White "development of Papacy" lacking.

[Trento]

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 nothing in the first 150 + years after Christ that gives any indication of Universal authority belonging to the Bishop of Rome, Rome says its known for all ages.
IT wasn't!

Protestan Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the patristic period, evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority of the Papacy --

"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..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)​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.​

Ignatius is our first external witness in regard to the Roman Church in 110AD. After making allowances for exaggeration of language in his letter to the Romans, it remains clear that Ignatius assigns a de facto primacy to the Roman Church among its sister churches and that he knew of an energetic and habitual activity of this church in protecting and instructing other churches. The Church and Infallibility pg. 140 (c. 1954​

Taking into account the phenomenon of development, the notion of primacy needs to be established first. The Church of Rome enjoyed a Primacy over the other Churches from the earliest period for which we have records with indications that this priority was not an innovation. Dr. Harnack claimed that "The Roman Church from the end of the first century possessed a de facto primacy in Christendom" (Mission und Ausbreitung pg. 398). ​

Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH​

CHAPTER IV: ​

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the post apostolic period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system.​

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.​

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Clip from the first verse and then 59 chapters later? You have removed 59 previous chapters of context.
Not that you should have posted such a volume but Clement is pleading, not ordering.

Pleading, or praying, or making a strong request...

It is the same.

But if that is pleading, what a way to plead.

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The problem is you can't show that their was universal authority from Peter to any of the first bishops of ROME.
Not until 200a.d. 150-160+ years after the handoff of the keys.

A little concerning Jack...To say the least...

Your church claimed this primacy known for all ages! as I already showed you, Yet you take Matt 16:18 and then peice in parts from this guy and that guy and I've shown you that your context is not what it first appears to be... For something known for all ages sure seems like your missing an awful lot. WELL it seems like proof at all is not there.

Go back are reread some of the previous posts. There is evidence enough. Evidence that cannot be dismissed lightly if you look at it objectively.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Eusebius HE

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 Pope 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.’

For finding something to try and refute the supremacy of the Pope this is a pretty good find but hardly conclusive. What we have here is a Bishop speaking against the Pope. But the whole time he is letting us know that the Pope is greater and he is lesser. But do not take my word, see for yourself:

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus



Pope Victor excommunicated Polycrates with some others that went against him on this topic. But later, after he met with Irenaeus and others, decided to reverse the excommunication.

This letter shows that Polycrates had a good point but the Pope was still in charge. Also, that a Pope when speaking as an individual and not from the Authority of his Seat can be fallible (or rather not completely correct). Most importantly this letter shows us that the Pope is the supreme Bishop and that all other Bishops and Priests recognize this seat of Peter.

By the way, here is more on the "Easter Controversy" that you brought up: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

Good timing being that we are in Lent and Easter is around the corner.

 

[Assisi]

You are asking us to show that Rome is significant from Scripture and that Peter and succession is significant from the early Church fathers pre 200.

Basically, we know that Peter has primacy from Scripture. We know that succession is important fom Scripture. We know that Rome is important from the ECFs. Why should we have to show that Rome is important from Scripture??

Either your objection is really silly or I'm missing the point. Now you don't seem silly, so could you please explain it more thoroughly? I don't get it...

 

[simonthezealot]

You are asking us to show that Rome is significant from Scripture and that Peter and succession is significant from the early Church fathers pre 200.

Basically, we know that Peter has primacy from Scripture. We know that succession is important fom Scripture. We know that Rome is important from the ECFs. Why should we have to show that Rome is important from Scripture??

Either your objection is really silly or I'm missing the point. Now you don't seem silly, so could you please explain it more thoroughly? I don't get it...

You are misssing the point as I've stated Rome claims that Rome has had primacy and universal authority from Peter forward (and this fact has been known for all ages according to them), yet there is absolutely no acknowledgement from the ECF's until the 3rd century or close to it, some 160+ years after Christ had his talk with Peter which you guys hold in such high regard.
That gives any indication of Universal authority, yet there were plenty of chances and there are thousands of writings both church fathers and gnostic writings and none allude to this.

If I were Catholic this would be a serious concern to me.

 

[Assisi]

You are misssing the point as I've stated Rome claims that Rome has had primacy and universal authority from Peter forward (and this fact has been known for all ages according to them), yet there is absolutely no acknowledgement from the ECF's until the 3rd century or close to it, some 160+ years after Christ had his talk with Peter which you guys hold in such high regard.
That gives any indication of Universal authority, yet there were plenty of chances and there are thousands of writings both church fathers and gnostic writings and none allude to this.

If I were Catholic this would be a serious concern to me.

Define universal authority. You seem to be saying (using your quotes) that the Bishop of Rome did not have universal authority because others did have authority. It is the teaching of the Church that all the Bishops have authority and that the Pope is the 'unifying factor' among the college of Bishops.

Bishops are free to petition the Pope on things (like excommunication! I'm referring to your quote from Eusebius) the Pope's final word is the final word. If Viktor didn't have universal authority, surely he wouldn't have the power to excommunicate those Churches? If he didn't have that power, why would the other Bishops write to him asking him to try to reconcile the Asian Churches back into the communion? The fact that the Bishops thought that the Bishop of Rome had that power (demonstrated by them writing to him) shows that he was considered to have universal authority.

ActionJack has posted some good quotes which back up our teaching.

 

[simonthezealot]

Define universal authority.

C'mon you kidding me?

You seem to be saying (using your quotes) that the Bishop of Rome did not have universal authority because others did have authority.

No I am saying no one church had universal authority.

It is the teaching of the Church that all the Bishops have authority and that the Pope is the 'unifying factor' among the college of Bishops.

Yes, that is their teaching,now.
Though universal authority lies with the bishop of Rome,NOW.
It wasn't as such, pre 3rd century.

ActionJack has posted some good quotes which back up our teaching.

Your teaching is understood, your confusing the thread.

 

[simonthezealot]

Define universal authority.

In your churches words.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See--and the Roman Pontiff--has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons" (DS 1307).
I'd say that the Holy Ghost is the Vicar of Christ, but that's me.

 

[Trento]

You are misssing the point as I've stated Rome claims that Rome has had primacy and universal authority from Peter forward (and this fact has been known for all ages according to them), yet there is absolutely no acknowledgement from the ECF's until the 3rd century or close to it, some 160+ years after Christ had his talk with Peter which you guys hold in such high regard.
That gives any indication of Universal authority, yet there were plenty of chances and there are thousands of writings both church fathers and gnostic writings and none allude to this.

If I were Catholic this would be a serious concern to me.

It looks like you ignore Christian History even by Protestant Scholars. Seeing that the historians who are familiar with the Fathers; who specialize in patristic's and Church history and history of theology or of doctrinal development of same, completely contradict you. Who shall we trust as an authority for the views of the Church Fathers concerning the relationship between Bible, Tradition, apostolic succession, and the Historical Church?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In your churches words.

"We define that the Holy Apostolic See--and the Roman Pontiff--has primacy over the whole world, and that the same Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles and true Vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all Christians, and that upon him, in blessed Peter, our Lord Jesus Christ conferred the full power of shepherding, ruling and governing the universal Church, as is also stated in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons" (DS 1307).
I'd say that the Holy Ghost is the Vicar of Christ, but that's me.

The Holy Ghost is Christ. The Trinity are one and do not take the place of.

The Keys denote who is taking the place of. That is why I have stressed so much importance on them.

 

[simonthezealot]

The Holy Ghost is Christ. The Trinity are one and do not take the place of.

The Keys denote who is taking the place of. That is why I have stressed so much importance on them.

Jack,
Please don't insult my intelligence.
I consider you a worthy debate and you know I know better! I will not sidetrack this thread.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,
Please don't insult my intelligence.
I consider you a worthy debate and you know I know better! I will not sidetrack this thread.

Truly I do not see the Keys as sidetracking.

However, if we went this route I suspect your argument would fall like a house of cards. Are you willing to try?

 

[simonthezealot]

Truly I do not see the Keys as sidetracking.

However, if we went this route I suspect your argument would fall like a house of cards. Are you willing to try?

my friend, not sure if I understand where your coming from?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

my friend, not sure if I understand where your coming from?

I guess it does not matter...

I have enjoyed our discussions and have learned some as well. Thank you for the debate.

God will provide what we each need whether it is food or clothes, or even knowledge and direction.

I would like to a bit more that I found.

The first makes the use of the word Vatican which I cannot recall seeing in an early writing.

Quotes:


"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).


AND


"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

AND

"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).


AND

Cyril of Jerusalem:
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . .While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for Paul was there—he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).


AND Finally...


Pope Damasus I:

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.

"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero. . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.

"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[simonthezealot]

Quotes:


"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

JACK,
Please check your dates.... Eusebius was a pope in the 4th century... This writing is from 303 a.d.
PLEASE EDIT THIS!!!!

Incidently this is vatican hill not Vatican City...

 

[simonthezealot]

Since you are using Eusibius quoting other ECF's I'll do the same...

Note that, in none of these quotes, will you see any of the Bishops of Rome referred to, or thought of, as head of the “Church”.

Early Christians traced Rome back to PAUL AND PETER.

Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)


Quote:
Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-emincence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.
Hmmm...


Quote:
Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.
You will see the Peter and Paul theme quite a bit.


Quote:
Eusebius
Clement had left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church in Rome and sent to the church at Corinth
Nothing about his role as leader of the universal church


Quote:
Eusebius
At that time Clement was still head of the Roman community, occupying in the same way the third place among the bishops who followed Paul and Peter.
Peter and Paul again. No mention of Peter specifically having a successor to lead the universal church


Quote:
Eusebius
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.
The one person who DO KNOW that succeeded only Peter


Quote:
Eusebius
. Obvious instances are Ignatius, in the epistles already listed, and Clement in the one universally recognized, which he indited in the name of the church at Rome.
Clement was writing on behalf of Rome, not the universal church.


Quote:
Eusebius
Alexander took up the bishopric as fifth successor to Peter and Paul
Peter and Paul again


Quote:
Eusebius
Xystus, Bishop of Rome for a decade, was succeeded by the seventh from the apostles
Apostles, being once again, PETER AND PAUL

 

[JacktheCatholic]

JACK,
Please check your dates.... Eusebius was a pope in the 4th century... This writing is from 303 a.d.
PLEASE EDIT THIS!!!!

Incidently this is vatican hill not Vatican City...

Thanks for clearing up that 'vatican' portion since I was not sure what it meant.

But I meant to quotye Gaius or Caius.
Link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03144a.htm


"But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church". By "trophies" is of course understood the memorial chapel that preserved in each case the body of the Apostle (cf. Barnes, St. Peter in Rome, London, 1900, p 145).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Since you are using Eusibius quoting other ECF's I'll do the same...

Note that, in none of these quotes, will you see any of the Bishops of Rome referred to, or thought of, as head of the “Church”.

Early Christians traced Rome back to PAUL AND PETER.

Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)


Quote:
Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-emincence because the Saviour had specially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.
Hmmm...


Quote:
Eusebius
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.
You will see the Peter and Paul theme quite a bit.


Quote:
Eusebius
Clement had left us one recognized epistle, long and wonderful, which he composed in the name of the church in Rome and sent to the church at Corinth
Nothing about his role as leader of the universal church


Quote:
Eusebius
At that time Clement was still head of the Roman community, occupying in the same way the third place among the bishops who followed Paul and Peter.
Peter and Paul again. No mention of Peter specifically having a successor to lead the universal church


Quote:
Eusebius
Ignatius, the second to be appointed to the bishopric of Antioch in succession to Peter.
The one person who DO KNOW that succeeded only Peter


Quote:
Eusebius
. Obvious instances are Ignatius, in the epistles already listed, and Clement in the one universally recognized, which he indited in the name of the church at Rome.
Clement was writing on behalf of Rome, not the universal church.


Quote:
Eusebius
Alexander took up the bishopric as fifth successor to Peter and Paul
Peter and Paul again


Quote:
Eusebius
Xystus, Bishop of Rome for a decade, was succeeded by the seventh from the apostles
Apostles, being once again, PETER AND PAUL

The one problem I have with all these quotes being used to show the Bishop in Antioch succeeded Peter is to imply that this first Bishop took the Keys from Peter and his supreme role as a Bishop.

This cannot be.

But I want to restate a post I did earlier regarding this.

And to Antioch having any claim to the Keys let us look at Clement I again:

Pope Clement I


"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).


Where did Peter die and where would the succession happened? In Rome! Not Antioch.

It is said when they die.

With Antioch Peter put ordained bishops and left a Bishop in charge of Antioch like a minister.

But Peter never gave up the Keys until his death. It was then that Linus, who was in Rome with Peter and ordained Bishop as well, took the Keys from Peter.

That is how the Seat of Peter is passed.

 

[simonthezealot]

The one problem I have with all these quotes being used to show the Bishop in Antioch succeeded Peter is to imply that this first Bishop took the Keys from Peter and his supreme role as a Bishop.

.

My contention is not that Antioch has Authority!

Sorry to rush this out but you 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 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.