The Primacy Of Peter

[JacktheCatholic]

And Cyprian's fellow bishop Firmilian wrote the following to him concerning "Pope" Stephen:


But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; [2925] any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. [2926] And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; [2927] breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, [2928] as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them.

Sounds like he was in disagreement with Rome and felt Rome was in the wrong. Obviously the definition of Infallibity had not been defined as of yet.
Also note that Rome, even at this time, was still the Church that was believed to be authoritative as to what was taught by the Apostles and why Firmilian believing himself to be correct is writing in such a way.

So what happened after he wrote this letter? I am sure if we see the whole story we will see that Rome still upholds that authority and things work out for the best.

 

[Catholic Christian]

His greeting to the church in Rome was more perambulating but I see nothing to support papalism. The fact that Ignatius was traveling to Rome to be martyred could have occasioned a longer greeting.

Papalism? What did you do, make up a word so you could insult us with something I can't find in a dictionary?

 

[chestertonrules]

His greeting to the church in Rome was more perambulating but I see nothing to support papalism. The fact that Ignatius was traveling to Rome to be martyred could have occasioned a longer greeting.

The Church that presides. What more do you need?

The bishop of Rome is the pope. The title pope came later, and the location is irrelevant, but it just happened that Peter ended up in Rome so that is where his successors lived.

 

[chestertonrules]

More specific quotes from ECF:

Clement of Rome​

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).​

Ignatius of Antioch​

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).​

Irenaeus​

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).​

Optatus​

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).​

Tertullian​

[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).​

Letter of Clement to James​

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).​

Cyprian​

 

[tblaine74]

I disagree that it is "striking." Jesus may have been alluding to Isaiah 22:22 but it does not require much in the way of imagination to use keys as a symbol of delegated authority.

So we’re back to considering the possibility of Matthew 16:19 being Christ’s miraculous accident. If you change your mind again, you might consider the implications for the case that it was not an accidental parallel to Isaiah. If Jesus did not mean to convey what is conveyed in Isaiah, then He did a poor job of choosing a parallel.

 

[Brennin]

Also note that Rome, even at this time, was still the Church that was believed to be authoritative as to what was taught by the Apostles and why Firmilian believing himself to be correct is writing in such a way.

You have wrested his words in the exact opposite direction. Firmilian did not claim to have received correct doctrine from Rome in the past but directly from the apostles.

 

[Brennin]

So we’re back to considering the possibility of Matthew 16:19 being Christ’s miraculous accident.

"Miraculous accident" is, of course, your false characterization. As I said, it does not require much in the way of imagination to speak of keys as a symbol of delegated authority.

 

[Brennin]

And Pepsi was soda and not pop... so what is your point?

My point is that "papal supremacy" is bogus.

 

[Brennin]

The Church that presides. What more do you need?

...in the place of the region of the Romans...

That makes the Bishop of Rome a metropolitan bishop, not "pope."

The bishop of Rome is the pope. The title pope came later, and the location is irrelevant, but it just happened that Peter ended up in Rome so that is where his successors lived.

Peter was never bishop of Rome, despite the "pious" falsehoods of the RCC. The most that can be said is that Peter was martyred in Rome and even that is subject to dispute.

 

[tblaine74]

"Miraculous accident" is, of course, your false characterization. As I said, it does not require much in the way of imagination to speak of keys as a symbol of delegated authority.

It requires even less imagination to see the parallel:

Matthew 16:19 – keys, bind and loose

Isaiah 22:22 – key, open and shut

It definitely seems to require a fair amount of imagination to deny the parallel. If I remember correctly, this is where you say that there is a parallel, but it doesn’t mean anything. Yet, you haven’t explained what you mean by a parallel that has no meaning. Perhaps you are suggesting that the parallel has only limited meaning, which, if true, shows that Jesus did a poor job choosing the parallel.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You have wrested his words in the exact opposite direction. Firmilian did not claim to have received correct doctrine from Rome in the past but directly from the apostles.

Let me ask again...

So what happened after he wrote this letter?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

My point is that "papal supremacy" is bogus.

You have not done a good job of making that point then.

 

[Brennin]

You have not done a good job of making that point then.

I am not interested in the judgment of RC apologists as it pertains to this matter. An RC apologist is, of necessity, wedded to the erroneous belief.

 

[Brennin]

Let me ask again...

So what happened after he wrote this letter?

You will have to be more specific.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You will have to be more specific.

You posted a letter that was written disputing the Bishop of Rome's decission. I am asking what ultimately happened as a resolution to the dispute and how it came about.

I am asking because your quote is a good one but really only helps to support the claim that the church of Rome held the authority even in the early church.

 

[chestertonrules]

...in the place of the region of the Romans...

That makes the Bishop of Rome a metropolitan bishop, not "pope."


Peter was never bishop of Rome, despite the "pious" falsehoods of the RCC. The most that can be said is that Peter was martyred in Rome and even that is subject to dispute.

Again, this point about Peter ruling in Rome is irrelevant. He was appointed leader of the Church by Christ. He was given primacy.

Where he settled is irrelevant. It just so happens that his successors chose Rome for unknown reasons, and therefore, Rome was special.

the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ,

Clement of Rome​

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).​

Ignatius of Antioch​

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).​

Irenaeus​

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession 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. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the 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 (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).​

Optatus​

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).​

 

[Catholic Christian]

That makes the Bishop of Rome a metropolitan bishop, not "pope."

The English language does a disservice to the word "pope". Early Christian writings tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome, were from the earliest times called by the affectionate title of "papa", a young person's word for "father": In English. "pope". Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul’s example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).

 

[Brennin]

The English language does a disservice to the word "pope". Early Christian writings tell us that Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome, were from the earliest times called by the affectionate title of "papa", a young person's word for "father": In English. "pope". Catholics call their spiritual leaders "father." In doing so we follow Paul’s example: "I became your father in Jesus Christ through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:15).

Other bishops, such as the Alexandrian bishop, were called pappas, despite the instruction of Matthew 23:9.

 

[Brennin]

Again, this point about Peter ruling in Rome is irrelevant. He was appointed leader of the Church by Christ. He was given primacy.

Where he settled is irrelevant. It just so happens that his successors chose Rome for unknown reasons, and therefore, Rome was special.

the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ,

Clement of Rome​

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).​

Ignatius of Antioch​

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).​

Clement and Ignatius do not support your papalism, sorry.

 

[chestertonrules]

Clement and Ignatius do not support your papalism, sorry.

You choose to ignore the facts.

Clement was in fact acting as pope when he corrected the corinthians. He claimed to be speaking for Christ, and he was!

Clement of Rome​

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).​