Mary Queen of Heaven? What?

No way this guy is Southern Baptist.

 

Here is what my Bible more accurately says:

Matthew 16:18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; (Young's Literal Translation)
Peter was "a rock" or more literally a stone.
But Jesus said "upon this rock (not Peter) I will build my assembly (not denomination). The RCC has it all wrong. The church has never been a denomination and never be. It was never the Catholic Church and never will be. The word used, ekklesia, simply means "assembly," something local, something that gathers in one place at one time.

The first epistle to Timothy is a pastoral epistle written to Timothy, a young pastor, pastoring the church at Ephesus. His church, as is every local assembly, is the pillar and ground of the truth in the area where it is situated. When Timothy was preaching the truth went forth. When Timothy preached he stood on the truth. Every message was based on the Word of God--the foundation of what he preached. And so his church in Ephesus was the pillar and ground of the truth for the city of Ephesus. Every local church is that way if it preaches the truth. The RCC will never be that way; they don't have the truth. They preach heresy.

What a deceitful post. How can you take Scripture out of context like this? Let's look at what it really says:

John 20:19-21 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

Jesus didn't say this just to Peter as you deceitfully infer. He said to all his apostle. You would do well to be honest in your posting.

Another verse on discipleship. It applies to all who will follow Jesus. Peter was not the only one in the world to follow Jesus. Did Christianity stop at Peter? Then what do you follow? Oh, yeah, I forgot it is the RCC, not Christianity at all.

The context of this verse is in verse 15:

Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
--Is Peter the only brother in Christianity?
Your interpretation is very imaginative to say the least, but also very deceiving.
The church here is the local church. There is no mention of the RCC.

That's a nice fairy tale. Where did you learn it? Who brain washed you?
The RCC did not come into existence until the fourth century.
The canon of the first century was complete by the end of the first.
You have things backwards.

Is that supposed to prove something. The Apostle Paul wrote 13 epistles alone. Luke wrote two books, and John wrote five. Concerning Luke, he was Paul's companion on his missionary journeys. However the Holy Spirit inspired it all, and if you choose to reject the Holy Spirit that is your problem. Right now you are going against the teaching of the RCC? What is your problem?

No they weren't. There was no Catholic Church. You can stop with the fairy tales any time. You don't even have historical proof fur such nonsense. The RCC originated in the fourth century.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
--These are the early believers. It describes went on in the church that was in Jerusalem in specific. There is nothing here about the RCC. You won't find anything similar about the RCC until sometime past the fourth century. You will find nothing in the Scriptures that even resembles the RCC.

The Bible was totally complete and had already been translated into dozens of languages all throughout Asia and Europe before the RCC came into existence. Thomas had already taken the gospel to India and died as a martyr before anyone ever heard of the Catholic Church. You are one mixed up person.

 

That is right, DHK, St. Thomas, the Apostle to India, reached the Cragnanore Port in AD 52 and established a Church, but that was the Catholic Church. This has been varified by the writings of Mor Youseph, who was an emissary of the Holy See of Antioch, who had sent missionaries over (about AD 345) to take care of the needs of Syrian Christian settlers. They used the rites and liturgies of the Syriac Church of Antioch and the early Christian converts, you know, the St. Thomas Christians as well as the new Christian settlers known as the Knanaya Christians all came to be called 'Syriac Christians'.

And that Petros, Petra argument is lame. Jesus spoke Aramaic and used the word Cephas. He obviously meant Peter.

 

Well, Matt that's just it. Traditions being held as they are by the RCC, OC, Copts, and the Anglican church we then question the validity of their authority. If you chose to say you only hold to the "Traditions" of the undivided Church we can assertain 2 things. 1) that the view of the Real Presence was held in the undivided church - however how that is defined is up for grabs. 2) that most of what I read of the Patristics are, for a lack of a better term, regurgitated views of the Apostles as writen down in the NT. Therefore what extra biblical traditions were actually held by the Apostles and passed down? Certainly Marian Veneration would have been mentioned in Scripture apart from Gabriel's saluation "Ave Maria gratia plena Domimus Tecum" and Elizabeth's acknowledgement of Jesus' presence in his mother's womb thus "Benedicta fructus ventris tui" or what Mary says about herself "Magnificat anima mea Dominum" These seem to recognize whom Jesus is not veneration of Mary for even Mary says " Exsultavit spiritus meus in Deo salvatore meo" Which has a whole list of implications apart from what the Orthodox, Catholics, and Copts being the oldest Christian expressions in existance today. So this line of questioning gets to the very heart of tradition. Would it be fair to say that what the apostles leave in writings is the whole of tradition they wanted to impart?

 

True - they are authoritative and they testify to him. Yet, nowhere in that verse do we see that scriptures are the SOLE authority.

Well, let’s look to the Thessalonians and see what Paul said to them.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
“So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Dissecting this verse:
Traditions taught by word of mouth = oral traditions
Traditions taught by letter = written traditions

This doesn’t sound like scripture alone to me.

Hmmm… Let’s take an analytical look at 2 Tim. 3:16

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

Taking the verse apart we see the following:
1.Scripture is inspired by God.

2. Scripture is profitable (yielding advantageous results) for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Again, Amen! Additionally, since scripture is inspired, then by nature, it is authoritative. However, nowhere does the verse state that scripture is sufficient. Further, nowhere in scripture do we find the words scripture alone. If scripture were the only authority, then one would expect to find it explicitly stated in scripture. It isn’t, therefore, Sola Scriptura (ironically by your own standard) is not scriptural.

As is evident in the diverse and sometimes whacky interpretations of many Christians, I fully agree with 2 Peter 1:20-21 that scripture should not be a matter of private interpretation. However, neither verse says that scripture is the SOLE authority.

Then one can never read theology books or religious books of any kind. No more bible study materials, textbooks, DVD’s, or podcasts are allowed.
Again – this verse says nothing about scripture being the SOLE authority.

You’re just not going to find it anywhere in scripture. Thus we are left with a logical fallicy:

1. Sola Scriptura: Scripture is the SOLE authority regarding the faith and morals of the Christian
2. Nowhere does scripture say that about itself
3. Thus, Sola Scriptura is false

Peace!

 

I must respectfully disagree. This 4th century position is historically inaccurate and untenable as proven by the historical record.

Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

The ealry writtings were not just refering to some "universal" group of churchs in the generic sense - they where writing about the Church of Rome.

In his work “Against Heresies [A.D. 180] ”St. Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome. Please note the most ancient, authoritative, and preimenent church was the Church of Rome.

2. 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, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter 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.

The Church of Rome existed from the beginning. Later validating evidence comes from Augustine…

Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).

2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found.

Let's put that 4th Century history revisionist myth to rest once and for all.

Peace!

 

Ummm... you may want to go back and re-read what was written in this regard. I was simply summarizing what was said by annsni - a Baptist on this board.

Peace!

 

Though I agree with you about the 4th Century option I will attempt to call into aspects that are problematic.
1) Ignatious of Antioch cannot be a reliable source of information. It is still debatable whether the letters purported to be writen by him are forgeries or not.
2) Even if Ignatius letters were proved beyond reasonable doubt to be accurate we must question his intention on using the Term Catholic. Universal in what sense? Most protestants hold to the universal sense of the invisible church. It could be that his universal church were all those that agree with him and does not eleminate competing Christian Churches. We note early baptistic views by people such as Jovinian.
3) As far as Titan the Assyrian there are several recensions of his work Diatessaron; which resenssion does this quote come from? I think it matters. Especially since the only extant version is in arabic. Note also that Tatian left the main body of the Church and is not listed with the patristics. Why I ownder?
4)Note he may have made the same mistake about the Use of Aramic in the Gospel. Since we have no Aramic NT and Greek suffiently worked to maintain the word of God.
5) Irenaus only showed the supremecy of the Bishop over gnostic within his area of authority. Would Irenaus had not listed the Metropolis bishop of Alexandria if he lived nearer to that. Irenaus lived in ancient lyons in Gaul under the auspice of the bishop in Rome
6) The Catholic chuch has issues with Eusibius. He has a problem with Hero worship of origin.
So there are several problems with Your points.

 

Well, in the sense that his statement is to be taken along with Irenaus – that the Church of Rome was preeminent and authoritative placing all others under its domain.

The question regarding the language is still in dispute. However, the language is not seminal to the text that I quoted. It translates as stated and you can look at either of the two revisions of the "Diatesseron" that are available: one in Latin preserved in the "Codex Fuldensis" of the Gospels dating from about A.D. 545, the other in an Arabic version found in two manuscripts of a later date.

Well, I think you know the answer to that. In approximately 172 AD Tatian apostatized, became a Gnostic of the Encratite sect, and returned to the Orient. Does that invalidate the earlier work? Well if that is the standard that we should apply, then we would have a very different view of Christianity today.

Let’s look at Tertullian as example - the ecclesiastical writer in the second and third centuries.

Before Tertullian was kicked out of the Church for holding to the Montanist prophecies, he formulated two very important doctrines to which most Christians hold today.

Tertullian coined the term Trinity as three persons in one God. Additionally, he developed the idea of Christ as having two natures in one divine person – the hypostatic union. Does his later heresy invalidate these two fundamental principles? No – and neither are Tatian’s contributions invalidated by his eventual apostasy.

Perhaps, but that does not appear to be the prevailing view among historians.

I disagree and I think it is abundantly clear. Let’s look at it is again: “…[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.”

Note this passage: “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [the Church in Rome], 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.”

I think that pretty much sums it up.

Perhaps. But none contradict or invalidate the main point - and that is that the preeminent authority over all other Chruches and faithful men who existed everywhere was in fact the the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. Further, the apostolic succession is clear – especially when looking at Augustine for validation.

Peace!

 

What? Did you not read my citations? Here they are again.

Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]

The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) [AD 180]

St. Augustine of Hippo (Letter 53, To Generosus 1:2) [A.D. 412]

These ARE the sources - from the authors themselves. You can find their complete works anywhere. I don't know how much more acurate I can get than citing the original works themselves.

 

These passages aren't as clear as you suppose. It certainly affirms apostolic succession to the bishop in Rome but remember there were many house churches in Rome as can be seen by the end of the book of Romans. Also note there came into being several Christian Schools of thought with in that city. Gaulish Churches being founded by Roman Missionaries would fall under that bishop it could be all these churches.
It could also be all churches started by Non apostolic missionaries be submitted to Apostolic founded churches such as the preeminate Roman Church because of the succession of Two apostles. As in all apostolic founded churches the teachings would be similar.
There are many views on how this passage could be taken. Also note it is also the opinion of Ireneaus as important as he is he also was mistaken about eschatology. So how trust worthy is this opinion. keep in mind the Eastern Chruches thought the theological development in the western churches lacked the subtleties and intuit of the eastern churches. Already we had the Easter affair where Polycarp ( a preeminate disciple of John) openly disagreed with the Bishop of Rome when it came to celebrating the Pascha. Though Ireneaus studied under Polycarp, Polycarp does not seem to defer to Rome's "pre-eminance" with regard to when to celebrate Easter. If Rome had the authority of the head apostle surely Polycarp a disciple of John with all knowledge of apostolic Tradition would realize he was in the wrong to go against rome. However, its clear he felt himself the equal of Rome.

 

No I was NOT changing your words. Here is what you wrote.

OK. But then you wrote...

So we cannot pray to angels and they do not hear our prayers - UNLESS - (and that's the exceptional clause there) they are present with us and we PRAY aloud then they can hear us.

Hey - you wrote this not me.


Peace!

 

Well, I believe that Ireneaus spelled it out that he was historically placing all Churches under the authority of the Church of Rome.

2. 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, .

He is very clear here: "...that every Church should agree with this Church[the Church in Rome].

 

Yet his tutor and Apostolic Successor disagreed with Rome. And Polycarp was direct successor of John. Very Probably Ireneaus got this one wrong. Maybe this was due to the plurality and strong growth of gnostic churches he felt more than anyone to create a hiarchy not expressed before by the apostles as we know if peter was the head it was still James who made the proclimation at the 1st church council in acts. Or maybe because of undue influence by the French (Gauls) like Asterix and Oblix. Or Gaulish leaders like Getafix or Asterix's predicessor Vercingetorix. After all we know what they're like.

 

Also Billysunday we're missing a major point of this thread which I attempt here.

 

Perhaps Ireneaus got it wrong - or perhaps he did not. However, we have many wirtings from other Church Fathers who buttress the idea that Rome had preiminent authoriry.

Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth
"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Eusebius of Caesarea
"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

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. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... 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. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"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 ... when the place of 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 [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

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

Firmilian
"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).


Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Where we see consensus amoung the Fathers, we see acuracy.

Peace!

 

This does not speak directly to Roman Primacy. I've read Clement's leter to the Corinthians and his main point is that the Corinthians did not respect and support their leadership. This passage you quote deals with specifically that. He asserts apostolic succession to Church leadership. No where in his letter to the Corinthians does he show the Primacy of Rome. It is usually concluded that since he himself is Bishop of Rome and he rebukes the laity of Corinth that he as taken on this Mantal. However, He is butressing support for the leadership of Corinth hoping that the leaders would not be diposed by their members.

I've also read Hermas. There is a reason Hermas was not cannonized. It only permits a person to sin once after baptism and then your done. If you sin after that your doomed. Yet again this passage means nothing about Roman Primacy. Hermas was a Roman Writer. His Bishop is the Roman Bishop to give it to him first is sensible. It doesn't speak to Roman Primacy.

I've also read all of Ignatius. I think you need to double check the term "presidency" in the greek in this passage. This is how I read that passage

There is nothing here about Roman Primacy either. Note Why is Ignatius of Antioch writing in such a fashion as he sounds like the pope? His church was based in Antioch. hmmmm.

You may find this strange but I have also read Dionysius and Eusebius. Note Eusebius was hired to write ecclesiastical history after The Eddict of Milan in 312 and the 1st council of Nicea in 325. He seems a little high on the new found privilage of the church and the Favor of the Emperor. Its not a poor argument to say that He may well have been influenced to write in such a way as to support Rome as Primary. But still there is nothing in that passage to support conclusively that Rome is Primary. The other passages from Eusibius fall short based on this problem

The problem with Cyprian is that his election to bishop of Carthage was contested. Its seems reasonable that he tried to gain the favor of the Roman bishop to solidify his position. This is a self serving statement. I'll support your primacy if you support my election. Eastern bishops would have had issues with this as well.

The bishop of Rome was so wishy washy when it came to Athanasius he supported him then took away support based on how well Athanasius was received there is a reason it is said of Athenasius "Athenasius Contra Mundum" Because at times he was the only one fighting for Orthodoxy despite what all the bishops where thinking. And it seems that at this point the bishop of Rome was supporting Athenasius despite that Antioch wanted Athenasius gone. Doesn't sound Primary here either. So I see absolutely no consensus.

 

Well I believe that the preponderance of evidence falls to the side of the Papacy. There are just too many writings to indicate that. I suppose we will just have to disagree on this point. However, thanks for the well thought out responses.

Peace!