First, on Justin.
"And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians . . ."
You then wrote: Justin makes here he says that the followers of Simon Magus were called Christians. He isn't saying that they were "Christians", only that they went by the name "Christians" and were called "Christians". True Christians did not trust magicians like Simon the Magician and his disciples, but those who were not true Christians did trust him. Isn't that what Justin Martyr is saying here?
First, let me finish where you left off, so as to better explain my rebuttal.
"...All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them.
Justin is saying that Simon is claiming to be something he is not. The name "christian" is not indicative of his beliefs. Just because Simon calls himself "christian" doesn't make him a Christian, just as calling oneself a philosopher doesn't make it so. If you care to read on, you will find that Simon teaches that HE HIMSELF is a manifestation of God. For example, in the same chapter you quote:
"And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god"
This is in line with the charecter mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.
Justin makes the same statements elsewhere. Now, at what point does the Catholic Church worship anyone OTHER THAN Jesus Christ as God? Thus, how can you make the comparison of Simon the Magician with the Catholic Church, since the Catholic Church never says what Simon the Magician claims?
You wrote: Apparently the disciples of Simon Magus were teaching some form of Replacement Theology, trying to separate Christians from their Jewish heritage and the Law and the Prophets, and making them think that God was finished with the nation of Israel.
If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.
My post of Ignatius was meant to compare Simon the Magician with those who believe in the Holy Spirit, thus, separating the two beliefs. The latter one is the orthodox faith, as witnessed by the rest of the Fathers, in continuity with the Catholic Church of today, thus, again, the association you make fails...
You wrote: The substance of the writing [Irenaeus] is what is important and it is evidence that Simon Magus started a religious sect in Rome circa 42 AD that went by the name "Christians" and it grew and evolved to encompass a lot of Christian heresies that Irenaeus traces back Simon Magus and his disciples A fantastic leap of faith based on a misreading of what is written. where exactly does Irenaeus make that accusation? NOWHERE. Irenaeus goes to great lengths to condemn the magician - while Irenaeus pronouncing that the following:
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
"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 pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, 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, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK III
Does Irenaeus sound like he is accusing the Catholic Church, the one established by Peter and Paul, to be one with the heretics, such as Simon the Magician? Irenaeus is the last person you will find your pet theory! He clearly states that the Roman Church is the center of Christian teaching Tradition, a Tradition given by St. Peter and Paul themselves! The substance of the writing merely proves you incorrect.
Does the Roman Catholic Church trace its magisterial doctrines, practices and authority to a Roman Bishop who sat in a sacerdotal chair for 25 years from 42 AD? to 67 AD? Yes or No.
I already told you that I cannot tell you without doubt that Peter was bishop for 25 years. But without doubt, Peter taught at Rome, Peter died at Rome, and Rome was considered the center of orthodox teaching for 1000 years by the ENTIRE Church, including the Eastern Fathers. Simon of Samaria, the magician, holds no commonality of doctrines with the Catholic Church. The smoke and mirrors of trying to associate Simon Peter with Simon the Magician is dead on arrival.
Regards
Clearly there was a sound Christian Church in Rome that Peter may have visited and preached to when Paul was there and out of prison between 62 AD and 66 AD. That is a possibility given the words of Ignatius and gleaning what we can from Irenaeus. But that is a far cry from the pontifications of the RCC for 1500 years upon which the whole thing rests. After all, Irenaeus tells us that Linus was the first bishop of Rome not Peter and not Paul, if he can be believed on that point.
Is it possible that a counterfeit Christian Church founded by Simon Magus grew up there in Rome along with the true church to which Paul wrote and Peter merely paid a short visit. And that counterfeit Christian Church of Simon Magus grew to persecute and dominate the true church?
Is it possible that Irenaeus could not see the forest through the trees. He identified the history and teachings of Simon Magus and his followers but was unable to see that the Church of Rome that he claimed all others should bow down to was, in fact being filled with pretenders, carefully disguised heretics, followers of the disciples of Simon Magus, so-called Christians? Is it possible that he did not see the connection between the sorcerers that he was writing about and those right in front of him in the Church of Rome? Listen to these words of Father Irenaeus pontificating here:
"For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Says who? Just where is it written in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans that the Church of Rome was to be the "pre-eminent authority"? Where is it written in Peter's Epistles that the Church of Rome was to be the "pre-eminent authority"?
Where did Irenaeus get this pontification from. He doesn't cite his source. He just plucks it out of the thin air there in Rome, the same thin air that the magisterium was breathing. This clearly is a pontification without substance, something that one would expect to issue forth from the mouths and pens of the magisterium of Simon Magus, and recognizable by those of us looking back on history with the benefit of the Scriptures.
Note that he cites a thing called "tradition" instead. Whose "tradition" was it to aspire to dominate and master others, whether churches or people: the "tradition" of Paul and the apostles or the "tradition" of Simon the Magician?
Irenaeus is the last person you will find your pet theory! He clearly states that the Roman Church is the center of Christian teaching Tradition, a Tradition given by St. Peter and Paul themselves! The substance of the writing merely proves you incorrect. I already told you that I cannot tell you without doubt that Peter was bishop for 25 years. But without doubt, Peter taught at Rome, Peter died at Rome, and Rome was considered the center of orthodox teaching for 1000 years by the ENTIRE Church, including the Eastern Fathers. Simon of Samaria, the magician, holds no commonality of doctrines with the Catholic Church. The smoke and mirrors of trying to associate Simon Peter with Simon the Magician is dead on arrival.
I am merely clearing away the smoke and breaking through the mirrors so that we may all see more clearly the identity of the man behind the curtains, and cloaks, and images, and pretentions of that magisterium descended from his tradition that came to dominate the Church in Rome, and churches elsewhere.