Posted on 07/16/2015 4:09:21 PM PDT by RnMomof7
The Shepherd of Hermas is an early second century church document. We’re interested particularly in Visions 2.4 and 3.9, which indicate a plurality of eldership in Rome as opposed to a monarchical episcopate:
But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church. (Vis 2.4)
Now, therefore, I say to you [plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord. (Vis 3.9)
If there is anywhere we should expect petrine succession mentioned, this would be a prime candidate, because a petrine office would have been the ideal solution to bishops fighting among themselves about who was greatest! But Hermas talks about multiple people who “lead the church”, and makes no mention of such an office. The most reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that leadership was indeed divided among a number of elders, and no such monarchical office existed.
There seem to only have been house churches in Rome in the first–early second centuries. This is the likely reason 1 Clement repeatedly emphasizes hospitality along with faith (1.2; 10.7; 11.1; 12.1-3)—because of the natural conflict between house patrons and church elders. Paul also indicates a knowledge of as many as six house churches in Rome, one of which was associated with the Jewish Christian leaders Aquila and Priscilla (Rom 16:3-15). In a strikingly odd turn of events for Catholics, he forgets to mention Peter in Romans 16! William L Lane draws together multiple lines of evidence pointing to house churches, in “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement”, a paper he contributed to Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998). His conclusion:
Christians in Rome during this formative period appear to have met as ‘household’ groups in privately owned locations scattered around the capital city. They constituted a loose network of house churches, without any central facility for worship. The absence of central coordination matches the profile of the separated synagogues in Rome during this period.
In other words, not only was there no monepiscopate during this time, but there was no central episcopate at all.
There is utterly no contemporary evidence that Peter or Paul founded the church of Rome; rather, it is likely that the Roman Jews among the 3,000 converted in Acts 2 took their faith back to their city and started churches there. It isn’t until much later that we get the claim of Peter and Paul founding the church of Rome; a claim hard to reconcile with Paul’s extremely diplomatic, almost apologetic tone when writing to that church, as compared to his tone when addressing churches he actually had founded, such as you’ll find in 1 and 2 Corinthians. And it’s not until Eusebius, over 300 years later, that we start getting claims about Peter residing in Rome (and as you probably know, Eusebius was not exactly a reliable historian). How would he know, in 354 AD, what Peter was up to in the first century? We can safely conclude that Eusebius is just engaging in some legendary embellishment, since Paul, in Galatians 2:7-9, knows that Peter is still in Jerusalem in 49 AD for the council!
As Eamon Duffy put it on page 2 of Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes:
These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church—Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve.
Why did Paul need to write the epistle to the Romans if they had the benefit of Peter’s direct oversight and teaching? After all, this was smack in the middle of the period traditionally ascribed to Peter’s “reign”. Paul wrote in about 56 AD; Peter was supposed to have been pope from 32–67 AD (or pick your tradition) before Linus took over. Yet apparently the church of Rome not only needed serious theological training (Romans is the most systematically theological of all the epistles), but also suffered from in-fighting (ch 14-15).
Finally, we know that much of the “evidence” used by the developing Catholic Church to bolster its historical claims about the papacy are simply forgeries or fabrications. It would get tedious to keep quoting historians, but John Bugay has put together a good summary titled The Fictional Beginnings of Papal Infallibility.
All of this together builds an extremely strong cumulative case against any kind of monarchical episcopate in Rome until at least the middle of the second century. Indeed, John Reuman observes,
Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles…,” an episcopate with an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century. It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.”
And Herman Pottmeyer notes that “the historical facts are not disputed”. This overall picture simply lacks anything resembling a papacy. Moreover, it includes features that are antithetical to such a thing. So the burden of proof rests heavily on the Catholic to establish the historical claim that Peter was primate of Rome and was succeeded by a continuing office. Yet there seems no possible way for them to shoulder that burden. Even going as far back as 1927, Shotwell and Loomis recognized that,
For example, the first definite statement which has come down to us that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church, is made by Dionysius of Corinth about 170 A.D. That is a long way from contemporary evidence. We have no lists of the early bishops of Rome until about the same period, and those we have do not quite agree. There is almost a blank, as far as precise documentary evidence goes, for the preceding century; and that was a century of turmoil, persecution and obscurity for the Christians, in which mythical legends of saints and martyrs were springing up. The Christians themselves were, according to pagan critics, rather credulous people and were living under that high emotional pressure in which historic accuracy is of relatively little importance compared with the free life of the spirit. The great growth of what we call spurious apostolic literature in this and the following period points to a continuance of the same unscientific and unhistorical habits of mind. Who, under such circumstances, would be prepared to accept a text a century old as adequate evidence for any historical fact? James T. Shotwell, Louise Ropes Loomis, “The See of Peter,” “Records of Western Civilization” series, New York: Columbia University Press, 1927, 1955, 1991, pp xix-xxii
ping
Fascinating. Thank you for posting this.
Thanks. You do a great job getting the truth out here.
Is it the fact that they were the executioners of the Lamb, or the fact that a Roman emperor adulterated Christianity with Babylonian paganism?
Neither. It’s the fact that so many deluded anti-Catholics believe ridiculous myths like “a Roman emperor adulterated Christianity with Babylonian paganism”.
That's nice. It was read in the liturgy in the early second century church. Did you know that?
The reason it's not in your Bible today is because groups of Catholic bishops gathered in councils between AD 380 and AD 410, and a Pope of Rome by the name of Damasus (where'd he come from?) around the same time said that it wasn't.
Here's what IS in your Bible: Isaiah 22:21-22, Matthew 16:17-19, Luke 22:31-32, and John 21:15-19.
That Peter founded the Church of Rome is not to say that he was the first one to bring the Gospel there. Rather, he is the one that established the church hierarchy for the Christians that were already there. So the existence of non-Peter lead Christians in Rome when Paul wrote his letter to the Romans means nothing. Peter had yet arrived, just as Paul himself had yet to arrive. It is known that Peter was in Antioch before going to Rome.
Paul himself was insistent on the need for a hierarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons in the local churches. That he does not address them in his Letter to the Romans only shows that this has not yet been established in Rome, as Paul directed Timothy and Titus to do in his letters to them. Peter would arrive latter to organize the church in Rome.
**Fecit MMXIV Dominic Bnonn Tennant; released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Auto-generated Bible popups are taken from the Lexham English Bible unless otherwise noted. Quoted passages are taken from whichever translation I find most accurate (or my own if I don’t like any of them).**
Hmmmmm — any Bible will do?
Sorry, but this isn’t the truth.
Amen!
I want to read this later.
Catholics champion another religion with another jesus that has them believing they will obtain eternal life by eating their god, striving to do whatsoever the catholic religion tells them to do, including eating the body, blood, SOUL and DIVINITY of 'a' jesus to get eternal life in them.
They condemn someone who suffers their pagan ridicule to bring them the Truth about thier 'other religion'? Mercy! Satan has done some of his finest devilish work in catholics!
The Hebrews, when they saw and tasted the manna, said 'what is it?' Catholics and Mormons, after the rapture of the true church of Jesus Christ, will be saying 'what happened?' And satan will have a great lie they will believe ... for a while, until it is too late.
well, for catholics any wafer their institutionalized priesthood blesses will do for eating the god of catholiciism, so why not just any old Bible. There are enough changes in all of them to rival the strategic alterations the Douay-Rheims ushers forth. And catholics started all the way back in Genesis altering the Bible, to support the pagan rites of Mariology!
For anti-Catholics?
Only the anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisee Rabbi Approved Luther Subset of Scripture will do.
What you mean is it is not Roman Catholic truth...There is No evidence that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. NONE..
What you mean is it is not Roman Catholic truth...There is No evidence that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome. NONE..
The attitude many here have of a bunch of Catholics and Mormons that will be misled into believing in another Jesus Christ than the “Real” Jesus Christ is just plain silliness.
Whether or not the Catholics or Mormons practice a “true” Christianity is a non argument. They worship Jesus Christ therefore they are Christian. They may indeed be misled by their leaders about some facet of the Gospel but they strive to the best of their ability to follow Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Basically The Lord has said if they aren’t against Us they are for Us.
There will be a day when we will have surprises maybe the Mormons and Catholics will have a good share of those surprises but they won’t be surprised when they come face to face with their Savior and see the prints of the nails in His hands and feet, they will know Him as He will know them.
Please keep looking.....you will eventually find the truth.
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.