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

[dennis777]

However it is in fact Biblical indeed. It is Biblical by the definitions in the OT.


Christ defined the succession adequately enough.



In Mat 18:16, true to his usual form of teaching, Jesus was invoking and old testament Scripture. In this case it was Isaiah 22:22. If we look at this passage, we see the precedent of succession to which Catholics believe Jesus was referring .

... I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open...and he will become a throne of honor to his ancestral house. And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. (Isaiah 22:23)

​

In the Old Testament, the office of Chancellor was a dynasty that had successors. This was evidenced by the reference to an office, a throne, a robe, authority, and the keys. This office also sounds a lot like a present day pope. The key holder is called a father. This appears very much to be the language of succession. Even the reference to the "House of David" in Isaiah 22:24 points to the issue of succession. David had died 400 years earlier. Jesus is also in the lineage of David. Jesus was King and certainly had the authority to give Peter the chancellor's (Prime Minister's) keys that God had given to Eliakim.

Keys are a permanent kind of thing. Jesus didn't say "I'll take them back after you die". That would not make sense. Catholics think Jesus gave Peter the "office" just as Eliakim had been given the "office". Jesus gave Peter power to bind on earth. So Peter had power to name a successor, which Catholics think he did. He gave the keys to Linus, who gave them to Anacletus, who gave them to Clement.

While in Corinth, St. Clement, who was the Pope in 96 A.D. [during St John's lifetime] , wrote appeals for the memory of the two martyrs, Peter & Paul (epistle to the Corinthians 5:3-7) He explicitly referred to the Apostles appointed bishops and made provisions for their succession.

Irenaeus was familiar with those who had been close both to Peter and to Paul and who "had the preaching of the blessed Apostles ringing in their ears." He testifies that the truth which the Church received from the Apostles had come down to him, and consequently "one and the very same life-giving faith had been preserved in the Church and was handed down in its purity and integrity from the Apostles even to his own day" (Against Heresies 3,3). (Knights of Columbus pamphlet Mary Mother of God)​

In the Old Testament we see prophets passing on power to their successors by the laying on of hands and anointing. For example:

Joshua son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands on him (Deut 31:1-8)

You [Elijah] shall anoint Elisha son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah as prophet in your place (1 Kg 19:16)
...Samuel took a horn of oil, and anointed him in the presence of his brothers and then spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward. (1 Sam 16:13)​

​

I don't understand you. At all.

Isaiah 22 , and Mat 16;18 have nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.

If "Apostolic Succession" is in the Bible, where is it?
Where is "Pastoral Succession"?
Where is the "Gifts of the Spirit Succession"?
Where is "Evangelist Succession"?
Where is "Believer Succession"?
Where is "Un-believer Succession"?

Where is the RCC in the Bible?
Is it Rev 17,18, 19?

Where is Peter's Authority (as Pope) in the Bible?

There is no Succession (of Anything) in the NT.
The OT had some Succession (family lines, tribes, etc)

But, The NT has no Succession. Each person can rise to Saint-hood, Priest-hood, Believer-hood, Pastor, Evangelist, etc , without Succession from anybody. Each person's "office" is a Spiritual thing, determined only by God and that individual person.



dennis777

 

[Reformationist]

Disagreeing with me, or the Church will not remove, destroy or change that the same Church was the Apostolic Church from the beginning.

WA, only those in the Roman Catholic denomination presume that the teachings of your church are infallible. It's not treason to disagree with fallible church councils. It may be foolhardy but not necessarily wrong.

You see, you and your RC brethren go to all this trouble to perpetuate the view of the Roman denomination being "the same church that Jesus started." What does that mean? Must that mean that your leadership cannot be wrong? Must it mean that the views of your church cannot be erroneous? You see, your entire view, every single point of doctrine, hinges on the belief that your denomination cannot be wrong. I guess it's fortunate that your denomination, like all others, is in the business of teaching on matters spiritual. Your armor against the clearly untenable views that your denomination professes is to simply deny any viewpoint that starts out in contradiction to the views of your denomination's leaders on the grounds that they contradict the views of your denominations leaders. You won't consider other viewpoints because you start off with the faulty foundation that your church cannot be wrong before you ever even begin consider a person's view. Therefore, it doesn't matter if your Pope comes out and say, "Proclaiming ex cathedra, I, the Pope, issue the clarification that every single water stain that has been assumed to be a manifestation of the image of the Blessed Virgin is, in fact, the work of the hand of God to show us how He has blessed the mother of God." You'd believe them and countenance no discussion to the contrary. This was, of course, only an example, and a feeble one at that, so please don't expend any effort explaining to me how the Pope would never pass such a decree.

Does denying her [the Church] make her somehow wrong?

No, of course not. They are wrong whether I deny their views or not.

Whether or not anyone believes it, the historical documentation prooves she is correctly the original Church.

There was, originally, one Christian church. Many views, but one church. That does not make your denomination the purveyor of the truth of God.

Which means then, that she is still guarded by the Spirit and Jesus.

AND that the gates of hell shall NOT prevail. Which is a statement by Christ.
We either believe in this with historical proof, or we do not.

Let me see if I follow you here. You presume that your denomination, which teaches a plethora of biblical error is the church that is "guarded by the Spirit of God?"

There is a common misconception concerning the Pope.

The Pope is a human, he sins, he seeks forgiveness, he errs in his own 'opinions' [not to be confused with the Church doctrines]...BUT when he stands up to speak ex cathedra concerning an Apostolic Teaching, he neither changes the ancient belief nor adds to it. He reaffirms it. AND depending on the era, he makes it more understandable for that era. [languages change...doctrines do not]
When reaffirming Peter's teaching, while sitting in Peter's seat...he is speaking an infallible measure of faith that cannot be changed by man.

It may be a "common misconception" but I was not even speaking of the Pope. Additionally, it is this very view that when your fallible Pope prefaces his fallible opinions with the claim that he is speaking from a particular chair that it is "infallible and cannot be changed by man" that makes the claims spurious.

For the record, what I was speaking of was your claim that "where He [God] stays, there is no room for error." Unless you're contending that God only stays with your church when your Pope speaks ex cathedra, your claim is nonsensical.

The very scripture they knew to put together.

So your position is that the Bible supports the view that your denomination teaches no error?

I pray you have something more to show the primacy and infallibility of your denomination than your denomination's faulty exegesis.

God bless

 

[WarriorAngel]

Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.
Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

NOTE two things......He was addressing them and did NOT deny a a chief...NOW does He??
And He also says THAT WHOSOEVER 'IS' CHEIF AMONG YOU, let him be your servant....The minister.
Now who else said they came be the minister...? O that's right....Jesus did!!!!

9 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.

Peter altho their lead, was still humble. Are you going to argue his character too?
He himself is humbled in his writings regardless of his position to lead.

Minister...?
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.

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.

IS this how it works then??

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.

1 Cr 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
1 Cr 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

*Notice in Corinthians, Peter is not mentioned first.

AND also note that Paul uses the line as an emphasis....

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.

 

[simonthezealot]

WA,
Please respond to post 200.
Simon

 

[Trento]

.

Quote:
Pope Victor’s attempted ex-communication of some Eastern bishops


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.

Polycrates to Victor
So I, my friends, after spending sixty-five years in the Lord’s service and conversing with Christians from all parts of the world, and going carefully through all Holy Scriptures(gotta love that), am not scared of threats, Better people than I have said: ‘We must obey God rather than man.’

The above proves
the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.

When you talk about Eastern Bishops historicaly if it were not for Rome's refusal to cooperate with Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous "councils" in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism we would be Arian today. What trumps A Council is Rome's teaching authority.



St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi rebuked popes, and their advice was respected and heeded As do we. Have you heard of the sensus fidelium ("sense of the faithful"), which was re-emphasized by Cardinal Newman?

Sorry to rush this out but some people are using historical quotes out of context. NONE of those support the contention that Peter had a specific successor as head of the "ENTIRE CHURCH". Only Rome, and by all accounts, is traceable to PETER AND PAUL.
Where is the proof from the first two hundred years of Christianity that Peter's had a successor as the head of the church?

Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is his successor. The Bible does not mention a successor for Peter and early Christian history does not support the contentions of Catholicism.
Sorry to rush this out

Christian History during a lifetime of study of Patristic writings by these Protestant scholars reveal that Popes were sucessors of Peter.


In his classic work Early Christian Doctrines Protestant J.N.D. Kelly sums up the reason.

Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 - 430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims.Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)

The massive study The See of Peter by Protestants James T. Shotwell/Louise Ropes Loomis (NY: Octagon Books, 1965) on the early evidence for the primacy of Rome --

"Unquestionably, the Roman church very early developed something like a sense of obligation to the oppressed all over Christendom....Consequently there was but one focus of authority. By the year 252, there seem to have been on hundred bishops in central and southern italry but outside Rome there was nothing to set one bishop above another. All were on a level together, citizens of italy, accustomed to look to Rome for direction in every detail of public life. The Roman bishop had the right not only to ordain but even, on occasion, to select bishops for Italian churches....To Christians of the Occident, the Roman church was the sole, direct link with the age of the New Testament and its bishop was the one prelate in their part of the world in whose voice they discerned echoes of the apostles' speech. The Roman bishop spoke always as the guardian of an authoritative tradition, second to none. Even when the eastern churches insisted that their traditions wer older and quite as sacred, if not more so, the voice in the West, unaccustomed to rivalry at home, spoke on regardless of protest or denunciation at a distance....
"The theory of [Pope] Stephen, that kindled his contemporaries to such utter exasperation, was rather that the Church was a monarchy, a congeries indeed of bishoprics but all of them subject to the superior authority of the one bishop who sat upon the throne of the prince of the apostles Peter. The Roman See, as distinct from the Roman church, was and eought to be predominant, not for its situation or other wordly advantes, not even for its treasure of doctrine, bequeathed by its two founders, but, primarily and fundamentally, because its bishop was heir in his own person to the unique prerogative conferred upon Peter. To Peter had been granted a primacy among the apostles, so to the Roman bishop was assigned a leadership over the bishops....The Arians, who had ousted Athanasius from Alexandria, offered to submit the case to [Pope] Julius for his judgment. Athanasius himself and other orthodox refugees from eastern sees went directly to Rome as to a court of appeal...
"At the general Council of Sardica [343 AD]...the orthodox Easterners and Westerners stayed behind to issue another, in which they claimed for the Roman bishop an appellate jurisdiction over all the Church in honor of 'the memory of Peter, the apostle.'...[by the time of Pope Damasus]...there can be no doubt that large numbers of eastern Christians had by thie time become convinced of the genuine superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans....it was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome....(Shotwell/Loomis, page 217-228)

​

 

[simonthezealot]

The above proves
the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.

Do ya know what rebuke means? Gimme a break.
Rebuke:

1. To criticize or reprove sharply; reprimand. See synonyms at admonish.
2. To check or repress.

Did not challenge his authority? THEY REBUKED HIM. GEEESH.

When you talk about Eastern Bishops historicaly if it were not for Rome's refusal to cooperate with Antioch (in 341, where about 100 Eastern bishops approved of straight Arianism), Sirmium (in 351, where another 100 or so Eastern bishops espoused semi-Arianism), the Robber Council of Ephesus (in 449-450 which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox doctrine), the numerous "councils" in Constantinople (which included the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which declared Monophysitism to be orthodox), and the councils of Constantinople of 638 and 639 which approved of the Ecthesis, embracing Monothelitism we would be Arian today. What trumps A Council is Rome's teaching authority.

What does this have to do w/ anything, that is the 4th century, 280ish years after Peter.

St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Francis of Assisi rebuked popes, and their advice was respected and heeded As do we. Have you heard of the sensus fidelium ("sense of the faithful"), which was re-emphasized by Cardinal Newman?

Are these bishops?
whose writing is this?
please don't use quotes to defend yourself without giving proper information for others to confirm the context in which it is written.
(are you saying , pope benll would allow the chicago cardinal to publicly rebuke him with no fallout? pfff

Christian History during a lifetime of study of Patristic writings by these Protestant scholars reveal that Popes were sucessors of Peter.

Bull! if any of them believed the popes where specific successors of Peter, and peter alone and that they (popes) carried peters universal authority they would not be protestants.
Read between the lines they are saying rome was more preeminnent but successors NOT! Preeminent because of a willingness to follow the teachings of Peter AND Paul.
Do me a favor and quit with the protestant writers say....
because you are obviously quoting off the same thing as WA
and it does not prove anything. Except it creates mammoth posts that everyone would just as soon glaze over.

 

[simonthezealot]

Trento,
Do you think pope victor was a morally inferior pope, in that he would be rebuked even though he was a so called leader?

 

[bloodofthelamb12]

Just a thought, and one you'll hopefully not be offended by; at what point did Peter go from being the base of the Church to being her head? From being the least amongst servants to being the servants' king?

 

[Trento]

Trento,
Do you think pope victor was a morally inferior pope, in that he would be rebuked even though he was a so called leader?

Heretics always rebuke Popes. During the pontificate of Victor a rich Christian, Theodotus the Leather-seller, came from Constantinople to Rome and taught false doctrines concerning Christ, Whom he declared to be merely a man endowed by the Holy Ghost, at baptism, with supernatural power. The pope condemned this heresy and excluded Theodotus from the Church.
The efferts of Victor paved the way to a final settlement of the difficulty by ruling at the General Council of Nice 325 that Easter must be celebrated by all throughout the world on the same Sunday which Protestants adhear to,

Dr. Adolph Harnack Protestant Historical scholar made the following observations on the matter:

[Victor] ventured by an edict (one might say a pre-emptory edict) with reference to the arrangement of ecclesiastical feasts to proclaim the rule of the Roman practice as a general rule of the Church and to announce that any local church would be excluded as heretical from the fellowship of the one Church, if it did not adopt the Roman arrangement. How could Victor have ventured upon such an edict (still less to put it into actual effect, even if he had the strength to do so) unless it was established and recognized that in the decisive question of faith it was eminently the function of the Roman church to determine the conditions of the "common unity"? How could Victor have made such an unheard-of demand to the independent local churches, unless, as Bishop of Rome, he had been recognized as the guardian of the "common unity"?

In a footnot added; The first duty of the historian, which comprehends all others, is fidelity and justice. He must reproduce the history itself, making it live again in his representation. His highest and only aim should be, like a witness, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and, like a judge, to do full justice to every person and event which comes under his review regardless of his political or religious affliations.

 

[Trento]

Just a thought, and one you'll hopefully not be offended by; at what point did Peter go from being the base of the Church to being her head? From being the least amongst servants to being the servants' king?

In these Bible passages.

Matt. 16, 18-19: 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc.​

Later Our Lord made Simon-Peter pastor of both the lambs and the sheep, that is His whole flock.​

John 21, 15 to 17: So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time. Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him. Feed my sheep. 17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.​

Our Lord promised that Peter would confirm the faith of the other Apostles:​

Luke 22-32: But I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.​

 

[WarriorAngel]

Catholics say this proves Roman primacy because they did not ask the Apostle John for help.

1. If a Catholic apologist wants to use this argument, they must first prove that anytime a church had serious difficulty after the death of the last Apostle prior to John, they consulted John and understood his role in that manner.

2. Next they must prove when Clement wrote this letter. I have seen dates from 80 CE to 110 CE.
3. Next they must look at what we know about John:

He was exiled to Patmos for an undetermined amount of time between 81-96.

"With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96)."

"He died sometime during the reign of Trajan.
Emperor of Rome (A.D. 98-117), b. at Italica Spain, 18 September, 53; d. 7 August, 117.'
Unless they can prove when the letter was written exactly and when John died, they cannot use this

It seems like someone pulling at straws.

All these non essential questions that men have written to puff smoke away from the original reason for the distance for the letter.

First of all, Clement was martyred in 99 AD, it is unlikely he wrote anything afterwards....which also I want to add some tidbits about Clement.

St. Irenaeus (III, iii) tells us that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles ".

It is also known that St Peter himself ordained him.

But here is his death accounts.

Martyrdom Of the life and death of St, Clement nothing is known. The apocryphal Greek Acts of his martyrdom were printed by Cotelier in his "Patres Apost." (1724, I, 808; reprinted in Migne, P. G., II, 617, best edition by Funk, "Patr. Apost.", II, 28). They relate how he converted Theodora, wife of Sisinnius, a courtier of Nerva, and (after miracles) Sisinnius himself and four hundred and twenty-three other persons of rank. Trajan banishes the pope to the Crimea, where he slakes the thirst of two thousand Christian confessors by a miracle. The people of the country are converted, seventy-five churches are built. Trajan, in consequence, orders Clement to be thrown into the sea with an iron anchor. But the tide every year recedes two miles, revealing a Divinely built shrine which contains the martyr's bones. This story is not older than the fourth century. It is known to Gregory of Tours in the sixth. About 868 St. Cyril, when in the Crimea on the way to evangelize the Chazars, dug up some bones in a mound (not in a tomb under the sea), and also an anchor. These were believed to be the relics of St. Clement. They were carried by St. Cyril to Rome, and deposited by Adrian II with those of St. Ignatius of Antioch in the high altar of the basilica of St. Clement in Rome. The history of this translation is evidently quite truthful, but there seems to have been no tradition with regard to the mound, which simply looked a likely place to be a tomb. The anchor appears to be the only evidence of identity but we cannot gather from the account that it belonged to the scattered bones. (See Acta SS., 9 March, II, 20.) St. Clement is first mentioned as a martyr by Rufinus (c. 400). Pope Zozimus in a letter to Africa in 417 relates the trial and partial acquittal of the heretic Caelestius in the basilica of St. Clement; the pope had chosen this church because Clement had learned the Faith from St. Peter, and had given his life for it (Ep. ii). He is also called a martyr by the writer known as Praedestinatus (c. 430) and by the Synod of Vaison in 442. Modern critics think it possible that his martyrdom was suggested by a confusion with his namesake, the martyred consul. But the lack of tradition that he was buried in Rome is in favour of his having died in exile.

THE EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS

The Church of Corinth had been led by a few violent spirits into a sedition against its rulers. No appeal seems to have been made to Rome, but a letter was sent in the name of the Church of Rome by St. Clement to restore peace and unity. He begins by explaining that his delay in writing has been caused by the sudden calamities which, one after another, had just been falling upon the Roman Church. The reference is clearly to the persecution of Domitian. The former high reputation of the Corinthian Church is recalled, its piety and hospitality, its obedience and discipline. Jealousy had caused the divisions; it was jealousy that led Cain, Esau, etc., into sin, it was jealousy to which Peter and Paul and multitudes with them fell victims. The Corinthians are urged to repent after the example of the Patriarchs, and to be humble like Christ himself. Let them observe order, as all creation does. A curious passage on the Resurrection is somewhat of an interruption in the sequence: all creation proves the Resurrection, and so does the phoenix, which every five hundred years consumes itself, that its offspring may arise out of its ashes (23-6). Let us, Clement continues, forsake evil and approach God with purity, clinging to His blessing, which the Patriarchs so richly obtained, for the Lord will quickly come with His rewards, let us look to Jesus Christ, our High-Priest, above the angels at the right hand of the Father (36). Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of bishops and deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure. The just have always been persecuted. Read St. Paul's first epistle to you, how he condemns party spirit. It is shocking that a few should disgrace the Church of Corinth. Let us beg for pardon- nothing is more beautiful than charity; it was shown by Christ when He gave His Flesh for our flesh, His Soul-for our souls; by living in this love, we shall be in the number of the saved through Jesus Christ, by Whom is glory to God for ever and ever, Amen (58). But if any disobey, he is in great danger; but we will pray that the Creator may preserve the number of His elect in the whole world.--Here follows a beautiful Eucharistic prayer (59-61). The conclusion follows: "We have said enough, on the necessity of repentance, unity, peace, for we have been speaking to the faithful, who have deeply studied the Scriptures, and will understand the examples pointed out, and will follow them. We shall indeed be happy if you obey. We have sent two venerable messengers, to show how great is our anxiety for peace among you" (62-4). "Finally may the all-seeing God and Master of Spirits and Lord of all flesh, who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through Him for a peculiar people, grant unto every soul that is called after His excellent and holy Name faith, fear, peace, patience, long-suffering, temperance, chastity, and soberness, that they may be well-pleasing unto His Name through our High Priest and Guardian. Jesus Christ, through whom unto Him be glory and majesty, might and honour, both now and for ever and ever, Amen. Now send ye back speedily unto us our messengers Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, together with Fortunatus also, in peace and with joy, to the end that they may the more quickly report the peace and concord which is prayed for and earnestly desired by us, that we also may the more speedily rejoice over your good order. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you and with all men in all places who have been called by God and through Him, through whom is glory and honour, power and greatness and eternal dominion, unto Him, from the ages past and for ever and ever. Amen." (64-5.)
The style of the Epistle is earnest and simple, restrained and dignified, and sometimes eloquent. The Greek is correct, though not classical. The quotations from the Old Testament are long and numerous. The version of the Septuagint used by Clement inclines in places towards that which appears in the New Testament, yet presents sufficient evidence of independence; his readings are often with A, but are less often opposed to B than are those in the New Testament; occasionally he is found against the Septuagint with Theodotion or even Aquila (see H. B. Swete, Introd. to the 0. T. in Greek, Cambridge 1900). The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels. He mentions St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, and appears to imply a second. He knows Romans and Titus, and apparently cites several other of St. Paul's Epistles. But Hebrews is most often employed of all New Testament books. James, probably, and I Peter, perhaps, are referred to. (See the lists of citations in Funk and Lightfoot, Westcott and Zahn on the Canon, Introductions to Holy Scripture, such as those of Cornely, Zahn, etc., and "The New Test. in the Apost. Fathers", by a Committee of the Oxford Society of Hist. Theology, Oxford, 1906.) The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part (56, 58, etc.): "But if certain persons should be disobedient unto the words spoken by Him through us let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger; but we shall be guiltless of this sin" (59). "It may, perhaps, seem strange", writes Bishop Lightfoot, "to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case." (I, 70.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

 

[dennis777]

I don't understand you. At all.

Isaiah 22 , and Mat 16;18 have nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.

If "Apostolic Succession" is in the Bible, where is it?
Where is "Pastoral Succession"?
Where is the "Gifts of the Spirit Succession"?
Where is "Evangelist Succession"?
Where is "Believer Succession"?
Where is "Un-believer Succession"?

Where is the RCC in the Bible?
Is it Rev 17,18, 19?

Where is Peter's Authority (as Pope) in the Bible?

There is no Succession (of Anything) in the NT.
The OT had some Succession (family lines, tribes, etc)

But, The NT has no Succession. Each person can rise to Saint-hood, Priest-hood, Believer-hood, Pastor, Evangelist, etc , without Succession from anybody. Each person's "office" is a Spiritual thing, determined only by God and that individual person.



dennis777

Does the pope think that his (alledged) "Apostolic Office" can be bequeathed to successors?

Like, I bequeath my car and my favorite Bible to my son. And I bequeath my truck and my favorite Bible Dictionary to my daughter.
???

All of the Apostles were chosen by God. By a Spiritual
Choosing.
The Apostles worked Great, Astounding, Signs, Wonders, Miracles. Which vindicated their message, and witnessed to their Divine-ly Appointed Office.

The early Christians worked Wonders and Miracles, spoke Prophecies as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke in Tongues, handled snakes, drank poisons, without any harm to themselves, etc

The

 

[dennis777]

I don't understand you. At all.

Isaiah 22 , and Mat 16;18 have nothing to do with Apostolic Succession.

If "Apostolic Succession" is in the Bible, where is it?
Where is "Pastoral Succession"?
Where is the "Gifts of the Spirit Succession"?
Where is "Evangelist Succession"?
Where is "Believer Succession"?
Where is "Un-believer Succession"?

Where is the RCC in the Bible?
Is it Rev 17,18, 19?

Where is Peter's Authority (as Pope) in the Bible?

There is no Succession (of Anything) in the NT.
The OT had some Succession (family lines, tribes, etc)

But, The NT has no Succession. Each person can rise to Saint-hood, Priest-hood, Believer-hood, Pastor, Evangelist, etc , without Succession from anybody. Each person's "office" is a Spiritual thing, determined only by God and that individual person.



dennis777

Does the pope think that his (alledged) "Apostolic Office" can be bequeathed to successors?

Like, ...........I bequeath my car and my favorite Bible to my son. And I bequeath my truck and my favorite Bible Dictionary to my daughter.
???

All of the Apostles were chosen by God. By a Spiritual
Choosing.
The Apostles worked Great, Astounding, Signs, Wonders, Miracles. Which vindicated their message, and witnessed to their Divine-ly Appointed Office.

The early Christians worked Wonders and Miracles, spoke Prophecies as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke in Tongues, handled snakes, drank poisons, without any harm to themselves, etc

The early Christians needed these Signs, Wonders, Miracles (more than we do today), because some of them did not have a complete copy of the Bible.
Now that we have a complete Bible, and the Church is established, we have less need for Signs, miracles, Wonders.

The popes are not producing the same Miracles that the Apostles did.
There is no Apostolic Succession in the NT.
None of the Spiritual things of God are passed from one person to another, in the NT, by "Succession".
Do I have the "Joy of the Lord"? I did not get it by Succession!
Do I believe God? I did not get my "belief" from a predecessor-in-office!
Am I a Saint, and a Priest? I did not get it from any mere little man (or an Apostle)! I received it from God, by the born-again-experience, by the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit"! I was Spiritually born-again, from Heaven!

No mere Physical Office, handed down to me, from some little sinner , can help me. I need Miracle-Help from the Great God and Savior Himself, our Lord Jesus Christ!
I need a Spiritual Office, from the God-Man. Not a little physical office from man.

Succession from men means nothing to us.

dennis777

 

[simonthezealot]

Heretics always rebuke Popes.

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.

 

[simonthezealot]

It seems like someone pulling at straws.

Pulling straws? YOU used the fact that they didn't ask the apostle John for help as proof of primacy! If you can't approach answering these points, then don't use them not asking John. YOU my friend are pulling straws.

All these non essential questions that men have written to puff smoke away from the original reason for the distance for the letter

.

Is this some kind of smoke screen comment?

St. Irenaeus (III, iii) tells us that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles ".

Did you just want to reitirate everything I've been saying, it was both apostles not just Peter...

It is also known that St Peter himself ordained him.

So Peter ordained Clement? does that mean he also ordained Linus and that their where popes given the keys while Peter was alive? hmmm....So share with me then did Peter then submit to these universal church heads, the vicars of Christ?

. The Apostles(plural) foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of bishops(plural) and deacons;(plural) such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure.

(parenthesis mine) plural always peter and paul never just peter.
Well stated

The tone of authority with which the letter speaks is noteworthy, especially in the later part

Having a tone by now means shows that he was the head of the universal church, he was given ample opportunity in his letters and never does. Everyone recognises rome for it's ability to follow the apostles teachings, however that does not give them universal authority.

"to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal domination. And yet undoubtedly this is the case." (I, 70.)

This tends to discredit the passing of the key from Peter.

 

[simonthezealot]

WA,
Regarding Clements epistle, this bears repeating, since you wish to put so much emphasis in Clements authorative speech pattern.

4:23
this is what Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says to Soter, Bishop of Rome about Soter's letter and Clements letter to his church:

Quote:

and read your epistle, which we shall read frequently for its valuable advice, like the earlier epistle which Clement wrote on your behalf"


Advice. Not a directive. Just advice. Now, who would know best how the letter was intended, the Bishop of Corinth before the year 200 AD,
and I mean this respectfully, or you?

Peace

 

[simonthezealot]

All of the Apostles were chosen by God. By a Spiritual
Choosing.

None of the Spiritual things of God are passed from one person to another, in the NT, by "Succession".
Do I have the "Joy of the Lord"? I did not get it by Succession!
Do I believe God? I did not get my "belief" from a predecessor-in-office!

Succession from men means nothing to us.

dennis777

Exactly, I like these three points.

 

[simonthezealot]

Catholics say this proves Roman primacy because they did not ask the Apostle John for help.

1. If a Catholic apologist wants to use this argument, they must first prove that anytime a church had serious difficulty after the death of the last Apostle prior to John, they consulted John and understood his role in that manner.

2. Next they must prove when Clement wrote this letter. I have seen dates from 80 CE to 110 CE.
3. Next they must look at what we know about John:

He was exiled to Patmos for an undetermined amount of time between 81-96.

"With Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xiii, 1) and others we are obliged to place the Apostle's banishment to Patmos in the reign of the Emperor Domitian (81-96)."

"He died sometime during the reign of Trajan.
Emperor of Rome (A.D. 98-117), b. at Italica Spain, 18 September, 53; d. 7 August, 117.'
Unless they can prove when the letter was written exactly and when John died, they cannot use this
WA,

Care to dispel these points or drop the "why didn't they go to the apostle John."

 

[WarriorAngel]

Does the pope think that his (alledged) "Apostolic Office" can be bequeathed to successors?

Like, I bequeath my car and my favorite Bible to my son. And I bequeath my truck and my favorite Bible Dictionary to my daughter.
???

All of the Apostles were chosen by God. By a Spiritual
Choosing.
The Apostles worked Great, Astounding, Signs, Wonders, Miracles. Which vindicated their message, and witnessed to their Divine-ly Appointed Office.

The early Christians worked Wonders and Miracles, spoke Prophecies as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke in Tongues, handled snakes, drank poisons, without any harm to themselves, etc

The

I would suppose you are questioning Peter.
Since it was Peter who addressed Linus as his successor.

Peter ordained [Bishop] St Clement.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Is this some kind of smoke screen comment?

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.