White "development of Papacy" lacking.

[simonthezealot]

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.

Every point when considered in its proper context falls way short of UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY KNOWN THROUGH ALL AGE. Sorry not yelling!

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".

Nope just something that acknowledges Rome as holding universal authority in the first 150-200 years after Christ, afterall Rome claims they've had it and its been known all along.

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

Which ones Jack, everything you've pointed out has been used out of context.

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]).

This says that Peter and Paul handed the jobs of Bishop off. No one is disputing that. Where does this say that Peter handed to someone control of the church. It says that PETER AND PAUL placed those men in charge.

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]).

Nothing about universal authority, to Rome...Why not James at Jerusalem afterall Eusebius quotes Clement as such...
Clement of Alexandria in Outlines Book VI(quote by Eusebius)
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

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]).

Jack have you read through this letter? if you had you'd know their is no NOT any claim of Universal authority at Rome or anything even close to it...I can link it for you if you'd like

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.

Most? at what point cause I'd beg to differ in the early times Jeresalem was more likely most respected.
As far as settling disputes, scripture backs James in Jeruselem also.

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]).

Proof right there. Thank you, Rome has a special place because of its adherence to the teachings of the Apostles. Not one word about Peter having a successor as head of the church. Not one word.

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.

It's her claim!
This isn't my argument I am showing you early church writers... There's nothing there Jack.

 

[Trento]

Every point when considered in its proper context falls way short of UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY KNOWN THROUGH ALL AGE. Sorry not yelling!


Nope just something that acknowledges Rome as holding universal authority in the first 150-200 years after Christ, afterall Rome claims they've had it and its been known all along.

Which ones Jack, everything you've pointed out has been used out of context.




Jack have you read through this letter? if you had you'd know their is no NOT any claim of Universal authority at Rome or anything even close to it...I can link it for you if you'd like


Most? at what point cause I'd beg to differ in the early times Jeresalem was more likely most respected.
As far as settling disputes, scripture backs James in Jeruselem also.

It's her claim!
This isn't my argument I am showing you early church writers... There's nothing there Jack.

Protestan scholars do not agree with you.

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked , gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising as Apostle St. John , as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.​

Ignatius is our 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). ​

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.​

​

​

 

[simonthezealot]

Protestan scholars do not agree with you.

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked , gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising as Apostle St. John , as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)​

Protestant Historical scholar Harnack recognizes the original teacher here.​

Ignatius is our 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). ​

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.​

​

​

Trento, this says nothing.see;toward dominion!..If Schaff believed as
attempt to imply he'd be catholic.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Every point when considered in its proper context falls way short of UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY KNOWN THROUGH ALL AGE. Sorry not yelling!It's her claim!
This isn't my argument I am showing you early church writers... There's nothing there Jack.

It is me... "actionjack". Started new account with a name that I like much better.


I thought you and I had some agreement on some of the previous posts. My fault...

Let me show you a quote;

Hermas-
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

What does Hermas mean by "his duty"?

 

[simonthezealot]

It is me... "actionjack". Started new account with a name that I like much better.


I thought you and I had some agreement on some of the previous posts. My fault...

Let me show you a quote;

Hermas-
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

What does Hermas mean by "his duty"?

Why do you only quote part of this, it really does speak for itself... See.


"But when I finish all the words, all the elect will then become acquainted with them through you. You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church. "shepherd of hermes

 

[lionroar0]

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

I find this ironic since there was no Bible for the better part of 400yrs. but yet people have no problem with that.

Peace

 

[LivingWordUnity]

If the basis was on where Peter was, than it would be Antioch and not Rome. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever saw Rome.

Peter was an apostle. He then went to Rome and became the Bishop of Rome. Jesus (God in the flesh) gave Peter the Keys to bind and loose on earth and in Heaven.

One of the councils before the 6th century did state that the bishop of Rome shall enjoy a primacy of honor and not authority over all. If I could find which council and what canon, I'll let you know. But, the reason why Rome had such honor was not because of Peter.

Since you are making the claim, the onus is on you to provide the reference. Until then, it is an empty claim.

However, here are 3 Early Church Father quotes from before the 6th century. (Notice that the first quote is Pope Clement exercising his papal authority to resolve a dispute in an Eastern Church).

“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…Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, 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.”
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80

“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110

"It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times…But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why do you only quote part of this, it really does speak for itself... See.


"But when I finish all the words, all the elect will then become acquainted with them through you. You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church. "shepherd of hermes

The part you felt was needed is speaking of other actions than that prescribed to Clement:

"But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church. "

Which is speaking of reading what Clement sent to all the churches. This makes sense that the priests of those churches would read what Clement sent since he is the holder of the Keys. They recognize his power of the Keys and will read what he sends.

"And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so."

Clement has been granted permission. So what is that Permission?

According to Tradition it is the power of the Keys given to his office as the 4th Pope.

 

[simonthezealot]

"And Clemens will send his to foreign countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so."

Clement has been granted permission. So what is that Permission?

.

The more important question...Who granted him permission?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The more important question...Who granted him permission?

Jesus. The Keys remember...

Welcome back.

 

[simonthezealot]

Jesus. The Keys remember...

Welcome back.

Thanks Jack! during my fast I prayed for your conversion, I know God's timing is different than ours, so I'm assuming nothing has happened yet?

"Clement was granted permission" outta the blue this meant the keys' Jack i'm not that easily persuaded...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Thanks Jack! during my fast I prayed for your conversion, I know God's timing is different than ours, so I'm assuming nothing has happened yet?

"Clement was granted permission" outta the blue this meant the keys' Jack i'm not that easily persuaded...

Thanks Simon! Prayer is a great thing and when we do it for others it is even better.

You have also heard my "Keys" argument so I will try not to bore you with repeating previous points.

But I will need to follow up later on that.

Consider also that Jesus made Peter the Shephard to watch over his flock. Also, that Jesus made Peter the Rock that the church will be built on.

Jack

P.S. - I do not know how the conversion will go but I have checked into being a Deacon and have a meeting with my Priest tonight.

 

[tadoflamb]

It seems as though Dr. White is acknowleging that there was a bishop of Rome, it's just that he didn't have primacy. So, who is Dr. White's bishop?

How about you Simon, do you have a bishop?

 

[simonthezealot]

It seems as though Dr. White is acknowleging that there was a bishop of Rome, it's just that he didn't have primacy. So, who is Dr. White's bishop?

How about you Simon, do you have a bishop?

Nope sure don't...

Note to Jack, Haven't had a chance to go back through this to pick up where we left off...Haven't forgot.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Nope sure don't...

Note to Jack, Haven't had a chance to go back through this to pick up where we left off...Haven't forgot.

No problem...

You are welcome to start anywhere you recall.

 

[simonthezealot]

No problem...

You are welcome to start anywhere you recall.

Actually Jack its your call you can pick it up at clement or hermas or Irenaeus...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Before approaching an epistle from one of the Fathers of the Church I want to ask...

Peter and Paul both shared a primacy or supremacy in the teaching of the Church and they were the ones that other churches looked to for Guidance?

Both Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and they would have given over the bishopric to another?

I think the fact that Peter and Paul were given such authority should be a consideration first. I think this is already agreed to but need to clarify.

 

[simonthezealot]

I think the fact that Peter and Paul were given such authority should be a consideration first. I think this is already agreed to but need to clarify.

In a sense I'd agree...Hope things are good Jack! maybe we can raise our debate back to life.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

In a sense I'd agree...Hope things are good Jack! maybe we can raise our debate back to life.

Simon,

Glad to see you have not forgotten this thread.


I have been very busy as of late. I have also learned more that should help with my answers here.

So... where to start?

I will say that I do not think the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was solidified until a few centuries later.

I say this because the Popes in succession seemed to have differing ideas on how things were to be run.

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon,

Glad to see you have not forgotten this thread.


I have been very busy as of late. I have also learned more that should help with my answers here.

So... where to start?

I will say that I do not think the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was solidified until a few centuries later.

I say this because the Popes in succession seemed to have differing ideas on how things were to be run.

Jack my friend I actually saw a post of yours regarding a historical pope on the Catholic answers forum, and it drove me to checking where this left off... I appreciate your acknowledgement in regards to the supremacy of the bishop not being solidified!
It was this truth that initiated my desire to study this, in that Vat 1 claimed this supremacy was "Known for all ages".

Would you share some of those differing ideas of early bishops with me? I truly value your insight!
Peace
Simon