White "development of Papacy" lacking.

[JacktheCatholic]

2 timothy even speaks of the 2nd Pope Linus.

4:21. Make haste to come before winter. Eubulus and Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren, salute thee.

 

[Trento]

Anything with Peter alone?

Afterall your church stated this...
For "no one can be in doubt, indeedit was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter

I can also point to the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus 431AD and the (258) Bishops who signed on when the papal legates read out this statement at the council:


"There is no doubt, and in fact has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." (JP&K, 258)
Not to mention the Eastern bishops who wrote to Pope Symmachus (342) or the 250 Eastern bishops who signed the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (268; the authors of JP&K cite Dollinger to the effect that this number eventually climbed to 2500 Eastern signatories).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I can also point to the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus and the (258) Bishops who signed on when the papal legates read out this statement at the council:

Trento you da man! LOL

That is worth repeating.


"The holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."


Seems very clear that in 258 AD the Christian Church, the entire Universal Church (Catholic Church), saw the primacy and supremacy of Peter and his successors.

I am looking for a strong rebutal from the Eastern Orthodox.

Peace,

Jack

 

[IamAdopted]

Trento you da man! LOL

That is worth repeating.


"The holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."


Seems very clear that in 258 AD the Christian Church, the entire Universal Church (Catholic Church), saw the primacy and supremacy of Peter and his successors.

I am looking for a strong rebutal from the Eastern Orthodox.

Peace,

Jack

And why does Peter Himself not tell us this? Because what others have written of him of not from God. Peter even said of Himself he was a fellow elder. Not Pope or in charge. In fact Peter said we should not Lord it over one another. So the early writings as you say conflict with What Peter Himself say. I will believe Peter over any other man since He was called and Chosen by Jesus to be an Apostle and not a Pope or supreme head. For there is only one that is supreme and that I Christ our Rock. For when Jesus stated that upon this rock will I build my church the Jews knew what He meant for when ever rock was used it referred back to God. Not a man.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

For there is only one that is supreme and that I Christ...

Yes, our King is Jesus. And, Jesus is the corner stone of the Church.

Peace be with you,

Jack

 

[Trento]

And why does Peter Himself not tell us this? Because what others have written of him of not from God. Peter even said of Himself he was a fellow elder. Not Pope or in charge. In fact Peter said we should not Lord it over one another. So the early writings as you say conflict with What Peter Himself say. I will believe Peter over any other man since He was called and Chosen by Jesus to be an Apostle and not a Pope or supreme head. For there is only one that is supreme and that I Christ our Rock. For when Jesus stated that upon this rock will I build my church the Jews knew what He meant for when ever rock was used it referred back to God. Not a man.

In Matt 16:19, Jesus tells Peter:

“I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
Now, while it is true that, in Matt 18:18, Jesus bestows a similar authority to “bind and loosen” upon all of the Apostles collectively, it is to Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Look no further than Isaiah 22:20-22 to see What are they suppose to signify.

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will ... give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”
​

Here, Isaiah is describing the “Prime Minister” (or “Vicar”) of the Davidic Kingdom of Israel --an office which is also referred to in 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, and elsewhere.Iin ancient Israel, the King himself (e.g. King David or King Solomon) was surrounded by an entire court of ministers, all of whom played a specific role in administering the Kingdom. Yet, one of these ministers was the Prime Minister (or “Major-Domo”), who --while merely being one minister among others --also acted as the King’s vicar (or “stand in”) when the King was not personally present. That is to say, he was commissioned to act with the King’s own authority. Thus, ‘when he opened, no one could shut, and when he shut, no one could open.’ And the symbol of this Prime Minister’s vicarious authority was the “key” (“or keys”) of the King’s Household (i.e., dynasty) --that is, the key (or keys) of the Kingdom itself.
I’m sure we can agree that the ancient, Davidic kingdom of Israel was merely a prefigurement of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God. Indeed, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary how her Son will succeed to “the throne of David,” and how He will “rule over the House of Jacob forever.” Thus, if Christ is to be the new King of Israel, does it not make sense that He would appoint a new “Prime Minister” to govern His Household, which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15)?
So, here again, we see Jesus commissioning Peter to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after His Ascension into Heaven. Thus, like the Prime Minister of the ancient kingdom of Israel, Peter is to be the final authority in the King’s physical absence.This does not make Peter the king himself. Far from it. Like his Old Testament counterpart, Peter is still one minister among others (one Apostle among the Twelve). Yet, he also possesses an additional ministry --a ministry to unite the other “royal ministers” and to preserve the integrity of the King’s Household / Kingdom / Church on earth.
This new “Prime Minister” was not to be the steward of a mere earthly king, but rather of a King Who would rule from Heaven. And this is exactly what we see in Matt 16:19, where Christ tells Peter: “I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.”
In Acts 1:15-23, shortly after Jesus' Ascension, yet before the coming of the Holy Spirit, Peter takes charge of the Jerusalem church and initiates the election for Judas’ successor. Here, one cannot deny that Peter is acting as an organizer and unifier for the Church; and that he gives “spiritual nourishment” to the assembly by authoritatively interpreting the Psalms (Acts 1:20) --Psalms which say nothing about Judas or about their Apostolic mission. So, Peter is exhibiting a teaching authority which is independent of the OT Scriptures; and he does this before the Holy Spirit has supplied the Church with the charism to teach (Acts 1:8; 1 Corinth 12:7-11).
In Acts 1:15-23, Peter himself was quite conscious of the importance of succession. Therefore, are we to seriously believe that he would not be concerned with the succession of his own ministry, as important as it was?
What would be the sense of Jesus establishing this unifying ministry of Peter if it was merely to end at the time of Peter’s death? After all, as we've also seen, Jesus intended the unity of His Church to continue (e.g. John 17:20-21). Therefore, if the ministry of Peter was essential to that unity, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Peter not to name a successor --especially when, as 2 Peter 1:13-15 and John 21:18-19 show us, the Apostle knew his death was coming, and had plenty of time to prepare for it.
Indeed the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers regarding this authority and succession is provided even by Protestant Patristic scholars.
​

 

[simonthezealot]

I can also point to the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus and the (258) Bishops who signed on when the papal legates read out this statement at the council:

431AD 5th century, is the C of E...

 

[simonthezealot]

Trento you da man! LOL

That is worth repeating.


"The holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors."


Seems very clear that in 258 AD the Christian Church, the entire Universal Church (Catholic Church), saw the primacy and supremacy of Peter and his successors.

I am looking for a strong rebutal from the Eastern Orthodox.

Peace,

Jack

Jack that council is from 431 a.d. ...not 258

 

[simonthezealot]

2 timothy even speaks of the 2nd Pope Linus.

4:21. Make haste to come before winter. Eubulus and Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren, salute thee.

So?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

So?

Linus was the 2nd Pope and took the seat of Peter first. He was also with Peter in Rome. This is something the whole church understood.

 

[simonthezealot]

Linus was the 2nd Pope and took the seat of Peter first. He was also with Peter in Rome. This is something the whole church understood.

Jack,
There is absolutely 0 evidence that Linus as A bishop of Rome had supreme authority of the whole universal church. The first person to even give apostolic lineage to Rome ( I said apostolic lineage, not universal authority) was Iraneaus in 189 ad. Their is a greater direct hand off directly from Peter to Antioch than to Rome. All evidence of Rome is from Peter AND Paul.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Anything with Peter alone?

Afterall your church stated this...
For "no one can be in doubt, indeedit was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter

Just like the seat of Moses we have the seat of Peter.

Cyprian of Carthage

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

 

[simonthezealot]

Just like the seat of Moses we have the seat of Peter.

Cyprian of Carthage

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

200+ years after Christ! that is known for all ages!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,
There is absolutely 0 evidence that Linus as A bishop of Rome had supreme authority of the whole universal church. The first person to even give apostolic lineage to Rome ( I said apostolic lineage, not universal authority) was Iraneaus in 189 ad. Their is a greater direct hand off directly from Peter to Antioch than to Rome. All evidence of Rome is from Peter AND Paul.

Peter could appoint Bishops as he did in Antioch. However, this does not mean that he passed on the Keys.

The Keys are something that belongs to the Seat or the Prime Minister role of a King's kingdom.

It was Linus that Peter entrusted the Keys. It can only be one.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,
There is absolutely 0 evidence that Linus as A bishop of Rome had supreme authority of the whole universal church. The first person to even give apostolic lineage to Rome ( I said apostolic lineage, not universal authority) was Iraneaus in 189 ad. Their is a greater direct hand off directly from Peter to Antioch than to Rome. All evidence of Rome is from Peter AND Paul.

Linus being Bishop from Peter in Rome is but one truth on the way to understanding.

Since we only have spurious letters that survived from the early fathers we must consider that we have a puzzle.

If we start here then we can take pieces of truth that relate to this Papal succession to see if there is merit.

*Note: Of course I believe in Papal succession but from a theological point of view I want to see all sides.

But if all I did was show that Peter made Linus Bishop in Rome and that all the church in Rome were commanded by Peter and Paul then we have made some headway.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

200+ years after Christ! that is known for all ages!

I am not sure I see what is the concern with the age of this letter?

 

[simonthezealot]

Linus was the 2nd Pope and took the seat of Peter first. He was also with Peter in Rome. This is something the whole church understood.

If so show proof of this in the first 150 years after Christ!

 

[simonthezealot]

I am not sure I see what is the concern with the age of this letter?

Your church claims universal authority known for all ages but has no proof 160 years after Christ resurrection!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Just like the seat of Moses we have the seat of Peter.

Cyprian of Carthage

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Another from Cyprian

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[simonthezealot]

Peter could appoint Bishops as he did in Antioch. However, this does not mean that he passed on the Keys.

The Keys are something that belongs to the Seat or the Prime Minister role of a King's kingdom.

It was Linus that Peter entrusted the Keys. It can only be one.

Why Rome? Why not Antioch?