Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[NewMan99]

Part 6 (this is a continuation from Post #302, Post #296, Post #357, Post #415, and Post #416)

In my past post I promised to call five "witnesses" to the stand from the very early Church who could testify for us how the Bishop of Rome was regarded - even if the nature of their comments/actions are more incidental than explicit.

We have already examined the letter of Clement to the Church in Corinth. It illustrates that in 90 AD the church of Rome was issuing authoritative instruction to another church in a far off land. This is something that is never done in the reverse.

It is time to turn our attention to the second witness: Ignatius of Antioch. By way of reminder, this is what I posted in 416 regarding Ignatius:

He wrote between 100 AD-107 AD. Ignatius was a direct disciple of St. John, and the second Bishop of Antioch who succeeded Evodius, who was a disciple of St. Peter. Ignatius was eventually martyred in the arena in Rome.

Ignatius wrote approximately 40 years after the death of Peter. He, too, was a contemporary of the Apostles, and is connected with two of them (John and Peter).

So he was, of course, a very close and very direct witness to the Apostles (including Peter) and would have direct knowledge of what Peter and the Apostles taught about the Petrine ministry. Obviously he would also know how the Church of Rome was regarded by the rest of the Church. He would know if the Church of Rome held any sort of REAL primacy, and not just a primacy of honor.

So let's set the stage...about 10 years after Clement wrote to the Corinthians, Ignatius of Antioch was arrested by the imperial authorities and sentenced to die in the arena in Rome. This was a big deal (and not just for poor Ignatius) in Church history because Ignatius was not only the Bishop of Antioch (and hence a successor to Peter's episcopal ministry since Peter was one of the founders of the Church there), but he was also the leading Bishop in all of Syria, if not all of Asia. This is the esteem with which the office of Bishop of Antioch was held - to say nothing of his "pedigree" having been ordained by the Apostle John. He was clearly a VERY "heavy hitter" in the early Church.

The Romans did something very interesting. Rather than quickly transport him to Rome (from Antioch) via ship to face his date in the arena, they decided to transport him OVERLAND. This was a calculated - and sobering - way of making an example of him to all Christian communities between Antioch and Rome. It was the Roman way of intimidating Christians and reminding them that even the big fish are not immune from execution by cruel means.

And along the way Ignatius DID, in fact, make contact with numerous Christian communities. In fact, he wrote a total of seven letters to various Churches, including letters to three of the churches that were addressed by Jesus in John's Revelation: Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7), Smyrna (Rev: 2:8-11), and Phildelphia (3:7-13). This happened about 5-10 years after John's Revelation.

But here is the interesting thing about these seven letters to seven churches: Ignatius (remember - he was the disciple of an Apostle), issued teachings and authoritative instructions to all but one of them.

Aside from the fact that this illustrates that the early Church was, in fact, hierarchical and had a form of structure (they were not just a loose collection of independent house churches), it also shows that the Bishop of Antioch carried a pretty big stick, so to speak.

As you probably already figured out, the one letter he wrote WITHOUT teachings or instructions was the letter he wrote to Rome.

Rather, Ignatius wrote things like:

“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed, which in your instructions you enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but truly be found to be one.” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap. III)

Now, in the above letter, Ignatius asked the Roman Church not to interfere with his impending martyrdom. But along with that, Ignatius speaks of how the Church in Rome "taught" and had "given instruction" to the other Churches (Clement's letter to the Corinthians would have been an example of this).

Furthermore, the fact that Ignatius - way off in Syria - knew what the Roman Church had taught in the past just goes to show that Roman teaching authority reached - at the very least - as far away as the Middle East.

But there's more. In Chapter 1 of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and that it “presides in love”. In this context, Ignatius used the Greek word “prokatheemai,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position - and THIS is the meaning of the word “presides” whenever Ignatius uses it.

It is, perhaps, telling that Ignatius never applies this word to the authority of any other Church - he only applies it to the Church of Rome.

THEN - at the end of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius wrote:

“Remember in your prayers the church of Syria, which now has God for its bishop, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”

This is important. Why? Because whle Ignatius asks all the Churches along the (from the other six letters) to pray for his Church in Syria, he never commends it to the care of another Church - but only to Rome.

So here in this letter to Rome, as in the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, we see once again the ministry of an earthly, vicarious shepherd for the universal Church...that is to say...to the ministry held by the Church of Rome.

Let's now turn to the third witness: Polycarp of Smyrna. Here is what I said about him earlier:

He, too, was a direct disciple of St. John. He was also a close friend and associate of Ignatius of Antioch. Polycarp lived a very long life was primarily active from 107 AD-165 AD, until he, too, was martyred.

Polycarp, too, began giving his witness through his ministry about 40 years after Peter's death. He, too, was a contemporary of the Apostles with a direct connection to John (even though Polycarp was young while John was old).

Now here I am not going to mention anything Polycarp said or wrote. Rather, we are going to look at something he DID.

In 155 AD - when Polycarp was 85 years old (!), he travelled all the way to Rome as a representative of all the Asian Churches. It wasn't just a social call. It wasn't just a big party or a "meet and greet" with the other Church elders. Polycarp went there with a purpose - and that purpose presupposed the authority of the Bishop of Rome - otherwise his visit would have no purpose! A controversy had arisen in the early Church regarding when Easter should be celebrated in the liturgical calendar. So Polycarp went to Rome to plead the Eastern view to the Bishop of Rome, Anicetus. Polycarp went to explain to the Roman Bishop why the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection on a different date than that celebrated by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. We know of this visit because it is mentioned in Irenaeus' book "Against the Heresies" (Book III) and it is also mentioned in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor, Bishop of Rome (a successor of Anicetus).

This is a very telling event. All things aside with regard to the controversy itself and if one side or the other was wrong, the fact remains that Polycarp APPEALED to the authority of the Bishop of Rome to decide for all the other Churches in Asia Minor which date they were allowed to celebrate Easter.

We must keep in mind that Polycarp was a very venerable and beloved Christian churchman. He was someone who knew the Apostle John - personally. Anicetus never knew an Apostle (he was too young) personally. So WHY did Polycarp have to defend an Asian liturgical custom to the Bishop of Rome IF the Bishop of Rome did not have universal jurisdiction??? Why would Polycarp feel compelled to appeal to the Bishop in far-away Rome - why would an 85 year old man need to travel that kind of distance back in that day and age when travel was both arduous and dangerous?

There is only one reasonable answer: because Polycarp recognized the authority of the Church in Rome even though he himself carried a pretty big stick in the Early Church and he himself was a personal friend and disciple of an Apostle.

Furthermore, Polycarp taught this understanding of Roman authority to his disciple: Irenaeus. But we will get to that later.

I will now put Dionysius of Corinth on the witness stand next.

As I mentioned previously, he wrote before 170 AD, and hence was a contemporary of Irenaeus. His witness comes 90 years after the death of Peter.

Dionysius of Corinth was a Bishop and he wrote to Anicetus' immediate successor, Pope Soter of Rome. We don't have the exact details of his initial letter to Soter, but we do know that he, just like his predecessors in Corinth who appealed to Clement 70-80 years earlier, wrote to the Bishop of Rome appealing for help. See a pattern here? So, Pope Soter replied back with an Epistle.

Then, Dionysius, replied back to Pope Soter with these words:

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

So what is going on here? It is nothing less than the Church of Corinth appealing to, and taking instructions from Rome...and this not the first time that Church took instruction from Rome - they still retained the letter from Clement all those years later!

Dionysius did not stop there. He went on to say:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time." (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).

In other words, Dionysius was comparing the teaching of Pope Soter to that of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

But Dionysius says even more:

"For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city . . . This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius' Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170])

Look at what Dionysius is really saying here: he calls the Bishop of Rome a "father" (which, of course, is the root of the word "Pope" - Papa in Italian) - he says that Christians in EVERY city are Soter's "children" - he says that Soter "urges" and "consoles" and provides for them. PLUS Dionysius claims that this has been the custom of the Church in Rome FROM THE BEGINNING.

To be continued on my next post...

 

[NewMan99]

Part 7 (this is a continuation from Post #302, Post #296, Post #357, Post #415, Post #416, and Post #482)


Soooo...this brings us to the last witness to the stand for the purposes of this analysis: Irenaeus of Lyon.

As mentioned in a previous post, he was a disciple of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the Apostle John). He was active from 160 AD onward. He wrote his most famous work "Against Heresies" circa 180 AD.

Irenaeus' witness comes approximately 90 years after the death of Peter. While he was not a contemporary of the Apostles, he is but one step removed and therefore has an indirect connection (through Polycarp) with John.

Now, writing in 180 AD - exactly 10 years after Dionysius was writing to Pope Soter - Irenaeus gives us our first real historical overview of the Roman episcopate - and its authority.

As I mentioned many times, these are all incidental - since Irenaeus' REAL intention was not to provide a treatise on papal authority, but rather he was intending to show how episcopal succession undermines the claims of heretics.

In case you have doubts about how early Christians viewed the authority of Rome, Irenaeus will add a little clarity:

“Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness or wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper (i.e., renegade heretics), by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient (i.e., established) church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the Tradition and the Faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church (Rome), on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed Apostles (Peter & Paul), then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy (2 Tim 4:21). To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had known the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their Traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles ... To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. (Irenaeus Against the Heresies, Book III, 3:2)

What does Irenaeus of Lyon (in France) - disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (in Asia Minor) who was a disciple of the Apostle John - what does he have to say? For him, the Church of Rome was "the greatest Church known to all" - it was the Church that had "preeminent authority". This "preeminent authority" of course is something we have already seen in Clement, in Anicetus, and in Soter when they taught and instructed other Churches in the Christian world.

But let's look at one last thing before we dismiss him from the witness stand.

Before his death at the end of the 2nd century, the Church in Rome exercised its universal authority once more.

This happened when Pope Victor I was the Bishop of Rome (he was the successor of Pope Eleutherius...the last name listed by Ireneaus above). Around 190 AD the old controversy over the Easter date rose up once again.

The first real historian the Christian Church ever had, Eusebius of Caesarea (writing in 312 A.D), explains the following:

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the churches of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day ...should be observed as the feast of the Savior's Passion. . . . But this was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world ...Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day (Sunday) ...Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately acted to cut off from the community the churches of all Asia [Minor] ...as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all of the bishops, and they besought him to reconsider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love ..." (Eusebius, Church History, 5:23:1 24:11).

So let's unpack what some of this might mean - at least insofar as the aspects we are dealing with for the purpose of this analysis.

The Bishop of Rome unilaterally excommunicated the Asian Churches for not celebrating Easter on the same date as the rest of the Church. As for whether this was a wise or prudent thing to do, we will leave aside (personally, I think it was unwise and imprudent - perhaps he was somewhat ignorant of Eastern traditions). But the point here is this: how could he do this unless he really did have universal jurisdiction in the first place??? Doesn't his actions presuppose a pre-existing authority? Additionally, while some of the other Bishops objected and complained - they do not question his authority to do it.

So rather than question his authority, some of the objecting Bishops "besought him to reconsider." And who was one of these Bishops? Irenaeus of Lyon, disciple of Polycarp, who learned at the feet of the Apostle John.

What did Irenaeus do? He wrote a letter (which still exists to this day) to Pope Victor in Rome. In this letter, Irenaeus relies on his "street cred" and pedigree as having been a disciple of the venerable martyr and Apostolic disciple, Polycarp. He argued (correctly, imo) that Victor should lift the excommunication because the dispute was not really doctrinal, but rather it was merely liturgical.

So how does Ireneaus persuade Victor? He did it by appealing to the authority of one of Victor's own predecessors, Pope Ancicetus of Rome...who was, if you recall, the same Pope who received the 85 year old Polycarp many years earlier...the same Pope who granted permission to the Asian Church to continue with their traditional liturgical Easter date.

Here is what Irenaeus said to Pope Victor:

“For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord .... nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not.” (Epistle of Irenaeus to Pope Victor)


Therefore, by this appeal to the authority of Victor's precessor, Irenaeus was able to convince Victor to lift the excommunication.

But here is something I urge all readers of this analysis to consider, and that is the motive that caused Victor to issue the excommunication in the first place. That is to say, in 190 AD, Victor I of Rome, considered himself responsibile for preserving unity and orthodoxy throughout the universal Church. And the rest of the Church recognized this authority. This cannot and should not be ignored.

So that brings me to the end of my five witnesses. ALL of them wrote and acted within living memory of the Apostles. Three of them personally knew the Apostles and were likely ordained by them. All of them were giants in the early Church - greatly respected.

And all of them acted and wrote in a way that is consistent with the premise I have set out to illustrate through evidence.

And while I have restricted myself to only those who lived during the Apostolic era (or shortly thereafter) there are still plenty of others coming later who echo the exact same message of Roman authority. I could quote the fathers of the next two centuries, such as Tertullian (220 AD), Hippolytus of Rome (220 AD), Pope Anterus (235 AD), Pope Fabian (240 AD), Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD), Dionysius of Alexandria (260 AD), and the other fathers too. They all provide plenty of evidence for the primacy of Rome. And all of this was BEFORE Constantine legalized the Church in 313 AD which is when so many non-Catholics tend to believe that the Church suddenly became institutional, universally authoritative, and gained a pan-congregational structure. As I hope my analysis proves, such an idea is a fantasy. The Church was already institutional, universally under Roman authority, and had a pan-congregational structure LONG before Constantine...going all the way back to Peter's special ministry set down in Rome.

What has this analysis shown evidence of?

The Church of Rome:

1. Was founded by Peter, along with Paul
2. Was the place where Peter’s earthly ministry came to an end;
3. Was a church presided over by disciples of Peter (e.g. Linus & Clement)
4. Was a court of appeal for the other churches (e.g. Corinth, Antioch, Smyrna, Lyon)
5. Was viewed as an authority while some Apostles (e.g. John) were still alive and presiding elsewhere
6. Exhibited a teaching authority recognized as far away as Syria (e.g. Ignatius to the Romans)
7. Issued commands to churches which had their own bishops (e.g. Corinth)
8. Possessed the authority to excommunicate other churches (e.g. the churches of Asia)
9. Is said to “preside in the chief place” (Ignatius), and to be the “greatest church,” having “preeminent authority” (Irenaeus)
10. Is called a “father” to the other churches (e.g. Dionysius). ...And all within living memory of the Apostles.

I said in a previous post that all of the Biblical passages I cited would be dismissed by many non-Catholics following this thread. And the Catholic interpretation was summarily dismissed or objected to as predicted.

Then I said that if the Catholic interpretation was correct, we would expect the disciples of the Apostles (among others from the Eary Church) to act in a certain way that reflects the Catholic position. That is to say, if our interpretion of Scripture is right, the early Church would reflect that interpretation.

I also said that if the Catholic interpretation was wrong - then we could expect these same Church Fathers to act in an entirely different way. That is to say, if the non-Catholic interpretation of Scripture is right (and Catholics are wrong), then the actions of the early Church would reflect THAT interpretation.

So how did they act? Look at the 10 things listed above and ask yourself if the Church Fathers actions were consistent with Catholic interpretation or not.

Then ask yourself if the challenge of my premise was met:

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.

My guess is this: some people will be willing to consider the evidence and might even change their mind. As for the vast majority of people here at GT and on this thread...for some people no amount of evidence will suffice, and for others no amount of evidence is necessary. Most people made their minds before I wrote one word of this analysis. (I know I did - LOL)

Whew! I am so glad to be done with this "project."

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Standing Up]

NewMan99,

After a quick read, I'd say very nicely presented.

I mentioned earlier my interest in the third witness, Polycarp. You asserted this, "Polycarp went to explain to the Roman Bishop why the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection on a different date than that celebrated by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. "

The truth is he went to correct Rome because only Rome at that time celebrated the Feast on a certain day. All the rest celebrated it on a different day. I don't think the Apostles taught two different things to two different groups. Do you?

 

[NewMan99]

After a quick read, I'd say very nicely presented.

Thank you.

I mentioned earlier my interest in the third witness, Polycarp. You asserted this, "Polycarp went to explain to the Roman Bishop why the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection on a different date than that celebrated by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. "

The truth is he went to correct Rome because only Rome at that time celebrated the Feast on a certain day. All the rest celebrated it on a different day.

Are you sure about that? I would have to review my notes. You could be right - but that is not my recollection. I do know this, by the time of the second Easter controversy at the end of the 2nd century, it was only Asia that differed from the rest of the Church.

Victor I intended to unify the Church. So he called for local synods from Gaul to Mesopotamia in order to discern when most of the Churches celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection. The end result of the synods was that the date celebrated by Rome was actually fairly universal - not only with the "Big 3" patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), but also among a very large percentage of the metropolitanates. So it was the Asians who were not "in line" (in a manner of speaking) with the rest of the Church as far as the date for the Easter celebration was concerned.

It was just easier to have them change their custom than it would be for the rest of the Church to do so. So Pope Victor I told them to get on the same page as everyone else. When they refused it seemed to Victor (and I would add it also seemed this way to other Bishops throughout the non-Asian Church) that the Asians were rejecting universal unity. It was thought that the Asians were behaving like schismatics and did not care about the catholicity of the Church. Maybe that is a valid criticism and maybe it isn't. But the real motivation for the Asians was that they desired to do what the Apostle John did, with his liturgical tradition, and they didn't feel they had the right to change it.

In defense of Pope Victor's intention, it turned out 135 years later that the Church did, indeed, wish to be unified on the dating for Easter, and the whole Church adapted Rome's custom at the Council of Nicea as a matter of canon law.

I don't think the Apostles taught two different things to two different groups. Do you?

That depends on what you mean by "things". Did they have two different liturgical traditions? I think a credible argument can be made that they did. The problem here was that the Apostles themselves had left the regional churches with opposing traditions. This was probably because Asia was heavily influenced by 1st Century Jewish Christianity, whereas Rome (and most other sees --e.g. Alexandria and Antioch) were more influenced by Pauline/Gentile Christianity.

This is also seen in the dating of the Passion week too. The account in the Gospel of John is a little different than the versions told in the Synoptic Gospels. But that topic gets hairy and I don't have the brain cells left tonight to get into that.

 

[Mikeb85]

Eastern Orthodoxs don't have a pope, the Oriental Orthodox do.
I can't help you too much, but the EO do have a Priesthood etc.
I think you best do a little research on it.

edit..wish I could help

Us Eastern Orthodox DO have a Pope - his name is Theodoros II, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa.

 

[Mikeb85]

Thnks for that link CJ. I still have a lot to learn on the Orthodoxy Priesthood and I found this interesting.

Is the Pope of the Orthodox shown below the highest ranking Bishop within Orthodoxy?

I also noticed different labels, such as "his holiness", "his beautitude", "patriarch" ect.
Is this akin to the RCC's royal priesthood concerning a pope, cardinals, bishops and priests? Thanks

I'm not sure exactly how the RCC's hierarchy works, but in the Orthodox Church, a Bishop is a Bishop. No Bishop has authority outside of their diocese, except through a council. The different titles (Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch) have to do with the scope of their responsibility. Titles such as Pope (Alexandria) or Catholicos (Georgia) are simply local, traditional titles for Patriarchs.

 

[Mikeb85]

What has this analysis shown evidence of?

The Church of Rome:

1. Was founded by Peter, along with Paul
2. Was the place where Peter’s earthly ministry came to an end;
3. Was a church presided over by disciples of Peter (e.g. Linus & Clement)
4. Was a court of appeal for the other churches (e.g. Corinth, Antioch, Smyrna, Lyon)
5. Was viewed as an authority while some Apostles (e.g. John) were still alive and presiding elsewhere
6. Exhibited a teaching authority recognized as far away as Syria (e.g. Ignatius to the Romans)
7. Issued commands to churches which had their own bishops (e.g. Corinth)
8. Possessed the authority to excommunicate other churches (e.g. the churches of Asia)
9. Is said to “preside in the chief place” (Ignatius), and to be the “greatest church,” having “preeminent authority” (Irenaeus)
10. Is called a “father” to the other churches (e.g. Dionysius). ...And all within living memory of the Apostles.

First of all, some things need to be cleared up here. During this era of the early Church, Rome was still the capital of the empire, and indeed the pre-eminent Church in the empire. Antioch's influence extended from Syria to Mesopotamia, Persia and even India, and Alexandria's influence was over Africa (excepting North Africa, which was traditionally Roman), and Alexandria also had tremendous theological influence. Jerusalem was very troubled at the time (several Jewish revolts), and thus it's geographical influence wasn't very great, and Constantinople of course didn't exist yet.

Many of the letters you use as 'proof' of the Papacy, were written by churches which were indeed under Roman influence at the time (Greece and Asia Minor, though considered Eastern today, were under Rome's influence at the time). This still doesn't prove a universal jurisdiction.

Also, Rome for a long time indeed was an 'authority' - not because of a unique office, but because of the importance of the city, and the succession of Saintly Popes (it's no coincidence that almost all the early Popes were Saints, and almost none of the Popes leading up to the Schism were). There's still no proof that this authority and reputation couldn't expire, nor that Rome couldn't fall into heresy.

 

[Rebekah30]

Us Eastern Orthodox DO have a Pope - his name is Theodoros II, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa.

Thank you for your correction Mike.

 

[MamaZ]

So I have a question.. Is truth found in an earthy man? Are we to follow only one single man?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Worship is on my agenda this morning, and likely socialization this afternoon, so I don't have time right now for a detailed response to NewMan99's two new posts. Such is coming!

But my quick reaction is:

As I and others noted, the "problem" with the first "witness" (Clement's letter perhaps has early as 90 AD) was that it was FAR too weak (read: moot) and too late. The claim is that JESUS created the Papacy in 30 AD. There is a 3 generation (60 year) gap between the RCC claim and what NewMan99 presented. What we all noted is that he needed to go further back in time and to something that has something to do with the distinctives of the Papacy that HE gave. Did he? No, he went FAR later - further removed, and (after a quick read) just as weak and irrelevant to the distinctives of the papacy as HE offered them. He went in the wrong direction with his remaining "witnesses" and none of them "witnessed" to what HE insists are the distinctives of the papacy.


I need to very carefully study the "testimony" of his "witnesses" but I think if I were trying to substantiate the Protestant position that the papacy was an evolving ("steps taken toward") concept, I could use all the posts from NewMan99 - hook, line and sinker - to evidenced that there was NOTHING about (known anyway) for at least 60 years and then for another century, NOTHING that speaks to the papacy but perhaps a growing sense of authority (it may well have been in favor of the Orthodox understanding at this point, however). I could evidence well, it seems, that there was no papacy for this entire period that NewMan99 is describing - at least according to the distinctives that HE provided for such. The historian that he and Trento so admire and love to quote says that beginning in 90 AD (60 years too late for the RCC claim), we have "the first step toward" the papacy; frankly, what NewMan99's quotes seem to indicate is that the "first step toward" such lies beyond the year 180 - thus at least 150 years too late for the RCC claim. All this DOES make me curious WHEN we see that first step and when the Papacy (as NewMan99 defines) first appears. Obviously, it's after 180 but I wonder how much later? Perhaps the topic of a new thread!


I will very, very carefully read each of the two posts and respond carefully to each paragraph when sufficient time permits. I will require no more from them than a Catholic would require if we were reading the "evidence" that Mormons present for their nearly identical claims in terms of date (distance from claimed event) and specificity to the claim: I don't want to be unfair! I am grateful for the time and effort NewMan99 has put into this, and the civility and respect with which he has discussed this claim of the RCC. He is a highly trained, learned and skilled apologist for the RCC and I'm just a 21 year old nothing so I'm honored that he's engaging with me in this discussion. IMHO, the questions and points I've been making are simply the OBVIOUS ones that any reader would make. I hope that he one day response to them - if not for my sake, for the sake of the hundreds of millions (including millions of former Catholics) that I strongly suspect make exactly the same obvious points in reply. As an apologist, such is what he does so I hope he'll do that here.


A full response is coming!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Joachim]

So I have a question.. Is truth found in an earthy man? Are we to follow only one single man?

When speaking on faith and morals, God guides the holy father so that he only speaks what God desires.

To deny this is to deny the idea that God can influence the minds and hearts of people.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Joachim;When speaking on faith and morals, God guides the holy father so that he only speaks what God desires.

If only that were true.

To deny this is to deny the idea that God can influence the minds and hearts of people.

Nonsense. To deny that the "holy father" is infallable is only to deny that. God influences hearts & minds of people without any one of them being infallable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

When speaking on faith and morals, God guides the holy father so that he only speaks what God desires.

To deny this is to deny the idea that God can influence the minds and hearts of people.

I would say that should apply to all Christians and especially leaders of the Church/Flock, whether RC or non-RC.

John 8:44 :Ye out of a father, the Devil are and the desires/lusts/epi-qumiaV <1939> of the father of ye, ye are willing to be doing.

Reve 18:14 `And the fruition of the desire/epi-qumiaV <1939> of the soul of thee, departed from thee. And all the sumptious-things and shinings perished from thee. And not still not no shall be finding them.

1939. epithumia from 1937; a longing (especially for what is forbidden):--concupiscence, desire, lust (after).

 

[NewMan99]

Us Eastern Orthodox DO have a Pope - his name is Theodoros II, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa.

I believe there is at least one Eastern Rite Catholic Patriarch who uses the title "Pope" too. The word is just a transliteration of the Italian word for "father" - Papa. It is meant as a term of effection - it is loving. So there is more than one person called affectionately "Pope" in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. But within the context of "THE Pope" the ordinary use is with regard to the Bishop of Rome and the papal office there.

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

Regarding 491. I cannot promise I will respond much more in this thread. It is still beyond obvious to me that you continue to lack a fundamental grasp of what I have even said or what it is that I have set out to provide evidence for. Responding to your comments has thus far proven to be fruitless at best and frustrating to the extreme. So rather than get angry at what I perceive to be your continued obfuscations and obstinate refusal to engage in what I am actually saying, it is best if I just let you have the last word. I care too much for you as a person to fall into the trap of losing my patience (even more than I already have) and responding less than charitably than I should.

I hope you had a wonderful and edifying worship experience this morning. I go to Mass tonight.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

[/color]

First of all, some things need to be cleared up here. During this era of the early Church, Rome was still the capital of the empire, and indeed the pre-eminent Church in the empire. Antioch's influence extended from Syria to Mesopotamia, Persia and even India, and Alexandria's influence was over Africa (excepting North Africa, which was traditionally Roman), and Alexandria also had tremendous theological influence. Jerusalem was very troubled at the time (several Jewish revolts), and thus it's geographical influence wasn't very great, and Constantinople of course didn't exist yet.

Many of the letters you use as 'proof' of the Papacy, were written by churches which were indeed under Roman influence at the time (Greece and Asia Minor, though considered Eastern today, were under Rome's influence at the time). This still doesn't prove a universal jurisdiction.

Also, Rome for a long time indeed was an 'authority' - not because of a unique office, but because of the importance of the city, and the succession of Saintly Popes (it's no coincidence that almost all the early Popes were Saints, and almost none of the Popes leading up to the Schism were). There's still no proof that this authority and reputation couldn't expire, nor that Rome couldn't fall into heresy.

This is deserving of a thought-out and considered response. I don't know when, exactly, I can get to it. But I will. I thank you for a stimulating discussion, Mike, even if we don't agree very often on this topic.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is deserving of a thought-out and considered response. I don't know when, exactly, I can get to it. But I will. I thank you for a stimulating discussion, Mike, even if we don't agree very often on this topic.

God's Peace,

NewMan

Hopefully, you 2 will eventually agree, though I am pessimistic on that happening.
I of course take the Orthodox Church's side. God bless

 

[NewMan99]

Hopefully, you 2 will eventually agree, though I am pessimistic on that happening.
I of course take the Orthodox Church's side. God bless

I doubt we will agree either...but we can disagree agreeably. That much IS in our control and should happen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I doubt we will agree either...but we can disagree agreeably. That much IS in our control and should happen.

I agree. That should be the case when debating any religion or atheists.
This one thread still sticks out at me and I think I have heard either RCs and non-RCs bring up "do not cast the pearls to the swine". I have a thread somewhere on the story of the "kamikaze swine" and will have to look for it.

Skeptics, Cynics, and Pearls (Oh My!) - Page 14 - Christian Forums
Skeptics, Cynics, and Pearls (Oh My!)

 

[Standing Up]

NewMan99,

After a quick read, I'd say very nicely presented.

I mentioned earlier my interest in the third witness, Polycarp. You asserted this, "Polycarp went to explain to the Roman Bishop why the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection on a different date than that celebrated by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. "

The truth is he went to correct Rome because only Rome at that time celebrated the Feast on a certain day. All the rest celebrated it on a different day. I don't think the Apostles taught two different things to two different groups. Do you?

Thank you.



Are you sure about that? I would have to review my notes. You could be right - but that is not my recollection. I do know this, by the time of the second Easter controversy at the end of the 2nd century, it was only Asia that differed from the rest of the Church.

That's about right by the second century. The Palestinian Synod was the first to "comprehend the propriety" of "submitting" to the Roman way of doing things (because of the association to the foretelling of the people who destroyed Jerusalem). In so doing, they claimed it was the way they had always done it and done so by Apostles. This in response to Victor.

Victor I intended to unify the Church. So he called for local synods from Gaul to Mesopotamia in order to discern when most of the Churches celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection. The end result of the synods was that the date celebrated by Rome was actually fairly universal - not only with the "Big 3" patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch), but also among a very large percentage of the metropolitanates. So it was the Asians who were not "in line" (in a manner of speaking) with the rest of the Church as far as the date for the Easter celebration was concerned.

It was just easier to have them change their custom than it would be for the rest of the Church to do so. So Pope Victor I told them to get on the same page as everyone else. When they refused it seemed to Victor (and I would add it also seemed this way to other Bishops throughout the non-Asian Church) that the Asians were rejecting universal unity. It was thought that the Asians were behaving like schismatics and did not care about the catholicity of the Church. Maybe that is a valid criticism and maybe it isn't. But the real motivation for the Asians was that they desired to do what the Apostle John did, with his liturgical tradition, and they didn't feel they had the right to change it.

You should read the opposing letters. See Polycrates' reaction. Far, far away from what you're thinking.

In defense of Pope Victor's intention, it turned out 135 years later that the Church did, indeed, wish to be unified on the dating for Easter, and the whole Church adapted Rome's custom at the Council of Nicea as a matter of canon law.

That's correct. 325ad they said Quartodecimans were heretics (including the Apostles, all seven churches of those in Revelation, etc). 341ad they excommunicated them.

After the second major council, Assyrian Church splits. After third major council, Oriental Orthodox split. 1054 Great Schism. 1500s Reformation.

Not pretty, but when the Church rejected Apostolic Truth, what do you expect?

That depends on what you mean by "things". Did they have two different liturgical traditions? I think a credible argument can be made that they did. The problem here was that the Apostles themselves had left the regional churches with opposing traditions. This was probably because Asia was heavily influenced by 1st Century Jewish Christianity, whereas Rome (and most other sees --e.g. Alexandria and Antioch) were more influenced by Pauline/Gentile Christianity.

This is also seen in the dating of the Passion week too. The account in the Gospel of John is a little different than the versions told in the Synoptic Gospels. But that topic gets hairy and I don't have the brain cells left tonight to get into that.

The Apostles would not teach two different traditions. Like one to the Jews and one to the Gentiles? No way, already that was solved Acts 15.

John and the Synoptics weave together, if done right, perfectly without any loose ends.