Our conclusions [“there is good reason to accept the gospel portrait as basically sound” historical accounts] raise the question of the relationship between history and faith. Does historical and critical study prove the transcendence of Jesus? How can faith really be faith if it is established by historical and critical findings? Bultmann is the outstanding advocate of the position that faith must be faith in the Word of God alone. If faith rests upon historical verification, it is no longer authentic faith but is reduced to good works — of the historian.If you take the phrase “the historical Jesus” and then you look at how “the biblical portrait of Christ is the product of the apostolic biblical witness. There is a real Jesus Christ there in whom to have faith. The real Jesus is not the product of a philosophical presupposition.
However, it has not been our purpose to verify faith by critical findings. Our purpose has been to try to discover the historical situation in which Jesus taught and lived, for it is the first task of biblical theology to be a descriptive discipline. It is difficult to agree with Jeremias that the final result of critical study of the historical Jesus is “always the same: we find ourselves confronted with God himself.” History does not necessarily lead to God. A rationalistic orthodoxy could give intellectual assent to the findings of the present study and not be confronted by God. Theology and history are intellectual pursuits; faith is commitment of the whole person. The historian might possibly conclude that Jesus claimed to be the incarnate Son of Man, the unique Son of God, and yet laugh at his claims. History is studded with those possessed of a Messiah complex. Faith is a second step to historical research and is not necessarily demanded by it.
While history does not prove the validity of my faith, history is essential to true faith — at least to the individual who is concerned about history. Most people come to faith in response to the proclaimed Word of God without critically testing the historicity of the events that Word proclaims. But when one has believed the Word and then becomes aware of history, if he or she is compelled to conclude that the alleged events are unhistorical, it is difficult to see how faith can sustain itself. In this sense we agree with Moule: “Neither is blind faith real faith. For belief it is necessary to see — at least something. The decision to accept Jesus as Lord cannot be made without historical evidence — yes, historical — about Jesus. If it were a decision without any historical evidence it would not be about Jesus (a historical person) but only about an ideology or an ideal.”
If the construct “the historical Jesus” is the product of philosophical presuppositions about the nature of history, is not the construct “the biblical Christ” the product of faith? The answer is No. the biblical portrait of Christ is the product of the apostolic biblical witness. My faith does not create that construct but my faith that the nature of God and history has room for such a Jesus as the Gospels picture makes it possible for me to accept the biblical witness. For the person aware of history, history must provide an adequate foundation for faith. But in the last analysis, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17)
On the contrary, Roman Catholicism, having looked at its own history of the papacy, has discovered that for the years 33-155 ad (or somewhere thereabouts) there is no one there “in whom to have faith”.
From the other thread:
ReplyDeleteQuestion: "Besides, I have yet to see you offer any actual extant evidence from the time period in question (AD 33 - Late 2nd Century) that proves that the papacy was born out of thin air in the 2nd century. The earliest witnesses that speak on this question affirm it! The scholars you are citing are making a familiar argument which is mostly built on what Clement 'does not say' or what Ignatius 'does not say.'
Your answer: "No, I'm not offering "actual evidence" at this point. Nor are the contributors to this book. What they are doing is agreeing that the evidence that is now on the table is overwhelming, and they agree now that this is the best representation of what that early period was like. "
Can you cite the evidence that is 'on the table' that shows that Peter had no successors until the Roman church invented the concept in the late 2nd century?
Kristen -- can you cite irrefutable evidence of the establishment of the Papacy and the unbroken line of successors in that time period?
ReplyDeleteKristen -- Can you cite the evidence that is 'on the table' that shows that Peter had no successors until the Roman church invented the concept in the late 2nd century?
ReplyDeleteYou are coming to the table late -- there is a whole bibliography full of work surrounding this discussion. That's why I have focused on letting people know that there is a consensus on the historical details.
If you want to see what the historical issue is, I've written about it in many places. Here is a summary of the issue in a nutshell.
The fact is, "there is no dispute" on what Lampe has written, as I've summarized it in that link.
Again, the discussion began (as I've tried to demonstrate) with the collection of work by Shotwell and Loomis in 1927, of virtually all the historical evidence that speaks of Peter, the early church at Rome, the development of the papacy.
Oscar Cullmann, in the 1940's and 1950's, did groundbreaking work on Peter in the New Testament, Peter in History, and published several volumes on it. Cullmann's work was so well-known, that he was jokingly referred to as "an advisor to three popes".
in 1973, a group of eleven exegetical scholars studied the topic of "Peter in the New Testament," and published a work which someone in this current work suggests is baseline, foundational for the whole discussion.
Many more works could be produced, including Lampe in 1987. The bottom line on all of this is, a consensus has been forming around these works, to the extent that "there is no dispute on the historical facts."
So instead of contesting the things I've written here (in very vague terms), if you really want some answers, I'll be happy to publish a bibliography. In that way, we can discuss the actual merits of what's being said, rather than just making some vague and unsupported statements.
So when you say, "The earliest witnesses that speak on this question affirm it!" -- you can rest assured that that's just not true. The earliest witnesses are a part of this examination, and "the earliest witnesses" have been found wanting, by both Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars.
One early witness is the Apostle Paul:
ReplyDelete"For it has been reported to me... that there is quarreling among you... each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas... neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." (1 Cor. 1:11-12, 3:7)
"Then after three years I went up to visit Cephas... And from those who seemed influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) -- those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me." (Gal.1:18, 2:6).
"I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars." (Gal.2:7-9).
John.
ReplyDeleteI followed your link.
You showed how Peter Lampe concluded that the Roman church was not ruled by a bishop.
That is not extant historical evidence. That is the theory of a scholar - a theory that may be shared by others - but a theory nonetheless. The way he got to his conclusion is fairly obvious and one can easily note that he is using an historical critical method to judge motives and silences. As I understand Lampe's work, he uses the same methods to call into question the authorship of Pauline epistles. A little googling about "Peter Lampe" shows that you have had trouble with that fact in the past and I am not the only crazy person trying to talk sense into you.
The fact is, "there is no dispute" on what Lampe has written, as I've summarized it in that link.
Actually, that is a false statement. There is dispute.
For instance you can read a recent work by Bernard Green which I previously cited (Christianity in Ancient Rome in the First Three Centuries – Oxford Press 2010.)
So when you say, "The earliest witnesses that speak on this question affirm it!" -- you can rest assured that that's just not true.
Name one single earlier witness than Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) that says that the early Roman Church was ruled by a group of equal elders and that Peter had no successor.
If you can do that than I'll concede the point, John.
Otherwise, you are simply hoping that a contention of historians is better than a different contention of historians when it comes to judging the nature of the church in the first century - a period of time where very little exists and that which does exist does not say one way or another. However - a generation or two after the period in question we have ample evidence of fathers pointing to the see of Peter and the source of unity for the church catholic and arguing, against heretics, that they have no apostolic succession - unlike the Catholic Church.
Louis -
"For it has been reported to me... that there is quarreling among you... each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas... neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." (1 Cor. 1:11-12, 3:7)
Then you should stop calling yourself a 'Calvinist.'
Name one single earlier witness than Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) that says that the early Roman Church was ruled by a group of equal elders and that Peter had no successor.
ReplyDeleteHeck - your evidence does not even have to be earlier than Irenaeus. Quote a contemporary or even later church father saying that.
It is amazing that the heretical sects that were written against by the fathers claiming Petrine apostolic succession such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, Optatus etc (the ones we've talked about) never called these fathers on their lying about apostolic succession. One would think that would have been a pretty easy argument to topple over if they were just making it up.
For instance you can read a recent work by Bernard Green which I previously cited (Christianity in Ancient Rome in the First Three Centuries – Oxford Press 2010.)
ReplyDeleteGreen cites Caragounis's article in the Karl Donfried work on "Christianity and Judaism in First Century Rome" volume as a "demolition" of the "network of house churches" idea. But Caragounis does not analyse the historical data; he merely looks at the linguistic data from Romans 16. That is not a refutation, and it is not even a dispute. None of the authors in this volume (that I've read so far) is citing Caragounis on this.
Find me one author from this Puglisi work that cites Bernard Green as a reliable historical challenge, and I'll accept that there is a historical challenge.
Name one single earlier witness than Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) that says that the early Roman Church was ruled by a group of equal elders and that Peter had no successor.
If you can do that than I'll concede the point, John.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/blog-post.html
There are two direct citations from the Shepherd of Hermas at this link. Hermas in both places refers to a plurality who "lead the church and occupy seats of honor".
It is amazing that the heretical sects that were written against by the fathers claiming Petrine apostolic succession such as Ignatius, Irenaeus, Optatus etc
You don't even know who these individuals were, or what they were contending against. You are just throwing out names, without really knowing what they said.
Ignatius, for example, said or knew nothing of "succession". That's just f'rinstance.
"Then you should stop calling yourself a 'Calvinist."
ReplyDeleteOh, that's so clever. Unfortunately for you I don't call myself a Calvinist, and I certainly don't consider him the one and only Vicar of Christ on earth with sole and exclusive jurisdiction over the entire church of God. I don't say, "I follow Calvin,", but rather, "there is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ." (WCF, ch.25).
On the other hand, you shamelessly boast of following Peter, while Scripture plainly condemns you for your sectarian attitude -- as does your facile and evasive response.
Kirsten writes:
ReplyDeleteThat is not extant historical evidence. That is the theory of a scholar - a theory that may be shared by others - but a theory nonetheless.
Since you attempted to discredit John earlier by suggesting he was uneducated with respect to the study of history, and given what you've written here about what you think the study of history entails, I'd be interested to know how you're using these terms. What's the functional difference between "historical evidence" and "the theory of a scholar"?
As I understand Lampe's work, he uses the same methods to call into question the authorship of Pauline epistles.
You're just parroting the assertions Waltz has made regarding the supposed double-standard of using Lampe to criticize the claims of the Roman Catholic denomination. That issue has been discussed at length, both here and at Beggars All.
A little googling about "Peter Lampe" shows that you have had trouble with that fact in the past and I am not the only crazy person trying to talk sense into you.
Your implication here collapses under minimal investigation, just like the empty promises of any cheap marketing ploy. Actually doing a Google search on the issue produces the intellectually vacuous works of the usual suspects--David Waltz and, with additional terms to include a source you seem to follow, Called to Communion, the duplicitous Sean Patrick--and some related comments here or there by some anonymous troll who calls himself Raymond.
For instance you can read a recent work by Bernard Green which I previously cited (Christianity in Ancient Rome in the First Three Centuries – Oxford Press 2010.)
"For instance" suggests you have other sources in mind as well, as if you were conversant with the subject. But have you actually read that work and others like it? Or are you just citing it uncritically because you saw one or two Catholic bloggers cite it?
John.
ReplyDeleteYou don't even know who these individuals were...
Ignatius, for example, said or knew nothing of "succession".
See "To the Trallians", 7 (A.D. 110). Here. Chapter VII. He traces a rough succession back to Peter.
There are two direct citations from the Shepherd of Hermas at this link. Hermas in both places refers to a plurality who "lead the church and occupy seats of honor".
A couple of things.
1) Even today in most large cities there are multiple bishops. In Rome today, even, there are dozens if not scores of bishops.
2) This does not say that no bishop sat in Peter's seat.
3) The "Shepherd of Hermas" was written AD 140-155 and purports to describe a Romantic version of history that took place about 75 years earlier.
Matthew Schultz - You have shown a fine propensity to engage in the ad hominem. I must bookmark this page for future reference when I need to show a student what an ad hominem looks like.
KRISTEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"As I understand Lampe's work, he uses the same methods to call into question the authorship of Pauline epistles. A little googling about 'Peter Lampe' shows that you have had trouble with that fact in the past and I am not the only crazy person trying to talk sense into you."
Lampe's methodology is no different than mainstream Catholic Bible scholars like Joseph Fitzmyer, L. T. Johnson, Raymond Brown, Jerome Quinn, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, and John Meier (to name a few). Your religious superiors have no objection to Catholic Bible scholars who deny the traditional authorship of various books of the Bible.
Therefore, John Bugay is measuring your denomination by its own yardstick. That's a perfectly legitimate move.
"It is amazing that the heretical sects that were written against by the fathers claiming Petrine apostolic succession...."
ReplyDeletePart of the issue is that some heretical sects claimed secret knowledge handed down by the Apostles. The ECF's simply responded to them on their own terms. 'You say you have a secret chain of knowledge from Paul? Well, we have a publicly handed down chain of knowledge from Peter and all the Apostles.'
It was a sensible response for the times, especially being just a few generations removed from the Apostles themselves, but the ECF' emphasis was always on the teaching, not on 'succession' the way the papists mean it today.
Ironically, the papists have flipped history on its head and now argue the way the Gnostics did.
I also notice that Kristen is shifting the burden of proof. Now it must be proved that the pope is not the authoritative successor of Peter. If any "church" wants to calim exclusive authority over all the church of Christ, particularly when that "church" promotes idolatry and a false gospel blatantly at odds with Scripture (and it does, which is why that "church" has recourse to a source of authority outside of Scripture ("tradition")), then the burden is on that "church" to prove it. Which it hasn't done, and can't do.
Matthew D Schultz.
ReplyDeletecont'd
Since you attempted to discredit John earlier by suggesting he was uneducated with respect to the study of history
This had to do with his dishonest framing of the situation as respect to Pottmeyer saying something he did not say. Perhaps you missed that?
What's the functional difference between "historical evidence" and "the theory of a scholar"?
There is extant historical evidence. An example is the Declaration of Independence. Then there is historical inquiry which goes beyond the extant record and seeks to color in missing details about motives and experiences that are often not left in the extant record.
Another example is the Epistle of Timothy. That is an historical artifact. An example of theory about this letter is Peter Lampe suggesting that it was not written by the author (Paul) who claimed to write it.
You're just parroting the assertions Waltz has made regarding the supposed double-standard of using Lampe.
No. Just pointing out the obvious. The methods that John is jumping all over are used by the same scholars to call into question foundational Christian beliefs about the Christian faith. That's all.
That issue has been discussed at length, both here and at Beggars All.
Hmm. Not so much. We are left with tons of scholarship that you and Mr. Bugay reject - out of faith - but you and Mr Bugay trying to force other scholarship down our throats. The only difference in both cases is that you don't like what the scholarship says about the bible but you like what they say about the 1st century church.
Maybe John or you can explain the criteria by which you reject scholarly consensus about the authorship of the Gospels and similar conclusions you reject but stand lock step with scholarly conclusions that only seem to serve your polemical purposes here?
Your implication here collapses under minimal investigation, just like the empty promises of any cheap marketing ploy.
ReplyDeleteCute. Where did you learn to write like that?
Actually doing a Google search on the issue produces the intellectually vacuous works of the usual suspects--David Waltz and, with additional terms to include a source you seem to follow, Called to Communion, the duplicitous Sean Patrick--and some related comments here or there by some anonymous troll who calls himself Raymond.
ad hominem etc
"For instance" suggests you have other sources in mind as well, as if you were conversant with the subject.
In a previous thread I cited this work and about seven others.
But have you actually read that work and others like it?
See above.
"As I understand Lampe's work, he uses the same methods to call into question the authorship of Pauline epistles.
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect at any rate. Lampe does not "use the same methods to call into question" anything.
What he claims about Paul's epistles is based on historical-critical analysis, too, but it does not play a role in his overall discussion. In fact, you can't tell me what use Lampe has for Paul's epistles, can you?
What he does is to cite "majority" opinions, but I am not bound to those opinions, and in fact, I have extensively cited "minority opinions" which hold to earlier dating on Paul's letters.
But that is such a minor point anyway, because Lampe's work does not rely on the dating of Paul's epistles, and in fact, in the introduction to his work, he purposely states that he avoids relying on contested work, for the very purpose of not getting the kind of crank objections that you're giving me now.
I don't know how much clearer I can be about that.
Meanwhile, in this Puglisi book, as I've repeatedly noted, virtually everyone (I've not read all the essays yet) begins with the same body of historical analysis. They must not yet have read David Waltz or Bernard Green; if they had, it would moot this whole exercise they are doing.
John -
ReplyDeleteUgh. I got sucked into the vortex here. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to spend my summer vacation going in circles with you - I cannot.
I have nothing against you or anybody else here personally and as I see the tone here changing in a bad direction I don't wish to continue.
You said something a moment ago which I want to highlight while leaving...
"...'majority' opinions, but I am not bound to those opinions, and in fact, I have extensively cited "minority opinions" which hold to earlier dating on Paul's letters."
I am not bound by majority opinions either. I note that when talking about gospel authorship you call it 'opinion' but when it is about the first century in Rome you call it 'fact.'
That is what I am saying - but swap 'gospel authorship' with '1st century Roman Church.'
I, too, have cited other opinions running against the grain of what you are citing.
Bernard Green's work is newer but it is already gaining prominence. I would not be so quick to dismiss it.
Have a good summer guys.
KRISTEN SAID:
ReplyDelete"That is what I am saying - but swap 'gospel authorship' with '1st century Roman Church.'"
Does the contemporary church of Rome require Roman Catholics to affirm the traditional authorship of the four gospels? Does the church of Rome require priests, bishops, Catholic theologians, and Catholic Bible scholars to affirm the traditional authorship of the four gospels?
This whole Puglisi work is of a whole different opinion than you. Bernard Green does not at all do any "refutation" other than to cite Caragounis, who, as I said, does not touch the historical information.
ReplyDeleteCaragounis is not even your friend. See his work "Peter and the Rock"
All you've done is to throw mud here anyway. You've made unsupported assertions, and quoted a bunch of "know-nothings" who have found a book that seems to say something different from what everybody else is saying, and that's your badge of honor.
Meanwhile, cardinals and archbishops are taking this historical data from the first and second century -- historical data that is "not in dispute," and they are spending huge amounts of time with the understanding that they must somehow come up with a new theological justification for a "petrine ministry". They are throwing out the last 1500 years-worth of Roman Catholic understanding.
Why don't you send them a copy of Bernard Green's book and tell them they can all save a bunch of time and go home.
Kirsten writes:
ReplyDeleteHmm. Not so much. We are left with tons of scholarship that you and Mr. Bugay reject - out of faith - but you and Mr Bugay trying to force other scholarship down our throats. The only difference in both cases is that you don't like what the scholarship says about the bible but you like what they say about the 1st century church.
Yes, just the usual evasive, empty assertions we've come to expect from you. The issue has been discussed at length. Use your Google skills to access the relevant discussions so you don't repeat stale objections.
Cute. Where did you learn to write like that?
Condescendingly dismissive while evasive on substance. Nothing new from the defenders of the One True Church (TM).
ad hominem etc
It's perfectly appropriate to deflate your implication that there is some collection of sensible individuals who have tried to correct John Bugay by noting that they are really just a handful of Catholic bloggers who have a reputation for uninteresting, unintelligent contributions on this issue.
In a previous thread I cited this work and about seven others.
Yes, all of which, except for the Green title, which has been cited by Waltz, are listed on the Called to Communion website's recommended reading list.
You're not doing much to demonstrate you're familiar with these issues in any serious manner.
Like other retro Catholics, poor Kristen suffers from amnesia, as if she was born back in the 19C, and still thinks Pius IX is pope when she comes out of her coma.
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-trusting-church-fathers.html#comments
ReplyDeleteSee Constatine comment 6/4/11 3:49PM
"I believe in law school, one is trained such that "if the law is on your side, argue the law; if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if neither the law nor the facts are on your side - attack your opponent!"
Noted.
G'bye
ReplyDeleteKristen is ducking the standards of her own denomination.
ReplyDeleteKristen:
ReplyDeleteI read with eager interest your suggestion -- "See "To the Trallians", 7 (A.D. 110). Here. Chapter VII. He traces a rough succession back to Peter. "
What does it prove? Please enlighten me ......
Can you provide proof of James, Peter and Paul referring to themselves as Bishop? I believe Paul said appoint these people.
ReplyDeleteThey might have been like unto a Bishop but they were not one and the immdeiate context anyways suggests nothing of primacy but of relations between a Deacon and an Overseer/Bishop.
ReplyDeleteSo, nice try but lacking.
I've seen the term "ad hominem" used in the thread discussion.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add for the record that I've seen John Bugay suffer ad hominems from his Catholic interlocutors over the years too.
I would like to add for the record that I've seen John Bugay suffer ad hominems from his Catholic interlocutors over the years too.
ReplyDeleteHa ha, no, you've got it wrong Truth. Whatever they do is ok. Whatever I do is wrong.
For example:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=569252
Kristen inquires,
ReplyDeleteCan you cite the evidence that is 'on the table' that shows that Peter had no successors until the Roman church invented the concept in the late 2nd century?
to which several Roman Catholic scholars, including Henry Cardinal Newman, reply,
The papacy did not come into existence at the same time as the church. In the words of John Henry Newman, “While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope.” Peter was not a bishop in Rome. There were no bishops in Rome for at least a hundred years after the death of Christ. The very term “pope” (papa, daddy) was not reserved for the bishop of Rome until the fifth century – before then it was used of any bishop (S. 89). ….
Wills, Garry. Why I am a Catholic. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 2002. p. 54
The word "pope" was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.” “Kelly, Joseph F. The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 2
“While Clement's position as a leading presbyter and spokesman of the Christian community at Rome is assured, his letter suggests that the monarchical episcopate had not yet emerged there, and it is therefore impossible to form any precise conception of his constitutional role.” Kelly, J N D. Oxford Dictionary of Popes. England, Oxford University Press, 1986. p. 8
“The study of the history of the Roman primacy has shown that Catholics must resign themselves to the fact that the New Testament does not support claims for Peter’s position of primacy, nor for succession to that position, nor for papal infallibility…Consequently, no historical foundation exists in the New Testament to justify the papal primacy. The concept of this primacy is, rather, a theological justification of a factual situation which had come about earlier and for other reasons.” Dr. Karl Heinz-Ohlig. Professor of Religious Studies and the History of Christianity at the University of Saarland, Germany.
“Peter was a figure of central importance among the disciples of the Lord…Nevertheless, the terms primacy…and jurisdiction…are probably best avoided when describing Peter’s role in the New Testament. They are postbiblical, indeed, canonical, terms.”
Fr. Richard P. McBrien, M.A., S.T.D. Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
So, I think the “table” is full, including Roman Catholic scholars, all in good standing with their local bishops who show the historical vacuity of Rome's claims.
I hope that helps, Kristen.
Peace.
"So, I think the “table” is full, including Roman Catholic scholars, all in good standing with their local bishops who show the historical vacuity of Rome's claims.
ReplyDeleteI hope that helps, Kristen."
Kristen, I hope Constantine's reply to your question is helpful too.
Kristen primly abhors ad hominem when she's commenting at a Protestant site, but when she's commenting at a Catholic site, she lets her hair down:
ReplyDelete"There is just simply so much hate and confusion that they jump on anything that they think damages the Catholic Church. It is their singular mission. I wonder what kind of jobs they have to be spending so much time reading so many obscure works all with the singular goal of preaching their hate against our Holy Father."
http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=7957803&postcount=3
Steve wrote, “Like other retro Catholics, poor Kristen suffers from amnesia, as if she was born back in the 19C, and still thinks Pius IX is pope when she comes out of her coma.”
ReplyDeleteWe all know that Pius IX has died and that Leo XIII is the current Pope. You can’t trick us! Mu ha haaaa!!!
With love in Christ,
Pete Holter
Kristen wrote:
ReplyDelete"However - a generation or two after the period in question we have ample evidence of fathers pointing to the see of Peter and the source of unity for the church catholic and arguing, against heretics, that they have no apostolic succession - unlike the Catholic Church."
You've already been corrected, more than once, on your erroneous appeal to vague concepts like "the see of Peter" and "apostolic succession". You're citing concepts that can be defined in many ways, including non-Roman-Catholic and anti-Roman-Catholic definitions, which means that those concepts fall short of demonstrating agreement with Roman Catholicism. If a church father defined the see of Peter and apostolic succession differently than you do, what does it prove to cite the mere fact that he believed in some type of see of Peter and apostolic succession? In an earlier discussion, I gave you some examples of how the fathers defined such terms differently than you do. You left the discussion without interacting with what I'd said. As I said in that discussion, the earliest Roman bishop we know of to claim something like papal authority was Stephen, around the middle of the third century, and his claim was widely opposed in the West and East. Both the earliest Christian and the earliest non-Christian sources, writing for generations prior to Stephen, show no knowledge of a papal office, even though they explicitly and frequently refer to other authorities in the early church.
Regarding apostolic succession, see here. The Roman Catholic notion of succession, as distinguished from other forms (the sort of distinction you repeatedly fail to make), can't be traced back to the apostles and was widely absent and contradicted among the patristic sources.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Name one single earlier witness than Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) that says that the early Roman Church was ruled by a group of equal elders and that Peter had no successor….Heck - your evidence does not even have to be earlier than Irenaeus. Quote a contemporary or even later church father saying that."
The belief that the monarchical episcopate was a later development is found in some of the fathers. See my discussion of the subject here. Since Peter can be thought of as having a successor in more than one sense, there's no need for such patristic sources to accompany their comments with some other comment to the effect that "Peter had no successor". When these patristic sources commented on subjects like the early monarchical episcopate, they didn't know that people more than a thousand years later would be asking them to jump through the sort of hoops you're setting up for them. They didn't make their comments in the context of modern arguments about the papacy. Asking for the sort of detailed denial that you do above doesn't carry much weight.
And why are you singling out Peter in reference to Irenaeus? Unlike you, Irenaeus refers to Peter and Paul together as founders of the Roman church, never stating or suggesting that Peter had jurisdiction over Paul. See my comments on Irenaeus and Peter in my apostolic succession series linked above.
You write:
"See 'To the Trallians', 7 (A.D. 110). Here. Chapter VII. He traces a rough succession back to Peter."
What you've cited is a later, interpolated version of Ignatius' letter. Concerning the different editions of his letters that have circulated, as well as Ignatius' relationship with a Roman Catholic concept of succession, see here.
Even the unreliable version of the letter that you cited doesn't suggest a papacy or any other relevant form of succession. What you've done is cite an inauthentic edition of Ignatius' letter, and you can't even derive any relevant concept of succession from that spurious source.