White "development of Papacy" lacking.

[JacktheCatholic]

AND
Also as a bishop not the Universal leader.

A Pope is a Bishop.

Again, I do not understand what you are saying???

 

[simonthezealot]

Irenaeus


"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
.

Irenaues
universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul again.

 

[simonthezealot]

A Pope is a Bishop.

Again, I do not understand what you are saying???

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!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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!

One question for you.

How do you understand the Keys that Jesus gave Peter?

 

[simonthezealot]

One question for you.

How do you understand the Keys that Jesus gave Peter?

It doesn't have any bearing.
Attach it to Rome!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

It doesn't have any bearing.
Attach it to Rome!

My only understanding of the importance of Rome has to do with Peter (and Paul). Peter is buried there. Peter was the bearer of the Keys. Peter passed the Keys to Linus. Rome became the principal location of the church at that time.

But the Keys definitely have something to do with it.

 

[simonthezealot]

My only understanding of the importance of Rome has to do with Peter (and Paul). Peter is buried there. Peter was the bearer of the Keys. Peter passed the Keys to Linus. Rome became the principal location of the church at that time.

But the Keys definitely have something to do with it.

Here is the point...
Out of hundreds and hundreds of early writings, none made this claim yet your church claims
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
Vatican Council I: Pastor aeternus
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" [47].
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.

This did not happen. None of the quotes show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome,
or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul
relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church. Because Catholicism claims, which Christians who also trace
their roots as far back as you guys disagree, that Rome has primacy for Catholicism now, which no one denies of course,
they tend to project their beliefs back to that era. What is most important is THEY are saying it Peter and Paul, not me guys.
Yes, based upon what they are saying, I do think they viewed them equally.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Irenaues
universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul again.

He also said:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."

The foundation of the church...

This, to me, shows they are building the principal church here.

And why not? After all this is where most every early martyr was martyred.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Here is the point...
Out of hundreds and hundreds of early writings, none made this claim yet your church claims
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm
Vatican Council I: Pastor aeternus
First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ
Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. "So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received" [47].
There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would primacy over the whole church.

This did not happen. None of the quotes show that the person who succeeded Peter and Paul in Rome,
or Peter in Antioch was viewed as being the successor of the whole church. All of the quotes about Peter and Paul
relate only to Rome and nothing about the universal church. Because Catholicism claims, which Christians who also trace
their roots as far back as you guys disagree, that Rome has primacy for Catholicism now, which no one denies of course,
they tend to project their beliefs back to that era. What is most important is THEY are saying it Peter and Paul, not me guys.
Yes, based upon what they are saying, I do think they viewed them equally.

From the quotes we have used...

But if we look at Moses and how things were treated with his chair it would seem the enphasis was on Moses and not the current High Priest.

Peter had a special relationship with Christ and was the bearer of the Keys.

Paul also had a special relationship with Christ.

But Peter had one thing no other Apostle had... the Keys.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

He also said:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."

The foundation of the church...

This, to me, shows they are building the principal church here.

And why not? After all this is where most every early martyr was martyred.

And Irenaeus said:

"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 succession 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 [of Rome], 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" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

And Irenaeus said:

"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 succession 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 [of Rome], 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" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

And...

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ6bLYVD8qM

Dr. White says it all!

Thoughts?

This guy speaks about early fathers being taken out of context or errors and yet I find none.

Does this Dr White have anything concrete?

 

[simonthezealot]

And Irenaeus said:

"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 succession 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 [of Rome], 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" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

As I mentioned already in post 62....

This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul again.

 

[simonthezealot]

And...

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Lineage isn't the same as universal authority!
And again it never in the early church is written that the universal authority came from Peter ALONE!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Lineage isn't the same as universal authority!
And again it never in the early church is written that the universal authority came from Peter ALONE!

The power comes from Jesus through the Keys for the office of the seat of Peter.

Again, the Keys.

It is because of the Keys that Peter had authority over the Universal Church.

It was Rome where they decided to have the principle church.

Both of these have been explained.

But to further add...

Pope Clement I around 80 AD while the Apostle was still around wrote:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth"

From his epistle to Corinth. And why was a letter coming from Rome to Corinth? Becuase Rome is where the Seat of Peter is and where the Bishop with the Keys (Pope) is. If it was Antioch as some might suggest then a letter to Corinth should have come from Antioch but it did not.

Also written:

Pope Clement I


"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . 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. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

As I mentioned already in post 62....

This is particularly important. Notice that Irenaues said that Rome has authority, undoubtedly a controversial view but he certainly felt that way as did others at that time, but look at the reason why. Not because Peter had a specific successor but their adherence to the Apostles teachings(which we also believe as well, this is preserved in the Bible). Notice also Peter and Paul again.

All I am reading is that they maintained Apostolic Tradition. This does not take away from The Pope being in Rome have a Supreme authority.

At least I do not see how it could???

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

 

[simonthezealot]

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth"

From his epistle to Corinth. And why was a letter coming from Rome to Corinth? Becuase Rome is where the Seat of Peter is and where the Bishop with the Keys (Pope) is. If it was Antioch as some might suggest then a letter to Corinth should have come from Antioch but it did not.

Also written:

Pope Clement I


"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . 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. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

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.

 

[simonthezealot]

All I am reading is that they maintained Apostolic Tradition. This does not take away from The Pope being in Rome have a Supreme authority.

At least I do not see how it could???

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.

 

[simonthezealot]

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.’