Skip to comments.Marks of the True Church
Posted on 09/22/2013 7:38:11 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
click here to read article
Really?? Peter 32-67, Linus 67-76, Cletus 76-88, Clement 88-97, Evaristus 97-105, Alexander 105-115, Sixtus 115-125....did the world just imagine this or are the revolutionaries trying to change history?????
Is your contention that Peter was the very first Pope of Rome with universal jurisdiction over all Christians of the world and that Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, et al, formally succeeded him so that the Roman Catholic Church alone can lay claim to having Apostolic Succession traced back to Peter in an uninterrupted line until today??? Careful.
A Timeline of the Early Papacy
150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.
Also note in Hermas: Clements job is to send books abroad. Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.
235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor because of street fighting between their followers (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).
258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.
306: Rival popes exiled because of violent clashes (Collins)
308: Rival popes exiled because of violent clashes (Collins again).
325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.
381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Romes honour is due to its being the capital.)
431: Cyril, stole the council (Moffett 174, citing Book of Heraclides) and the followers of Cyril went about in the city girt and armed with clubs with yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely, raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings
451: Chalcedon, 28th canon, passed by the council at the 16th session, The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Older Rome, since that is an imperial city; moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome (Rejected by the pope. But what were these devout bishops thinking?).
Schatz, summarizing: In any case it is clear that Roman primacy was not a given from the outset ; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century. The question is then: can we reasonably say of this historically developed papacy that it was instituted by Christ and therefore must always continue to exist?
His response is that the institution of the Church must be understood in such a way that an awareness of what is essential and enduring develops only as a result of historical challenges and experiences.
That is there was no notion of an enduring office beyond Peters lifetime. There was no notion that Jesus expected Peter to have successors, nor that Matthew expected a successor to Peter (Schatz, pg 1).
Only after there was no longer a political power in the west to challenge papal claims, did the awareness of the essential and enduring nature of the papacy take hold. http://reformation500.com/2009/07/03/a-timeline-of-the-early-papacy/
it never fails to amaze me how a protty can post scripture and then proceed to misinterpret it.....Christ clearly meant that Peter was the rock upon which Christ was building His church...Christians have taught this for two thousand years.....you want to correct them?????
in your elequant post #52 did you notice that you produced a timeline which included ONLY Catholic Christians???? not a Baptist nor Lutheran mentioned....
You can believe your man-made doctrine, but I choose to believe the Word of God. I posted the scripture and the true meaning of it, and you refuse to come to the knowledge of the truth. How sad! Jesus meant no such thing - but, as I said - you are free to believe lies if you so choose - and its apparent that you do!