 |

Home
Church Community
Statement of
Beliefs
Contact Us Search Our Site
Bible
Study Resource
|
 |
 |

Particulars
of Christianity:
301
Roman Catholicism
Roman
Catholicism (Part 5)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 1)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 2)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 3)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 4)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 5)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 6)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 7)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 8)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 9)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 10)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 11)
Roman
Catholicism (Part 12)
Addendum:
In Their Own Words
(Continued from previous section.)
Moving on, the second piece of evidence offered by the Catholic
Encyclopedia involves Tertullian's contentions with Callistus,
another bishop of Rome. This argument is chiefly concerned
with establishing that Peter was the bishop of Rome.
"The Pope - In the first quarter of the century
(about 220) Tertullian (De Pud. 21) mentions Callistus's claim
that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special
manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded
by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could
have been no ground for such a contention." - Catholic Encyclopedia
The Catholic Encyclopedia here argues on the basis that Callistus
makes a claim that could not have been made if Peter were
not, in fact, the first bishop of Rome. This is another highly
dubious argument.
Even if this incident provides evidence that Peter was the
first bishop of Rome it does not therefore follow that this
bishopric had all of the powers that the RCC attributes to
it. Additionally, are we to be persuaded of the legitimacy
of Roman Catholic teaching because a 3rd century bishop of
Rome claimed that Peter was the bishop of Rome?
Again, it is not disputed that the 3rd century bishops of
Rome claimed that they sat in the seat of Peter or that they
for this reason believed that they inherited supreme authority
over the Church. What is disputed is whether or not this claim
is legitimately rooted in the original teachings of Jesus
Christ or is simply a 3rd century Church development. This
dispute is not addressed by this line of evidence, which so
far has only shown that a 3rd century bishop of Rome thought
himself the successor of Peter and thought this bestowed on
him some special privileges.
The Catholic Encyclopedia bolsters their argument by pointing
out that Tertullian does not challenge Callistus' claim that
Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. Because it would have
been useful for Tertullian to refute Callistus' claim by denying
that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome, Roman Catholic scholars
conclude that Tertullian attests to Peter being bishop of
Rome, simply by not challenging it.
"The Pope - Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every
motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided
at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman
episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents,
a novelty dating from the first years of the third century,
supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and
Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop." - Catholic
Encyclopedia
However, it is hard to see how Tertullian's silence equates
to Roman Catholic substantiation. It simply does not follow
that the absence of a challenge from a dissenting party unequivocally
equals the historical establishment of an opposition's claims.
Moreover, it also does not follow that because a 3rd century
dissenter does not oppose papal claims that therefore papal
authority must have been taught and understood by the1st century
Church.
It is entirely possible that Tertullian may well have understood
that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and therefore refrained
from arguing this particular point all the while disputing
(as we are free to do today) that the Roman bishop position
carried with it any inherent supremacy. In fact, the next
quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia shows that while Tertullian
through silence may have perhaps acknowledged Peter's bishopric
over Rome, he did not in any way agree that this granted the
bishops of Rome supreme authority as the RCC claims.
"The Pope - Tertullian's bitter polemic, "De Pudicitia"
(about 220), was called forth by an exercise of papal prerogative.
Pope Callistus had decided that the rigid discipline which
had hitherto prevailed in many Churches must be in large measure
relaxed. Tertullian, now lapsed into heresy, fiercely attacks
"the peremptory edict", which "the supreme pontiff, the bishop
of bishops", has sent forth. The words are intended as
sarcasm: but none the less they indicate clearly the position
of authority claimed by Rome. And the opposition comes,
not from a Catholic bishop, but from a Montanist heretic."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
So, we see that while Tertullian is silent on the matter of
Peter's being bishop of Rome, he does feel the need to comment
on the bishop of Rome's claim of supremacy and primacy over
the other bishops. And unfortunately for Roman Catholics it
simply does not follow that because a 3rd century heretic
sarcastically disputes the authority of the bishop of Rome,
that therefore the bishop of Rome actually did have supreme
authority. In all fairness, Tertullian's comments on these
matters can only attest to his awareness and disagreement
with the claim of the Roman bishops to supreme authority over
the Church. They cannot be used as proof that those bishops
were legitimately given that authority by God.
And again, it should be stressed that the only thing 3rd century
writers can conclusively attest to is the beliefs of the 3rd
century Church. The comments of Tertullian and Callistus only
really inform us of the beliefs of the 3rd century Church.
If we want to understand the beliefs and teachings of the
1st century Church we will have to examine writings from that
period. Or more to the point, if we want to determine if the
doctrine of the papacy originates from Jesus and his apostles
in the first century, we are going to have to establish that
idea from writings earlier than the third century. This we
have done, in part, though our investigation of the New Testament
Scriptures. This task will be completed as we later cover
the non-canonical writings of the 1st and 2nd century. For
now we will continue with the two more pieces of evidence
offered by the Catholic Encyclopedia in favor of the legitimacy
of their papal doctrines.
"The Pope - About the same period, Hippolytus
(for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author
of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement
of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
"The Pope - We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem",
written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said
to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself
had sat" (P.L., II 1077). These witnesses bring us to the
beginning of the third century." - Catholic Encyclopedia
As we said earlier in this study, Peter's being bishop of
Rome does not demonstrate that he was also the supreme head
of the Church. In order for Roman Catholics to prove that
their doctrine of papal authority is legitimately derived
from the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, they
must also show the bishop of Rome was understood to hold a
position of supreme authority over the Church. These two references
do not speak to the matter of the supremacy of the Roman bishop,
but merely to Peter's holding the office of Roman bishop,
and so they lend no weight to the Roman Catholic claim of
papal authority.
What we really need is 1st and 2nd century Christians saying
that Peter (and/or the bishopric of Rome) was the supreme
authority in the Church, not just that Peter was bishop of
Rome. What we have seen so far is 3rd century evidence, which
is inadequate for establishing that claim. Therefore, we now
continue with the 2nd century evidence that is offered in
support of the papal doctrines of the RCC.
Earlier in this section of our study we noted that in seeking
to demonstrate that the doctrine of papal authority originated
with Jesus Christ and His Apostles, the Catholic Encyclopedia
took an odd approach and instead of starting in the 1st century
as one might expect, they began with the 3rd century documents
because, according to them, that is when references to this
doctrine become frequent. The obvious implication of this
statement is that, before the 3rd century, references to the
RCC's doctrine of papal authority are hard to come by. This,
of course, fits with the observations made by Britannica.com
and the Columbia Encyclopedia, which both concluded that evidence
for the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority from the
first three centuries is inconclusive.
"Apostolic Succession - The origins of the doctrine
are obscure, and the New Testament records are variously
interpreted." - Britannica.com
"Christianity - For the first three centuries of Christianity,
history is dependent on apologetic and religious writings;
there are no chronicles (see patristic literature). Historians
differ greatly on how far back the 4th-century picture of
the church (which is quite clear) can be projected, especially
respecting organization by bishops (each bishop a monarch
in the church of his city), celebration of a liturgy entailing
a sacrament and a sacrifice, and claims by the bishop of
Rome to be head of all the churches (see papacy)." - The
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
"Papacy - There is no unequivocal evidence about
the status of the pope in the earliest days of the church."
- The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
Having demonstrated that the Catholic Encyclopedia's evidence
from the 3rd century is inconclusive at best, despite their
claim that this time period contained frequent support for
their papal doctrine, we find the following statement is made
by the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding 2nd century evidence.
"The Pope - In the second century we cannot look
for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp,
and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we
possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works
of such a character there was no reason to refer to such
a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus, however,
supplies us with a cogent argument." - Catholic Encyclopedia
This admission that the 2nd century does not bear much evidence
supporting their teaching is not unexpected, however, given
their previous acknowledgment that evidence for this doctrine
is less than frequent before the 3rd century. If then, the
3rd century evidence, which we were led to believe would readily
support the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal authority was
less than sufficient, we might suspect that 2nd and 1st century
evidence will be all the more ineffective for establishing
Roman Catholic claims.
Since the Catholic Encyclopedia has chosen to proceed backwards
from the third century our examination will resume with 2nd
century Christian writings of Irenaeus.
Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John and
bishop of Ephesus, was himself the bishop of Lyons. He lived
and wrote defending Christian doctrines between 120-202 A.D.
"Irenaeus, Saint - c.125-c.202, Greek theologian,
bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church. Born in
Asia Minor, he was a disciple of St. Polycarp." - The
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.
The Catholic Encyclopedia points to Irenaeus in support of
both of its previously identified claims. First, the Catholic
Encyclopedia appeals to Irenaeus as supporting that Peter
was bishop of Rome. However, as we have repeatedly pointed
out before, this fact does nothing to indicate papal authority.
A second claim must be demonstrated that Peter's and his successors,
as the bishops of Rome, occupied a position of supreme authority
in the Church over the other bishops in affairs of faith and
morals (doctrine and practice).
Here then is the first argument offered by the Catholic Encyclopedia
to support their claim that Peter was the first bishop of
Rome.
"The Pope - In the second century we cannot look for
much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and
Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess
are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of
such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter
as Peter's Roman episcopate. Irenaeus, however, supplies
us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Adv. haer.
1:27:1, and 3:4:3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop
of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the
inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly
wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness
of the reading in the first of these passages. In 3:4:3,
the Latin version, it is true, gives 'octavus'; but the Greek
text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos. Irenaeus we know visited
Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century
after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact
with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle.
The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all
legitimate doubt." - Catholic Encyclopedia
By pointing out that Irenaeus numbers Hyginus as a bishop
of Rome, the Catholic Encyclopedia argues that Irenaeus therefore
is indicating that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. However,
it must be noted that Irenaeus himself does nowhere number
Peter as the first bishop in this succession of bishops of
Rome. So, while it stands to reason that there must have been
someone whom Irenaeus was reckoning as the first bishop of
Rome, it can only be assumed that this person is Peter. The
Catholic Encyclopedia does assume this to be the case and
then offers their presumption as a conclusive argument. However,
this is merely circular reasoning and so cannot be accepted
as a sound argument for the claim that Peter was the first
bishop of Rome.
Again, we are completely comfortable with accepting Peter
as a bishop of Rome, even the first bishop of Rome, however,
we must point out that the Catholic Encyclopedia cannot simply
assume this to be the case and then offer that assumption
as historical evidence in support of their conclusion.
In fact, while the Catholic Encyclopedia confidently bestows
this position upon Peter alone, Irenaeus repeatedly identifies
both Peter and Paul as founding the Church at Rome and together
appointing Linus to succeed them as bishop of Rome, a point
that the Catholic Encyclopedia understandably leaves out.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3)
in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching
at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After
their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached
by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a
book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple
of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself
publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."
- Irenaeus, CHAP. I.--THE APOSTLES DID NOT COMMENCE TO PREACH
THE GOSPEL, OR TO PLACE ANYTHING ON RECORD, UNTIL THEY WERE
ENDOWED WITH THE GIFTS AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEY
PREACHED ONE GOD ALONE, MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
"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,(3)
that is, the faithful every-416 where, inasmuch as the apostolical
tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful
men] who exist everywhere." - Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION
OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES,
A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
"3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office
of the episcopate." - Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION
OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES,
A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
Below is the Catholic Encyclopedia's interpretation of the
above quoted remarks of Irenaeus.
"The Pope - Nor is there the slightest ground for
the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, 3:3:3, implies
that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome
-- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period.
He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together
handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression
is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to
vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine
taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay
stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching
of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6)
would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he
has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
When reading Irenaeus, the Catholic Encyclopedia simply assumes
that Peter is the first Bishop, although Irenaeus does not
specifically say so. And when confronted with the fact the
Irenaeus repeatedly lists Peter and Paul side by side as the
founders of the Roman church who together handed the bishopric
to Linus, the Catholic Encyclopedia again simply makes another
assumption to provide an alternate motive for Irenaeus' listing
of Paul side by side with Peter. While these assumptions might
be convenient maneuvers necessary to save the RCC's doctrine
from deconstruction at the hands of Irenaeus, such assumptions
do nothing to provide support or proof for the RCC's claims.
Truly, one can "prove" almost anything by stringing together
assumptions.
Again, we note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is content to
merely make conclusions about Irenaeus' writing for their
reader, but avoids actually quoting him in order to demonstrate
the validity of their interpretations. Having read the actual
text of Irenaeus remarks, we understand why the Catholic Encyclopedia
omitted his commentary in favor of simply voicing their conclusions
on the matter. The reason is quite simple. If the readers
are given the opportunity to read Irenaeus' words themselves
they will no doubt clearly see that the arguments offered
by the Catholic Encyclopedia on these matters are misleading
at best and dishonest scholarship at worst. Having taken note
of this we move on to the actual argument offered by the Catholic
Encyclopedia in order to explain Ireneaus' statements.
The Catholic Encyclopedia argues that the reason that Irenaeus
attributes the Roman Church to both Peter and Paul is because
Irenaeus intends to "to lay stress on the fact that that Church
inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles." One must
ask, if Irenaeus understood Peter to hold the place of supreme
authority over the Church and its doctrines, why would he
feel led to stress Paul's contributions to the teachings held
by the Roman Church? If Peter was the pope, by commission
from Jesus Christ, and held all of the supreme authority that
Roman Catholics ascribe to that position, what difference
would it make that Paul contributed to the teachings of the
Church at Rome? What benefit or weight could Paul possibly
add to Irenaeus' argument if Peter were invested with all
the supreme authority of the RCC pope?
Indeed, the very fact that Irenaeus felt it helpful "to lay
stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching
of both the great Apostles" at least undermines the Roman
Catholic claim that Peter held superiority in the Church.
If Peter had, there would have been no need for Irenaeus to
stress Paul's contributions in order to add weight to the
authenticity of the teachings of the Roman Church. For if
Peter had supreme authority as the pope, then Peter himself
would have been sufficient weight without Paul. Appealing
to Paul in any way only undermines the exclusive sufficiency
of Peter as the RCC pope.
So, the Roman Catholic view can in no way claim support for
their position that Peter occupied a position of supreme authority
from Irenaeus, whom they admit felt the need to stress Paul's
involvement alongside Peter in forming the doctrines of the
Roman Church. Furthermore, the arguments of the Catholic Encyclopedia
do not explain the first quote from Irenaeus, which has nothing
to do with establishing the authenticity or orthodoxy of the
teachings exhibited in the Roman Church.
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews(3)
in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching
at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." -
Irenaeus, CHAP. I.--THE APOSTLES DID NOT COMMENCE TO PREACH
THE GOSPEL, OR TO PLACE ANYTHING ON RECORD, UNTIL THEY WERE
ENDOWED WITH THE GIFTS AND POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. THEY
PREACHED ONE GOD ALONE, MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Regardless of his defense against Gnostic heresies, Irenaeus
clearly held that Peter and Paul together provided the foundation
of the Roman church, which effectively strips Peter from any
hint of exclusive authority as the foundation stone of the
Roman church.
Nor, can Roman Catholic explain Irenaeus' other statement
when listing the bishops of Rome.
"3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built
up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office
of the episcopate." - Irenaeus, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION
OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES,
A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges this quote, but does
not provide an adequate explanation for why Irenaeus would
have recorded that Peter and Paul together appointed Linus
to be the bishop of Rome.
"The Pope - He does, it is true, speak of the two
Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus."
- Catholic Encyclopedia
Again, we must note that the Catholic Encyclopedia does not
allow their readers to read the text for themselves as we
have done here, but instead only provides their own conclusions.
One can understand why they do this in light of Irenaeus'
words. For, if Peter was indeed the one and only first bishop
of Rome, as Roman Catholics claim, then Irenaeus' words cannot
simply be explained as an additional support for the orthodoxy
of the Roman Church's doctrine. For if Peter was truly the
one and only first bishop of Rome, then for Irenaeus to describe
both Peter and Paul appointing Linus to be bishop of Rome
would be either a serious historical inaccuracy or a very
misleading argument. By contrast it is much simpler and more
natural to understand Irenaeus' words as they plainly indicate
- the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul who together
appointed Linus. Thus, when interpreted reasonably and without
a Roman Catholic bias, Irenaeus does not provide any support
for even the initial claim that Peter alone was the first
bishop of Rome.
Although there seems no objective reason to deny a dual-episcopate
shared by both Peter and Paul, we need not speculate that
both men were counted as bishops of Rome. Irenaeus nowhere
states that Peter was a bishop. Only the Roman Catholic position
requires a categorical identification of Peter as a bishop.
It is possible that because both men were apostles that neither
would have been identified by the lesser designation or title
of bishop. Though they indeed did found and oversee the Church
at Rome, as apostles their role in the Church is more universal
and would not fit as well with the title bishop, which denoted
a local Church leader.
It may, in fact, be the case that while Peter and Paul both
lived, there was no bishop of Rome. No need would have existed
for one since these two men would have fulfilled all the duties
and met all of the needs that a bishop is meant to fill. This
may explain the discrepancy noted by the Catholic Encyclopedia
regarding exactly which place Hyginus occupied as bishop of
Rome - eighth or ninth.
If neither Peter or Paul is identified as bishop of Rome,
then Linus would be counted as the first bishop of Rome. In
this scheme, Hyginus would be the eighth bishop of Rome.
"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…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, CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION
OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES,
A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
Notice how Irenaeus uses the designation "from the apostles"
in order to number the bishops of Rome. This phrase, used
four times by Irenaeus, again indicates that he understood
both Peter and Paul to rule the Church of Rome before Linus.
Likewise, we see Irenaeus numbers the succession of Roman
bishops in this order according to their distance from the
apostles Peter and Paul: 1) Linus, 2) Anacletus,
3) Clement, 4) Evaristus, 5) Alexander,
6) Sixtus, 7) Telephorus, then 8) Hyginus,
9) Pius, 10) Anicetus, 11) Sorer, 12)
Eleutherius.
That this is the case is proven by Irenaeus reference to Clement
being "in the third place from the apostles." Clement is said
to follow Linus and Anacletus as the bishop of Rome. If, therefore,
Clement is the third, Linus would be the first bishop, and
Anacletus, the second bishop. Similarly, Sixtus is the "sixth
from the apostles." He is preceded in descending order by
five bishops of Rome: 5) Alexander, 4) Evaristus,
3) Clement, 2) Anacletus, and 1) Linus.
And again, Eleutherius, Irenaeus' contemporary is noted as
being "in the twelfth place from the apostles." Eleutherius
is preceded in descending order by eleven bishops of Rome:
11) Sorer, 10) Anicetus, 9) Pius, 8)
Hyginus, 7) Telephorus, 6) Sixtus, 5)
Alexander, 4) Evaristus, 3) Clement, 2)
Anacletus, and 1) Linus. Irenaeus numbers these men
as bishops of Rome, but applies no number to either Apostle,
but instead making Linus the first bishop of Rome. No place
is left by Irenaeus for Peter as the first bishop.
Alternatively, if one were inclined to count Linus as the
second bishop of Rome following a period in which the position
was first fulfilled by an Apostle or both Apostles, then Hyginus
could, in fact, be reckoned as the ninth bishop of Rome.
Having undermined the Roman Catholic argument that Irenaeus
attests to Peter being the sole bishop of Rome there is little
need to continue with their second claim that the Roman bishopric
occupied a position supreme authority over the Church except
to demonstrate the total deficiency of the RCC's position.
This we will do momentarily. However, since Irenaeus' words
indicate that Peter and Paul shared in the founding and administration
of the Church at Rome, any supremacy attributed to that Church
by Irenaeus cannot be taken to indicate Peter's papal authority.
Since Irenaeus equally credits Paul in these matters an indication
of Roman primacy by Irenaeus would equally apply to Paul and
Peter and not solely to Peter as the RCC contends and, which
would need to be the case in order to validate RCC's teaching.
Nevertheless, here is the argument offered by the Catholic
Encyclopedia that Irenaeus' supports their teaching of Roman
primacy.
"The Pope - The same century gives us the witness of
St. Irenaeus -- a man who stands in the closest connexion
with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St.
Polycarp, who had been appointed. Bishop of Smyrna by St.
John. In his work 'Adversus Haereses' (3:3:2) he brings against
the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines
have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved
by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their
bishops back to the Twelve. He writes: 'Because it would be
too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions
of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very
great and very ancient and universally known Church, which
was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious
Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition
which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith
proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the
succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all
who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church,
because of its superior authority, every Church must agree
-- that is the faithful everywhere -- in communion with
which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always
preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam
propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire
ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper
ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis
traditio]'. He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession
from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles,
who then occupied the see." - Catholic Encyclopedia
First, notice that the reason Irenaeus is appealing to Rome
is on the basis that it preserves the teaching of the apostles
in contrast to the Gnostics who deviate from apostolic teaching.
This is the main theme of Irenaeus' argument here. This perfectly
confirms our analysis of Matthew 16, in which any commendation
to Peter is dependent upon his own faithfulness of the previous
revelations given through both John the Baptist and Andrew
in John 1:29-42. Both Irenaeus and Matthew 16 strongly indicate
that preservation of previous divine teaching was the basis
of divine approval and authority, not any supposed Roman papal
authority.
(Continued in next section.)
|
 |
|
 |

|
 |