1) The original type of Authority we were discussing :
Regarding Roman congregations’ claim that “that “...the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter,...”, and "...full power was given to him...by Jesus Christ.”
This claim is seen to be historically inaccurate.
Post #9 discussed the inaccuracy of the claim that the Apostle Peter gave them his authority. And, Dr. Hansens’ book discovered nothing new that changes this. We discussed the complete absence of early supporting records demonstrating either that Peter was a standing Bishop of Rome OR that he gave Linus his apostolic authority.
Post#10 further discusses the complete lack of texts describing a Petrine Bishopric. The roman records mention nothing about a Christian Bishop Peter, The enemies of Christians wrote nothing about him, No biographies or histories from historians of the time mention him, Not a single member of the church in Rome, Italy, or any other country make mention of Peter as Bishop (though they mention other bishops). Etc. etc. There are no early historical records supporting that theory, all claims are “back claimed” from later centuries.
We discussed the motives for Rome making the claim to have received Peters Apostolic authority.
In post #12 we saw how virtually all of the earliest records (eusebius, Anastasious, Liberian Catalogues, Liber Pontificalis, Capito and Rufus, Constitutions, etc. all consistently demonstrate that LINUS was the first Bishop of the Roman congregation (and not peter).
2) Creating a replacement for Peter and the difference between the early Church of Christ and the later evolution of the Roman Church
In post #8, speaking of Peter, Metis asked : "...why would they abandon him or replace him with someone else?." (Post #8) and you mentioned that “One simply does not even have to acknowledge Peter in any way to understand that the church taught with authority, and this even shows up clearly in Acts and the epistles."
These two points are why I then discussed :
1) the Roman Motive for replacing the Dead Peter with a living version, having his power and
2) the difference between the early Christian church and the Later Roman organization that had become so contaminated with its goals of money, power and influence and used oppression to gain these things. These characteristics were not the same characteristics which characterized the original Christian Church.
Thus, in post Post #14 I discussed the differences between the initial Church of Jesus Christ versus the characteristics of the Later Roman organization. One had apostolic authority and the other did not. The goals and methods differed. The organization, administration were different (e.g. the nature of bishoprics had changed). The mindset towards worldly power and money and oppression had changed. The early doctrines had changed. They were two different organizations.
In post #15 Metis suggested that I read later texts : “…the only solution to your error is to begin to read the writings of the patriarchs during the 2nd century,... (Metis post # 15)
In post #16 I demonstrated that later records only confirm these points. Not only was there a complete absence of early texts supporting the transfer of Peters apostolic authority to Linus, but the the next period demonstrates multiple textual forgeries and similar dishonest attempts to support a roman claim to supremacy.
I discussed the stature of the roman congregation compared to Jerusalem or Antioch and the desire for rome to achieve pre-eminence. I demonstrated the roman attempt to change existing texts and the creation of new forged “historical” texts as an attempt to enhance roman claims.
Post #17 discussed the evolution and spiritual decline of the roman version of the office of Bishop. Bishops became unequal, the early method of choosing and who was chosen as Bishop changed. The office became a political office with Bishops acting like politicians and both seeking and obtaining political power.
In Post #18 I discussed the political infighting which resulted from the change in the office of Bishop to an elected office. I gave multiple examples of fights and problems, even murders that resulted from these changes made to this office.
I discussed the consequences of the gaining of political power and wealth and worldly influence that was occurring in this organization.
In post # 19 I discussed the increasing tendency for abuse of this worldly power that was then turned to the gain of wealth, property, increase in membership and oppression of those unwilling to conform. I gave more than 30 examples from canons and popes which demonstrated the underlying motive of gaining power, influence and to oppress as I claimed.
3) The issue of a "different type of authority not associate with an apostle Peter.
In post 29 Metis discussed his position that : “… the issue is much less the power of Peter and much more that the church of Rome had a special designation, more on its reputation at first than on some sort of power-grab, although the latter did occur later. The church considered itself "one body" with a magisterium that became more formalized as time went on. Because of this, the issue of Peter is actually only a sub-note to history. Even if someone made the claim that Peter never in actuality existed, the point wouldn't bother me because it's pretty much inconsequential to the issue of ecclesiastical authority as a reality of church history. That's why I really don't get much hung up on the "Peter" issue. “
Hi Metis, I think this last statement is similar to your point in post #13 “Even if Peter had never existed, the authority was still there, and that we know for a fact."
Usually, when individuals speak of “the authority” the Catholic Church claimed to have (which other churches, by implication did not have), was the specific authority of the apostle Peter. That is, the “keys” to the kingdom of the heaven. “And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. And whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens.” (matt 16:19) This is the specific authority which the Roman Catholic Bishops never actually received.
I presume your statement is referring to a different “authority” since you are referring to an authority that exists “Even if Peter had never existed”. If this is an authentic religious authority which is delegated from Christ to men, and if it is an authority the Roman Congregation had that was not given to all other early congregations that were headed by their own Bishops, you will have to describe it before I can understand what it is you are trying to describe.
In any case, my own comments have always referred to the Roman congregations claim to have obtained the specific apostolic authority from the apostle Peter.
Metis, good spiritual journey to you.
Clear
φιτζφιω
