Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Let me introduce you to my good FRiend, don-o, who you can be sure does possess a blazing fast photographic memory, and a substantial library to boot. A fine Southern Gentleman, and a defender of the Greek Orthodox faith.
You are a generation away in Polycarp - I am speaking to what the Apostles themselves had to have upon them to present in the synagogues, which there is good information that they DID, at least in the beginning. By the time of Polycarp, and even prior, within the NT, there is firm evidence that the letters were being copied and traded between the churches corporately... So it is a fair supposition that the Gospels too were established throughout in the same way.
Regardless, I am a strong proponent of the idea that the NT books were fairly well known and distributed early on.
Because of that strong undercurrent in the Bible, I can see where you are coming from. 'Peter' or PATR/PETR is a pagan title going all the way back, so a Samaritan magi named Simon PETR is not surprising. And the road from Samaria to at least Pergamum was certainly well paved - Samaria lost it's dominance in the Mystery Religions to Pergamum, which, in this precise timeframe, was being subsumed by Rome. What a coincidence, eh?
Great post.
Read a little more widely about that inscription. The “Simon” part is well accepted but there are serious disagreements about Bagatti’s reading of the patronymic. Even Milik, the original editor of the study, said that different readings were possible:
http://www.uhl.ac/en/projects/talpiot-tomb/shimon-barzillai/
More recently scholars have said it is better read as “Simon Bar Zilla”, from a famous Jewish family of that name.
And we can concoct scenarios all day about Peter going along the Silk Road. But the weight of the evidence just isn’t there.
Many Assyrian Christians who live in Mesopotamia and trace their roots back to Apostolic times actually believe as you do that the Babylon of 1 Peter is in Mesopotamia. But guess what...they dont really regard him as a founder of their Church the way the Antiochenes and Romans do:
“The Assyrian Church of the East (hence forth ACE), whose official name is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, was established in 33 A.D. by the apostles Thomas (Toma in Assyrian), Theodos (Addai in Assyrian), and Bartholomew (Bar Tulmay in Assyrian). The first Patriarch of ACE was Addai, although Thomas and Bartholomew are also officially listed as the first Patriarchs (see Table of Apostolic Succession below). “
And did you forget that a sizable population of Jews was in Rome?
The Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian
Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith.
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.
Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!
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 tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.This was written around the year 180.
For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.So his argument concerning succession is not that it provides an unbroken line of titular authority from Peter as the key bearer, but that there was a succession of open truth passed forward to each new generation, which truth never had in it anything like the ravings of the Gnostics, as he describes it.
Excellent. As usual.
When along with a few of the other minions, I was taking a break from the duties and drudgery around here, you know, all that secretly being forum moderators, pulling posts made by FRomans to provide our brigades with unfair advantage, and that imitating being FRoman's ourselves but doing such a lousy job of being "good ones" on purpose in order to make the Catholic Church look bad, you know, the usual stuff,
... well a bunch of us got to talking, and one of us (I don't recall exactly who right at the moment) saw this thread and mentioned how you again exercised the admirable self-restraint you are well known (and admired!) for, as again demonstrated in your remarks at #14 this thread, then after we all got to looking further at other comments came across this one;
and all decided seemingly in unison (we are a tight knit group, we minions) that now, right about now ! would be an excellent time to just go ahead and relax a bit and let that maniacal laughter you have been so long holding back, come roaring out, Mein Führer.
.
.
[psst...NKP, don't ever let them know you are one of us. keep up the good work. you're one of the best operatives we've got.]
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Actually there are about 7.125 Billion people subject to papal authority, just over 6 billion either don't know it or don't accept it.
Not familiar with Lampe's work, but it seems from your description like he is taking facts that everyone already knows and drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from them.
Of course the Roman church was an assemblage of house churches! Where else could they worship? There were no basilicas, and the catacombs were not yet being used. They would have gathered in the homes of sympathetic families. Excavations under the Basilica of St. Clement in Rome have shown exactly such a house church, later converted to a Mithraeum and then back to a Church. It is thought that this house belonged to the family of Flavius Clemens until they fell out of favor with the Emperor in the 90s.
And we already know that there were multiple bishops simultaneously. I don't remember which ancient author stated this offhand, but Peter was said to have personally ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement to the episcopacy while he lived. Clement writes to the church in Corinth and says "WE feel that WE have been tardy in turning OUR attention to the points respecting which you have consulted US". He's speaking for a group.
But if you think this militates against any kind of presidency, then take a little trip to the chancery office of any diocese in this country, where you will find a Bishop served by several auxiliary bishops. The Pope is surrounded by cardinals, most of whom are bishops. But not a single one of them is at all confused about who presides. And the Apostolic succession passes through all of them not only as individuals but as a community.
The authority of the Church of Rome concerns less its internal organization and more its external relations. Ignatius tells us it "presides in Love". Clement tells us "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger."
It seems every time we bring Irenaeus up someone can be relied on to reply "well, he's not inspired...he is subject to error". No kidding! But you'd think that if he were wrong on this, others who came after him would say "wow, man, you really went off the deep end there." That's exactly what happened to Origen and Tertullian. Who told Irenaeus he went off the deep end? Who told him he made a mistake, or he was only talking about Gnostics or whatever? Were is the sed contra from any Church Father?
And this business about "both Peter and Paul" founding the Church arguing against the primacy of Peter. Paul says he is not worthy to be even called an Apostle, whereas Peter was the head of the Apostles. Peter walked with Christ whereas Paul got knocked off a horse much later--do you think so little of your ancestors that they would not appreciate that distinction, even as they revered both?
No true Scottsman fallacy. I have Catholic relatives who believe in and practice abortion. They have not been excommunicated. They openly advocate communism and radical feminism, even to the extent of identifying Mary as the co-redemptrix with Christ as an expression of that feminism. They regard Paul as a cranky old misogynist without authority in their lives. And they are Catholics in good standing with the Church, and will remain so, in practice, until the Church disciplines them. I'm not holding my breath. They are not the outliers in their context. Us cranky Bible-thumpers are the outliers.
Peace,
SR
It's not surprising to to see Polycarp using phrases that also appear in what was later received as Holy Scripture. He thought and wrote with the mind of the Church as did Paul and John. And, I think it quite likely that memory was much better in their day than it is today - they relied on it more.
My point is that the post Apostolic Fathers taught with the authority derived from their office; not from their ability to string Bible quotes together.
I can ratify that portion of the post...the rest, meh. Memory becomes spotty; thank God for search engines. Greek? Well, they have the best food; Russians have the best liurgical music. Dogma is the same. As with the Antiochians but as with the Greeks, I find myself distracted and confounded by the Byzantine chant. I'm sure that's the American in me.
You should familiarize yourself with Lampe before dismissing him sight unseen. The significance of his work is precisely that he marshaled an array of evidence unparalleled by previous efforts. Papal supremacy and succession are historical truth claims. If the only evidence for such claims are bare assertion by those not contemporaneous to the events, then those claims cannot be taken seriously as proof. Irenaeus at best is providing late, biased, and demonstrably erroneous testimony, again, not through ill will, but through the limits of circumstance. All of which makes an extremely poor factual foundation for making a claim of global authority.
Peace,
SR
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.