Was There a Bishop of Rome in the First Century? Protestant Critique 

Glad to help!

"Very happy to have found the 1 guy who justifies my inane ahistorical heresy"

@@mclkr9174 If you actually listen you might learn something.

@@mclkr9174 I used to fear statements such as this….until I actually started studying church history. Ironically, in my personal experience, statements such as yours seem to come from folks who don’t actually study the history, but just listen to whatever their personal flavor of apologetics are. Hoping the best for you. Please, study the history yourself

Be careful, this guy is preaching false doctrines, but you need to be aware and catch him on his lies. Notice how he says at 7:36 "We have no examples in holly scripture or first epistle or clement or anywhere in the first century of a single leader, whatever term you use for that, like Philippians 1-1 it does not talk about a leader in the church. Nowhere in the new testament do we have one individual, whatever the terminology is used over a church." John 21:15-17 "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep." Jesus clearly wanted his Church (sheep) to be pastured by a single man named Peter. So, this protestant "theologian" is clearly teaching a false doctrine because we know that Jesus himself appointed Peter as the one and only shepherd that must take care of Jesus sheep (church). The bible very clearly says that Peter is FIRST and that's written in: Matthew 10:2-4 "These are the names of the twelve apostles: FIRST, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him." There you have it, we know Peter was not the first disciple, in fact we know Andrew the brother of Simon was the first one to follow Jesus because it is written in John 1:38-42 "When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ They said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which translated means Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Cephas’ (which is translated Peter)." So, why Matthew 10:2-4 says that FIRST, Simon, also known as Peter? BECAUSE SIMON IS FIRST IN THE HIERARCHY and furthermore the bible calls him Peter (rock) so that you remember who he is! Jesus changed his name for a reason and appointed him with authority in Matthew 16:18-19. Notice how there is no second, third or forth mentioned. Peter is FIRST! This is the gospel that has been preached by the Catholic Churhc of Jesus Christ and it is the gospel that will continue to be preach by the TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS, but now this protestant "theologian" comes and brings his new gospel proclaiming otherwise. You can literally hear it from his lips at 7:35 Galatians 1:6-9 "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!" Be careful who you follow! There are people like this "theologian" that want to pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gospel where it says that Jesus appointed ONE shepherd to take care of the sheep (church of Jesus) John 21:15-17.

Thanks so much, so glad it was helpful!

For sure get deep in History. John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." Who was a convert from Anglicanism to the one true Church. God bless🙏🏻

@@INRIVivatChristusRex I'd beg to differ. The truth is that to be deep in real history, as opposed to Rome’s whitewashed, revisionist, and often forged history, is to cease to be a Roman Catholic. God bless!

@@elvisisacs3955 Keep reading and get informed. God bless🙏🏻

@@INRIVivatChristusRex ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uFUMoe80G94.html

Thanks Charles, glad to be connected to you

What I found in research was that the first bishop of Rome to claim primacy over ALL the bishops was around 600 AD, and many bishops/churches rejected that claim. There had been gradual movement towards that, but not definite until around 600 AD. Before that it was a college of bishops, each over their own church/territory, and all equal with no head bishop. Yeah, the kindness and respect gets difficult when the other person is the opposite.

There is no doubt that the Bishop of Rome had a special primacy. If you were not in communion with Rome you were not viewed as in communion with the Church.

@@dman7668 No. There never was the Church; there were many churches. The majority of churches were in Asia Minor. Rome was the only church in the West. It had the primacy of the West and the capital of the Roman Empire, but was not the largest or most prominent church. ALL the bishops had been of equal standing. The bishop of Rome often wasn't even part of the councils. The Eastern churches/bishops didn't all support the primacy claim of the bishop of Rome when it happened.

@@joycegreer9391 No Joyce it's crystal clear from early writings one had to be in communion with Rome to even be considered part of the Church, this is wishful thinking at best to say otherwise. They were not of equal standing.

Yes discussion. Did I missed something or there were no an individual defending the Catholic position. God bless🙏🏻

@@INRIVivatChristusRex At the beginning he refers to Joe blogging his own afterthoughts, which he links in the description.

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Good to know. His own thoughts. Thanks.

Let's get em back together 🙂

@@INRIVivatChristusRex We wouldn't want anyone thinking for themself, after reading the word of God. There needs to be the Catholic church to wholly tell you what to think and what to do.

so glad it's of use to you!

Thanks David!

Thanks for the kind comment!

@@TruthUnites You're most welcome.

What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the RU-vid videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.

Well said. Bishops of Rome were in office in the first century.

Totally agree! that is why I said this is just one small part of the argument against the papacy. Thanks for the comment!

Agreed.

Not the Christian Church. We just follow Jesus.

​@@iamshredder3587 Of you aren't in Christian church you aren't, by definition, a Christian. The disciples were called Christians and church is the gathering of those so called. We are commanded to gather.

​@@Phill0old You are a Christian because you follow Christ/you belong to Christ, not because you are a member of any specific church. Plenty of people in churches are not true saved believers. The earliest believers called themselves "The Way", and they met in homes. The truest expression of early church/gathering is small groups meeting in homes.

Thanks for the reccomendations brother, will try my best to keep this in mind.

@@benjamind547 name some

Yes, most of the epistles were occasional letters to correct practices in the various churches and a few were general letters. And who wrote them but the apostles and their helpers who had authority because of the hierarchical structure established by our Lord. “Let no man do ANYTHING connected to the Church without the bishop” -Ignatius of Antioch

@@mikelopez8564 thanks Mike. We're they not all corrected by a non-Pope?

No the the NT is not written for that reason. But we have Clement 1 that explicitly says apostolic succession taught through Peter. And Ireneaus taught through Apostle John, actually does write just that, to address the heresies. He wrote in “Against the Heresies” Book III, Ch 3 says explicitly the bishop of Rome, the way Jesus structured the church, has authority over every church. And names the first 12 bishops of Rome in order.

@C JT You are good in making stuff up that is not true. 🥴

Not necessarily, but the attestation of history proves that modern definitions of succession and the papal office mean that that kind of succession could not have occurred, as evidenced by the four synods.

Perhaps the hierarchical predilections of Judaism continued into the church built by Christ.

Thanks Mike! Great comment.

I absolutely agree. And, I think this parallel relationship has been used as an argument both for and against the Roman Catholic Church's claims for its authority.

You’re on to something. Purification after death too

"Pope" is just a title assigned to the Bishop of Rome and which distinguishes him from all his brother bishops. The Pope is also a priest and a Bishop.

I was going to add this comment but you beet me to it. Multiple bishops does not disprove the papacy; there is still a hierarchy. Other bishops rejecting the will of the Pope does not mean that it's appropriate to reject the will of the Pope. The gospels do not agree on the details of who saw Our Lord first after the resurrection, that doesn't mean Our Lord did not rise. Likewise, Tertulian and Iranaeus not agreeing about the details surrounding the succession of the papacy does not mean that there was no Pope in the first century. Nothing in this video disproves the papacy.

Thanks for the comment; glad you found the video useful!

Contending, Actually, the office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

@@matthewbroderick8756 Nice diversion. Now go to the pastorals and copy and paste for us all Paul said about this 'office' of the papacy.

@@ContendingEarnestly lol, I wish I knew how to copy and paste! Paul always refers to Peter as Cephas, which is Aramaic for rock, as Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, built His Church on Peter the rock, way before the new testament was even written and that later determined the canon. The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! You are in my prayers as you journey toward Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

@@matthewbroderick8756 So thats a no? Thats all i needed to know. Thanks.

EA.C First among equals? Peter is mentioned over 195 times in Holy Scripture. The next of the 12 is John at 35 times. Is that equal? Jesus Christ renamed Simon alone as Cephas which is Aramaic for rock! Jesus Christ gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom. Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen his brethren! The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

How does any of that prove that Peter established an apostolic and universal position of the Bishop of Rome? Peter was the leader of the Twelve, and was one of the primary sources for the gospel and helped lead the church with James and Paul, of course he would be the most mentioned. The issue is not whether he was a leader in the church, but whether he was THE leader and that he established an ongoing position of the Bishop of Rome, and if so, is that position meant to have the same powers that the Papacy has? Even Irenaeus who mentions Roman primacy, links it to both Peter and Paul establishing it, and how firm they held to doctrine. He never mentions a Bishop of Rome as a reason to follow Rome.

There is no first among equals.

@@samueljennings4809 How does Ignatius of Antioch who was taught and converted by John the Apostle get captured as a Bishop over Anitioch and write to his churches on the way to Rome to be eaten by lions, he wrote "Where the Bishop is there is Jesus Christ and there is the Catholic Church" 107 AD There was no such thing as Sola Scriptura in the first 400 years of Christianity

Thanks Justin, glad they are useful! You know, Timothy George's book Theology of the Reformers is great for the Reformers. I often recommend Mark Noll's Turning Points also. You might even try my Theological Retrieval For Evangelicals if you are looking for a Protestant view of church history.

@@TruthUnites Thanks for the suggestions! I’ll be adding those to my list and I’ll definitely be picking up Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals!

@@Imjustinn724 wonderful, enjoy!

Read the Church Fathers, who were all Catholic priests.

Thanks Will, glad it was helpful!

Kunchang, Have you ever read Matthew 16? Jesus Christ gave Peter alone the keys of the Kingdom, to bind and loose on earth and in Heaven. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically! The same Church authority in Peter the rock and sole key holder, who stood up and put an end to all the debating at the council in Jerusalem, since Scripture alone could not, as Peter authoritatively ruled circumcision of the Flesh was no longer necessary, even though Holy Scripture said that it was! Jesus Christ promised His Church authority would be led into all Truth! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

I haven't read it, will keep my eyes peeled! Thanks for the suggestion.

@JD Apologetics Because Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ. In Matthew 18, the keys are not given to the other Apostles, and as in Isaiah 22, the office of sole key holder is one of succession. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

@@TruthUnites Hello Dr. Ortland. You mentioned no where in the new testament, do we have one leader over the rest. Can you honestly say that, knowing Peter is mentioned over 195 times, and the next closest is John, at 35 times? Peter alone received the keys of the Kingdom from Jesus Christ in Matthew 16. In Matthew 18, the keys are not mentioned for the other Apostles, as was given to Peter alone in Matthew 16. The office of sole key holder is one of succession biblically. Jesus Christ prayed for Peter alone to be his brethren in Luke 22, and Jesus gave Peter alone the command over all the flock of God in John 21, and Jesus Christ renamed Simon as Cephas which is Aramaic for rock. Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink

@@matthewbroderick8756 Hello Matthew, I actually didn't say that "no where in the new testament, do we have one leader over the rest." I said nowhere do we have a single leader (whether bishop or another office) over a church.

You have nothing to worry about; Catholics are not idolaters. Since the days of the apostles, the Catholic Church has consistently condemned the sin of idolatry. The early Church Fathers warned against this sin, and Church councils also dealt with the issue. What anti-Catholics fail to recognize is the distinction between a) thinking a piece of stone or plaster is a god and b) desiring to visually remember Christ and the saints in heaven by making statues in their honor. I may stand when the judge enters the courtroom; I may genuflect when meeting the King of England, and I may kiss the ring of the Pope (which is a symbol of the office). All of these are signs of respect; they are not worship. Here's a fun example: Playing miniature golf while on vacation at the beach and playing in the British Open share the fundamental objective of putting a golf ball into a hole in as few strokes as possible, but they differ significantly in almost every other way. Just because two things LOOK similar, it does not mean they are exactly the same.

@@randycarson9812 Are you Dr. Ortlund?

What are the scriptures on this and the explanations on how we are to assume they are popes? I know the argument for Peter as pope, come from when Jesus called Peter the rock and gave him the keys. How about the other two "popes"?

@@saintejeannedarc9460 How would I prove that any portion of history occurred after the last historical event in Scripture?

@@Malygosblues That would understandably be pretty hard. Esp. when we don't see the history as the same, from what we read directly in scripture. There are things we have to give each other grace to disagree on, w/out rancor.

As he said in another video, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (The main three churches founded by Peter) didn't even have bishops until later. The Assyrian Church of the East didn't have bishops until about 300.

The bishop of Rome had a special place of honor in the early church. He was considered “first among equals”. This doesn’t equate to a Vatican 1 idea of the papacy. Also other jurisdictions had “popes” too like Constantinople

​@@MygoalwogelThen why did Ignatius praise Rome if it didn't meet his episcopal standarts?

Because the doctrines that surround the Papacy.

@@chanano1689 like what?

@@Veritas1234 papal infallibility in which the Pope can speak authoritatively. This was used for the Marian Dogmas in which the Church has to believe it de fide, for the Pope spoke ex cathedra

@@chanano1689 The Marian Dogmas have been believed by the Church since the beginning. Even the Protestant reformers believed in Marian dogmas. The Pope also consulted with many bishops before speaking ex-cathedra. So if your problem is that the Pope makes claims that we all already believe, then that seems to be a very trivial problem you have with the Church.

@@Veritas1234 name me in early church father that addressed that Mary was bodily assumed in heaven.

It is true. Scripture does not state apostolic succession ends. But we do seem to have an example of it saying it continues when judas is replaced by Matthias suggestion offices continue.

@@dman7668 Yes, Protestants do not see the man made traditions like saying the succession ends that they have created. Or the need for select men to forgive sins. The Bible has God breathing on the Apostles, so the Bible isn’t the only thing God breathed, and then God gives 11 men the ability to forgive sins. And it doesn’t say this need for these people to do this ever ends.

What happened in 2nd century doesn't matter. Paul adressed all the offices in the church and he did it thoroughly. There is no office of pope nor is it in other epistles. Case closed

@@luboshcamber1992 Yes it does matter. Highly doubt you know more than Ireneaus. You made an opinion. With no backing. Others will say the Papacy is is addressed and Paul affirms it. And that the case is closed to your opinion.

@@JJ-cw3nf It is you who made opinions and wrong connections and lies. Dead Sea scrolls confirmed oral Christian traditions?!? By discovering Jewish Scriptures? Wow... And you tell me that I have no backing? Of course, Scriptures is no backing for Roman Catholic. What backing the Word of God would be indeed when there is some oral tradition... Paul never affirms any remote idea that would even resemble the deception of papacy, but one or two more lies on the pile, why would you care?

@@luboshcamber1992 what’s the name of your denomination? Jesus gave the keys to Peter to loose in bind before Paul was even Christian. That’s already in scripture. Yes the Dead Sea scrolls affirmed the credibility of the church on scripture that was passed down. What may not have been clear to you and others from early Christianity was also affirmed in the miracles of Our Lady of Lourdes “I am the immaculate conception”

@@JJ-cw3nf I don't have any denomination. I was born as Roman Catholic, lived in that false cult for 30 years. I was raised in a fanatical Catholic family, grew up as an altar boy, wanted to be a priest and graduated on Catholic high school in a bigot Catholic country... I can quote you into oblivion fro RCC Catechism till this day. To bind and loose was given in two places and to all the disciples, but what do you care about the truth? Peter was also called Satan by Jesus Himself, Paul never was, Peter denied Him, and was publicly rebuked by Paul, that never happened to any other apostle, if you wanna go that route 😉🥳 Peter has never been to Rome, you believe lies. But... I understand you. I was once like you. Defending indefensible and why? Because I didn't have forgiveness in Christ. All I had was my false religiosity of "Only true "church""... Believed those lies, because I wanted to, because I loved this world. I understand you well...

I don’t think anyone doubts that Rome had bishops in the early church, the question is whether the Roman bishop had supremacy over all the church.

Thanks for sharing Will, I appreciate your struggle. I know it can be daunting on issues with a lot of smart people on all sides. I don’t mean this to sound trite, but I truly believe this, that prayer and an open heart before God are the best route to personal clarity and peace, alongside studying as well of course. While there are complicated points of difference, there are also some basic points that anyone can get a handle on through studying. Let me know if I can recommend books on any specific topics for you. May God guide you.

12 years is a long time of wavering, maybe Catholic Church is not the way, have you looked into Orthodox Church? ☺️ But honestly, shut out all the noise, all the worldly influences, kneel down and cry out praying! A humble and contrite heart, God will not despise (Ps.51) All you have to say is Lord I am knocking, open my heart to understand thy gospel teaching! Teach me how to do Your will, You are my God! Amin 🙏 without fear and without shame, let Him in! May God bless and illumine your journey!

Aks the Mother of God this: "If you hear me, please show me the Church of your Son."

@@vituzui9070 Why not grand mother of God? Mary would listen her mother really well.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mhB1vugdP9w.html

Thank you for these quotes! Both of mine were from Augustine's The Unity of the Church, I believe 4.7 and then 16 (at least that is what is in my notes right now). I hope this does not send you on a wild goose chase!

The guys was a little weird orthodox doesn’t put much emphasis on Augustine as the west

The statement, sometimes rendered as “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished” or in Latin ” Roma locuta; causa finita est,” derives from a statement Augustine made early in the fifth century. In a sermon to his flock, Augustine informed them that the pope had ratified the condemnations of the Pelagian heresy pronounced at the councils of Milevi and Carthage. He said “The two councils sent their decrees to the Apostolic See and the decrees quickly came back. The cause is finished; would that the error were as quickly finished (Sermon 131:10).” This has developed over the centuries into the commonly known formula. Augustine was commenting on the authority of the pope and the fact that councils of the Church are authoritative only if approved by the bishop of Rome. Was Augustine a Protestant?

Thanks for the comment Michael! I'm not sure I fully understand the question, so clarify if this is off, but the basic claim from the Protestant side is that we must measure all developments in the church by the light of the apostolic deposit, so we should treat the bishops and leaders of the past with respect, but not as the final verdict. I may not be getting at your question; if so, I apologize.

@@TruthUnites Thanks for the reply. I think the thrust of the question is how bound to the historical authority of Bishops throughout history who have widespread and near universal acceptance are 21st century Christians (even irrespective of Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology). Case in point, when in St. Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians he implores Christians to obey their Bishop and the presbytery, how binding is that admonition to the 21st century Christian to those bishops and their successors with their subsequent teachings to ensure that the historical witness and orthodoxy throughout the ages is maintained as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith? I would submit that a path forward for the church universal is much greater emphasis and formal submission to the witness of this faith of our ancestors with two underlying presuppositions: 1. trust in the promise of the Spirit to guide the Church in truth and 2. the documentation that we have available to us today is sufficient to show us what we need to give asset to, regardless of whether the source originated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd century, thereafter, etc. and seeing significant/near universal acceptance at points of settling doctrinal disputes as stronger evidence rather than attempting to construct arguments of what was included in the deposit of faith from arguments from silence or or agnosticism at the time of different writings. So much to say, so little combox space to say it. Thanks!

@@michaelbaumert4501 Thanks, I understand a little better now what you are saying. I address those questions in this video, in case it is of interest: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2AEMGcpf4f8.html&

@@TruthUnites Sounds good. I'll take a look.

Hi Henry! Nice to meet you, I have some friends at Baylor; I hope your studies finish up well. I think the problem or at least limitation for evolutionary/developmental theories of the papacy is that Vatican I seems to rule them out, because it says that "a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was *immediately and directly* promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord," and it anathematizes anyone who denies that this was given to Peter. I suppose you could say the external details of how the pope functioned could develop, but the heart of it -- primacy of jurisdiction, received by the rest of the church as hierarchical subordination in terms of obedience -- needs to be there at the start, and I don't think the historical evidence supports that. So it seems to me, anyway!

@Mark Paul Francis Xavier *Why aren't Jesus' own words "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" not sufficient historical evidence?* Evidence of what? Thats pretty vague huh? In my experience catholics use this verse as a blank check for pretty much anything. I don't think thats how the verse is meant to be interpreted. *Surely you are aware that development in the Catholic understanding does not mean a change in doctrine, rather an explicit articulation of what was there from the beginning.* It didn't use to but it does now. For hundreds of years Vincent of Lerins model was used. Doctrine had three criteria. It had to be believed always, everywhere and by all. That changed with the help of Newman and Henry Edward Manning and the new concept of development of doctrine and viva voce. This is why teachings like marys assumption or IC were made dogma. Not because they were found in the bible but because the church says so; sola ecclesia.

No one ignores the truth you have pointed out, but Peter moved on to Rome and was martyred there, as did Paul

Antioch was a Roman province. It was the 3rd largest city in the Roman empire. Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the biggest cities within the Roman empire.

So the claim to papal infallibility all boils down to where Peter was martyred and not succession?

No, not where Peter was martyred but where he pontificated from. Rome, not Antioch.

At this point in the history of the church we cannot unite on every single doctrine and that is not something to be worried about. We have the primary essentials, the secondary (where denominations come in) and even the tertiary essentials where even if we all belonges to one church we will have differing opinions on say what nail polish to wear or how long our skirts should be. Catholics like to pretend that Protestants do not unite on any doctrine. Far from the truth, we do, and that is why we can worship together. As for dangerous doctrines and bad practices, it is not limited to Protestants alone. What matters is a church that can teach you solidly what the gospel is and help you to grow in your salvation, and that the Catholic church is not even passionate or good at.

Saint Irenaeus also confirms it.

All of the disciples had the keys. Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. They were to share the gospel, and it is up to God to give mercy, & regenerate. This was referring to the disciples. Going back to Matthew 16, Peter was born again at that moment (the first). It is a personal, intimate moment. It would make no sense for the Holy Spirit to wash Peter and ignore the other apostles and wash them later. By the disciples being born again, then the rest of the text would make sense to them since it all ties to the born-again experience.

@@OrthodoxofUSA "confirms" or rather asserts it without citing any sources and in conflict with other sources and hundred years after the supposed fact.

​@@cunjoz Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [cf. 2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the second epistle to Timothy [cf. 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 [cf. Phil. 4:3] (Eusebius of Caesarea Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312]). The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). St. Augustine Bishop of Hippo They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church. (Christian Combat, 31:33; from William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 51) 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 !’ 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. (Letter to Generosus, 53:2, in NPNF I, I:298)

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think your statement holds much water. If you did not see my other comment in the feed, here it is. I keep typing comments, and I keep putting a lot of work into them, and they keep disappearing. So, here it goes again. The Shepherd of Hermas does maintain a distinction in three, our four offices, of apostle, bishop, teacher, and deacon. Some Catholic scholars say that bishops started off as the heads of colleges of presbyters, and Saint Jerome would have agreed with them. In his Letter 146 To Evangelus, he says something very much like this. I would provide the quote, but I think direct quotes from other websites might have gotten my comments disappeared by algorithms. Saint Chrysostom, in his Commentary on Phillipians, says that there were distinct offices, but the terms were not clear-cut. He says that in 2 Timothy 4:5, Saint Timothy is called a deacon. However, most English versions translate the word diakonos to ministry. He even said that in his day, bishops would call each-other "my fellow deacon". I'll also point out that liturgy (look in the Didache), prayers for the dead, intercession of the saints, the Real Presence, and monasticism were also present from a rather early date. Saint Anthony (Desert Father) lived in the third and forth centuries, and was probably not the first monastic. Saints Augustine and Basil wrote the earliest monastic codes (forth and early fifth centuries), well after him. So the practice existed, it just was not as organized until then. For links to quotes about the other issues I mentioned, you can go to churchfathers.com and www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm Low-church Protestants have to reckon with the fact that by the 300s, the historic Church was very different from their own.

@OrthodoxofUSA Shepherd of Hermes is irrelevant and inferior to the Inspired Word of God. And the Inspired Word of God tells us of the offices in the church, and there is no pope. So we couldn't care less about how some church in 3 rd century looked like. There were heresies in the 1st century already and Paul was addressing them!!!! So how messed up it was in the 3rd is hard to imagine but we kind of get the picture when we look at Orthodox and Roman institutions...

@@OrthodoxofUSA What happened to the historic church after 70 AD? it seems to have changed enormously. Why is it said there is no history of the church between 70 and 120 AD? What happened to the Apostolic line of succession?

@@doriesse824 Who said there is no history of the Church between 70-120 AD? We have the Didache, the letters of St. Clement, and an epistle of St Polycarp to name a few, not to mention that some books of the Bible are thought to have been written in this time period. Also, in "Against Heresies", St. Irenaeus records bishops from that time period. We also have the letters of St Ignatius of Antioch, and although they were written in the 140s, the author was certainly alive during this time.

wow way to murder a great Newman quote

the scholarly near-consensus is not that it happened at the same time everywhere, but that it is earlier in the West. This near-consensus includes many Catholic scholars like Francis Sullivan, Raymond Brown, etc. It is documented by the evidence from the time in question as to what churches looked like, as well as later recognition of it happening (e.g., Jerome). hope that helps!

newadvent org RU-vid doesn't like hyperlinks.

Thanks, glad it was helpful!

The Sacred Scriptures are not silent about Apostolic Succession. Study the arguments for the Papacy and Apostolic Succession through the Catholic understanding and then draw your own conclusions. Get both sides of the story. Not just the one biased against it. God bless🙏🏻

​@@INRIVivatChristusRex I have read what Joe wrote afterward, so you should avoid stating things like reading only the biased one side. I didn't find his argument strong. Judaism puts both the scripture and tradition as equally authoritative and was severely reprimanded by Jesus in Matt. 15:3. I find that RCC and Eastern Orthodox do something similar which I find eerie to be honest. This is how I see it. Both the Father and Son (leaving out the Holy Spirit for the argument sake) are equally God and important. However, the Son submits to the Father in perfect love and harmony. The scripture and tradition are equally important, but the tradition submits to the scripture because the scripture is the word of God. You can't have the scripture submitting to the tradition because that's like the word of God submitting to human made tradition. Whenever the Church decides on major issues like Acts 1 where Peter quotes from the Old Testament before the casting lots fell on Matthias and Acts 15 where James quotes from the Old Testament before making the verdict on gentiles, there are two things that were present. First, it's decided in the council format of elders/bishops and never "Peter spoke so must be orthodox". Second, the harmony with the scripture is always present just as Jesus often quoted from the scripture. Jesus never mentioned how the "tradition" must be obeyed, in fact, he is harsh toward Pharisees and Sadducees because of over-emphasis the tradition over the scripture. Last and most importantly, I just find that the eternal king and high priest Jesus setting up an earthly figurehead like Peter when he still rules from heaven just ridiculous. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will come after him, not Peter. Ironically, this is written in Epistles to the Romans. The magnum opus, Romans 8, says we are to be guided by the Holy Spirit, not Peter. Considering that Paul wrote this through the inspiration of the Spirit, I would assume Peter will be mentioned somewhere to signify his prominent role in the future Church, but instead it clearly states that the Holy Spirit will guide the church. As Gavin said, the scripture itself is so silent on the supremacy of Peter. Even Peter's epistles are silent on this matter which indicates that Peter humbled himself to the authority of Holy Spirit that left the New Testament for future Christians. I am just a deacon in a small church, so need to get back to work to feed the family. Romans 8:9 9 You, however, live not by your natural inclinations, but by the Spirit, since the Spirit of God has made a home in you. Indeed, anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. Romans 8:14-16 14 All who are guided by the Spirit of God are sons of God; 15 for what you received was not the spirit of slavery to bring you back into fear; you received the Spirit of adoption, enabling us to cry out, 'Abba, Father!' 16 The Spirit himself joins with our spirit to bear witness that we are children of God.

@@thomasc9036 In which church you are a deacon?

@@INRIVivatChristusRex I am a deacon at a small Presbyterian church in the Bay Area. My church is part of PCA denomination.

That claim is actually a heresy. Hebrews confirm Jesus as the eternal high priest and is just confirming the Old Testament. If there is to be another high priest after Jesus, then he was not the savior and that's why it is a heresy. Hebrews 7:26 For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; Hebrews 7:11 Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? Psalm 110:4 The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek. Zechariah 6:13 Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the Lord, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices

No Klement did not do any such thing. Gavin explicitly addressed that. Try to listen to it again.

Tertullian and Jerome both indicate that Clement was ordained directly by Saint Peter as his successor in Rome, although Jerome was also aware of other traditions. Several sources record traditions that Clement was preceded by Peter, Linus, and Cetus/Anacletus. Church tradition today holds that Clement was indeed the fourth pope. The Holy See's Annuario Pontificio (2003) cites a reign from 92 to 99.

He can't help you do that Sophia.

Primacy doesn’t equate to supremacy

The problem is so-called tradition changes, and obviously so.

So glad it was useful!

Foundation's of course 'underground' for pillars erected as Superstructure.

Yes! I would add Dr Taylor Marshall to that list!

@@cassidypiazza4389 Indeed

@Lunatic because you have writings such as Ireneaus who explicitly say the bishop of Rome has authority and listed the the first 12 Bishops of Rome. Who was taught through John the Apostle. There’s no way to spin that.

Hmmm, are you deducing the size of the first century church in Rome based on the size of the entire city? Would be curious how you get to that.

@@TruthUnites There was a large number of Jews in Rome - as many as 50,000. These would have included the first Christians resident in the city, but who were in Jerusalem for the Pentecost at which the Church was founded. As the Christians in Rome grew in numbers, they are likely to have been found throughout the city, and in several Regiones at least.

@@MichaelPetek Do you have the source for this number of 50,000 Jews in Rome? And during which period of time was this the size of the Jewish population? It's important to know because Emperor Claudius issued a decree of expulsion of Jews from Rome between 41-54 BC, which may have drastically reduced the population of Jews thereafter. Also, the church became progressively made up mostly of Gentiles, and Nero violently persecuted Christians in 64 BC, resulting in the death of a lot of Christians (including Peter and Paul) and the departure of many of them from Rome as well. I've also found this: Rodney Stark estimates there were less than 10,000 Christians in the year 100 (Stark, Rodney (1997). The Rise of Christianity How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. HarperCollins. p. 7) As to the impossibility of all the house-churches to have been overseen by a single bishop, I think that doesn't necessarily follow. This could also be said of Moses in his job of judging the giant nation of Israel, but Jethro advised him to share his leadership with others, while he judged the most difficult affairs. In this sense, a single bishop could share his leadership with his presbyters throughout the entire city of Rome. He could even appoint other mere presbyters to minister the Eucharist in his place, as Ignatius says in his Epistle to the Smyrneans: "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid." (Smyrneans 8)

@@RockGTA I was slightly mistaken. 50,000 is the number of Jews in Italy, of whom half lived in and around Rome. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/italy-virtual-jewish-history-tour

There are answers to that question. Most historians believe Peter went to Rome also. Other historical writings support this. It's not widely disputed.

I would agree. However, that is a far, far different issue from whether the Roman bishop is perpetual head of that church.