White "development of Papacy" lacking.

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack My friend I don't wish to lose the point I was making and that was the context in whichTertullian was speaking...
He wasn't saying Peter started the chair at Rome he was indicating his view of the necessity of following the lead of the apostles.
This gives zero credence to the papacy..

Maybe we are interpreting the text of Tertullian differently???

" For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in "three." And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted "a Church," from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly "the Church," it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord's, not the servant's; God's Himself, not the priest's."
(singular).


When I read "in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain" I see that the Bishops have to be in accord with Peter (or his seat) and this goes back to Moses as well.


When I read
"And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted "a Church," from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly "the Church," it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord's, not the servant's; God's Himself, not the priest's."

I read that Jesus instituted the church and even though it is made of many people it is by a man (one man being Peter or who is in his seat) that the church is led by the Spirit and not merely a bunch of Bishops. Again this refers to Moses seat and authority as well as the Key in Isaias.

When we try to understand the writings I think it best that we use the way people thought about society and leadership and God. We see this in the OT.

 

[simonthezealot]

Maybe we are interpreting the text of Tertullian differently???



When I read "in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain" I see that the Bishops have to be in accord with Peter (or his seat) and this goes back to Moses as well..

Even so as I stated he explains, this bishop, whether a bishop of Rome, Carthage, or otherwise, thought that this authority was held byevery church near to Peter.
Every Church Jack.

When I read
"And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted "a Church," from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly "the Church," it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord's, not the servant's; God's Himself, not the priest's."

I read that Jesus instituted the church and even though it is made of many people it is by a man (one man being Peter or who is in his seat) that the church is led by the Spirit and not merely a bunch of Bishops. Again this refers to Moses seat and authority as well as the Key in Isaias.

Even if I agreed with your interpretation of the"keys"
this still shows no specific attachment to ROME.


BTW...Thanks Jack, good discussion!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Even so as I stated he explains, this bishop, whether a bishop of Rome, Carthage, or otherwise, thought that this authority was held byevery church near to Peter.
Every Church Jack.

I see it as being a transcending power. Since the Keys are in fact Jesus' Keys they have the authority of Jesus. Because Peter received the Keys (alone) he has the authority of Jesus in regards to Jesus' church. There is but One church since Jesus said he is building a church (singular). But the power of the Keys transcends to the other Bishops that are part of this one church. Tertullian is alluding to this fact in his writings and clarifying that it is through 'a holy man' that the powers come and not all the Bishops.

We will also find writings from early church fathers stating that if a church (one of the many churches of the one church) should fall from these teachings (handled down from the Apostles and Jesus and protected by the Spirit) then they become "anti Christ" or "devils". There must be a Unity to the one with the Keys or else the teachings can falter to anti teachings of Christ.

Even if I agreed with your interpretation of the"keys"
this still shows no specific attachment to ROME.

It alludes to it...

But as you say, "if I agreed with" the interpretation of the Keys that I have laid out.

To know that answer we must equate two things as being one. That being Matthew 16 in mentioning the Keys is in fact a reflection of Isaias 22 with the intent of the Key of the House of David. And then to agree the Key of the House of David was given to one and gave a similiar authority the others (such as a Prime Minister and Ministers).

BTW...Thanks Jack, good discussion!

Ditto.

 

[simonthezealot]

I see it as being a transcending power. Since the Keys are in fact Jesus' Keys they have the authority of Jesus. Because Peter received the Keys (alone) he has the authority of Jesus in regards to Jesus' church. There is but One church since Jesus said he is building a church (singular). But the power of the Keys transcends to the other Bishops that are part of this one church. Tertullian is alluding to this fact in his writings and clarifying that it is through 'a holy man' that the powers come and not all the Bishops.

Jack,
His words were "holy mEn" and that is KEY.

We will also find writings from early church fathers stating that if a church (one of the many churches of the one church) should fall from these teachings (handled down from the Apostles and Jesus and protected by the Spirit) then they become "anti Christ" or "devils". There must be a Unity to the one with the Keys or else the teachings can falter to anti teachings of Christ.

The unity is to Christ through ALL (apostles) whom were given the power to bound and loosen, Tertullian is clear on this.

It alludes to it...

ALLUDES? Jack your church at Vat 1 claimed this had been known for all ages, and incidently I disagree it does not allude to Rome whatsoever

 

[JacktheCatholic]

FOR REFERENCE

Chapter 21. Of the Difference Between Discipline and Power, and of the Power of the Keys.

If the apostles understood these (figurative meanings of the Law) better, of course they were more careful (with regard to them than even apostolic men). But I will descend even to this point of contest now, making a separation between the doctrine of apostles and their power. Discipline governs a man, power sets a seal upon him; apart from the fact that power is the Spirit, but the Spirit is God. What, moreover, used (the Spirit) to teach? That there must be no communicating with the works of darkness. Observe what He bids. Who, moreover, was able to forgive sins? This is His alone prerogative: for "who remits sins but God alone?" and, of course, (who but He can remit) mortal sins, such as have been committed against Himself, and against His temple? For, as far as you are concerned, such as are chargeable with offence against you personally, you are commanded, in the person of Peter, to forgive even seventy times sevenfold. And so, if it were agreed that even the blessed apostles had granted any such indulgence (to any crime) the pardon of which (comes) from God, not from man, it would be competent (for them) to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power. For they both raised the dead, which God alone (can do), and restored the debilitated to their integrity, which none but Christ (can do); nay, they inflicted plagues too, which Christ would not do. For it did not beseem Him to be severe who had come to suffer. Smitten were both Ananias and Elymas—Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness—in order that by this very fact it might be proved that Christ had had the power of doing even such (miracles). So, too, had the prophets (of old) granted to the repentant the pardon of murder, and therewith of adultery, inasmuch as they gave, at the same time, manifest proofs of severity. Exhibit therefore even now to me, apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognise your divine virtue, and vindicate to yourself the power of remitting such sins! If, however, you have had the functions of discipline alone allotted you, and (the duty) of presiding not imperially, but ministerially; who or how great are you, that you should grant indulgence, who, by exhibiting neither the prophetic nor the apostolic character, lack that virtue whose property it is to indulge?
"But," you say, "the Church has the power of forgiving sins." This I acknowledge and adjudge more (than you; I) who have the Paraclete Himself in the persons of the new prophets, saying, "The Church has the power to forgive sins; but I will not do it, lest they commit others withal." "What if a pseudo-prophetic spirit has made that declaration?" Nay, but it would have been more the part of a subverter on the one hand to commend himself on the score of clemency, and on the other to influence all others to sin. Or if, again, (the pseudo-prophetic spirit) has been eager to affect this (sentiment) in accordance with "the Spirit of truth," it follows that "the Spirit of truth" has indeed the power of indulgently granting pardon to fornicators, but wills not to do it if it involve evil to the majority.
I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to "the Church."
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, "Upon this rock will I build My Church," "to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;" or, "Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens," you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On you," He says, "will I build My Church;" and, "I will give to you the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): "Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you," and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are "loosed" the sins that were beforetime "bound;" and those which have not been "loosed" are "bound," in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he "bound" with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he "absolved" from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, "And now why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they." This sentence both "loosed" those parts of the law which were abandoned, and "bound" those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even "seventy times sevenfold," of course He would have commanded him to "bind"—that is, to "retain"—nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.
What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church), indeed, Psychic? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in "three." And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted "a Church," from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly "the Church," it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. For the right and arbitrament is the Lord's, not the servant's; God's Himself, not the priest's.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins.

Going back to this...

The forgiveness of sins can only be from God. The forgiveness of sins that are against men are always forgiven, Jesus died for those sins. The forgiveness of sins against God... well Tertullian seems to show that those may not be forgiven.

But in all this talk about 'binding' and 'loosing' it is made clear that only a holy man of the Church can 'bind' and 'loose'.

But as the the reference of Peter, Tertullian makes it a point to show that the Keys were given to Peter alone and that it is there that Man is first given this power. The Keys are not mentioned again in regards to the Apostles. The 'binding' and 'loosing' are mentioned again and given to all the Apostles. But the Keys are held by only one man at a time.

I can kind of see where you may read some thing different about Peter and that the power is given to all Bishops. This is true. What I cannot see is the thinking that the forgiveness comes from "the preaching of the gospil".

I would also like to provide a quote from Irenaeus in his letters against herecy since it will give some additional light on Tertullian's letter. By taking another ECF from the same time we can use his letter to help clarify what I see as a difference in interpretation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

AS REFERENCE (IRANEAUS):



Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)

A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.

1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and 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 pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Do you know me?" "I do know you, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and , being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

 

[simonthezealot]

AS REFERENCE (IRANEAUS):



Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3)


2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and 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 pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
.

Thanks for posting this.
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]

Seriously Jack look at how difficult your finding it to prove papal primacy handed down directly from Peter, we've been working in an era 180 years after Christ.

Jack their are hundreds of 1st and second century writings...If this where held and known for all ages as Vat 1 declares, one would think you could show it.

If you choose doctrinal evolution that would be contradictory to the vatican 1 counsel, and based on what we are seeing it would be an oak tree from a watermelon seed...

NONE of your historical quotes 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? it's simply not there.

Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor and Peter only. 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

 

[simonthezealot]

First Vatican Council
"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thanks for posting this.
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.

What does the Pope do that no one else can with his charismatic gift?

Protect and safeguard the truth.

The Pope keeps the teachings of Jesus with the help of the other Bishops. These gifts are handed down.

So, you are correct in Rome not being the primary importance here. It is because of Peter and Paul. And it is Peter and paul that were teaching at that time. Paul was teaching the gentiles and Peter the Jews. But Peter left another as the Vicar of Christ and this person received the charismatic gifts to protect and safeguard the Truth. This is why Rome is important.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Seriously Jack look at how difficult your finding it to prove papal primacy handed down directly from Peter, we've been working in an era 180 years after Christ.

Jack their are hundreds of 1st and second century writings...If this where held and known for all ages as Vat 1 declares, one would think you could show it.

If you choose doctrinal evolution that would be contradictory to the vatican 1 counsel, and based on what we are seeing it would be an oak tree from a watermelon seed...

NONE of your historical quotes 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? it's simply not there.

Catholics must prove that the Bishop of Rome is Peter's successor and Peter only. 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

I do not see myself as trying to proove anything. I am only trying to give understanding. Once you have that understanding you can do as you wish with it. I chose to savior it and chew it over and over.

Also, keep in mind that the Bible does not contain everything taught and does not give knowledge regarding all the knowledge given. The Bible tells us that we have written and oral traditions. The oral traditions are marginally saved in the ECF writings.

Also, the Catholic Church does not need to prove anything. It is the bride of Christ and thus needs not ask for any greater power or acceptance.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

First Vatican Council
"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

Yes, this very plainly states the Pope's primacy. But I thought you wanted earlier writings?

 

[Trento]

First Vatican Council
"That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome, which was founded by him and consecrated by his blood. Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church"

You have the wrong council here. Go back to 431 AD

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).

 

[simonthezealot]

Yes, this very plainly states the Pope's primacy. But I thought you wanted earlier writings?

Jack the point is this it says known for all ages, yet there is no proof pre 200-220.. that doesn't sound like all ages.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You have the wrong council here. Go back to 431 AD

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).

Simon I am not sure I understand your point/question?

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon I am not sure I understand your point/question?

My point is this both Vat 1 and as Trento pointed out the counsil of Ephesus 431ad both stated that The Primacy of Peter had been known for all ages and that Peter himself passed along universal authority. My point is this...There is no proof of this though. Its claiming known for all ages, if that were the case don't ya think you'd see something before the mid 200's (sure doesn't appear as though it's been known for all ages)

 

[Trento]

My point is this both Vat 1 and as Trento pointed out the counsil of Ephesus 431ad both stated that The Primacy of Peter had been known for all ages and that Peter himself passed along universal authority. My point is this...There is no proof of this though. Its claiming known for all ages, if that were the case don't ya think you'd see something before the mid 200's (sure doesn't appear as though it's been known for all ages)

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

 

[JacktheCatholic]

My point is this both Vat 1 and as Trento pointed out the counsil of Ephesus 431ad both stated that The Primacy of Peter had been known for all ages and that Peter himself passed along universal authority. My point is this...There is no proof of this though. Its claiming known for all ages, if that were the case don't ya think you'd see something before the mid 200's (sure doesn't appear as though it's been known for all ages)

Before the mid 200s...

The writings already presented are not sufficient. The scripture with it's history is not sufficient.

I think there has been plenty to show that this was the thinking well before 250 A.D.

But it sounds like you are looking for a letter that says "The Bishop in Rome is the supreme Bishop and is the protector of the Truth with the charismatic gifts given".

I believe writings already presented say just that but not in the order of words you are seeking.

We know from Pope Clement that there was succession with Bishops:

"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]).


And Irenaeus and others too:

Irenaeus;
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

We know the Bishops preserved the teachings of Christ and that ALL churches must conform.

Pope Clement again:

"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]).



We also know that the most respected and envied church was Rome. We know that the Bishop(s) in Rome decided over disputes in other areas of other Bishops.

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 [A.D. 189]).




It seems the only contention for you (Simon) is that of a special consideration to the Bishop in Rome. That the Bishop in Rome has a primacy or supremacy over all the other Bishops.

Does this seem about right?

 

[simonthezealot]

The Poem Against Marcion (c. 200 AD) states how "Peter bad Linus to take his place and sit on the chair whereon he himself had sat" (III, 80). The word "chair" (cathedra) in ecclesiastical language always means one's episcopal throne (i.e. the bishop's chair).

I would need a link. I do not have the text of this. This of course seems from this quote to have nothing to do with head of the universal church anymore than his successor at Antioch was head of the universal church.

Caius of Rome (214 AD) calls Pope Victor the thirteenth bishop of Rome after Peter (Euseb HE V, 28).

and elsewhere it says Peter and Paul