protestant question about the papacy

[Fearful 1]

Two questions from a Protestant:

"How come the early church organized itself so that the bishops were seen as equal, if in fact Peter's successors were to be seen as above others? "

and

"What evidence is there that Peter had specifically choosen a person to succeed him? And if there is such evidence, how does that fit with the above question?"

can anyone offer some input on these? Thank you.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Fearful 1' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:31 AM']Two questions from a Protestant:

"How come the early church organized itself so that the bishops were seen as equal, if in fact Peter's successors were to be seen as above others? "

and

"What evidence is there that Peter had specifically choosen a person to succeed him? And if there is such evidence, how does that fit with the above question?"

can anyone offer some input on these?  Thank you.
[right][snapback]687460[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

bishops where equals amongst themselves - I can see this, but is there evidence to show that Peter was not above the others in authority?

The absence of evidence does not prove that Peter choosing someone to suceed him did not occur. Also, current practise if you notice does not allow the pope to choose a successor, rather the colledge of cardinals choose one amongst themselves - could this not have been the case then as well?

After 2000 years, do you think that some documents might have been lost? Documents that where very few to start with?

Also, many protestants stem their origin from Catholicism. Thus for the most part of their history, they accepted such a view point (as Peter being the leader of the church). Ask yourself what changed this opinion. I for one would hesitate to trust the very motivation that prompted several groups to distance themselves from the Catholic church.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Fearful 1' date='Aug 17 2005, 03:31 AM']Two questions from a Protestant:

"How come the early church organized itself so that the bishops were seen as equal, if in fact Peter's successors were to be seen as above others? "

and

"What evidence is there that Peter had specifically choosen a person to succeed him? And if there is such evidence, how does that fit with the above question?"

can anyone offer some input on these?  Thank you.
[right][snapback]687460[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Peter doesn't choose his own successor, the bishops do. Remember how they elected a replacement for Judas? Do you think God would let His own Church flounder around without someone in charge?

Read Pope Clement where he writes with authority to correct errors in one of the churches, this done while St John was still alive.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Fearful 1' date='Aug 17 2005, 02:31 AM']Two questions from a Protestant:

"How come the early church organized itself so that the bishops were seen as equal, if in fact Peter's successors were to be seen as above others? "[/quote]

Actually not true. St. Clement of Rome in his letter to the Cornithians (which would have had it's own bishop) commands them to reinstall some leaders they have ousted. Now Clement was 600 miles from Cornith. Well outside of any diocesean boundary there would have been. John the Apostle was in Ephesus ,200 miles away. So why was Clement the one to respond. Why was he even appealed to in the first place. It's not as if they had email or even snail mail. Clement coincidentally is the one that Irenaus acknowledges was the third in line from Peter as Bishop of Rome.

You can read it for yourself here:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm[/url]

Interestingly enough this letter was widely distrubuted and respected in the early Church. It is mentioned in many other writings. Also, there is no evidence that the corinthians did not comply. Had they not complied they likely would have been excommunicated.

There are many examples in early Church writings of an appeal to Rome. Irenaus does not agree with Stephen's decision to excommunicate the Quadramecians who want to hold Easter on a different day, but he acknoweledges his authority to excommunicate them over it.



[quote]"What evidence is there that Peter had specifically choosen a person to succeed him? And if there is such evidence, how does that fit with the above question?"

can anyone offer some input on these?  Thank you.
[right][snapback]687460[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp[/url]


Irenaeus



"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).


Tertullian



"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


The Little Labyrinth



"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage



"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).


Eusebius of Caesarea



"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Edited August 17, 2005 by thessalonian

[Fearful 1]

Thank you very much for the responses, I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to answer my questions. God bless!

[Aloysius]

tradition holds that St. Peter actually did pick his successor, Linus, just before he was martyred. Whether this is true, or if Linus was picked the same way the successor to Judas was picked, we will never know.