacy of the RCC. Hum. Reminds me of when I said the papacy had to do with authority and you replaced that with "infalliblity." I dropped the whole "power" thing because you argued it has nothing to do with that, but I'm going back to that position now that you've made it an essential part of the very definition of the office.


My respected friend, apologetics (especially for a point so enormously critical and foundational to the entire RCC) needs more than the one verse YOU AGREE gets us nowhere and a lot of question marks and "if's." You have provided nothing that in any sense indicates that Jesus established the office of the bishop of the diocese of Rome as the infallible/unaccountable, supreme, powerful , Papacy that is "binding" (interesting word choice) to all Christians, the "whole universal church" (again, YOUR emphasis) is "bound" to that individual person. And that JESUS is the one who set all this up. Friend, an apologist needs to substantiate that such is TRUE, not just believed and/or possible. Friend, you kept promising that "it's coming" but all you did was refer us back to the verse you already mentioned long ago and admitted it accomplishes nothing.


Frankly, with all due respect, I tend to agree with our Catholic friend Trento that the office of Pope of the RCC denomination EVOLVED. And nothing has been provided that Jesus established the Papacy of the RCC; in fact, nothing that suggests that the papacy or RCC even existed. I think BOTH are things that evolved. Trento seems to suggest the papacy begins with Clement around 90 AD, I think placing even the very beginning roots of such to 90 AD (3 generations too late to have been founded by Jesus) is a huge, entirely unsubstantiated leap - Clement is a respected bishop and brother, nothing about being the infallible Pope of the denomination who speaks as the Vicar of Christ.


Well, on to your next post.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah


PS I'll respond to your post # 416 as soon as time permits, seeing if your witnesses affirm the definition you yourself gave in post # 415, as well as the two points you have consistently stressed: That the Pope is infallible and has power over all Christians everywhere - both uniquely to him alone, by virtue of Jesus establishing the Papacy of the RCC. I want to give your post the time and attention it deserves, so give me some time there. Thanks!




.

NewMan99 said:

Josiah said:

The point was not that Clement 1 was never a bishop in Rome.
The point was that he was not a Pope.
​

Click to expand...

Huh? What's the difference?

Click to expand...

Friend, a bishop is not the same as the Infallible Vicar of Christ, with SUPREME POWER and lordship over all Christians.... Not even the RCC claims such.

What this PROTESTANT person (thus, likely not embracing the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone or he'd be RCC) stated is that CLEMENT was a bishop of the diocese of Rome. Well, Larry Stoterau is the bishop of the Pacific Southwest District of my denomination. Okay. Nice. That's probably a valid historical point. But noting the history says NOTHING about Clement or Stoterau being INFALLIBLE, or the POWERFUL lord of all Christians, or having the "keys" of Peter in some unique sense, or that he (alone) is the Vicar of Christ, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. There are literally hundreds of bishops just in your singular denomination, and not even there are all of them regarded as the Infallible Pope, so it's not even an RCC claim that bishop = Pope.




.

NewMan99 said:

CJ,
.............No one has heard of Philip Schaff??? Ignorance of one of the most pre-eminent church historians ever is not something I would brag about. .

Click to expand...

The only reason I have heard of him is because Trento brings him up so much on the GT board

CJ,

So, you see NewMan99 arguing that with Clement, we have "the first step toward papal dominion." Hum.

Click to expand...

Think about it, Josiah. Step back and think about what Schaff was actually saying. He was not saying that there was no papal office prior to Clement. You are reading that into his words. He was saying that in Clement's letter to the Corinthians we have the first known historical evidence that the papal office was asserting itself in a context of universal jurisdiction. Thus it is possible that prior to this letter no other Bishop of Rome asserted a form of universal authority (since this is the first historical evidence of it) - however - we have no historical evidence that prior Bishops of Rome did not either. And since Clement was a contemporary of Peter, it can be fairly said that even if this is the first instance of papal assertion of universal authority - it came pretty darned early in Church history, and within living memory of the Apostles (while one Apostle was still alive). Also, assuming for argument's sake that Clement was the first to assert papal authority in a universal context, that does not mean that Clement's predecessors did not also have the same level (and type) of authority. Just because someone has a certain kind of authority available to them does not mean that they will necessarily be compelled to use it.

MY position is that the bishop in Rome EVOLVED into what we now think of as the Pope of The Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

And our position is that you are wrong. The problem I have with your statement is two-fold.

1. I object to your use of the word "evolve". It is a loaded term (especially among many Christians for whom the word "evolution" has a negative connotation). What does it even mean? In one context it could mean that one entity "evolved" into a different entity (i.e., dinosaurs supposedly evolved into birds). In another context it could mean something far less of a dramatic change (i.e., a species is merely adapting to its conditions when, for example, human pigmentation supposedly evolved and became darker among those who are natives along the equator than it is among those who live on the frozen tundra).

2. The more accurate word would be "developed" (and I believe this word can also suit your purposes and position too). Our position is not that the puppy grew up and became a cat - it is that the puppy grew up and became a dog.

Bob's position is that the bishop of that diocese has been regarded as having the two characteristics he's stressed (infallibility and the "entire universal church" being bound to such) from at least 30 AD so that it is at least theoretically possible that Jesus founded such.

Click to expand...

Except that you continue to impose your definitions on the terms I use, and then argue against a position that I don't really hold. You have yet to accurately articulate back to me what I really mean when I speak of infallibility and what I mean by "binding the entire universal Church". So I am saying one thing - but you are hearing something entirely different.

And you prove this very point in your next comments:

Thus, it seems to ME, what you are substantiating is that I'm right, my unseparated Catholic brother.

Click to expand...

It is good you used the qualifier "seems to ME" - because what you perceive is not exactly what we are saying to you. It might "seem" to you - but it isn't.

And you seem to be suggesting that this STARTED not with Jesus in 30 AD or before, but with Clement in 90 AD or so (some 60 years after the death/resurrection of Jesus), a process of evolution of claims we can see at least through 1870 as the denomination claims that such is "infallible" (one of the two marks of the papacy, as NewMan99 noted).

Click to expand...

Nobody is suggesting any such thing. You are reading that into the text by imposing your own definitions on terms we use. We are suggesting that the STYLE of the papacy DEVELOPED through necessity - HOWEVER - the underlying authority was ALWAYS a part of Peter's (and his successors') special ministry (as given to him by Jesus). This special ministry as supreme pastor included universal jurisdiction along with the charism of papal infallibility as the Key-bearer who would strengthen others and keep the Church both unified and orthodox. The puppy developed and got doggier - it didn't "evolve" into a cat. A puppy organically develops into a dog. The style of the early papacy developed organically into the style we see later in the Middle Ages and then continued to develop organically into the style of the current papacy.

LittleLambofJesus said:

The only reason I have heard of him is because Trento brings him up so much on the GT board

Click to expand...

With respect, LLOJ, you should have heard of him. He is very well known and well respected in scholarly circles - expecially among Protestants.

NewMan99 said:

With respect, LLOJ, you should have heard of him. He is very well known and well respected in scholarly circles - expecially among Protestants.

Click to expand...

Edit to add....I may start a thread on this, either on the GT or CH boards.......sometimes too many so called scholars can "spoil the broth"

Philip Schaff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philip Schaff (January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893), was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian and a historian of the Christian church, who, after his education, lived and taught in the United States.

He was born in Chur, Switzerland, and was educated at the gymnasium of Stuttgart, and at the universities of Tübingen, Halle and Berlin, where he was successively influenced by Baur and Schmid, by Tholuck and Julius Müller, by David Strauss and, above all, Neander. He then traveled through Italy and Sicily as tutor to Baron Krischer. In 1842 he was Privatdozent in the University of Berlin, and in 1843 he was called to become professor of church history and Biblical literature in the German Reformed Theological Seminary of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, then the only seminary of that church in America.

Friend, a bishop is not the same as the Infallible Vicar of Christ, with SUPREME POWER and lordship over all Christians.... Not even the RCC claims such.

Click to expand...

Just any old Bishop is not. The successor of St. Peter IS - and always has been. And not only does the Roman Catholic Church claim this, but so do the 23 Eastern Rite Catholic Churches too. All 24 Churches in Communion with the Holy See make this claim.

What this PROTESTANT person (thus, likely not embracing the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone or he'd be RCC) stated is that CLEMENT was a bishop of the diocese of Rome. Well, Larry Stoterau is the bishop of the Pacific Southwest District of my denomination. Okay. Nice. That's probably a valid historical point.
But noting the history says NOTHING about Clement or Stoterau being INFALLIBLE, or the POWERFUL lord of all Christians, or having the "keys" of Peter in some unique sense, or that he (alone) is the Vicar of Christ, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. There are literally hundreds of bishops just in your singular denomination, and not even there are all of them regarded as the Infallible Pope, so it's not even an RCC claim that bishop = Pope.

Click to expand...

Nobody is claiming that bishop = Pope. It is a given that the Bishop of Rome is called "the Pope" today. Right? It is a given that the Bishop of Rome today occupies an office that asserts a form of universal authority [edited to add: over the Catholic Church]. Right? So the question becomes: when is the first historical evidence that the occupiers of this office ever asserted anything resembling papal authority? Schaff provides historical evidence that Clement (a first century Bishop in Rome) asserted a form of jurisdictional authority over a Church in another part of the world. This is potentially significant, especially if we find more evidence in history of other Churches around the world appealing to the Bishop of Rome to settle various difficulties, just as we see in the example of Clement and the Corinthians.

Originally Posted by NewMan99

CJ,
.............No one has heard of Philip Schaff??? Ignorance of one of the most pre-eminent church historians ever is not something I would brag about. .

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by NewMan99

With respect, LLOJ, you should have heard of him. He is very well known and well respected in scholarly circles - expecially among Protestants.

Click to expand...

One question I have.
How does the Orthodox Church view him?

.

NewMan99 said:

Josiah said:

So, you see NewMan99 arguing that with Clement, we have "the first step toward papal dominion." Hum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

Think about it, Josiah. Step back and think about what Schaff was actually saying. He was not saying that there was no papal office prior to Clement. You are reading that into his words. He was saying that in Clement's letter to the Corinthians we have the first known historical evidence that the papal office was asserting itself in a context of universal jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Did he?

Trento quoted him as saying that Clement was a bishop in Rome. You seem to imposing a LOT into that list of bishops that Tento posted.

Friend, originally, you seemed to identify the Papacy as
1. Patrine.
2. Uniquely having the "keys"
3. INFALLIBLE
4. ALL Christians are "bound" to him alone as the Vicar of Christ.

Then, in 415, you give another definition that seems to stress power and lordship.

As I pointed out, not even in the RCC it is believed that bishop = infallible/unaccountable Vicar of Christ who is lord over "the whole universal church."

I agree with you, the snippet that our Catholic brother offered does NOT say that there was no Pope prior to Clement, but he also doesn't say that there was. Or even that Clement was the Pope. What he says is that all this "dominion," power, lordship seems to be the "first step TOWARD a concept of the Papacy." Now, it seems to ME that "first" implies nothing before that and that the implication is that "first" means first, and that "step" means steps, but I agree - he doesn't specifically say that.

NewMan99 said:

Josiah said:

So, you see NewMan99 arguing that with Clement, we have "the first step toward papal dominion." Hum.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

Think about it, Josiah. Step back and think about what Schaff was actually saying. He was not saying that there was no papal office prior to Clement.

Click to expand...

I agree, but he does say that in Clement (3 generations too late for the Jesus founded it claim) is "the first step toward" such. That seems to suggest two things: it was the first step (first usually implies nothing before that) and that it was a step TOWARD that. See my point? I see Trento's quote of this man as actually undermining your argument and the claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone.

NewMan99 said:

Thus it is possible that prior to this letter no other Bishop of Rome asserted a form of universal authority (since this is the first historical evidence of it) - however - we have no historical evidence that prior Bishops of Rome did not either.

Click to expand...

But silence substantiates nothing, my apologist friend....

You have correctly assumed the "burden of proof" here; arguing "it's just GOTTA be a dogmatic, historic fact unless there's proof I accept that it's not" is delightfully a position to have not taken (hetherto). Friend, if it's not until 1870 that we have the first historic evidence of the Pope being understood as such, that hardly substantiates that such was the understanding in 30 AD or that Jesus founded such. Noting that there are Toyotas today hardly substantiates that there were in 30 AD or that Jesus built the first one or that they are infallible. I'm sure you understand my point.

NewMan99 said:

And since Clement was a contemporary of Peter, it can be fairly said that even if this is the first instance of papal assertion of universal authority - it came pretty darned early in Church history, and within living memory of the Apostles (while one Apostle was still alive).

Click to expand...

Does the quote prove that Clement was understood as the Pope as you've been defining such? Or does it reveal that he was a respected, beloved brother in Christ whose counsel is sought and embraced?

"Pretty darn early" is still 3 generations away from your claim that JESUS created the office. And again, was Clement regarded as a beloved, trusted, wise Christian OR as the lording, powerful, infallible/unaccountable Vicar of Christ who alone as the "keys" in some unique sense - lord of the denomination? We'll discuss that later as I address your first witness.

NewMan99 said:

Josiah said:

Thus, it seems to ME, what you are substantiating is that I'm right, my unseparated Catholic brother.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

NewMan99 said:

It is good you used the qualifier "seems to ME" - because what you perceive is not exactly what we are saying to you. It might "seem" to you - but it isn't.

Click to expand...

TRENTO quoted someone who said that in CLEMENT (3 generations away from Jesus) we have the FIRST step TOWARD the papacy. Trento quoted such to supposedly affirm YOUR point that JESUS established the Papacy. Yes, it seems to ME that the snippet Trento gave is far more relevant to MY position and rather strongly undermines yours. If the FIRST STEP came in 90 AD with Clement, then it wasn't founded in or before 30 AD by Jesus, or at least such would be the more reasonable implication of the snippet Trento offered.

NewMan99 said:

This special ministry as supreme pastor included universal jurisdiction along with the charism of papal infallibility as the Key-bearer who would strengthen others and keep the Church both unified and orthodox.

Click to expand...

... and that such was founded by Jesus on or before 30 AD...

So far, you've offered no evidence of such. Just suggestions from generations LATER of an evolving papacy (which is my position). Oh, and unique interpretation of a single verse that you agree solves nothing (and in my humble view, actually undermines the RCC claim).

NewMan99 said:

Thus it is possible.....

Click to expand...

No one denies that all things are possible, but your task that you have accepted is not to show that it's POSSIBLE that Jesus established the Papacy of the RCC but that He did. Apples and oranges. As we all know, "all things are possible with God." Including that He founded the LDS and all the claims that it makes for itself (essentially the same that the RCC does). We're not discussing whether all this is POSSIBLE with God, we're discussing if it's true and the evidence you have, as an apologist, for such. I've been suggesting that this critical, foundational, keystone claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone is simply an article of faith it requires you accept "with docility", you have been suggesting that it is evidenced by Scripture and history (as is the role of an apologi8st such as you). You kept promising this substantiation, but, with all due respect, all I've seen is your repeat of the RCC's interpretation of a single verse (which, IMHO, actually undermines its claim) and a whole long claim of assumptive "leaps" based on that - which you agree gets us nowhere, AND a lot of "if's" and "we claim" and "possible." We know it's POSSIBLE (all things are, including my view that this concept evolved), ALL conditional sentences are true if the condition is assumed to be true - and thus is meaningless, and we all know what the RCC claims.

Clement was the first to assert papal authority in a universal context,

Click to expand...

Did he claim to be the Pope over "the whole universal church?" Infallible lord? Uniquely having the keys? SUPREME over all? Did the "whole universal church" acknowledge HIM as such?

IF he was the first, then we have a 3 generation gap to the foundational claim that JESUS founded this. And again, this historian that Trento and you want to so embrace says that in Clement, in 90 AD, we have the "FIRST STEP" toward such. Seems to ME, from what you supplied from him, all we have is a respected, beloved Christian whose wisdom is sought and embraced - having nothing whatsoever to do with being the Infallible, Powerful POPE over all. Heck, I have OFTEN sought the counsel of a Christian whom I respect - and taken their advise. Doesn't mean I regarded him/her as the Infallible Vicar of Christ, lord of all, Pope of my denomination. So, I don't even see any evidence that, 60 years after Jesus, we have the "first step." But that does seem to be that guy's point that you and Trento embrace. I think you're embrace of his position pretty much destroys your point. IMHO.



Thank you.


I'll get to post # 416 ASAP


Pax


- Josiah




.

Frankly, with all due respect, I tend to agree with our Catholic friend Trento that the office of Pope of the RCC denomination EVOLVED.

Click to expand...

Trento said no such thing. Again - you impose your own definitions on what others are saying - and then make straw man arguments. YOU are the one that said the office "evolved". Trento didn't.

And nothing has been provided that Jesus established the Papacy of the RCC; in fact, nothing that suggests that the papacy or RCC even existed.

Click to expand...

Evidence has been supplied and more will be supplied. Just because you dismiss it or ignore it or mischaracterize it or impose your own definitions on the words of others doesn't mean it hasn't been supplied. There are a billion Catholics in the world today - we tend to think that the evidence suggests what the Church claims for the papal office.

I think BOTH are things that evolved.

Click to expand...

So the puppy became a cat. Fine. Except you are wrong.

Trento seems to suggest the papacy begins with Clement around 90 AD,

Click to expand...

It "SEEMS" that way to you because you are reading into his words and imposing your own definitions. Trento never "suggested" any such thing. Trento quoted well-known Protestant church historian Philip Schaff and HE claimed that Clement's letter to the Corinthians is the first known historical evidence of the Bishop of Rome asserting universal authority over a Church elsewhere...thus Trento's suggestion (and mine) TAKEN IN CONTEXT is that the letter is a "smoking gun" to illustrate that the Bishop of Rome did, in fact, view his office has having dominion over the universal Church on a matter pertaining to unity...which is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church claims is one of the many aspects of the papacy. But just because this is the first *still existing* historical evidence of pan-congregational authority being asserted does NOT mean that prior Bishops of Rome did not also assert universal authority, nor does it mean that prior Bishops of Rome did not also have the same authority even if they may never needed to use it. Simply stated, Clement's letter does not mean the Papacy "STARTED" then - all it means is this is the first known historical evidence that the Bishop of Rome actually asserted a form of dominion over another city-church - even though Corinth had their own Bishops and even though they were nearby to Ephesus where a living Apostle presided. And all of this is VERY VERY VERY soon after Peter's death - within a bare 25 years.

Trento said:

Philip Schaff (January 1, 1819 – October 20, 1893, was a Swiss-born, German-educated Protestant theologian and a historian of the Christian church, who, after his education, lived and taught in the United States. " His History of the Christian Church" can be found in most Protestant siminaries.


The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page 166) is --

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)
​

Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius.

Click to expand...

I know Peter and Clement were both Bishops of Rome. I don't doubt that.

NewMan99 said:

Trento said no such thing. Again - you impose your own definitions on what others are saying - and then make straw man arguments. YOU are the one that said the office "evolved". Trento didn't.



Evidence has been supplied and more will be supplied. Just because you dismiss it or ignore it or mischaracterize it or impose your own definitions on the words of others doesn't mean it hasn't been supplied. There are a billion Catholics in the world today - we tend to think that the evidence suggests what the Church claims for the papal office.



So the puppy became a cat. Fine. Except you are wrong.



It "SEEMS" that way to you because you are reading into his words and imposing your own definitions. Trento never "suggested" any such thing. Trento quoted well-known Protestant church historian Philip Schaff and HE claimed that Clement's letter to the Corinthians is the first known historical evidence of the Bishop of Rome asserting universal authority over a Church elsewhere...thus Trento's suggestion (and mine) TAKEN IN CONTEXT is that the letter is a "smoking gun" to illustrate that the Bishop of Rome did, in fact, view his office has having dominion over the universal Church on a matter pertaining to unity...which is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church claims is one of the many aspects of the papacy. But just because this is the first *still existing* historical evidence of pan-congregational authority being asserted does NOT mean that prior Bishops of Rome did not also assert universal authority, nor does it mean that prior Bishops of Rome did not also have the same authority even if they may never needed to use it. Simply stated, Clement's letter does not mean the Papacy "STARTED" then - all it means is this is the first known historical evidence that the Bishop of Rome actually asserted a form of dominion over another city-church - even though Corinth had their own Bishops and even though they were nearby to Ephesus where a living Apostle presided. And all of this is VERY VERY VERY soon after Peter's death - within a bare 25 years.

Click to expand...

Why ,in Clement's letter, do you say that he had authority over the whole Church?
It is an excellent letter, he also showed great authority with his words and with his action (by writing it and having sent it to them) but I don't see where he implies the Bishop of Rome as the ultimate authority within the Church.

NewMan99 said:

Trento said no such thing. Again - you impose your own definitions on what others are saying - and then make straw man arguments. YOU are the one that said the office "evolved". Trento didn't.

Click to expand...

Trento (and now it seems you) are embracing a snippet Trento found from someone that in Clement, in 90 AD (3 generations too late for a founding by Jesus) we have "THE FIRST STEP TOWARD" the papacy. "FIRST" to ME suggests first, and "STEP TOWARD" implies to ME a step toward that. By embracing this quote, it seems to ME you have abandoned your position (and the foundational, keystone, critical claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone) that Jesus founded the Papacy in or before 30 AD.

NewMan99 said:

There are a billion Catholics in the world today - we tend to think that the evidence suggests what the Church claims for the papal office.

Click to expand...

Here's what I've evaluated so far (and I've just started on your post #416):
1. The RCC's interpretation of a single verse about Peter and the Keys which you admitted solves nothing and which I regard as actually undermining the RCC's claim.
2. Some indications that some generations AFTER Jesus, we have the very first indications of a developing Papacy (which is MY position) and an embrace of a Protestant historian that says that in Clement, in 90 AD (60 years away from any connection with Jesus) we have "THE FIRST STEP TOWARD" the Papacy (which, as far as I can see, is entirely unsubstantiated, but even if true, actually undermines your point and gives support to mine),
3. A list of bishops for the diocese of Rome, which I have chosen to not contest. Moot because no one (including the RCC) argues that bishop = Pope.

Friend, NO ONE denies that one billion Christian think this claim of the RCC alone for the RCC alone is true. And no one denies that one billion Christians don't. But this thread isn't about who believes what, is it? As you know, millions beleive that Joseph Smith found those plates, don't they? This thread isn't about who believes what, it's about did Jesus found the Papacy of the RCC.

NewMan99 said:

Trento quoted well-known Protestant church historian Philip Schaff and HE claimed that Clement's letter to the Corinthians is the first known historical evidence of the Bishop of Rome asserting universal authority over a Church elsewhere...

Click to expand...

Maybe (perhaps I missed something). What was posted is that this man stated that in Clement, in 90 AD (60 years too late for Jesus), we have "THE FIRST STEP TOWARD" the papacy. And if I understand the argument he uses, all it confirms is that Clement's counsel was sought and taken - hardly a sign that he was seen by all Christians everywhere as the powerful, lording, infallible Vicar of Christ and head of the denomination by virtue of "keys" he had.

Friend, you know drstevej rather well (lol). Once, some years ago, I had a situation with the pet of a neighbor. I PM'ed Steve, who was on line at the time, to share with him my concern. He immediately PM'ed me back to share his counsel (something I hadn't even considered). I thought his counsel very wise - and followed it. I dobut you thereby believe that in Dr. Steve, we have the "first step toward" the Papacy of the RCC, lol. I'm sure you see my point. BUT, my respected and unseparated brother, saying that in 90AD we have "the first step toward the papacy" hardly substantiates your position and the foundational, cirtical, keystone claim of the RCC that Jesus founded the Papacy and itself on or before 30 AD. It rather affirms MY position that this was an evolving concept within the RCC (and largely, still is) and that there is no evidence that JESUS founded such - much less the whole, long, chain of assumptive (and accountability-evading) leaps that the RCC alone makes from this foundational claim.





.

Rebekah30 said:

Why ,in Clement's letter, do you say that he had authority over the whole Church?

Click to expand...

I agree....

How does the letter by Clement in 90 AD show that Clement was regarded as The Pope? Or even CLAIMED to be The Pope? Infallible. With power and lordship over all Christians and congregations of the world. By virtue of his having the "keys" in some unique sense. And 90 AD presents us with no evidence for in or before 30 AD.

AT MOST (and I think it's REALLY, REALLY stretching it), that historian Trento and now NewMan99 are embracing might have a point, that here is the very first step TOWARD the Papacy. Maybe..... Well, it really is a huge stretch.... BUT, if so, then MY position has been affirmed and theirs undermined. But I don't claim it, I think it's just way too much to place on Clement; I don't even see a FIRST STEP toward the Papacy.




.

Rebekah30 said:

I know Peter and Clement were both Bishops of Rome. I don't doubt that.

Click to expand...

CJ gave a pretty good response to that at the link below.

It seems a whole lot of Rome's dogma/doctrines concerning the Papacy hinges on Peter, even him being in Rome.
I myself am still not a 100% sure of him ever being in Rome......but then, what do I know

http://www.christianforums.com/t7336954-8/#post50404685

And there is also this post and here again the word "primacy" is.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7366379/#post51690217

Just a historical note: The 17th ecumenical council, the Ecumenical Council of Florence (also called Basel-Ferrera-Florence since preliminary sessions were held at Basel and Ferrera before being accomplished in Forence) was held in 1438-1445 before the Protestant Reformation even began with Martin Luther in 1517. Under Pope Eugene IV.
It was attended by many Latin-Rite and Eastern-Rite bishops. It affirmed the primacy of the pope against claims that an ecumenical council was superior to the pope (the successor of Peter, who Christ chose). It also formulated and approved decrees of union with several separated Eastern Churches (but those failed to gain general or lasting acceptance.)

Information comes from the Catholic Almanac published by Our Sunday Visitor, Inc.