Protestant Scholars agree - Peter is the Rock in Matthew 16:18

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
simonthezealot said:
Sooo.....
You are calling Ireneaus a heretic?
LOL...
Is this your direction? Ireneaus, the first of the ECF's to actually have recorded the succession of bishops? he's a heretic for rebuking Victor?
I say this as kindly as possible. Trento, stop and read what you write.

Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate with Pope Victor on behalf of the peace of the churches--[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peace-maker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).


ad·mon·ished


To counsel (another) against something to be avoided; caution.
To remind of something forgotten or disregarded, as an obligation or a responsibility.



Entreat
v : ask for or request earnestly; "The prophet bid all people to become good persons.

Negotiate --To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement.


Rebuke --To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand

A sharp reproof.

Irenaeus admonished, entreated and negotiated because he knew the Bishop of Rome was setting in Peter's Chair and had the power to to excommunicate.
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟19,953.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WarriorAngel said:
THEN YOU tell us why Rome was called upon when the Church was evidently closer to the Patriarch.. and the Apostle John.

Your original idea just doesnt work.

Tell us all. :)
If you wish to not read my post's I can reitirate one more time for you.

But first I must point this out, from 1st Vat. Council.

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council.

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.

This did not happen. None of the quotes from the early fathers show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome, or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church.
Because Catholicism claims, which Christians who also trace their roots as far back as you guys disagree, that Rome has primacy for Catholicism now, which no one denies of course, they tend to project their beliefs back to that era. What is most important is THEY(ECF's) are saying it Peter and Paul, not me guys. Yes, based upon what they are saying, I do think they viewed them equally. That is an opinion that personally I would not be prone to share EXCEPT they do keep saying, Peter and Paul. I will put together a post at sometime about how the Bible views authority but not yet.

Now on with your question...

The insistence on Clement is interesting. I provided early quotes which said it was viewed as advice:

1. Bishop Dionysius writing to “Pope” Soter
Referring to the letter Clement wrote to Corinth

"Which we will read for its valuable advice"

Dionysius was Bishop in Corinth writing to the Bishop in Rome 70 years or so after Clements letter. What you want me to believe is that Dionysius does not know how Corinth viewed it.

2. Eusebius is full of letters written from bishops to bishops, page after page, including some where a Bishop in another city(I do not have the book with me but could provide the exact quote ) writes to handle a heretical situation in Rome even.
We know that Clement does not speak of himself as the head of the universal church. To say that the readers would have assumed it, contradicts what their Corinthian Bishop says 70 years later.
I have included a quote where Clement specifically mentions that the authority of their church rests with their presbyters. Have you guys not read some of the letters that other bishops wrote the first 200 years??


3. I spoke about John.

One must prove that disputes were handled by John in other situations before you can say he should have handled this.

One must prove when the letter was written. Not theory. PROVE

They must prove that John was not on Patmos when it was written, unless you think he was getting his mail at that time.

They must PROVE when John died.

We already know from Holy Scripture though that people wrote letters to people outside their jurisdiction. Once again, Eusebius is full of examples.

4. Warriorangel, are you actually contending ONLY Rome sent representatives to vaious councils or other churches!?!?!.

5. I have concluded, as I remember an Orthodox priest/professor, recollection is vague, saying in a lecture, the only people who could read Eusebius and see Papal Primacy, did not read it".

That is your choice. question. Anyone have a copy of the book and would like to discuss it further in PM or on another thread.
I can see how someone could read early Christian history and be Orthodox, I get that, different thread why I am not though. I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could read early Christian history and choose a faith that contradicts the shared authority of the bishops or how they did things the first 200 to 300 years. I have never understood it. Suffice to say, when I bring out the Roman Catholic scholars, not even they see it either. I will put together some quotes if I can. Not that it will matter, people see history how they want to. I do wish, if you have not actually read some of the books mentioned, you will do so. Warrior I get your nickname I must compliment you on a fight till death attitude most would hide away.
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟19,953.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Trento said:
Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1-24:11).
"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate with Pope Victor on behalf of the peace of the churches--[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peace-maker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).


Irenaeus admonished, entreated and negotiated because he knew the Bishop of Rome was setting in Peter's Chair and had the power to to excommunicate.

Your quoting a Catholic book "church history" who are writing about what they had learned from the ECF's and then rewriting in their own terms. I prefer to go to the source... I am quoting eusebius... who says rebuke.
Who should we rely on???
Read it again...

Eusebius
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul.

I'll stick with Eusebius...
How about you?
 
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟19,953.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
WarriorAngel said:
THEN YOU tell us why Rome was called upon when the Church was evidently closer to the Patriarch.. and the Apostle John.

Your original idea just doesnt work.

Tell us all. :)

I wanted to add... My words are not my words I am using ECF's to state my side...It's not my opinions.
Between you, me, and this board, you know you cannot prove when John died exactly and when Clement was written exactly. It is bad apologetics to use John as an example of Clements authority. Just like it is bad Protestant apologetics to use petros/petra. Just admit it. You guys cannot prove when it was written we have a range. 95 CE? Could be.
92 CE? Could be. 99 CE? Could be. Use good Catholic apologetic arguments, not that one.
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
59
Oklahoma
✟24,729.00
Faith
Pentecostal
WarriorAngel said:
NOTE two things......He was addressing them and did NOT deny a a chief...NOW does He??

Why was He addressing them. WA? Because they were striving for a "chief" spot among them. He specifically told them thatnone of them were above the other. He did not say "none except for Peter." He said none, and that included Peter. This directly addresses the issue of one apostle being above the others.

Also, Peter, himself, kne nothing about a "chief," position among the apostles. See how he refers to himself when writing his epistles:

1 Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2 Pet 1:2 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

If he is writing to correct or instruct others, I find it inconceivable that he would fail to mention his "chief" position among the twelve.

WarriorAngel said:
And He also says THAT WHOSOEVER 'IS' CHEIF AMONG YOU, let him be your servant....The minister.


WA, we can see what He said. He is telling them that a hierarchy system is no longer.

Luk 22:24; And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
Luk 22:25; And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26; But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

WarriorAngel said:
Now who else said they came be the minister...? O that's right....Jesus did!!!!


If what you just implied was at all true, it still does not necessitate that Peter was "chief." He did not refer to one specific person. He referred to all who would strive to be chief.


WarriorAngel said:
WarriorAngel said:
Matthew 20

28 Even as the Son of man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.


See above.

WarriorAngel said:
Peter altho their lead, was still humble. Are you going to argue his character too?


What are you talking about? :scratch: If one is a leader, who must be trusted completely, and it was ever so important that all follow and submit to his authority, he must assert his authority with confidence. Peter gave no indication, nor did any other apostle, that he was "chief" among them.

WarriorAngel said:
He himself is humbled in his writings regardless of his position to lead.
WarriorAngel said:
Minister...?


Don't you get tired of creating explanations that supposedly show why Scripture doesn't say what it clearly does say? There is nothing unique to him only regarding his role as an apostle.

WarriorAngel said:
John 12
26 If any man minister to me, let him follow me; and where I am, there also shall my minister be. If any man minister to me, him will my Father honour.


WA, we're not discussin Peter's character or honor here.

WarriorAngel said:
BIG QUESTION...WAS JESUS NOT THE ONE WHO IS THE MESSIAH?....YET if you interpret this above scripture to mean all the Aposltes were equal, then Jesus Himself was not better Whom called Himself a minister.


Where do you come up with this stuff? Jesus specifically said that no apostle was above the others. There's no way to refute that fact.


WarriorAngel said:
IS this how it works then??
WarriorAngel said:
SO does this debunk Peter...?
Or does it raise him ??

Since Christ Himself was called to be a minister....and Peter is His administrator...the ONLY one with the keys.


What did the keys allow Peter to do? Look at Matt 16 and 18:

Mat 16:18; And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19; And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Then in Matthew 18 He speaks to all twelve of the apostles and says:

Mat 18:18; Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


So, how do you assert the other eleven apostles were able to bind and loose if they did not have keys?

WarriorAngel said:
AND also note that Paul uses the line as an emphasis....
WarriorAngel said:
I would think the list grows in importance...since the world is bigger than even Peter and yet life is bigger than the world, and death even so greater than even life [which ends] ...

Basically used as emphasis in a line of greater exceeding greater yet.

The liberties some people take and the leaps they make in order to affirm their arguments never cease to boggle the mind . . . . . :sigh:
 
Upvote 0

Augustine_Was_Calvinist

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2004
5,493
89
✟6,453.00
Faith
Calvinist
simonthezealot said:
Your quoting a Catholic book "church history" who are writing about what they had learned from the ECF's and then rewriting in their own terms. I prefer to go to the source... I am quoting eusebius... who says rebuke.
Who should we rely on???
Read it again...

Eusebius
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul.

I'll stick with Eusebius...
How about you?

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Trento

Senior Veteran
Apr 12, 2002
4,387
575
AZ. Between the Holy Cross river and the Saint Rit
Visit site
✟22,534.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
simonthezealot said:
Your quoting a Catholic book "church history" who are writing about what they had learned from the ECF's and then rewriting in their own terms. I prefer to go to the source... I am quoting eusebius... who says rebuke.
Who should we rely on???
Read it again...

Eusebius
Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighbouring churches, on the grounds of hertrodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Chritians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians from whom he was responsible in Gaul.

I'll stick with Eusebius...
How about you?

Rebuking IS a Protestant spin. Let's examine what really took place, in the words of the Protestant historian, JND Kelly:

At his Victor's instigation, councils were held both at Rome and at other centers, from Gaul to Mesopotamia, and majority opinion sided with Victor. The churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon the age-old Quartodeciman custom of observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, whatever the day of the week on which it fell. Victor thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from communion, not simply with Rome but with the Church generally." (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 12)

Irenaeus NEVER suggests that Victor does not have the authority, but rather URGES him not to issue the excommunications, because the dispute was merely Liturgical and not doctrinal in nature. And, to support his case, Irenaeus does not cite his own authority as bishop of Lyon, or even his ties of discipleship with the venerable St. Polycarp who knew the Apostles) but rather the authority of Victor's OWN predecessor, Pope Anicetus, who conceded to Polycarp, and granted the Asians the Liturgical freedom to celebrate Easter according to the tradition they received from St. John. THIS is why Victor withdrew the excommunication, and not because of any authoritative "rebuke." You need to get historical facts straight.

Eusebius, THe History of the Church 5, 23-25:

Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow-Christians there. But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a reques that he would turn his mind to the things that make for eace and for unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them wwas Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible in Gaul. While supporting the view that only on the Lord's Day might the mystery of the Lord's resurrection be celebrated, he gave Victor a great deal of excellent advice, in particular that he should not cut off entire churches of God because they observed the unbroken tradition of their predecessors.

First, read the last sentence. Does Ireneaus question Victor's authority to excommunicate so many churches? No, he does not. It says, "...he should not cut off entire churches of God...". I'm not a grammarian, but "should not" is entirely different than "could not". Should not implies that one has the ability to do the act in the first place. For instance, "I should not jump of a cliff" implies that I have the ability to jump of a cliff, whereas "I could not jump of a cliff" implies that I do not have the ability to do so. So when I see Ireneaus telling Victor that he "should not cut off entire churches", I take from it that Victor has the ability to do so if he wanted to.

Secondly, the bishops that did not like Victor's ideas of excommunication "replied with a request that he...". These bishops did not tell Victor that he did not have the authority to cut off entire churches, but told him that he'd be making a mistake if he did. If Victor was rebuked, so were several other Popes throughout the ages; it does not diminish their authority as inherited from St. Peter. At any rate, it seems clear to me that if Victor was about to make a mistake, everyone acknowledged his ability to do so. I do not see anything about Victor not having the authority to do what he was about to do. Irenaeus certainly didn't dictate to Pope Victor; to the contrary, he was cordial and deferential. He never questioned Pope St. Victor's authority to excommunicate the churches in question but merely the wisdom of doing so.

Reguarding Irenaeus writings yours would be a very naive view of Eusebius interpretation after this evidence.

But 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 and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient 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 WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN, ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION."


Can you or anyone name one Doctrine that was opposed by the Bishop of Rome in the the first 800 years that became accepted Doctrine througout the entire Church.

 
  • Like
Reactions: WarriorAngel
Upvote 0

simonthezealot

have you not read,what God has spoken unto you?
Apr 17, 2006
16,461
1,919
Minnesota
✟19,953.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
First allow me to thank you for another long post.:thumbsup: It's funny you keep using Protestant scholars, is that because all the RC scholars theories have been shot down, so your going to decievingly twist the words of Protestants to try to stake a claim?
Trento, is a protestant beating a catholic at their own game? arguing authority and primacy without the scriptures? hmmm...

Trento said:
Rebuking IS a Protestant spin. Let's examine what really took place, in the words of the Protestant historian, JND Kelly:

At his Victor's instigation, councils were held both at Rome and at other centers, from Gaul to Mesopotamia, and majority opinion sided with Victor. The churches of Asia Minor, however, refused to abandon the age-old Quartodeciman custom of observing Easter on the 14th of Nisan, whatever the day of the week on which it fell. Victor thereupon proclaimed their exclusion from communion, not simply with Rome but with the Church generally." (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 12)

hmmm... 2 things
1.) should I trust this more than what I have read from the ECF's
2.) it still does nothing to establish universal authority
3.) before we get to caught up on victor, I would like to mention he was bishop in 189 this is a far cry from succession from Peter

Sorry I am short on time today!
Peace.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.