Peter, The Papacy, And Lack Of Writings Concerning This Before 200 AD

[ProAmerican]

Early Christian History As Viewed By Roman Catholics


...These beliefs conflict with those of many liberal theologians and religious historians who maintain that:

The Bible describes Jerusalem as being the initial center of Christianity, with James the brother of Jesus at its head.

The Book of Acts, Paul's epistles, and others describe Paul as being the main founder and supreme authority of the Gentile churches...

...Although churches are mentioned in the Christian scriptures (as in Revelation 1:4) they are described as independent groups who met in believers' homes. They were aparently not part of a religious organization that is centrally controlled from Rome.

Siricius, who reigned at the end of the 4th century CE, was the first bishop of Rome to be called pope.

Pope Leo I, who reigned from 440 to 461 CE, was the first to claim that the bishop of Rome was highest ranking of the bishops of the church...

...The early pauline congretations were informal faith communities. A formal, hierarchial organization only came much later...

...Biblical support for Peter's authority to organize the church:

...[Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Corinthians 3:10-11; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:2-6; Revelation 21:10-14]

1 Corinthians 3:10-11:...This statement by Paul appears to credit himself (and not Peter) as the master builder who has laid the foundation of the church, up on which others are to build further. It contains no reference to Peter's contribution.

Ephesians 2:19-22:...Peter appears to be considered as simply one Apostle among equals.

1 Peter 2:2-6:... The Catholic Church doubts that Peter wrote this epistle, and attributes probable authorship to a disciple of Peter, perhaps Silvanus. It says that all believers form part of a "spiritual house, an holy priesthood," with jesus as cornerstone. The contribution of Peter appears to be as one believer among many equals.

Revelation 21:10-14:...The Roman Catholic church teaches that the Apostle John was probably not the author of Revelation. More likely, it was written by a student of John. The author is here describing a vision of the new Jerusalem, which symbolizes the church. It was seen as having the 12 Apostles as its foundation. this again refers to all of the Apostles sharing equally in importance and contribution to the creation of the church...

...Matthew 16 appears to be an ambiguous passage that is open to many opposing interpretations. The remaining 4 passages which may refer to the foundation of the church do not give specific authority to Peter. They seem to imply that the responsibility to organize and develop the church lay with:

*Paul and "others."
*all of the Apostles and prophets, with Jesus as cornerstone.
*all Christians, with Jesus as cornerstone.
*all of the apostles.



Non-Biblical sources of Peter's authority to organize the church:

There are many early Christian writings which confirm that peter was given the authority to organize the church.But none appear to have been written earlier than 170 CE, over a century after Peter's death:

170 CE: Tatin the Syrian repeated the contents of Matthew 16 in the Diatesseron, 13
200 CE: Tertullian also referred to Matthew 16 in Demurrer against the Heretics, 22
220 CE: Tertullian made a second reference to Matthew 16 in Modesty 21:9-10
221 CE: Clement refers to Peter being "...set apart to be the foundation of the Church..." in his Letter of Clement to James...

The lack of earlier non biblical references might have been due to those writings having been lost. Very few survived from that era. An alternate interpretation is that the concept of Peter founding the Church in Rome did not develop until the middle of the 2nd century CE.


There are many early Christian writings which confirm that Peter was recognized by the early church fathers as having a place of primacy among the disciples. But none appear to have been written earlier than about the start of the 3rd century, over 130 years after Peter's death.

200 CE: Clement of Alexandria referred to Peter as: "...the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute..." ("Who is the rich man that is saved?," 21:3-5)...

Please take the time to read all at the following link:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hirc.htm




I advise that one also take the time to read the following:

Very Early Christian History: 4 BCE to 300 CE

Three quite different overviews, as seen by:

Conservative Protestants

Religious Historians & Liberal Protestants

Roman Catholics

 

[ScottBot]

There is a lack of abundant writings before 312 AD because there was this little fact that possessing Christian writings could get you crucified, fed to lions, diemboweled by gladiators, and a whole host of other complications.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Due to the severe persecutions of Christians during the first through the third centuries, few of the writings of the Church fathers of this time survived.

 

[ProAmerican]

Persecution of Christians during the time of the 1st to 3rd century AD can be shown historically to be sporadic, and there were multiple times, during the 1st to 3rd century, when there were Emperors who arose who did little to nothing against Christians.

 

[ScottBot]

*deleted*

 

[ScottBot]

Persecution of Christians during the time of the 1st to 3rd century AD can be shown historically to be sporadic, and there were multiple times, during the 1st to 3rd century, when there were Emperors who arose who did little to nothing against Christians.

Well, the time period you are looking for is the time of Nero, Domatian, Trajan, and Hadrian. Domatian declared himself divine and ordered the execution of anyone who refused to submit to the Cult of Caesar. It was under Domatian's rule that St. John wrote the Book of Revelations.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Persecution of Christians during the time of the 1st to 3rd century AD can be shown historically to be sporadic

You failed to grasp the point. The purpose of pointing out the persecutions was to indicate that the persecutions were very destructive. Unfortunately, it takes only one fire or other act of vandalism to destroy centuries worth of writings.

 

[PuritanLady]

You failed to grasp the point of pointing out the persecutions, I mentioned it because the persecutions were very destructive. Unfortunately, it takes only one fire or other act of vandalism to destroy centuries worth of writings.

And yet strangely enough scripture has survived persecution, burning, and more. So has writings of other persecuted groups and authors, etc.

Sounds like excuses...

 

[ScottBot]

And yet strangely enough scripture has survived persecution, burning, and more. So has writings of other persecuted groups and authors, etc.

Sounds like excuses...

Of course they are dear.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

I agree.

The Papacy was a historical development. The Bishop of Rome stepped into the gap left when the Western Emperor fled to Ravenna.

Prior to this he was but one among many. The idea that there were certain churches of apostolic foundation whose leadership carried more prestige than others developed early and independent of the Roman Bishop's eventual claim of supremacy.

References to Matt 16:18 are later attempts to cloak a fait accompli with Scripture.

 

[ScottBot]

I agree.

The Papacy was a historical development. The Bishop of Rome stepped into the gap left when the Western Emperor fled to Ravenna.

Prior to this he was but one among many. The idea that there were certain churches of apostolic foundation whose leadership carried more prestige than others developed early and independent of the Roman Bishop's eventual claim of supremacy.

References to Matt 16:18 are later attempts to cloak a fait accompli with Scripture.

Except for the fact that documents validating the Bishop of Rome both precede and antecede the relocation of the Emperor from Rome to Constantinople. Numerous ecumenical councils and early writings indicate that the Bishop of Rome held a place of primacy in honor and authority since the 1st century. It is LATER expositors of Scripture who tried to excoriate the Seat of Rome of its historical honor and authority.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Scott,

Thanks for your response and it's good to meet you.

I was referring to the removal of the Western Imperial seat to Ravenna in 409.

This marks, approximately, the beginning of really exclusive Papal claims. Before this most references are to Rome and it's Bishops having a certain status as first among equals but nothing like what was later claimed for that See.

And this is an essential point.

It is an error to see Papal supremacy in the patristic references when what they clearly mean is a primacy of prestige due to apostolic settlement; again a kind of "first among equals" status.

There is an essential difference between primacy 'having a first place', and what your church claims today for the Bishop of Rome.

This is borne out by the fact that the Eastern Orthodox churches have been only too willing to affirm this status as primus inter pares and continue to be willing to do so.

Similarly, the Lutheran signers of the Augsburg Confession were willing to admit something very much like this in order to reestablish peace and unity.

Neither the willingness of the EO nor the Protestants was sufficient to heal the breach and this is because, in both cases Rome could not be satisfied with such a reduction in the title and prerogatives she claimed. She had gone beyond the consensus.