Who is the first Christian to deny the Primacy of Peter or his successors?

[chestertonrules]

This might help from c155AD--

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,33143314 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 stedfast 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.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

1. At this time, while Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome,11121112 Irenæus relates that Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome,and that he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the paschal feast.1114
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome17131713 in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Peter may or may not have had primacy, but obviously those who would claim to follow Peter held no authority for the Church. In fact the lesson from this episode is that we should all choose to follow apostolic authority, not customs of presbyters.

(Incidentally Peter and Paul taught the same thing as the other apostles as regards this issue in Antioch (and Alexandria through Mark). We know this because Chrysostom tells us so (as does Clement of Alexandria). Truly Rome did teach "customs of presbyters", which in this case, Irenaeus tells us originated with Sixtus I.)

Peace to you---

I don't see any denial of the primacy of Peter or his successor there.

In fact, I see that Polycarp travelled many miles to Rome to meet with the Bishop there.

Hmmm....

 

[Standing Up]

I don't see any denial of the primacy of Peter or his successor there.

In fact, I see that Polycarp travelled many miles to Rome to meet with the Bishop there.

Hmmm....

As noted, Polycarp went to Rome to combat heresies. Irenaeus is being kind as regards the important city.

Polycarp confronted Anicetus. Polycarp followed the way of apostles and his successors did too. Anicetus followed the "customs of presbyters" before him. Irenaeus traces that custom to Sixtus I and stops, saying they "formed a custom" and "didn't adhere to strict accuracy".

So, even if we assume that Peter appointed Clement or was that Linus or Anacletus or someone, it is obvious that a mere 70 or so laters, the apostolic truth was no longer followed at Rome and by Peter's "successors". Whatever primacy Peter had, Rome did not receive it or cling to it, but instead, forfeited it.

Moreover, Peter himself called the elders of Asia Minor together and told them to "feed His sheep" (1 Peter).

 

[Standing Up]

I don't think there was or is any Apostle of the world. Each Apostle was assigned to certain parts of the world.

Which apostle was assigned North America or South America?

 

[chestertonrules]

As noted, Polycarp went to Rome to combat heresies. Irenaeus is being kind as regards the important city.

Polycarp confronted Anicetus. Polycarp followed the way of apostles and his successors did too. Anicetus followed the "customs of presbyters" before him. Irenaeus traces that custom to Sixtus I and stops, saying they "formed a custom" and "didn't adhere to strict accuracy".

).

Doesn't sound like a confrontation to me:

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome17131713 in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter.


This was not a doctrinal matter.

The point remains, Polycarp went to Rome.

 

[Standing Up]

Why do you think Jesus changed Simon's name to Cephas?

Why do you think Jesus changed the names of James and John to sons of thunder?

Who is the voice of God?

 

[chestertonrules]

Why do you think Jesus changed the names of James and John to sons of thunder?

Who is the voice of God?

He didn't change their names. They are not known as the sons of Thunder, they are known as James and John.

So you don't have an answer to the question. OK.

 

[Standing Up]

Doesn't sound like a confrontation to me:

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome17131713 in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter.


This was not a doctrinal matter.

The point remains, Polycarp went to Rome.

You are wrong about doctrine.

You wanted to know who was the first Christian to deny Rome (the so-called and assumed successor to Peter). Polycarp went to Rome. Polycarp did not submit to Rome on the doctrine. Polycarp denied Rome c155AD.

C195AD Polycrates and the rest of Asia Minor denied Rome on the same doctrine, citing Apostolic authority, Scripture, Jesus Christ, and successors. Rome responded by excommunicating. The rest of the Church made Rome recant.

325AD only with and because of the guarantor of Constantine (and we all know what that means), Rome, like a big baby with a big brother with a big spear, finally got its way on the doctrine. In subsequent councils, they excommunicated and declared heretical those who denied Rome's custom that originated with presbyters, the first being Sixtus I. Not Apostles. Not Scripture. Not Jesus Christ. And not their Successors.

 

[Standing Up]

He didn't change their names. They are not known as the sons of Thunder, they are known as James and John.

Guess again--

Mark 3:17 And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Add:
lit., "to put upon" (epi, "upon," tithemi, "to put"), has a secondary and somewhat infrequent meaning, "to add to," and is found in this sense in Mar 3:16, 17, lit., "He added the name Peter to Simon," "He added to them the name Boanerges," and Rev 22:18, where the word is set in contrast to "take away from" (ver. 19).

You who make such a big deal out of Peter/rock, why did Jesus also surname James and John? Search your archives.

 

[chestertonrules]

You are wrong about doctrine.

You wanted to know who was the first Christian to deny Rome (the so-called and assumed successor to Peter). Polycarp went to Rome. Polycarp did not submit to Rome on the doctrine. Polycarp denied Rome c155AD.

.

He did no such thing. You are just making up a fantasy to fit your preconceived notions.

Irenaeus, who wrote the account, also wrote this:

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]).

"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]).

 

[Standing Up]

He did no such thing. You are just making up a fantasy to fit your preconceived notions.

Wrong. I had no preconceived notions.

Irenaeus, who wrote the account, also wrote this:

You've forgotton your question, your OP. You were looking for the first Christian who denied Rome.

You could also take a look at your own first "Pope" to be independently and verifiably martyred at Rome. It appears he tried to change Rome to the apostolic way. Lost his head for it.

"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]).

Sorry. Rome has no independently verifiable and noncontradictory sources showing the identical first four or five successors from Peter. Tertullian, for example, says, Peter to Clement.

Asia Minor, Antioch, Alexandria, however, all are verifiable. Unfortunately, they too changed over. Chrysostom, for example, admits this c365AD.

 

[chestertonrules]

Wrong. I had no preconceived notions.



You've forgotton your question, your OP. You were looking for the first Christian who denied Rome.

.

Still waiting.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I don't understand what this has to do with my questions.

Maybe I am not understanding your question chestertonrules, Peter calls us all "lively stones "as coming to" the Living Stone Jesus Christ. Somethings I just regard as symbolic in nature.

When Paul asked "WHO is Cephas" why didnt he point out something significant about him? See what I mean?

 

[chestertonrules]

Maybe I am not understanding your question chestertonrules, Peter calls us all "lively stones "as coming to" the Living Stone Jesus Christ. Somethings I just regard as symbolic in nature.

When Paul asked "WHO is Cephas" why didnt he point out something significant about him? See what I mean?

He did. In fact, he went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with him.

My question is more specific, however.

The claims regarding the papacy in the early Church are quite explicit and well known. I want to know where are the quotes from those who disputed this teaching.

Here's one example among many:


Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

 

[Standing Up]

The claims regarding the papacy in the early Church are quite explicit and well known. I want to know where are the quotes from those who disputed this teaching.

For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Rome was unable to persuade Polycarp to forego what Polycarp had learned from Apostles.

Alas, Rome was unpersuadable also, for they chose to follow the custom of the presbyters.

Telesphorus (sic?) was martyred for "sympathizing" with the way of Apostles, rather than the presbyters.

 

[Thekla]

I think it would be instructive, if one is to base the argument on the ECFs, to read as much as possible of their works. And to also be familiar with the historical circumstances and context. For example, Cyprian took a firm stand against the teachings of the bishop Stephen of Rome on the matter of the validity of baptism in 'heretical' Churches. Cyprian also understands the bishop of Rome as first among equals; his battle with Rome should help to provide a fuller context from which to evaluate the above quotation.

 

[Fireinfolding]

He did. In fact, he went to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with him.

Yes in Galations three years after his conversion he says he did.

My question is more specific, however.

The claims regarding the papacy in the early Church are quite explicit and well known. I want to know where are the quotes from those who disputed this teaching.

I dont know what "papacy" is chestertonrules. Concerning alot of Catholic terms I am ignorant I just go by the scriptures, things become much easier and more searchable in them and less obscure to me.

Here's one example among many:


Cyprian of Carthage "The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

I saw this earlier I dont regard it the same and dont know what a cathedra chair is unless its referred to as a seat of some sort, but the only one I know of is where Christ is seated and that which sits itself in Moses seat.

Through Peters hypocricy many fell away in him, so I dont believe in Peter having this signficant seat, chair, being a head or anything like that. I regard the plurality of the apostles, and good thing because Paul straigtened Peter out and those who fell on top of him (so to speak).

As Paul said, Christ is not "divided" some saying "I am of Cephas", "I am of Paul" or Apollos and even Christ.

 

[chestertonrules]

Through Peters hypocricy many fell away in him, so I dont believe in Peter having this signficant seat, chair, being a head or anything like that. I regard the plurality of the apostles, and good thing because Paul straigtened Peter out and those who fell on top of him (so to speak).

As Paul said, Christ is not "divided" some saying "I am of Cephas", "I am of Paul" or Apollos and even Christ.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Who are the many who fell away in him? Are you aware that he was crucified for his faith?

Jesus wants us to be united, which is why he only started one Church and he gave this Church leadership to help us avoid false teaching.

The Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all Truth.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I have no idea what you are referring to. Who are the many who fell away in him? Are you aware that he was crucified for his faith?

Jesus wants us to be united, which is why he only started one Church and he gave this Church leadership to help us avoid false teaching.

The Holy Spirit is leading the Church into all Truth.

Here Chestertonrules, in this place

Gal 2:11-13 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.


Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

The doctrine

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

I would think The Holy Spirit through Paul corrected Peter

He rebuked him before all

 

[Deut 5:29]

actually that theory has been debunked by the fact Christ spoke Aramaic.
and beside the throw your theory into the sentence, sounds rather stupid doesn't it?

(sic)

Huh? That makes no sense. By the way is English you first language?

 

[chestertonrules]

Here Chestertonrules, in this place

Gal 2:11-13 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.


Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,

The doctrine

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

I would think The Holy Spirit through Paul corrected Peter

He rebuked him before all

Many Jewish converts struggled with how to approach the law. It was Peter who was given the revelation from God that circumcision was no longer necessary and that gentiles could be equal sharers of the grace of Jesus.

I agree that the Holy Spirit may have worked through Paul to correct Peter's pride and doubt.

That doesn't change the fact that God chose Peter to reveal this truth to.

Nor does it change the fact that Jesus chose Peter to be the rock of his Church and gave him the keys to the Kingdom.