Peter: Thirty-Five Years as Bishop of Rome?

[prodromos]

No. That would be disobedience to the one who has authority over them.

It was due to that having already occurred that they sought Rome's help in the first place.

 

[prodromos]

But only Peter was given the keys.

According to several Church Fathers, the authority to bind and loose was the keys, which all the Apostles received alike.

 

[Open Heart]

It was due to that having already occurred that they sought Rome's help in the first place.

Clement would not have written if he didn't have authority over them. If that had been the case, he would not have undermined the Bishop's authority by usurping it.

 

[prodromos]

Clement would not have written if he didn't have authority over them. If that had been the case, he would not have undermined the Bishop's authority by usurping it.

What nonsense. The Church in Rome was supporting their brother bishop. No different to later canons allowing clergy to have their case heard by another group of bishops if they had been unfairly dismissed.

It really is fascinating watching how you have to reinterpret history to conform it to your modern view of the Papacy.

 

[Open Heart]

What nonsense. The Church in Rome was supporting their brother bishop. No different to later canons allowing clergy to have their case heard by another group of bishops if they had been unfairly dismissed.

It really is fascinating watching how you have to reinterpret history to conform it to your modern view of the Papacy.

I think I have sown a seed of the truth. It has entered your mind, and will now grow. You may not see it now. But as time passes, it will bother you.

 

[prodromos]

I think I have sown a seed of the truth. It has entered your mind, and will now grow. You may not see it now. But as time passes, it will bother you.

It doesn't surprise me that you think that. You've been seeing many other things that aren't there.

 

[kepha31]

Corinth was not a church down the street from Rome, it was a city in far away Greece, outside of Clement's local jurisdiction, yet within his universal jurisdiction at the same time.

St Clement wasn’t ordained directly from Christ, none of the successors are. We have the Apostles who acts a Bishops ordaining Bishops and Deacons and their successor’s keeps this continuity as an unbroken chain of succession. Tertullian is also very clear that since Peter was Bishop of Rome, St Clement had to be ordained in the likeness of St Peter.

“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter”
[Prescription Against Heretics 32 (c. A.D. 200)].
So Clement was not only Bishop of Rome like St Peter was, but also a Pope.

Eusebius of Cesarea:
Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tm 4: 10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Letter to Timothy [2 Tm 4: 21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow soldier...
[Phil 4: 3] [ibid., 3: 4: 9–10].

St Jerome: Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says, “With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,” the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle
[Illustrious Men 15 (A.D. 392)].

St Clement of Rome had authority:
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events that have happened to us, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points about which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, that a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. . . . It is right and holy, therefore, men and brethren, to obey God rather than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation. For we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, to draw us away from what is good . . . we may reach the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness you will afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession we have made for peace and unity in this letter...
[Letter to the Corinthians I, 14, 63 (A.D. 70)].

Dionysius and the continuing importance of Clement’s letter:
“In the same letter he [Dionysius] refers to Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, proving that from the very first it had been customary to read it in church. He says: ‘Today being the Lord’s Day, we kept it as a holy day and read your epistle, which we shall read frequently for its valuable advice, like the earlier epistle which Clement wrote on your behalf.’”

With much evidence that St Clement was a successor of St Peter and recognizes his authority as others did, the historical writings proved to be irrefutable.

 

[prodromos]

Corinth was not a church down the street from Rome, it was a city in far away Greece, outside of Clement's local jurisdiction, yet within his universal jurisdiction at the same time.

St Clement wasn’t ordained directly from Christ, none of the successors are. We have the Apostles who acts a Bishops ordaining Bishops and Deacons and their successor’s keeps this continuity as an unbroken chain of succession. Tertullian is also very clear that since Peter was Bishop of Rome, St Clement had to be ordained in the likeness of St Peter.

“For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter”
[Prescription Against Heretics 32 (c. A.D. 200)].
So Clement was not only Bishop of Rome like St Peter was, but also a Pope.

Eusebius of Cesarea:
Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tm 4: 10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Letter to Timothy [2 Tm 4: 21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow soldier...
[Phil 4: 3] [ibid., 3: 4: 9–10].

St Jerome: Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says, “With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,” the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle
[Illustrious Men 15 (A.D. 392)].

St Clement of Rome had authority:
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events that have happened to us, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points about which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, that a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury. . . . It is right and holy, therefore, men and brethren, to obey God rather than to follow those who, through pride and sedition, have become the leaders of a detestable emulation. For we shall incur no slight injury, but rather great danger, if we rashly yield ourselves to the inclinations of men who aim at exciting strife and tumults, to draw us away from what is good . . . we may reach the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness you will afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession we have made for peace and unity in this letter...
[Letter to the Corinthians I, 14, 63 (A.D. 70)].

Dionysius and the continuing importance of Clement’s letter:
“In the same letter he [Dionysius] refers to Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, proving that from the very first it had been customary to read it in church. He says: ‘Today being the Lord’s Day, we kept it as a holy day and read your epistle, which we shall read frequently for its valuable advice, like the earlier epistle which Clement wrote on your behalf.’”

With much evidence that St Clement was a successor of St Peter and recognizes his authority as others did, the historical writings proved to be irrefutable.

I'm not going to bother repeating what I've already posted on this matter.

 

[Dale]

Did Jesus give out 12 sets of keys???


Pope Francis is bishop to the diocese of Rome, like any bishop anywhere in the world. In that sense, he is equal to other bishops. Peter is equal to the other Apostles in that same sense. Whoever takes the Chair of Peter still remains the local bishop of Rome, but with universal jurisdiction; "Servant of the Servants". That should help you understand why Clement was the 4th Pope while John was still alive, John cannot occupy 2 chairs.

The first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans. That point never comes up on anti-Catholic sources.

It’s interesting that you refer to Pope Francis. Does Francis even use the title of pope?

Here’s a story from NBC News. Francis doesn’t use the title of Pope. Maybe he doesn’t believe in popes.


New Pope Takes on 8 Official Titles, But Pope's Not One
By Scott Ross

Quote: << Pope Francis I will hold eight official titles during his time as the leader of the Catholic Church, and none of them will be "Pope." >>

Link:
New Pope Takes on 8 Official Titles, But Pope's Not One

Here is a story on the same subject from the Catholic press.

Pope Francis officially de-emphasizes papal titles
May 23, 2013
by Joshua J. McElwee

The story says that Francis is listed as Bishop of Rome, not Pope, in the Vatican Directory.

Link:
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/fra...francis-officially-de-emphasizes-papal-titles

 

[PanDeVida]

According to the Vatican's official list of popes, Peter became Pope, or Bishop of Rome, in 32 AD and continued to hold that office until his death by martyrdom in 67 AD. By this reckoning, Peter held the title and office of Bishop of Rome for thirty-five years. According to other sources, Peter actually died in 64 or 65 AD, two or three years earlier. For Vatican chronology to be correct, Peter would have had to go to Rome almost immediately after the activities attributed to him in the New Testament. He would also have had to stay in Rome.

Is this true? At the end of the Book of Romans, Paul spends an entire chapter greeting various people. Twenty-eight people are greeted by name, and others indirectly, as in "those who belong to the household of ... " and "also the church that meets at their house."

The person that Paul doesn't greet is Peter. Paul has no thought of Peter being in Rome. Moreover, Paul doesn't greet the Bishop of Rome, or show any sign that anyone possesses that title. There appear to be several house churches in Rome, but there is no sign that the churches in Rome have a common leader. If Peter had been Bishop of Rome at that time, Paul probably wouldn't have written the Book of Romans because Rome would have been under Peter's jurisdiction.

Scholars say that Paul's letter to the Romans was written in 59 AD. As of 59 AD, Peter wasn't in Rome and the title Bishop of Rome was not in use. We actually don't know how Christianity came to Rome. If Peter arrived in Rome in late 59 AD and was executed by the Roman state in 64 AD, he could have been Bishop of Rome for five years at most. Even this assumes that the house churches in Rome had a common head under that title or some other title.

Dale, Jesus made Peter the rock on which the Church is built and that this gave Peter a special primacy. Here we will show that Peter went to the city of Rome and was martyred there.

In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.

Catholic.com

 

[kepha31]

It’s interesting that you refer to Pope Francis. Does Francis even use the title of pope?

Here’s a story from NBC News. Francis doesn’t use the title of Pope. Maybe he doesn’t believe in popes.

New Pope Takes on 8 Official Titles, But Pope's Not One
By Scott Ross

Quote: << Pope Francis I will hold eight official titles during his time as the leader of the Catholic Church, and none of them will be "Pope." >>

Link:
New Pope Takes on 8 Official Titles, But Pope's Not One

Here is a story on the same subject from the Catholic press.

Pope Francis officially de-emphasizes papal titles
May 23, 2013
by Joshua J. McElwee

The story says that Francis is listed as Bishop of Rome, not Pope, in the Vatican Directory.

Link:
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/fra...francis-officially-de-emphasizes-papal-titles

Whatever title POPE Francis chooses to use or not use is his prerogative. The article doesn't prove anything, except perhaps his humility, a virtue that is largely foreign to Protestants.

 

[PanDeVida]

According to several Church Fathers, the authority to bind and loose was the keys, which all the Apostles received alike.

Prodromos, If All had the Keys, why The final decision was Always dependent on St. Peter's say, in Scripture? As It was then, It is now in the Catholic Church. Amen

 

[prodromos]

Prodromos, If All had the Keys, why The final decision was Always dependent on St. Peter's say, in Scripture? As It was then, It is now in the Catholic Church. Amen

Where does Scripture say the final decision was Always dependent on the Apostle Peter's say?

 

[Dale]

Did Jesus give out 12 sets of keys???


Pope Francis is bishop to the diocese of Rome, like any bishop anywhere in the world. In that sense, he is equal to other bishops. Peter is equal to the other Apostles in that same sense. Whoever takes the Chair of Peter still remains the local bishop of Rome, but with universal jurisdiction; "Servant of the Servants". That should help you understand why Clement was the 4th Pope while John was still alive, John cannot occupy 2 chairs.

The first 40 popes were killed by pagan Romans. That point never comes up on anti-Catholic sources.

Dale, Jesus made Peter the rock on which the Church is built and that this gave Peter a special primacy. Here we will show that Peter went to the city of Rome and was martyred there.

In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.

Catholic.com

Here is what Jesus really had to say about church government.

The greatest among you will be your servant. -- Matthew 23:11 NIV

He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; -- Matthew 23:11 RSV

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. -- Matthew 23:11 KJV



What does it mean to have a servant? Supposing that I had the money to hire a cook, a maid and a gardener, one important point about the relationship is that if I hire them, I can let them go if I'm not satisfied. If I hire them, I can fire them.


That is one problem with the Catholic church. The leaders say they are servants, they style themselves as servants, but they don't acknowledge that the people who pay their salaries can dismiss them.


That is one reason the Catholic system doesn't work.

 

[Dale]

Dale, Jesus made Peter the rock on which the Church is built and that this gave Peter a special primacy. Here we will show that Peter went to the city of Rome and was martyred there.

In order to escape the truth of the doctrine of the papacy, according to which the bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, some Fundamentalists have tried to deny that Peter ever went to Rome.

But the historical evidence reveals that this assertion is untenable. In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

This being the case, the historical evidence is unambiguous in declaring that Peter went to Rome, revealing the Fundamentalist claim to the contrary for what it is: an attempt to deny one of the tenets in the doctrine of the papacy, even if truth must be sacrificed to do so.

Catholic.com

PanDeVida,

You say that Peter has "a special primacy."

I don't see that at all. In the first half of the Book of Acts, we are told repeatedly,

"Peter and John ..."
"Peter and John ..."
"Peter and John ..."

We are told that Peter and John said this and did that. This is a partnership.
The church was never intended to be a dictatorship.