Linus vs. John

PacMan · April 3, 2009

In a previous thread with 3DOP, I stated that the authoritative claim of the Catholic Church was untenable. I want to make it VERY clear to all that this does not suggest that this mean the RCC is not true, but only that it cannot substantiate with evidence the claim of Apostolic succession. In that discussion, we hit on a number of themes which 3DOP invited me to re-post in a more succinct, and descriptive construction.

I hope to frame the RCC explanation correctly: 3DOP, please correct me if I do not:

When Peter died, the keys given to him by Jesus were left with the Church in Rome. They were not transferred to Linus by ordination, nor to Cletus, nor to Clement, but to them via their roles as Bishops of Rome. Thus, the keys reside in Rome, and not with the Pope.

Question #1) Why has the standard of succession changed? With Peter, the keys followed him wherever he went. They were left to the Bishop of Rome, because it is in Rome that Peter died. Yet when the Pope dies, the keys are still in Rome and assumed by the next Bishop chosen by the Cardinals. What that means is that the Pope does not â??carryâ? those keys with him, or else the new Pope would be the Bishop of the current location wherever a Pope may pass. Why did the keys follow Peter, but they do not follow the Pope? How could the Pope exercise those keys outside of Rome? If the keys are kept in Rome, what would happen if Rome were to go up in smoke? What if the Pope were to survive, or die?

Question #2) How could Linus receive the keys (and thus exercise authority/ supremacy/ control, etc.) over the church if the Apostle John was still alive? Considering it is conceded that the keys were not given to Linus by Peter but simply dropped, what evidence would suggest that this â??droppingâ? is a legitimate form of passing authority?

My challenge is that there is no such precedence for this passing of authority, and that it is actually contrary to the Bible.

Assumptions:

1- John was alive at the time of Peterâ??s death (I do not believe this is disputed).

2- John was still an Apostle at that time (also, not disputed).

3- Linus was the Bishop in Rome at the time of Peterâ??s death (also, not disputed).

Consider two scriptures:

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: (Ephesians 2:19-21)

Andâ?¦

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:27-28)

The scriptures are clear that they are the apostles and prophets that are the foundation of the church. The scriptures are also clear that God has set Apostles first before all other hierarchies and gifts.

Never is there an account of an Apostle being subordinate to a Bishop. The Apostles gave local Bishops their instructions, and the Bishops carried them out. It is therefore inconceivable that a Bishop, without first being made an Apostle, would be in a place of authority over an Apostle. It does not reason, therefore, that the Bishop of Rome was given the keys of the kingdom when the foundation of the Church, set first before all other organizations, was still alive on the earth.

How could the Apostolic succession, therefore, be passed to the Bishops when an Apostle whom had the sealing power was still alive? Is it possible that this construction of history was done anachronistically, after the fact?

Best,

PacMan

Mike Reed · April 3, 2009

Do you think LDS can "substantiate with evidence the claim of Apostolic succession"? If not, then where's the beef?

PacMan · April 3, 2009

Do you think LDS can "substantiate with evidence the claim of Apostolic succession"? If not, then where's the beef?

Mike,

Absolutely, 100%. The evidence is Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's own testimony. Consider the claim, evidenced. Now, that doesn't prove the claim, but it does make it tenable. The existence of evidence does not require a judgment of quality.

To the contrary, the RCC doesn't have the evidence. No testimony, biblical precedence...nothing. There are some conclusory remarks made hundreds of years later...but that's not evidence. That's hearsay.

Even so, if you want to talk about the tenability of claims, go look write in the last thread. This one is left for a discussion of John v. Linus.

Cheers,

PacMan

Jeff K. · April 3, 2009

All I know is that Linus is very handy with that blanket

Mudcat · April 3, 2009

The whole argument seems to rest on what these keys are, who can have them and who can't.

I think a whole lot has been made of a singular Biblical verse. I am not making light of the text, rather the theories of the meaning, that have found there way into many differing faiths.

I think the argument for/against rests upon speculation instead of fact.

3DOP · April 3, 2009

PacMan

In a previous thread with 3DOP, I stated that the authoritative claim of the Catholic Church was untenable. I want to make it VERY clear to all that this does not suggest that this mean the RCC is not true, but only that it cannot substantiate with evidence the claim of Apostolic succession. In that discussion, we hit on a number of themes which 3DOP invited me to re-post in a more succinct, and descriptive construction.

3DOP

It would be difficult to hold that the Catholic Church is at the same time true, but mistaken about the bishop of Rome as successor of Peter. After a few days reflection, I am forced to say that I think you demand documented evidence that can not reasonably be expected to exist:

The fact that there are so few texts cannot be taken by itself to lessen the weight of those we have. Such reasoning would be allowable to modern history, where one would be sure to find numerous references in all kinds of sources to events or documents of any importance whatever. But in the days when the Church was taking shape there were few documents of any kind. If one were to cut out all statements in ancient or medieval history which are unsupported by contemporary evidence, we should have little history left.

If you will do a google on this book you will see that the authors' work is still very frequently cited by opponents of the papacy as often as they are by Catholics. This seems to be a purely historical study that betrays no bias on the part of the authors who both taught at Columbia. Shotwell also wrote An Introduction to the History of History. This work is part of a projected series that was called Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies. I think you would appreciate it if you could find a copy. It seems to be very exhaustive of all the significant literature, using textual criticism to place biblical, patristic, and apocraphyl works in historical context.

PacMan

I hope to frame the RCC explanation correctly: 3DOP, please correct me if I do not:

When Peter died, the keys given to him by Jesus were left with the Church in Rome. They were not transferred to Linus by ordination, nor to Cletus, nor to Clement, but to them via their roles as Bishops of Rome. Thus, the keys reside in Rome, and not with the Pope.

3DOP

Yes. Correct. It seems to me that St. Irenaeus did not even know the significance of the papacy yet at the time he wrote for he would have appealed to it in the writing which follows if the teaching had been a little more developed in his day. But he clearly pointed to the importance of the Roman church:

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 preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

---St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2

Having had the privilege of patronage from the Apostle to the Gentiles and the Apostle to the Jews, at this time, around 170 AD, there was a Tradition cited by Irenaeus regarding the necessity that because of its holy founders, that all the churches, and all the faithful, should know that they must conform to the teachings and practices of the Roman church. I shouldn't need to remind you that for Catholics, an established apostolic Tradition carries a weight of authority equal to Scripture, and most often, interpreting Scripture.

PacMan

Question #1) Why has the standard of succession changed? With Peter, the keys followed him wherever he went. They were left to the Bishop of Rome, because it is in Rome that Peter died. Yet when the Pope dies, the keys are still in Rome and assumed by the next Bishop chosen by the Cardinals. What that means is that the Pope does not â??carryâ? those keys with him, or else the new Pope would be the Bishop of the current location wherever a Pope may pass. Why did the keys follow Peter, but they do not follow the Pope? How could the Pope exercise those keys outside of Rome? If the keys are kept in Rome, what would happen if Rome were to go up in smoke? What if the Pope were to survive, or die?

3DOP

I do not accept that the standard of succession has changed. If St. Peter had gone to Athens and died there, without having helped found and build up the Athenian church, but after having done those things in Rome, it seems unlikely that the Church at Athens would be honored as the See of Peter. It is true that together with St. Paul he labored and was martyred at Rome, but it wasn't due to his death only, that it was discerned much later that the bishops of Rome had inherited the keys of Peter. You asked in the other thread about Antioch. He also labored there. But it was in Rome, not Antioch, that the mature St. Peter labored with the mature St. Paul, and it was this church at Rome which bore his finest fruits, so much so, that by 170 AD, St. Irenaeus could affirm the need for every church to be obedient to the Roman church. This is a remarkable comment for the bishop of Lyons to make if it is a novelty of his own invention. Who would not become indignant at the very idea of one local church's pre-eminence over another, if it were an invention of the late 2nd Century? If there was prior to the work of Irenaeus, no understanding of the pre-eminence of the church at Rome, it seems difficult to imagine why he would make it up, and even more difficult to think that anyone would pay him any attention in the wide world.

PacMan

Question #2) How could Linus receive the keys (and thus exercise authority/ supremacy/ control, etc.) over the church if the Apostle John was still alive? Considering it is conceded that the keys were not given to Linus by Peter but simply dropped, what evidence would suggest that this â??droppingâ? is a legitimate form of passing authority?

3DOP

St. Peter, the prince of the Apostles, did not interfere with St. John's apostolate. Much less would the bishop of Rome.

In the hours leading up to Christ's passion and death, after the Last Supper, the apostles themselves were instructed by Jesus to imitate Him in the question of holding authority:

And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom.

---Luke 22:24-27

Hopefully, by the time of the martyrdom of St. Peter, the remaining apostles had enough to do without worrying about "which of them should seem to be the greater".

While Apostles were on earth, there was the display of neither bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by the Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope.

Perhaps you perceive "the keys" to be an article of a spiritual nature, but with qualities that are of a physical nature. I do not understand them to have been "dropped" at all. I think you are expecting for a particular passing of the keys ceremony similar to an ordination. But I don't even believe that Linus knew the ramifications of his office. How could there be a ceremony for it? I return to Newman for a more Catholic observation as to our understanding of the prophetic and promissory nature of the keys. After pointing out how in Genesis, Jacob prophesies that "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Shiloh (Christ) come", he notes how this "authority", this sceptre, was an unexercised and unrecognized authority for perhaps 800 years until King David, of the tribe of Judah inherited the kingdom after Saul, the Benjamite. Here he compares the promised sceptre to the promised authority given to St. Peter and understood to be perpetual:

In like manner, "On this rock I will build My Church," "I give unto thee the Keys," "Feed My sheep," are not precepts merely, but prophesies and promises, promises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies to be filled according to the need, and to be interpreted by the event--by the history, that is, of the fourth and fifth centuries...

---ibid. p. 162

Just as David received the sceptre from Judah, so the bishops of Rome from St. Peter, with no outward ceremony, and in the beginning with little apprehension as to the latent authority of their office. At another time we can perhaps examine more of the biblical and patristic evidence pointing to Irenaeus' claim of pre-eminence for the Church of Rome, which would be the basis for the development of the understanding that the head of that local church inherits the chair, and thus the keys of St. Peter, and the authority implied in Christ's promise of the keys.

PacMan

My challenge is that there is no such precedence for this passing of authority, and that it is actually contrary to the Bible.

Assumptions:

1- John was alive at the time of Peterâ??s death (I do not believe this is disputed).

2- John was still an Apostle at that time (also, not disputed).

3- Linus was the Bishop in Rome at the time of Peterâ??s death (also, not disputed).

Consider two scriptures:

Andâ?¦(These did not copy. They were Ep. 2:19-21 and I Cor. 12:27, 28)

The scriptures are clear that they are the apostles and prophets that are the foundation of the church. The scriptures are also clear that God has set Apostles first before all other hierarchies and gifts.

3DOP

I could cite many clear statements from Catholic authorities affirming the belief that after Christ, the chief Cornerstone, the foundation of the Church are the apostles and prophets. We believe that St. John's name, authority, and ministry exceeds that of St. Linus. Another way you may know that Catholics honor the apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church is that the Catholic Church accepts the Scriptures that you quoted as canonical. I am not trying to be cute. I know you know this. But why would the Catholic Church accept as Scripture, writings that clearly contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church? You do not consider our teaching to be compatible with these passages that the Catholic Church has canonized. You go so far as to say that our position is unbiblical. To use your own expression, your position is untenable. What religious institution is in the habit of proposing teachings that are clearly destructive of its own authority? Teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be dismissed as "unbiblical" with five verses of Scripture that it accepts and an unique interpretation that it denies.

PacMan

Never is there an account of an Apostle being subordinate to a Bishop. The Apostles gave local Bishops their instructions, and the Bishops carried them out. It is therefore inconceivable that a Bishop, without first being made an Apostle, would be in a place of authority over an Apostle. It does not reason, therefore, that the Bishop of Rome was given the keys of the kingdom when the foundation of the Church, set first before all other organizations, was still alive on the earth.

3DOP

See above. No Catholic suggests that St. John or any apostle was subordinate to a bishop.

PacMan

How could the Apostolic succession, therefore, be passed to the Bishops when an Apostle whom had the sealing power was still alive? Is it possible that this construction of history was done anachronistically, after the fact?

3DOP

Undoubtedly it took history to bring the truths of the faith to a fuller light. Here is where I think we part ways: It seems that your view of revelation is that the receiver of it should have a good understanding of it from the moment it is received. You seem to want clear evidence that the papacy was established and understood immediately after the death of Peter or else "the Catholic claim is untenable". I concede it isn't there. But that isn't the Catholic claim. My view takes into consideration that revelation is very seldom understood fully when it is first received. Let me give you just one clear example from Scripture. What follows is the exchange between the Child Jesus and his parents after the Finding in the Temple:

And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father's business? And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them.

---Luke 2:48-50

Direct, clear words from the Son of God to the people who knew Him better than anyone in the world, and they did not understand. Do you think the Jews were climbing all over Jacob's prophecy about Judah prior to the ascension of King David to the throne telling everyone how the tribe of Judah has the promised sceptre? Maybe they were, but I doubt it. Until historical events brought the promises to light, it seems likely that the promise was not understood very well, if at all. It certainly remained a latent, unexercised promise for many centuries. I admit to the same historical and biblical pattern with regard to the keys of the kingdom entrusted to Peter the Rock and understood better than the Apostle himself by his later successors, the bishops of Rome.

3DOP

PacMan · April 4, 2009

3DOP,

It would be difficult to hold that the Catholic Church is at the same time true, but mistaken about the bishop of Rome as successor of Peter. After a few days reflection, I am forced to say that I think you demand documented evidence that can not reasonably be expected to exist:

Again, Iâ??m not suggesting my argument proves in any sense that the Bishop of Rome was not the successor of Peter. Iâ??m simply suggesting that the evidence does not suggest the contrary. Even when I have no evidence at night that thereâ??s a ball of burning gas up in the sky, that does not prove that the sun doesnâ??t exist.

The fact that there are so few texts cannot be taken by itself to lessen the weight of those we have.

I argue that no such germane documents exist. The closest one gets is Irenaeus, whom was some hundred + years later. Not particularly germane. The problem is that Irenaeus HAD to conclude what he did, or else his faith was erroneous. Irenaeusâ??s conclusion was not based on anything substantive--he back-doored the solution as he had to.

But thank you for the reference. I will look it up after things calm down a bit.

I do not accept that the standard of succession has changed. If St. Peter had gone to Athens and died there, without having helped found and build up the Athenian church, but after having done those things in Rome, it seems unlikely that the Church at Athens would be honored as the See of Peter. It is true that together with St. Paul he labored and was martyred at Rome, but it wasn't due to his death only, that it was discerned much later that the bishops of Rome had inherited the keys of Peter. You asked in the other thread about Antioch. He also labored there. But it was in Rome, not Antioch, that the mature St. Peter labored with the mature St. Paul, and it was this church at Rome which bore his finest fruits, so much so, that by 170 AD, St. Irenaeus could affirm the need for every church to be obedient to the Roman church. This is a remarkable comment for the bishop of Lyons to make if it is a novelty of his own invention. Who would not become indignant at the very idea of one local church's pre-eminence over another, if it were an invention of the late 2nd Century? If there was prior to the work of Irenaeus, no understanding of the pre-eminence of the church at Rome, it seems difficult to imagine why he would make it up, and even more difficult to think that anyone would pay him any attention in the wide world.

Very interesting. Part of the question surrounds Peterâ??s rather attenuated role. It was Paul that organized the church in Rome. The records add Peter, but thereâ??s no indication that he was their when Paul organized the church and ordained Linus. They were not traveling companions. Moreover, (as you note) Peter did a substantial amount in other congregations, such as Antioch, ordaining the Bishops there. To conclude that the authority resided with the church which he developed â??more,â?? or that he was more mature, or that the fruits there were any better than elsewhere, seems to strain the point. I cannot accept that the Lord would have his authority pass on such subjective standards.

And no, I do not think it would be remarkable for Irenaeus to say what he said. I believe those early fathers were good men. I believe there was good reason to try and decide on an authority to follow, and consolidating power in Rome was tremendously practical.

Hopefully, by the time of the martyrdom of St. Peter, the remaining apostles had enough to do without worrying about "which of them should seem to be the greater".

Authority has nothing to do with being â??greater,â? but establishing an organization. Moreover, Iâ??m not concerned with which of the Apostles was thus â??greater,â?? but that the Apostle was â??greaterâ?? than any Bishop.

In course of time, first the power of the bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope.

I think that quote is revealingâ?¦that it was the position that determined its power, and not an established hierarchy.

Perhaps you perceive "the keys" to be an article of a spiritual nature, but with qualities that are of a physical nature.

Not at all. Keys are the right to presidency and wholly spiritual.

But I don't even believe that Linus knew the ramifications of his office.

I think you are honest. I appreciate that.

I believe it is tradition that instituted the keys to Linus, and nothing more. Does that possibility worry you? That the Bishop surpassed the authority of an Apostle based solely on the tradition to follow?

How could there be a ceremony for it?

I have not asked that question in this thread. I think you explained your position well, and believe I demonstrated that I understand it per my summary above.

I return to Newman for a more Catholic observation as to our understanding of the prophetic and promissory nature of the keys. After pointing out how in Genesis, Jacob prophesies that "the sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Shiloh (Christ) come", he notes how this "authority", this sceptre, was an unexercised and unrecognized authority for perhaps 800 years until King David, of the tribe of Judah inherited the kingdom after Saul, the Benjamite. Here he compares the promised sceptre to the promised authority given to St. Peter and understood to be perpetual:

Except the Kings were ordained, and anointed. That passing was very much ceremonious, and fit the description in Hebrews 5. Clearly, any such promise did NOT continue as it had, and as required. If you believe that process wasnâ??t needed (i.e. that the keys could pass at death), then thatâ??s fine. Clearly, such a transfer was both new and undocumented.

In like manner, "On this rock I will build My Church," "I give unto thee the Keys," "Feed My sheep," are not precepts merely, but prophesies and promises, promises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies to be filled according to the need, and to be interpreted by the event--by the history, that is, of the fourth and fifth centuries...

Do you realize how circular this is? That prophecies are substantiated by their interpretation, and not by the authority of one who prophesied? I cannot accept that.

We believe that St. John's name, authority, and ministry exceeds that of St. Linus.

Good to hear. I did not know that.

But why would the Catholic Church accept as Scripture, writings that clearly contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church? You do not consider our teaching to be compatible with these passages that the Catholic Church has canonized.

Clearly, you have an explanation. That is precisely what I framed the question for.

You go so far as to say that our position is unbiblical. To use your own expression, your position is untenable.

In the words of the Spaniard, â??I do not think that means what you think it means.â?? Given that the authority of the church was given to Linus, and it was a living Apostle whom was placed before Linus the Bishop, my position is very, very tenable.

Teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be dismissed as "unbiblical" with five verses of Scripture that it accepts and an unique interpretation that it denies.

Thatâ??s fine, but you didnâ??t give an answer.

No Catholic suggests that St. John or any apostle was subordinate to a bishop.

Then how did succession go to the Bishop of Rome? Thatâ??s the part that doesnâ??t make sense. If John was before the Bishop, then why did the authority of church go to that very same Bishop? And if it did, how does that not make John subordinate? If Linus was the leader of the church of Christ, that means that all are subordinate to him.

Letâ??s play the hypothetical game: Could John have claimed the keys in Patmos (since we agree they were spiritual)? Could he have gone to Rome and assumed the position of Bishop himself? Could he have then gone elsewhere, and continued the succession in another location?

Undoubtedly it took history to bring the truths of the faith to a fuller light. Here is where I think we part ways: It seems that your view of revelation is that the receiver of it should have a good understanding of it from the moment it is received. You seem to want clear evidence that the papacy was established and understood immediately after the death of Peter or else "the Catholic claim is untenable". I concede it isn't there. But that isn't the Catholic claim. My view takes into consideration that revelation is very seldom understood fully when it is first received. Let me give you just one clear example from Scripture. What follows is the exchange between the Child Jesus and his parents after the Finding in the Temple:

Let us use a more germane example from scripture:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
(New Testament | Ephesians 4:11 - 16)

The purpose of having apostles was so that the body of Christ would fit together, and that this organization would give its members direction, so as to not be tossed to and fro, nor confused and confounded. Without Apostles, thatâ??s precisely what happenedâ??the foundation was lost. The church was confusedâ?¦we know Corinth didnâ??t know who was in authority and that was the very issue and nexus of their contentions. But time ticked, and history declared Rome the winner. History, however, is not the authority. It is Christ, and Christ whom ordained John before the Bishops. That a Bishop could ever perpetuate a branch of apostolic authority adjacent to or greater than that of a surviving Apostle is a confusion and inconsistency of the Bible.

Do you think the Jews were climbing all over Jacob's prophecy about Judah prior to the ascension of King David to the throne telling everyone how the tribe of Judah has the promised sceptre? Maybe they were, but I doubt it.

Remember, the prophecies were quit clear that the scepter of Judah pointed to the Messiah. Moreover, the Lord sent prophets to oversee the process. The passing of authority as youâ??ve explained, however, has no root in prophecy nor scripture. It doesnâ??t make sense that the process of authorization as explained in Heb. 5 would change without explanation.

I admit to the same historical and biblical pattern with regard to the keys of the kingdom entrusted to Peter the Rock and understood better than the Apostle himself by his later successors, the bishops of Rome.

That the Popes somehow figured out something both unknown and contrary to what the Apostles knew is simply unacceptable. Why would direction not come to the Apostles? Why leave it to circumstance? Tradition is no authority, but the very same type that the Apostles staunchly warned against.

Best,

PacMan

Ambrose · April 4, 2009

Please, forgive me as I am lacking in all manners of knowledge necessary for a serious contribution to this discussion, and I beg correction from those more knowledgeable than myself. Moreover, I pray that the Holy Spirit guide us in this discussion, as it is most relevant to the rightful practice of the religion of the One Upon the Throne and the One at the Heart of the Throne.

I must admit that I do not have much to contribute in this post, but I did wish to submit for the scrutiny of PacMan these excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towardspapal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head.

A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love".

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree -- that is the faithful everywhere -- in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea qu

3DOP · April 4, 2009

Please, forgive me as I am lacking in all manners of knowledge necessary for a serious contribution to this discussion, and I beg correction from those more knowledgeable than myself. Moreover, I pray that the Holy Spirit guide us in this discussion, as it is most relevant to the rightful practice of the religion of the One Upon the Throne and the One at the Heart of the Throne.
I must admit that I do not have much to contribute in this post, but I did wish to submit for the scrutiny of PacMan these excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I do not hope that these statements prove positively or negatively the position of either poster, but I do hope that they provide an interesting fodder to the cannon of the arguers, and I will be greatly interested in reading the understanding of both posters as regards these sayings.

Hi Ambrose,

Thanks for the context. You might note that I had already cited the passage from St. Irenaeus. I consider your other citations to be important as well, especially inasmuch as Lightfoot to my knowledge was not Catholic. I hope to appeal to some other non-Catholic scholarship later today time permitting, as well as to address PacMan's charge as stated here with regards to the way the Catholic Church has understood Mt. 16:18-20:

Do you realize how circular this is? That prophecies are substantiated by their interpretation, and not by the authority of one who prophesied?

Regards,

3DOP

PS: You said that you are "lacking in all manners of knowledge necessary for a serious contribution to this discussion". I had never considered PacMan's problems with Linus and the Apostle John until he brought it up a few days ago. It seemed to me like a valid concern. It is a good question. So far, I think I could as easily give your disclaimer about my own knowledge. I could not find anything addressing that specific question. I am just a Catholic truck driver who is winging it with books I have had on my shelf but not opened for a while.

PacMan · April 4, 2009

I am just a Catholic truck driver who is winging it with books I have had on my shelf but not opened for a while.

The humble confound the wise...I am duly impressed. Thank you for continuing the discussion.

PacMan

Ambrose · April 4, 2009

In Egypt and in Africa, in the East and in the West, no other place ever disputed with Rome the honour of being the see of St. Peter; no other place ever claimed that he died there or that it possessed his tomb. Most significant of all is the consensus of the Oriental, non-Greek-speaking, Churches. A close examination of Armenian and Syrian MSS., (P. Martin, â??S. Pierre, sa venue et son martyre

PacMan · April 5, 2009

This is a somewhat beneficial lecture: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.v.html
Again, I do not know exactly how this might factor into your discussion, but I am certainly learning a good deal as I hunt for a reason why St. John would not be the head of the Church upon the passing of St. Peter and St. Paul.

Ambrose,

I encourage you to continue your searching. I find the writings of the early Christian fathers rather fascinating. It was an interesting time.

I think that it is important that you note a couple things:

1) The earliest figure we have noting Rome's power was Irenaeus, whom is equivalent to you or I pontificating on the civil war. In that his claim to fame was having known of Polycarp in his youth (the disciple of the Apostle of John), he was very much removed from anything that ever happened in Rome. Thus, any subsequent commentator is rejected for hearsay...unless they can prove to a more authentic document.

2) The fact that the writers never had a problem with the Roman succession has 2 problems: First, to assume anything from that is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantium. Second, they had a strict conflict of interest; either agree with the presumed tradition, or realize that their whole belief system was wrong and suffer the very real consequences of losing their livelihood.

3) The expectation that an Apostle follow Peter in supremacy is straight from the Bible. All EC Fathers also stated the authority of the Apostles over the Bishops...but have failed to explain John's role.

Cheers,

PacMan

3DOP · April 5, 2009

PacMan

3DOP,

Again, Iâ??m not suggesting my argument proves in any sense that the Bishop of Rome was not the successor of Peter. Iâ??m simply suggesting that the evidence does not suggest the contrary. Even when I have no evidence at night that thereâ??s a ball of burning gas up in the sky, that does not prove that the sun doesnâ??t exist.

I argue that no such germane documents exist. The closest one gets is Irenaeus, whom was some hundred + years later. Not particularly germane. The problem is that Irenaeus HAD to conclude what he did, or else his faith was erroneous. Irenaeusâ??s conclusion was not based on anything substantive--he back-doored the solution as he had to.

3DOP

We'll have to disagree I think on this. I can not easily dismiss Irenaeus as one who deliberately makes stuff up, even under a lot of stress. It would take a greater examination of his writings than would be practical for such a medium as we are working in here. So leaving aside the issue of Irenaeus' character, there are germane documents which exist now and that pointed in those days to what St. Irenaeus says about the pre-eminence of the Roman church and the need for every other church to agree with Rome.

1) Romans 1:7 and 8: "To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. First I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all, because your faith is spoken of in the whole world."

Already, before St. Paul had even visited the city, the Roman church was reknowned throughout the Christian world for its faith in a special way which makes the Apostle give thanks. The epistle to the Romans, unlike that to the other churches, begins with this unique greeting, a theological treatise, a practical application of the theology, and a salutation. Nowhere is there a hint of disapprobation from the Apostle who is never shy of mentioning faults to be found in the churches to whom he addresses his letters. I would note that the passage says not "your faith is written about in the whole world." No, this is an oral, spoken tradition that was becoming common among all Christians even before St. Paul's first visit to Rome and it is recorded in inspired Scripture that we might know that it is no historical redaction but a genuine belief in the Christian world of a certain prominence for the church built in the capital of the Empire.

2) Romans 16:17-19: "All the churches of Christ salute you. Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you."

After assuring the Romans that every Christian church salutes the Roman church, he explains why. "For your obedience is published in every place." Again, this would not necessarily be in written form. I would suggest it is again, an oral tradition that took root in "all the churches of Christ", "in the whole world". It is a unique commendation from St. Paul indicating that every church in the world is already looking Romeward at a time when there isn't a great deal of written communication. St. Paul isn't in the habit of "buttering up" his readers by telling them things that aren't true. It is not difficult therefore to suggest that if there are no extant documents pointing to the pre-eminence of Rome now, there was during the times of St. Irenaeus a continuance of significant traditions. These are mentioned by St. Paul in Scripture as being spread abroad, most likely by word of mouth, regarding a distinctive obedience and faith in the Roman church.

3) St. Clement to the Corinthians 1: "The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied. Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;"

Having seen that the church at Rome is that unique stronghold of faith which every Christian church salutes, and whose "obedience is published in every place", places this passage in its proper context for why the church at Corinth would be compelled to consult the church at Rome. This would have been approximately 100 AD.

4) St. Clement to the Corinthians 63: Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us, the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace.

I am not as you know, contending that Sts. Linus, Cletus, or Clement were privy to the developed teaching of the Catholic Church as we now have it regarding the privileges and authority of the See of Peter. However, we have seen that the Romans had been made well aware that the churches throughout the world saw the Roman church uniquely worthy of their salutations and admiration for their faith and obedience. At the very end of the first century, it is perhaps not altogether startling then that we see an example, perhaps not unique, of one of these churches actually appealing to Rome for direction as regards a crisis in their community. St. Irenaeus was aware of this germane document and cites it too. After listing the Roman bishops, who history records as having all suffered martyrdom, Irenaeus speaks of this letter from Clement to the Corinthian church.

5) St. Ignatius to the Romans: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [i wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

I will not repeat the opening remarks of St. Ignatius in his letters to the other churches, but to none of them does he heap praises as he does the Romans. Amidst all the other worthy notes he attributes to the Romans he mentions that they preside over love. A casual reading of this letter without the context we have presented might permit one to pass over this expression unnoticed. But to the Christian steeped in an oral tradition that recognizes the significance of this church at Rome, it stands out in contrast to all of the other churches to whom Ignatius wrote. This is not idle prattle, or the flattery of a sycophant. Rather it is a significant concession by the bishop of Antioch, where St. Peter also labored, admitting that in some respect the Roman church stands guard as a president, to preserve the Gospel of Christ which results in love. In addition to this, he attributes to them the continued faith which has spread round the world in St. Paul's day as to the faithful retention of apostolic doctrine, in admiring that they were "purified from every strange tint."

If the words written to the Romans by Sts. Paul and Ignatius were repeated to any of the other dozen or more churches to which they wrote, it seems like we could more easily dismiss the writings to Rome as insignificant. But it appears to me that both of these men wrote of what St. Paul says was spoken of through the whole world. They esteemed Rome as having a place of presidency among the other churches to use Ignatius' word, or to use Irenaeus' word, preeminence. No wonder then that St. Irenaeus saw in St. Clement's exhortation to the Romans, more than a mere brotherly admonition, but instead an authoritative word from a church responsible for presiding over others, to which they must agree.

6) St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3: "This man [Clement], 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,"

When Ireaneus' contends that every church "should agree with this Church [at Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously," he is not performing an act of desperation or what you call a "back-door solution". He is repeating a germane oral tradition spoken of from the time of St Paul continuing down to his own time which will be received without controversy among faithful who had been already instructed as to the trustworthiness of the teachings emanating from the Church which benefitted from having Sts. Paul and Peter simultaneously as its patrons. If even before St. Paul had arrived in Rome, this church was specially singled out as faithful and obedient, how much more after? In addition to the oral tradition published round the world, Irenaeus had I Clement to the Corinthians, Paul's epistle, and St. Ignatius letter as extant documents pointing Romeward. There indeed is pertinent, germane written documentation, that taken together with faith that Paul was speaking the truth in telling the Romans of an oral tradition regarding their special faithfulness, certainly gives us reason to see that Irenaeus was in no way inventing a new theory, but repeating an old and established Tradition, when without fear of controversy, he writes that the faithful everywhere may trust against the wild novelties of the Gnostic heretics, and that from Rome, the true apostolic teachings of the Apostles remained intact.

Allow me to repeat that I do not suggest that there was a developed understanding of the meaning of the keys given to Peter at this period of time. It will have to wait for later for me to try to establish the validity of interpreting revelatory promises and prophecies, after historical events point in a given direction. Nor have I had opportunity to develop my answer for how Linus could be pope while St. John was alive. I am eager for it. But for now, I am contending against the allegation that the first germane document establishing Rome as the hub and center of Christianity doesn't appear until Irenaeus. I am suggesting first that we have more than germane documents. We also have the assurance of a germane oral tradition spread round the evangelized world, but in addition we have other written documents that substantiate that oral tradition beginning even before the death of the Apostle John. St. Irenaeus was not an inventor of doctrines, but a preserver of them. That is why he pointed to Rome.

3DOP

soren · April 5, 2009

PacMan and 3DOP,

I am reading your conversation with interest, and would like to make a quick interjection. As you are both aware, a key verse for Apostolic succession in Catholic theology is Acts 1:20, â??and his bishoprick let another take.â? A point I would like to make about this verse is to observe the significance of the pronoun his. Matthias is not given another â??bishoprickâ? like that of Judas, but is given in fact the same individual one. And who gives it to him but the remaining eleven Apostles. Whatever one thinks about the sameness or difference of the Apostolic office and the bishopric, this verse shows that an office does not need to pass from one man to the next in the sense that Peter say would need to give the keys personally to a successor. Judas had a successor in the same individual office he possessed without giving it personally to the man who received it. This removes I believe any warrant for such an assumption.

Question #1) Why has the standard of succession changed? With Peter, the keys followed him wherever he went. They were left to the Bishop of Rome, because it is in Rome that Peter died. Yet when the Pope dies, the keys are still in Rome and assumed by the next Bishop chosen by the Cardinals. What that means is that the Pope does not â??carryâ? those keys with him, or else the new Pope would be the Bishop of the current location wherever a Pope may pass. Why did the keys follow Peter, but they do not follow the Pope? How could the Pope exercise those keys outside of Rome? If the keys are kept in Rome, what would happen if Rome were to go up in smoke? What if the Pope were to survive, or die?

You are making a more Catholic argument than perhaps you realize. If you got in a time machine to the ninth century and asked someone in Rome why the Pope was the prince of bishops, the answer you might likely receive would be that the bones of St. Peter reside in Rome. In our post-rationalist world, people donâ??t take relics too seriously anymore, and this kind of thinking sounds laughable: â??The Pope rules the Church because he owns the top relic.â? Most modern Catholics would blush to make this argument, yet Iâ??m not sure that itâ??s actually such a bad one. Whether Peter really is buried under the Vatican or not, he is presumably in Rome somewhere. Why could not his body be a vehicle of charismatic grace to whatever bishop presides over the city of Peter? Admittedly this is a different theory than the one I argue above, but is it so patently untrue as to make Petrine succession untenable? After all, before the Pope was called the Vicar of Christ was common to call him the Vicar of Peter.

3DOP · April 5, 2009

PacMan and 3DOP,
I am reading your conversation with interest, and would like to make a quick interjection. As you are both aware, a key verse for Apostolic succession in Catholic theology is Acts 1:20, â??and his bishoprick let another take.â? A point I would like to make about this verse is to observe the significance of the pronoun his. Matthias is not given another â??bishoprickâ? like that of Judas, but is given in fact the same individual one. And who gives it to him but the remaining eleven Apostles. Whatever one thinks about the sameness or difference of the Apostolic office and the bishopric, this verse shows that an office does not need to pass from one man to the next in the sense that Peter say would need to give the keys personally to a successor. Judas had a successor in the same individual office he possessed without giving it personally to the man who received it. This removes I believe any warrant for such an assumption.
You are making a more Catholic argument than perhaps you realize. If you got in a time machine to the ninth century and asked someone in Rome why the Pope was the prince of bishops, the answer you might likely receive would be that the bones of St. Peter reside in Rome. In our post-rationalist world, people donâ??t take relics too seriously anymore, and this kind of thinking sounds laughable: â??The Pope rules the Church because he owns the top relic.â? Most modern Catholics would blush to make this argument, yet Iâ??m not sure that itâ??s actually such a bad one. Whether Peter really is buried under the Vatican or not, he is presumably in Rome somewhere. Why could not his body be a vehicle of charismatic grace to whatever bishop presides over the city of Peter? Admittedly this is a different theory than the one I argue above, but is it so patently untrue as to make Petrine succession untenable? After all, before the Pope was called the Vicar of Christ was common to call him the Vicar of Peter.

Hi Soren.

I saw you were out and about and was hoping that you would contribute here. I had never considered the significance of the use of the pronoun to indicate that Matthias filled the same bishoprick once occupied by Judas. That seems significant to our discussion. Even more intriguing, if not as important, is your theory which I have never heard suggested elsewhere that maybe it is somehow Peter's body that keeps the keys in Rome. Is that new to you, prompted by PacMan's comments? If not, where have you heard it?

Thanks...and a blessed Holy Week to you and your family!

3DOP

soren · April 5, 2009

Hi Soren.
I saw you were out and about and was hoping that you would contribute here. I had never considered the significance of the use of the pronoun to indicate that Matthias filled the same bishoprick once occupied by Judas. That seems significant to our discussion. Even more intriguing, if not as important, is your theory which I have never heard suggested elsewhere that maybe it is somehow Peter's body that keeps the keys in Rome. Is that new to you, prompted by PacMan's comments? If not, where have you heard it?
Thanks...and a blessed Holy Week to you and your family!
3DOP

My argument is not original but was an ubiquitous early medieval view. You can find it documented by Eamon Duffy in "Saints and Sinner: A History of the Popes."

I'm not sure I think Peter's body keeps the keys in Rome, but I am convinced his death put them there. I place importance on Peter's death particularly because of its mention in John 21:18:

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

In addition to being a hauntingly moving verse, I think there is an important mystical subtext here involving Peter's relation to the Church. Why does Jesus say "Thou shalt stretch forth thy hands"? Why this poetic choice of words? I believe it is because he wants us to interpret Peter's death in view of the fact that he dies in a posture of benediction, for "by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people." (Acts 5:12) If Christ died on a cross to give life, it is fitting that the martyrdom of his followers, who partake in Christ's body and divine sonship, should also have redemptive properties. Mormons claim that the Apostles failed to pass on the keys before their deaths. Maybe that's true, but maybe the reason is that it was precisely by their deaths that the keys were passed on. Hence, Peter stretches out his arms.

PacMan · April 6, 2009

3DOP,

1&2) Your Romans quotes are quite revelatory: Rome was well-considered, before Peter had anything to do with it. At that point, it was an equal in authority to Antioch, etc. Considering that it was Paul that ordained Linus, I think there is reason to believe Paul had already beenâ?¦but clearly the history is not complete.

3)

Having seen that the church at Rome is that unique stronghold of faith which every Christian church salutes, and whose "obedience is published in every place", places this passage in its proper context for why the church at Corinth would be compelled to consult the church at Rome. This would have been approximately 100 AD.

I agree. Again, Clementâ??s letter to the Corinthians is even better understood in light of the scriptures. In now makes sense to me why the Corinthians asked for Roman helpâ??because the church there was well-known. But again, that was before Peter died and allegedly left the keys there. What that denotes is that Corinth was more turning to a friend for help, rather than counsel from superior. The early primacy of Rome had nothing to do with Peter.

But it is also worthwhile to note Clementâ??s response was â??our judgment.â? He did not talk individually, nor did he mandate instruction. He did not exercise power as a Pope would, but opined with the others in Rome. That is not a persuasive indication of any Petrine succession.

The other thing, as Iâ??ve pointed out, is Clementâ??s retirement. It is difficult to believe Clement was the authority if he â??retire[d].â?

5) To Ignatius, he is certainly more germane than Irenaeus. I cannot, however, give much credence to the â??presiding over loveâ?? than it strictly deserves. I believe that this is an indication of the members in Rome, rather than a statement of Romeâ??s primacy. More importantly than what I think, is what the text says. And it says nothing about Rome as the center or head of the church. I think it is particularly telling that heâ??d keep silent as to such primacy, if such was indeed the case.

6)

When Ireaneus' contends that every church "should agree with this Church [at Rome], on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously," he is not performing an act of desperation or what you call a "back-door solution".

Please understand that I do not believe that Ireaneus sat down and conjured a devious plan to â??back-doorâ?? anything. I believe that the tradition of Romeâ??s supremacy likely started earlyâ??as your scriptures have pointed out. Once Peter passed, that reputation grew, and was accepted and built upon by Irenaeus and others. The fact is, however, that they hadnâ??t any other optionsâ??except for John. And none of them probably knew where the heck he wasâ?¦and if he was alive at all. They did their best, but oneâ??s best doesnâ??t transfer the authority of God.

He is repeating a germane oral tradition spoken of from the time of St Paul continuing down to his own time which will be received without controversy among faithful who had been already instructed as to the trustworthiness of the teachings emanating from the Church which benefitted from having Sts. Paul and Peter simultaneously as its patrons. If even before St. Paul had arrived in Rome, this church was specially singled out as faithful and obedient, how much more after? In addition to the oral tradition published round the world, Irenaeus had I Clement to the Corinthians, Paul's epistle, and St. Ignatius letter as extant documents pointing Romeward. There indeed is pertinent, germane written documentation, that taken together with faith that Paul was speaking the truth in telling the Romans of an oral tradition regarding their special faithfulness, certainly gives us reason to see that Irenaeus was in no way inventing a new theory, but repeating an old and established Tradition, when without fear of controversy, he writes that the faithful everywhere may trust against the wild novelties of the Gnostic heretics, and that from Rome, the true apostolic teachings of the Apostles remained intact.

I agree. I think he did perpetuate a tradition, and thatâ??s the problem. Thereâ??s nothing to substantiate that the tradition was right. Again, I think youâ??ve illucidated the point well that Romeâ??s reputation was well-established. But that was on account of their faithfulnessâ??not because of Petrine succession.

Allow me to repeat that I do not suggest that there was a developed understanding of the meaning of the keys given to Peter at this period of time.

I agreeâ??to a point. I believe they knew that they had every expectation to turn to the Apostles, but as they died, they lost track of them. John was forgotten, and â??traditionâ?? had to fill in the pieces.

Again, the point of this thread is to examine John. Everything youâ??ve said makes sense in light that John was exiled and inaccessible. The Bishops were doing the best they couldâ?¦but again, oneâ??s best isnâ??t necessarily good enough.

Nor have I had opportunity to develop my answer for how Linus could be pope while St. John was alive. I am eager for it. But for now, I am contending against the allegation that the first germane document establishing Rome as the hub and center of Christianity doesn't appear until Irenaeus.

OK, Iâ??m with you. I agree with you then that Rome was an example of faithfulness, and perhaps even a conduit for good advice. I cannot conclude that Romeâ??s influence was any more than that.

St. Irenaeus was not an inventor of doctrines, but a preserver of them. That is why he pointed to Rome.

Circular.

PacMan

PacMan · April 6, 2009

Soren,

Whatever one thinks about the sameness or difference of the Apostolic office and the bishopric, this verse shows that an office does not need to pass from one man to the next in the sense that Peter say would need to give the keys personally to a successor. Judas had a successor in the same individual office he possessed without giving it personally to the man who received it. This removes I believe any warrant for such an assumption.

Did Judas, therefore, have keys? Was Matthias given keys? A bishopric was not a bishopâ??s to give, but the Lordâ??s through the Apostle. The Apostles being the greater could give a Bishopric. Who was above Peter to see the keys were passed properly? In any event, I do not think that we can confound keys, with Bisohpric, with Priesthood, with sealing power, with Apostleship, etc.

Something that you implicitly hit on, is why did the Apostleship end with Paul? Matthias took up Judasâ??, while Paul (presumably) took up Jamesâ??. It seems clear that the process was meant to continue; and considering their foundational importance, I wonder why it stopped.

You are making a more Catholic argument than perhaps you realize.

3DOP is getting to me!

If you got in a time machine to the ninth century and asked someone in Rome why the Pope was the prince of bishops, the answer you might likely receive would be that the bones of St. Peter reside in Rome. In our post-rationalist world, people donâ??t take relics too seriously anymore, and this kind of thinking sounds laughable: â??The Pope rules the Church because he owns the top relic.â?

Interestingâ?¦I hadnâ??t thought of the history before.

Most modern Catholics would blush to make this argument, yet Iâ??m not sure that itâ??s actually such a bad one. Whether Peter really is buried under the Vatican or not, he is presumably in Rome somewhere. Why could not his body be a vehicle of charismatic grace to whatever bishop presides over the city of Peter?

The reason is because that no such precedence is in the bible, and that it is contrary to the precedence that is. It also fails to explain Johnâ??s role. And Johnâ??s role is the big-deal: If John is â??neutralized,â?? I agree that God can work in mysterious ways. But it is wholly unsupported, contradicts what is available, and forgets John completely.

Also, I think itâ??s clear that the keys (as 3DOP has explained) are spiritual. They are metaphoric. It is a jump in logic to assume that spiritual keys are thus tied to Peterâ??s physical body. That would also suggest that Pope Benedict is once again Ratzinger once he steps outside of Rome. The logic doesnâ??t follow, and is not consistent.

Soren, if youâ??d go back and treat my rather silly hypothetical (about Rome going up in smoke, etc.), Iâ??d be interested. Thereâ??s a couple factors that Iâ??d like you to speak to, but I understand itâ??s supposition and nothing more. Iâ??m just curious how youâ??d reason it out.

I'm not sure I think Peter's body keeps the keys in Rome, but I am convinced his death put them there. I place importance on Peter's death particularly because of its mention in John 21:18:
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

I see nothing there that remotely approaches the passing of authority. I think you are, however, spot on that itâ??s a prophecy about Peterâ??s death. That is very poignantâ??thank you for pointing it out.

Mormons claim that the Apostles failed to pass on the keys before their deaths. Maybe that's true, but maybe the reason is that it was precisely by their deaths that the keys were passed on. Hence, Peter stretches out his arms.

No we donâ??tâ?¦most LDS confound our belief. The Apostasy is not the Lord taking the Priesthood off the earth, but from the earth. The passing of the keys did occur, with Matthias and Paul. But then it stoppedâ?¦and I believe the reason is because the Apostles knew what was going on: 1) The apostasy was to come, and 2) John would be the sole holder of keys because he wouldnâ??t die. Again, I think framing it as a â??failureâ?? is incorrect.

Thanks for joining the conversation,

PacMan

PacMan · April 6, 2009

2 other thoughts:

1) Where the RCC specifically believes that it is Peter individually that was given the keys, I find it odd that the passing becomes one of generality--not to Linus, but to the church in Rome.

2) I think we've gone as far as we can with Rome. I agree it was a prominent place in the church, and that was before Peter's visit. That still leaves the John question. Is John irrelevant simply because Petrine succession in Rome demands it? It seems that this is the conclusion we are quickly approaching.

PacMan

Darth_Bill · April 6, 2009

>The fact that the writers never had a problem with the Roman succession has 2 problems

Robert Eno (?) in his book, "rise of the papacy" notes that many of the bishops of Africa and Asia had a problem with Rome and its assumption of power. Asia about a millenium later finally had it and left.

It isn't all butterflies and rainbows. People lost their lives over this issue.

Tanyan · April 6, 2009

To add more to this , Where/What do Coptic Orthodox Catholic, and Greek Orthodox Catholic [Who have differences with Roman Catholicism] claim to be the Heirs of Peter fit in ?.

Inn His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

PacMan · April 6, 2009

To add more to this , Where/What do Coptic Orthodox Catholic, and Greek Orthodox Catholic [Who have differences with Roman Catholicism] claim to be the Heirs of Peter fit in ?.
Inn His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

That is interesting, and I for one am not so sure. It seems that they have more reason to believe that the keys were passed, i.e. laying on of hands, as opposed to what I term dropped in Rome at the death of Peter. They run into the same problem, however, where there is no record to substantiate the claim.

All the same, I think the RCC has a significantly superior claim than the others...for what I believe are obvious reasons.

PacMan

soren · April 6, 2009

Soren,
Did Judas, therefore, have keys? Was Matthias given keys? A bishopric was not a bishop’s to give, but the Lord’s through the Apostle. The Apostles being the greater could give a Bishopric. Who was above Peter to see the keys were passed properly? In any event, I do not think that we can confound keys, with Bisohpric, with Priesthood, with sealing power, with Apostleship, etc.

You miss the point of my argument, which I pointed out does not depend on any particular theory of how a bishopric relates to apostleship. I am saying that in passing on the bishopric, the Apostles pass to Matthias something that was Judas’, not something that was their own. It was not just a bishopric that they gave, but Judas’s bishopric identically. This makes sense if you believe, as I do, that it is Christ who gives charisms through human agency.

The reason this is important is that your arguments assume as a postulate that a person cannot pass on what they do not themselves have. Yet the case of Matthias does not fit with that idea, because the Apostle’s have their own individual authority, not Judas’s. This renders your postulate unwarranted, and while this proves nothing in favor of the Catholic case, it removes all demonstrative force from your objection, as it is based on an arbitrary axiom.

Something that you implicitly hit on, is why did the Apostleship end with Paul? Matthias took up Judas’, while Paul (presumably) took up James’. It seems clear that the process was meant to continue; and considering their foundational importance, I wonder why it stopped.

No one ever said it stopped. I believe a basic disagreement exists about what an Apostle is. An Apostle is a bishop who is personally “sent forth” by God. That is why Christ, and by implication Moses, are called Apostles in Hebrews 3:1. They were both sent by God the Father who manifested himself to them directly. Likewise, an Apostle in the New Testament Apostle is a bishop who receives his calling by witnessing the resurrected Christ in the flesh. Apostleship, therefore, is not an office per se, but a special way of holding the office of bishop. A bishop and an apostle are not distinguished by what their calling is, but by how they got their calling.

That is why people who receive Apostolic authority are still not called Apostles. Obviously, one cannot communicate to another person the experience of seeing Christ, but that does not mean it is impossible to pass on the authority that one has received from Christ in that encounter. The bishops receive authority trough the mediation of other men stretching back to the Apostles, who received it without mediation.

The reason is because that no such precedence is in the bible, and that it is contrary to the precedence that is.

So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet. (2 Kings 13:20-21)

That is the biblical precedent for power being communicated through the body of a saint. In the case of Peter, we read of his living body:

And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.( Acts 5:14-16)

Given that “Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints,” (Ps 116:15) what do you think is a more sanctified object, the shadow of a living man or the body of martyr sacrificed in honor of God? And what is a greater miracle, to communicate authority or to raise the dead? On precedence like this, I could make bigger claims than I have made.

It also fails to explain John’s role. And John’s role is the big-deal: If John is ‘neutralized,’ I agree that God can work in mysterious ways. But it is wholly unsupported, contradicts what is available, and forgets John completely.

But that is so simple. The Apostles had different jurisdictions. Thus Peter was Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. There is no opposition between Linus and John; they just had different turf. John, because he was a prophet too, had a greater potency as a revelator than any pope since Peter, but that doesn’t mean had jurisdictional primacy over Linus.

It is not we, but you who need to provide evidence for your assumptions about how authority works.

Also, I think it’s clear that the keys (as 3DOP has explained) are spiritual. They are metaphoric. It is a jump in logic to assume that spiritual keys are thus tied to Peter’s physical body. That would also suggest that Pope Benedict is once again Ratzinger once he steps outside of Rome. The logic doesn’t follow, and is not consistent.

I don’t say the keys are tied to his physical body. An idea like that would be an awful distortion of Catholic sacramentology. I say spiritual things work through physical bodies, but not because they are limited by them. The whole concept of sacramentalism is that spiritual things work by physical means, not by necessity but to elevate the material objects through which they work, just as Christ elevated human nature by taking a body to himself through which he performed spiritual work. This incarnational principle raises temporal things by associating them with the eternal order yet implies no limitation of spiritual things.

Soren, if you’d go back and treat my rather silly hypothetical (about Rome going up in smoke, etc.), I’d be interested. There’s a couple factors that I’d like you to speak to, but I understand it’s supposition and nothing more. I’m just curious how you’d reason it out.

I suspected you might ask that. I’m game for silly hypotheticals, which can sometimes yield important insights. I refer my answer to my point above. I am not limiting the spiritual action of Apostolic succession to a material principle, as if God needed Peter’s body or the city of Rome to accomplish his will. I am saying that he freely chooses to use physical media in order to dignify the created world. Peter’s death sanctified the whole Church and the Roman church in particular to the effect that the presiding bishop in Rome gets Peter’s special authority.

I see nothing there that remotely approaches the passing of authority. I think you are, however, spot on that it’s a prophecy about Peter’s death. That is very poignant—thank you for pointing it out.

I didn’t think you would see it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there. 99.99% of the time that someone objects to Catholic teaching on the grounds that it isn’t in the Bible, the reason is that it is intentionally hidden. Much of the New Testament, especially John and Hebrews, is written with arcane purposes. That means I cannot prove that my reading is right, but I can point to the possibility. Believe it or don’t. My argument is not about logical proof, but about reading the text in light of a Christian understanding of death:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24)

When Jesus prophesies Peter’s death, he is prophesying of Peter’s fruitfulness. The time following the Apostles’ death is one of rich harvest, not famine.

No we don’t…most LDS confound our belief. The Apostasy is not the Lord taking the Priesthood off the earth, but from the earth. The passing of the keys did occur, with Matthias and Paul. But then it stopped…and I believe the reason is because the Apostles knew what was going on: 1) The apostasy was to come, and 2) John would be the sole holder of keys because he wouldn’t die. Again, I think framing it as a ‘failure’ is incorrect.
Thanks for joining the conversation,
PacMan

I have never understood why the from/off distinction matters. Either way, God still breaks his covenant with David and the Levites (cf. Jer 33). Perhaps you can explain in more detail.

I do think there is a significant difference between the Great Apostasy and the doctrine of the Church found in the Book of Mormon. The total loss of authority from the earth is not, I am convinced, an actual BOM teaching. Not even in 1 Nephi 14 teaches it, yet I do think it is an official Mormon doctrine, falsely attributed it to the BOM. I think I have explained my position on this to you before, so I’ll leave it at that.

PacMan · April 6, 2009

Soren,

You miss the point of my argument, which I pointed out does not depend on any particular theory of how a bishopric relates to apostleship. I am saying that in passing on the bishopric, the Apostles pass to Matthias something that was Judasâ??, not something that was their own. It was not just a bishopric that they gave, but Judasâ??s bishopric identically. This makes sense if you believe, as I do, that it is Christ who gives charisms through human agency.

Let me ask it a different way: Could a deacon therefore have passed on the Bishoprick of Judas to a Priest? The point is not â??whoâ??s it is,â?? but who can pass itâ?¦be it an existent or newly invented position.

The reason this is important is that your arguments assume as a postulate that a person cannot pass on what they do not themselves have. Yet the case of Matthias does not fit with that idea, because the Apostleâ??s have their own individual authority, not Judasâ??s. This renders your postulate unwarranted, and while this proves nothing in favor of the Catholic case, it removes all demonstrative force from your objection, as it is based on an arbitrary axiom.

The authority of the apostles was to bind and seal (and I believe they had the keys, which you obviously donâ??t). The apostles had the authority of the apostles, which encompassed the authority of bishops. Thus, they did have what they filledâ??the Priesthood. They had the authority to fill that position. What you seem to be postulating is a sense of anarchy and power-grabbingâ?¦that there is no rhyme or reason to know how power is transferred. I must not understand you, because that seems impossible.

No one ever said it stopped. I believe a basic disagreement exists about what an Apostle is. An Apostle is a bishop who is personally â??sent forthâ? by God. That is why Christ, and by implication Moses, are called Apostles in Hebrews 3:1. They were both sent by God the Father who manifested himself to them directly. Likewise, an Apostle in the New Testament Apostle is a bishop who receives his calling by witnessing the resurrected Christ in the flesh. Apostleship, therefore, is not an office per se, but a special way of holding the office of bishop. A bishop and an apostle are not distinguished by what their calling is, but by how they got their calling.

Then what made Matthias different before his call, then after? It was the ballot, not Christ specifically that appeared to him. Moreover, although we can play the semantic game, it is quite evident that a great many people were â??sent forthâ? by Christ, yet the Apostleship remained at 12. I think that is evidence enough that there was a distinction. Considering Ephesians, etc., I think calling the Apostles the foundation, and by doing so explicitly differentiates them from others, reserves the Apostleship beyond other calls.

That is the biblical precedent for power being communicated through the body of a saint. In the case of Peter, we read of his living body:

Power and authority are muy differente. Christ healed a great many people, but no one assumed that the woman that touched the hem of his garment was some how authorized to act for him.

Given that â??Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints,â? (Ps 116:15) what do you think is a more sanctified object, the shadow of a living man or the body of martyr sacrificed in honor of God? And what is a greater miracle, to communicate authority or to raise the dead? On precedence like this, I could make bigger claims than I have made.

You also apparently conflate honor and authority. The sanctity of a dead body (wholly unproven and unqualified, might I add) has no connection with the authority of that body. That makes no sense, biblical, common, or otherwise. Elishaâ??s experience was explicitly a miracle. It was the exception, and certainly not the ruleâ?¦but even a debate about that rule is inapposite to the transfer of authority. My statement that there lacks precedence, stands.

But that is so simple. The Apostles had different jurisdictions. Thus Peter was Apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. There is no opposition between Linus and John; they just had different turf. John, because he was a prophet too, had a greater potency as a revelator than any pope since Peter, but that doesnâ??t mean had jurisdictional primacy over Linus.

What? Where was this limitation? I thought Jesus said â??all the world,â?? notâ?¦â??except for you John. Youâ??re stuck here.â?? Moreover, Peterâ??s vision didnâ??t simply apply to Peter, but was an opening of the work to the worldâ?¦otherwise unqualified.

Please understand: If Jesus wanted Linus to have independent jurisdiction from the Apostles, I believe he could have said as much. But that was never the case. The Apostles ordained the Bishops. Do you think that upon ordaining Linus, Paul was now subservient to Linus in â??his jurisdiction?â?? I reject that notion. The Apostles could have removed fallen Bishops and false prophets from their jurisdictions. They could write to them and give them counsel, reprimand them, etc. I think Johnâ??s letter from Patmos that we all find in the back of our Bibleâ??s is certain that his jurisdiction was over all the church. He warned them, he chastised them, and promised them tremendous blessings. That this foundation, the Apostles placed first by Christ, were somehow limited in their jurisdiction, or subservient to the jurisdiction of the Bishops is wholly unbiblical.

The different turf was simple: Linusâ?? jurisdiction was limited to Rome. Johnâ??s was limited to the whole earth. And the whole earth encompasses, Rome.

I donâ??t say the keys are tied to his physical body. An idea like that would be an awful distortion of Catholic sacramentology. I say spiritual things work through physical bodies, but not because they are limited by them. The whole concept of sacramentalism is that spiritual things work by physical means, not by necessity but to elevate the material objects through which they work, just as Christ elevated human nature by taking a body to himself through which he performed spiritual work. This incarnational principle raises temporal things by associating them with the eternal order yet implies no limitation of spiritual things.

So the keys werenâ??t tied to his physical body? So how did the keys end up in Rome? Simply through the majesty of his martyrdom?

I am saying that he freely chooses to use physical media in order to dignify the created world. Peterâ??s death sanctified the whole Church and the Roman church in particular to the effect that the presiding bishop in Rome gets Peterâ??s special authority.

I believe God can do what he wants, but I daresay thatâ??s not what he did. This is where the back-dooring comes in. Thereâ??s no biblical notion that the transfer of authority came from an honorable death. To the contrary, Christ established his hierarchy on earth w/ Apostles first, and gave them authority pursuant to Hebrews 5: laying on of hands. Moreover, that Peterâ??s death â??sanctified the whole Church..[so]â?¦the presiding bishop in Rome gets Peterâ??s special authorityâ?? is without organization. Itâ??s chaos. Where did Christ ever instruct this would be the process? If he meant anything other than Hebs 5, why didnâ??t he say it? Also, how did Peterâ??s death thus sanctify Rome or the whole Church? Were they absolved of sin? Did they gain gifts they didnâ??t otherwise have? Or was that sanctity specific to making Rome the head of the church? And if thatâ??s the case, then where was the witness of the Lord to codify it? There was nothing.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24)
When Jesus prophesies Peterâ??s death, he is prophesying of Peterâ??s fruitfulness. The time following the Apostlesâ?? death is one of rich harvest, not famine.

That we can agree. I simply disagree with the notion that it must be immediate. In the Lordâ??s time, waiting 1800 years isnâ??t a big deal. A seed must sit for a season before it sprouts.

I have never understood why the from/off distinction matters. Either way, God still breaks his covenant with David and the Levites (cf. Jer 33). Perhaps you can explain in more detail.

I personally think it matters in a couple of ways: The Priesthood was always on the earth since Christ. John held it. And in my opinion, having since cast the devil to the earth, God wouldnâ??t abandon the world without his power.

The total loss of authority from the earth is not, I am convinced, an actual BOM teaching. Not even in 1 Nephi 14 teaches it, yet I do think it is an official Mormon doctrine, falsely attributed it to the BOM.

That the Great Apostasy was a total loss of authority is a false doctrine, period. It does not make sense in regards to John still being alive and holding the authority. Most members misunderstand it, bit it is false.

[Jer. 33]

The interesting thing in Jeremiah, is that there are multiple time references: 1) that the Branch will be raised up, and 2) he will execute judgment and righteousness in the land. It is in THAT day that David is promised an heir: In the day of judgment and righteousness which hasnâ??t happened. The condemnation of the wicked and blessing of the just simply hasnâ??t happenedâ?¦and if you doubt that, turn on the television. Thereâ??s no broken oath hereâ?¦it just hasnâ??t been fulfilled. Fairly indicative is the fact that Levi isnâ??t performing the sacrifices. One canâ??t be a Levitical priest, w/out being Levitical.

Cheers,

PacMan

3DOP · April 8, 2009

Hey again PacMan,

PacMan, to my suggestion that it probably wasn't St. Peter's death in Rome alone, but also his distinguished legacy in that city that led to the conclusion that the Roman bishop inherits the keys.

Very interesting. Part of the question surrounds Peter's rather attenuated role. It was Paul that organized the church in Rome. The records add Peter, but thereâ??s no indication that he was their when Paul organized the church and ordained Linus. They were not traveling companions. Moreover, (as you note) Peter did a substantial amount in other congregations, such as Antioch, ordaining the Bishops there. To conclude that the authority resided with the church which he developed â??more,â?? or that he was more mature, or that the fruits there were any better than elsewhere, seems to strain the point. I cannot accept that the Lord would have his authority pass on such subjective standards.

3DOP

I can see why you would resist the idea of the keys of St. Peter being given to the bishop of Rome, if you see his ministry in Rome as being attenuated. However, I think there is good reason for you to reevaluate your assertion that St. Paul's role was primary while Peter's was "attenuated". By objective standards, I will try to show why I am persuaded Peter's great work was in the city of Rome:

1) Romans 15:19-25:...from Jerusalem round about as far as unto Illyricum, I have replenished the gospel of Christ. And I have so preached this gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation. But as it is written: They to whom he was not spoken of, shall see, and they that have not heard shall understand. For which cause also I was hindered very much from coming to you, and have been kept away till now. But now having no more place in these countries, and having a great desire these many years past to come unto you, When I shall begin to take my journey into Spain, I hope that as I pass, I shall see you, and be brought on my way thither by you, if first, in part, I shall have enjoyed you: But now I shall go to Jerusalem, to minister unto the saints.

First I would point out that St. Paul's epistle to the Romans was written long after the church there had been founded. In v. 14 of the same chapter quoted above, he expresses his awareness that the church at Rome was a completely functioning church "running on all cylinders":

And I myself also, my brethren, am assured of you, that you also are full of love, replenished with all knowledge, so that you are able to admonish one another.

Secondly, I would suggest that the reason for Paul's long delay in visiting there was that someone else had already performed the task. Someone started this greatest church. Who else but the Apostle who was called upon thrice by the Savior to "feed my sheep", "confirm the brethren", and to whom the keys of the kingdom were given individually? While Paul had knowledge of their reputation for faith, their obedience being "published in every place" (16:18), he had not been able to fulfill his "great desire" of making a visit to the most admired church in Christendom because his calling to this point had been to preach "this gospel, not where Christ was named". This had precluded going to an already evangelized community where "your faith is spoken of in the whole world" in Rom. 1:8. Calling upon God as his witness regarding his earnest prayers for the Roman church and his desire to visit this much acclaimed and established community of believers, he claimed "that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you; Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you" (Rom. 1: 9, 10). It is clear then that it was only after St. Paul's long labors to establish the churches from Jerusalem round about as far as Illyricum", that God granted St. Paul's prayer that he could come to the church most reknowned for its faith and obedience to Christ in the world.

2) Shotwell and Loomis, The See of Peter, p. 58, 59: "Upon the whole, there seems nothing improbable in the tradition and belief of Catholic writers in St. Peter's early labors in Rome. His martyrdom there, at a later period, is vouched for by a fairly continuous line of references in the documents from Clement on...The one most telling text in favor of regarding Peter as the founder of the Roman church is the reference of Paul in the fifteenth chapter of Romans (v.20), when he says that he would not "build upon another man's foundation," which in view of the relations between Peter and Paul has been taken to refer to Peter. From the second century on, there was no doubt of the matter."

On page 58, the authors speculate that Peter was first in Rome "between his disappearance from Palestine in 44 A.D. and his return to Jerusalem in 48 A.D. (Acts 12 and 15), the "other place", of Acts 12:17, being Rome. It would seem that perhaps St. Peter's presence in Rome was primary to its founding, and that at any rate, when St. Paul finally arrived around 58 A.D., it was not to start organizing.

3) I Peter 5:13: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark."

Babylon on the Euphrates lay in ruins, the pagan city of Rome is called Babylon in Rev. 17:5 and 18:10. Virtually all commentators conclude that the letter was written from Rome by St. Peter. Although the date is often disputed at between 45 and 64 AD, the evidence for the authenticity of Peter as author of the first epistle is quite strong. If we need, we can cover that later. But to your point that if Peter's keys should be thought to be associated with any city, it would be Antioch does not seem proper. Antioch was originally a center of Jewish Christianity that developed customs that were not compatible with the Gospel. It was the occasion of St. Paul's rebuke of Peter's behavior while at Antioch that is discussed in Galatians 2:11, 12:

But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.

This was in part why I suggested that St. Peter's better days were ahead of him and that his fruits in Antioch were not worthy as those in Rome were. Although we have only hints of it in Scripture, there is more testimony among the Fathers explaining why the Catholic Church has instituted from ancient times a feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. While at first we see how in Scripture the two clashed at their first meeting, St. Peter later took his journey to Rome. St. Paul's reticence in visiting Rome noted above carries with it the memory from this first unpleasant encounter between him and the Apostle Peter at Antioch. But they both go their separate ways, years pass, and the Pauline churches are established, while the fame and name of the church at Rome grows. You are free to disagree with the tradition, but it is most compatible with the biblical record, that St. Peter precedes Paul to Rome, and after many years they reconcile, and both of them labor together fruitfully in their final years before being martyred, as tradition has it, on the same day.

Part of your objection above to the keys residing with the Bishop of Rome is based on an untenable supposition, probably taken from the spurious Apostolic Constitutions Bk. 7, sec. 4, ch. 47 where we read, "Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; and Clemens, after Linus' death, the second, ordained by me Peter." You wrote, "it was Paul that organized the church in Rome. The records add Peter, but there is no indication that he was their when Paul organized the church and ordained Linus." I haven't found any scholarship that believes that Peter wrote those words from the Constitutions, and furthermore that whoever did was writing around the 4th or even 5th Century. I am completely confident the biblical record alone points to a greater probability that Peter founded and organized the church at Rome than did Paul. I would suggest it is impossible to name Paul as the founder of the church at Rome, and the biblical record clearly allows that it be Peter. You say that "the records add Peter". The biblical record adds the strong possibility of Peter and subtracts Paul. When taken together with the testiomony of the Fathers as to the order of events at Rome, there seems little reason to deny Peter's position at Rome preceding the extended and happy visit of Paul.

This is just one little plank in your objection to the keys residing with the bishop of Rome. It doesn't conclude the case by any means. But we have to go one little piece at a time. I am hoping that I have given you reason to reflect that perhaps Paul did not found the Roman church, that Peter is a much more likely candidate, and that his better labors were at Rome and not in Antioch. Thanks for your consideration.

Regards,

3DOP

PS: I worked at organizing in a way that is easy to read. I fear I failed but can only hope it will not detract too much from the substance of my argument. I can't edit anymore. Gotta go...maybe I'll see you in a couple days with some more material. I'll probably be peeking in though every day.

Sign In

Linus vs. John

Recommended Posts

PacMan

Mike Reed

PacMan

Jeff K.

Mudcat

3DOP

PacMan

Ambrose

3DOP

PacMan

Ambrose

PacMan

3DOP

soren

3DOP

soren

PacMan

PacMan

PacMan

Darth_Bill

Tanyan

PacMan

soren

PacMan

3DOP

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse