Sola Scriptura? Really?

[JohnnyB]

Three things :

1. The quote you give says nothing about interpreting scripture. Your selecting that verse, which does not mention interpretation, makes my point about what choose to support our arguments.

2. "A vast majority of bibles were written to support particular doctrines" is an unsubstantiated (and I think outrageous) claim.

3. Jesus never promised the Holy Spirit would lead everyone in to all truth. He was speaking to the apastles, the leaders of the Church, not making some general statement (and yes - that is my interpetation).

Of course it doesn't say we interpet scripture because WE don't, it says the word interprets US, it is what I have been saying all along.

You need to do some research, the translations are dependent on who pays for it. There is much information and research on this topic.

The Holy Spirit leads those who are willing to be led by Him, into all truth. Of course if you believe someone else must do that for you, then that is a problem for you. You rely on man and not God.

 

[Mungo]

Most who subscribe to the sola scriptura belief actually come around to a position of prima scriptura if they think about it long enough. It is clear to me that not all of God's truths are contained in the Bible, although that is not what sola S. or prima S. put forward. What I do not believe, with all due respect to my Catholic bretheren, is that the cannon of scriptures has been authoritatively certified by a council of men. When Jesus rose to read from the scrolls in the synagogues where he would teach, there was no question that what He was reading was the word of God. The holy scriptures existed in spite of the fact that no church existed to certify them. Yes, there were some who only accepted the Pentaetuch, and others who did or didn't accept this or that writing. That makes no difference. Scripture was still scripture regardless of what men accepted or did not accept. The same is true as the New Testament began to be written. Peter acknowledged that Paul's writings were scripture in his own writings, but that was a statment of understanding and not a formal authoritative certification. And it was by no means complete because John had not yet written anything and Paul was continuing to write.

The entire matter rests on whether Jesus instituted a single organizational bureaucracy on earth with the authority to rule on all matters of faith. I do not believe so. In order to believe that I would have to acquire faith to believe things that the evidence does not lead me to convincingly. The Sacred Tradition claimed by the Catholic church is not written any place where we can read it, though it is said to be embodied to a certain extent in the catechism. I do not see any authority for the things it claims as God's truths which are not found in Scripture except for the authority it claims for itself. New truths from Sacred Tradition seem to emerge with new controversies that come up in eccumenical councils from time to time, and that just seems like a convenient way to clear up controversies. The claims for church authority from Matthew 16:18 seem vastly overreaching to me, and the corruptions of men that always get introduced into everything men put their hands to seem to have cause much of the bureacracy to be man-made rather than God-inspired.

If I'm wrong, well, I'll rely on God's mercy and grace since I'm nothing but dust anyway. Until the day I return to dust, I remain open to leading of the Holy Spirit and God's leading me to place my faith in the Church, but until then I'm stuck wishing I could be Catholic but unable to do it. I say wishing to be so because it would be so much easier as a believer not to have to wonder about things, but just look to what the Church teaches and know you've got it right. I see too many things for which there is not scriptural evidence to do that.

Brother James,

On what basis then do you accept any writing as "scripture"?

Or perhaps if as you say "Scripture was still scripture regardless of what men accepted or did not accept" how do you know what is scripture and what is not?

 

[Brother James]

Brother James,

On what basis then do you accept any writing as "scripture"?

Or perhaps if as you say "Scripture was still scripture regardless of what men accepted or did not accept" how do you know what is scripture and what is not?

Well, how did the Jews in the synagogue know that Jesus was reading scripture to them when He read from the scrolls of Isaiah? They didn't yet know Him to be God, yet they knew Isaiah was scripture. How?

Now, the word "canon" comes from Greek meaning "rod", which was used as a measuring reed and became a standard. When you apply this to theology, the books that should be in the Bible have had their contents applied to God's standard and as a result have been included in what we accept as the Bible. They were scripture the moment God authored them through inspiration of the writers of the various books. No human work made them scripture. So what you are asking about is what human process do we undertake to determin what is and is not scripture. Either it is the case that some specific organization of men has been given the authority by God to make this determination, or not. The fact that people had God's revealed word leading up to Christ shows that this organizational authorization is not required for there to be scriptures. In the early church, Christians recognized that certain books had a spiritual ministry in their lives and were used by God to edify the church when they became the basis for preaching and teaching. This recognition was ongoing well before any formal councils met to make proclamations about the matter. Christians recognized that God spoke to them through certain books that had a certain innate spiritual power. They also recognized these books were written under the influence of God. They knew the human authors of these books and trusted their eyewitness reports, their spiritual counsel, or their testimonies. The church accepted their testimony and recognized their books as Scripture. There is an inherent divine character that inspiration gives to the writings that other human writings lack. Most importantly, a message from God is recognized by people who have His Spirit. When the Synod of Hippo listed the 27 book sof the NT in 393 AD, it did not confer upon them any authority that they did not already possess. It simply recorded their previously established canonicity.

With regard to the OT, that canon was first established upon the destruction of the Temple and the displacement of the Jews to Babylon. After the exile, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were added. Josephys gave testimony in his writings that the Jewish canon was closed in the life-time of Ezra. Ezra was especially concerned with the sacred books, and the chracter of Ezra's time was such that the collection of the sacred books could appropriately have been made in it.

Of the so-called "Apocrypha" or deuterocanonicals, there is no church on earth that accepts all of the books contained in the Septuigint as canonical. The church in Rome has one set, the eastern church has another set, the Coptics have yet another set. There are many problems with them, which I won't go into unless you want me to. The main argument against adding these books to the canon are that the canon was closed when the apostolic fathers passed from the scene, and a council at Trent that formally canonized them took place 1400 years later.

 

[Foreigner]

Where are these Protestant teachings found in the Bible? - Aspen

'scripture interprets scripture'

-- Aspen, you yourself have used Scripture to confirm the validity of another Scripture when people have questioned whether it supports a Catholic position. Physician, heal thyself.



'ask Jesus into your heart'

-- "Behold, I stand at the door and I knock...."


'alter calls'

-- Actually, you mean "altar calls." "Alter calls" are something COMPLETELY different
No one has said they are required. Many churches have altar calls so those with a specific purpose or need can all be prayed for and counseling/guidance can be given. It also allows for giving direction to people who have just accepted Christ so they don't walk out the door, are left floundering as to what to do next, and in short time convince themselves it didn't happen.


'the church is not needed'

-- Have heard a couple of people here say they do not attend church. So what? That isn't even hinted at as being the norm for any group or denomination.
Almost universally it is recognized that to grow as a Christian you should belong to a body for support, encouragement, and instruction.
"No need to attend church" is by no means a teaching for Protestants. Never has been. Kind of hard to have a denomnation - Protestant or otherwise if the members never meet.
You shouldn't take the off-the-wall opinions of people in the very, very small minority of people and try to paint the entire group with it. It grows old.



'faith alone' - only mention once in the NT in James 2:24

-- James 2:24 is actually supported by Jesus' own words in Matt 25 where he talks about the sheep and the goats and what people failed to do.
However, Eph. 2:8-9 says that man is saved by grace through faith, and not by works lest any man boast.


'remarrying divorced couples'

-- a number of Catholic churches have chosen not marry couples if they they have been divorced. Protestant churches do this sometimes, as well. Scripture says divorce should only be in cases of infidelity...


'Praying to Jesus'

-- I would hope this would be encouraged. Otherwise, what's the point?


'Celebrating Easter'

-- What Christian faith doesn't celebrate the resurrection of our Savior?


'Celebrating Christmas'

-- What Christian faith doesn't celebrate the birth of our Savior?


'Worshiping on Sunday'

-- Justaname gave a very good response to this.




.

 

[Selene]

A man interpreting the bible is why there are 33,000 different denominations, including catholicism. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth, besides, the word interprets us, not the other way around.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercing as far as division of soul and spirit, of both joints and morrows, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

There is only one Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are not divided into different sects because all Catholics have the Pope. And there is only one Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who was excommunicated by the Pope, such as the SSPX, is not considered part of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[IanLC]

The Whole Church has One Lord and He is Jesus Christ. Regardless of Catholic or Protestant Jesus Christ is Our Lord and Master!

 

[Selene]

The Whole Church has One Lord and He is Jesus Christ. Regardless of Catholic or Protestant Jesus Christ is Our Lord and Master!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Protestants and Orthodox Christians are in communion with the Catholic Church despite the fact that that communion is imperfect. However, I was not referring to Protestants or Orthodox when I wrote my last post. I was responding to Johnny B's post who claimed that the Roman Catholic Church is divided. We are not divided or split into different sects. We are one under one Pope. There is only one Roman Catholic Church.

 

[JohnnyB]

There is only one Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are not divided into different sects because all Catholics have the Pope. And there is only one Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who was excommunicated by the Pope, such as the SSPX, is not considered part of the Roman Catholic Church.

The catholics have their pope, the Morman's have their prophet, the Jehovah Witnesses have their ruling elders, these are ALL denominations with a hierarchical system known as nicolaitan, and God HATES the nicolaitans system.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Protestants and Orthodox Christians are in communion with the Catholic Church despite the fact that that communion is imperfect. However, I was not referring to Protestants or Orthodox when I wrote my last post. I was responding to Johnny B's post who claimed that the Roman Catholic Church is divided. We are not divided or split into different sects. We are one under one Pope. There is only one Roman Catholic Church.

I did not say the catholics were divided, although in many ways they are, I am saying the Catholic church is a denomination set up with a system the Lord never ever intended.

You follow a pope, the rest of us follow Christ.

 

[Axehead]

Actually, there are numerous schisms and divisions within the Catholic Church. Is this the thread where I listed many of them?

And I also said that "Conformity is not Unity".

Axehead

 

[Selene]

The catholics have their pope, the Morman's have their prophet, the Jehovah Witnesses have their ruling elders, these are ALL denominations with a hierarchical system known as nicolaitan, and God HATES the nicolaitans system.


I did not say the catholics were divided, although in many ways they are, I am saying the Catholic church is a denomination set up with a system the Lord never ever intended.

You follow a pope, the rest of us follow Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church is only one. It is not divided. You may have Catholics who disagree, but there is only one doctrine and one Roman Catholic Church under one Pope. Protestants, on the other hand, consist of many different denominations.

 

[JohnnyB]

The Roman Catholic Church is only one. It is not divided. You may have Catholics who disagree, but there is only one doctrine and one Roman Catholic Church under one Pope. Protestants, on the other hand, consist of many different denominations.

What I am saying is the Catholic church is NOT the TRUE church, the only true Church are those who make up His body, believers.

The catholic church is no different from all the other institutions of religion.

 

[lawrance]

I think a book or books can not contain everything and the Bible says so.

So if the Bible does not say, that does not always rule it out completely.

When i was a protestant i was lead to believe the Pope was just some fool and a devil, and i believed it. but after years of study i found i was being mislead in a sickening manner of blatant ignorance.

Peter was the head of the Church and that's a fact, but not in the way most think of it.

Mother Mary is and was the most sinless person ever and that is why God chose her. but we have to put up with people kicking her around like trash, then they like to elevate her above what the RCC even truly says. then to top it off they say she is not in Heaven and then in the next breath say that they are going to Heaven ! what a joke !

I know there are some RCC that are excessive with all there Mary caring on and that it even gets on my goat.

 

[aspen]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that Protestants and Orthodox Christians are in communion with the Catholic Church despite the fact that that communion is imperfect. However, I was not referring to Protestants or Orthodox when I wrote my last post. I was responding to Johnny B's post who claimed that the Roman Catholic Church is divided. We are not divided or split into different sects. We are one under one Pope. There is only one Roman Catholic Church.

I believe it is the celebration of the Eucharist that unites our Church. However, Protestants are include in the Catholic (universal) Body of Christ even if they lack the true understanding of the Eucharist. They follow Christ just like we do and Jesus has brought good things out of the Protestant schism

 

[Mungo]

Well, how did the Jews in the synagogue know that Jesus was reading scripture to them when He read from the scrolls of Isaiah? They didn't yet know Him to be God, yet they knew Isaiah was scripture. How?

Now, the word "canon" comes from Greek meaning "rod", which was used as a measuring reed and became a standard. When you apply this to theology, the books that should be in the Bible have had their contents applied to God's standard and as a result have been included in what we accept as the Bible. They were scripture the moment God authored them through inspiration of the writers of the various books. No human work made them scripture. So what you are asking about is what human process do we undertake to determin what is and is not scripture. Either it is the case that some specific organization of men has been given the authority by God to make this determination, or not. The fact that people had God's revealed word leading up to Christ shows that this organizational authorization is not required for there to be scriptures. In the early church, Christians recognized that certain books had a spiritual ministry in their lives and were used by God to edify the church when they became the basis for preaching and teaching. This recognition was ongoing well before any formal councils met to make proclamations about the matter. Christians recognized that God spoke to them through certain books that had a certain innate spiritual power. They also recognized these books were written under the influence of God. They knew the human authors of these books and trusted their eyewitness reports, their spiritual counsel, or their testimonies. The church accepted their testimony and recognized their books as Scripture. There is an inherent divine character that inspiration gives to the writings that other human writings lack. Most importantly, a message from God is recognized by people who have His Spirit. When the Synod of Hippo listed the 27 book sof the NT in 393 AD, it did not confer upon them any authority that they did not already possess. It simply recorded their previously established canonicity.

With regard to the OT, that canon was first established upon the destruction of the Temple and the displacement of the Jews to Babylon. After the exile, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi were added. Josephys gave testimony in his writings that the Jewish canon was closed in the life-time of Ezra. Ezra was especially concerned with the sacred books, and the chracter of Ezra's time was such that the collection of the sacred books could appropriately have been made in it.

The Law and the Prophets books may have been closed at the time of Ezra but the Wisdom books were not. Some claim they were closed at the Council of Jamna in 98 AD, some later. The Septuagint, which was the common version used by Jesus, the apostles and the early Church contains all the books that the Catholic Church accepts as canonical

As for the NT, there was great debate as the which books to include right up the final decisions being made by Pope Damasus in the Decree of Damasus, which dates to the Council of Rome in 382, and confirmed by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

Many of the books that were finally accepted were rejected earlier by some in the early Church, e.g. Jude and Hebrews, whilst other books not finally accepted were accepted by some in the early Church .e.g. Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, The Didache, The Apocalypse of Peter.

Even at the Council of Nicea (325) the canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude were questioned. The first list of NT books as we have them now was proposed by Athanasius in 367.

Someone, or some group, with authority had to make a final decision.

Of the so-called "Apocrypha" or deuterocanonicals, there is no church on earth that accepts all of the books contained in the Septuigint as canonical. The church in Rome has one set, the eastern church has another set, the Coptics have yet another set. There are many problems with them, which I won't go into unless you want me to. The main argument against adding these books to the canon are that the canon was closed when the apostolic fathers passed from the scene, and a council at Trent that formally canonized them took place 1400 years later.

The council of Trent formally re-affirmed the books that the Church had canonised 1,000 years earlier because they had recently been disputed by the Protestant reformers.
“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.” (session 4)
Then old Latin vulgate edition it refers to is the translation produced by Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus 1.

 

[Brother James]

The Law and the Prophets books may have been closed at the time of Ezra but the Wisdom books were not. Some claim they were closed at the Council of Jamna in 98 AD, some later. The Septuagint, which was the common version used by Jesus, the apostles and the early Church contains all the books that the Catholic Church accepts as canonical

The Septuagint contains more books than that Catholic Church accepts as canonical. What about those other writings? In Luke 24:44 Jesus refers to the prophets, the law of Moses, and the Psalms. Those are the exact divisions of the OT Hebrews scriptures recognized by the Jews at Jamna. Josephus testified to the closing of the OT canon after Ezra. The idea that Jewish scriptures were composed in a language other than Hebrew is a very strange concept to Jews. Jesus never read from nor refered to the "deuterocanonical" works. The Babalonian Talmud taught this same Jewish tradition about the makeup of the OT. Even St. Jerome, translator of the Latin vulgate, did not accept them. The ONLY evidence supporting these works as canonical is that authority the Catholic Church claims for itself, not anything historical from the times of those writings.

As for the NT, there was great debate as the which books to include right up the final decisions being made by Pope Damasus in the Decree of Galaisus and confirmed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Scriptures were scripture the instant they were penned through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what men agreed to or disagreed with. They are not made scritpure by any proclamation from any pope's claimed authority. Jews disagreed with the canon as well, but that did not stop them from understanding that Jesus was reading from scripture when He read from the scrolls of Isaiah in the synagogues. They had no pope to tell them this. Think about that a minute. Was the world adrift, having no idea whether Genesis or Malachi were holy scriptures until some council said it was so? There have always been "great debates". Mormons continue to debate that their books are scriptural as well. The Saducees didn't want to accept anything except the Pentateuch. Did that affect the fact that Isaiah is scripture?

Someone, or some group, with authority had to make a final decision.

This is only claimed by the one organization that claims this authority for itself. It is self-justifying. The world and the church operated just fine before this final decision was made. The early church grew from its infancy to be the official religion of the empire without this "final decision". How could that be? Did the Holy Spirit actually build the church without this "final decision"? This idea that the world had no idea what was or was not God's Word prior to the fourth century is not credible.

Then old Latin vulgate edition it refers to is the translation produced by Jerome on the orders of Pope Damasus 1.

Research St. Jerome's thoughts on the deuterocanonical books.

 

[Selene]

I believe it is the celebration of the Eucharist that unites our Church. However, Protestants are include in the Catholic (universal) Body of Christ even if they lack the true understanding of the Eucharist. They follow Christ just like we do and Jesus has brought good things out of the Protestant schism

That is what I said. I stated in my post that the Protestants and Orthodox Christians are in communion with the Catholic Church. However, I was referring to Johnny's statement below:

A man interpreting the bible is why there are 33,000 different denominations, including catholicism.

There are actually three denominations in Christianity - Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. Some of the Protestant denominations, however, would not be considered Christians because they do not believe that Jesus is God. One of the tenents of Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God.

 

[Mungo]

The Septuagint contains more books than that Catholic Church accepts as canonical. What about those other writings? In Luke 24:44 Jesus refers to the prophets, the law of Moses, and the Psalms. Those are the exact divisions of the OT Hebrews scriptures recognized by the Jews at Jamna. Josephus testified to the closing of the OT canon after Ezra. The idea that Jewish scriptures were composed in a language other than Hebrew is a very strange concept to Jews. Jesus never read from nor refered to the "deuterocanonical" works. The Babalonian Talmud taught this same Jewish tradition about the makeup of the OT. Even St. Jerome, translator of the Latin vulgate, did not accept them. The ONLY evidence supporting these works as canonical is that authority the Catholic Church claims for itself, not anything historical from the times of those writings.

The differences between the LXX and the books in the Catholic canon are very minor.

At the time of Jesus the LXXwas the norm for Jews in the Diaspora and even in Palestine. Most Jews in Palestine spoke Aramaic and Greek but not Hebrew. The scrolls in the synagogues were in Hebrew but they had Aramaic “targums” (translations in the margins). It was later Jews that began to repudiate the LXX because Christians had adopted it and it contained prophecies of the Messiah . For example: Wisdom 2:12-20
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;
he sets himself against our doings,
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law
and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the Lord.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us,
Because his life is not like other men’s,
and different are his ways.
He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the just
and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true;
let us find out what will happen to him.
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test
that we may have proof of his gentleness
and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death;
for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”


There was no closed canon at the time of Christ or even after 100AD. The Jews had competing ideas about what was canonical and what was not.

The fact is that the early Christians used the LXX and accepted the books that the Catholic Church also accepts.

The Scriptures were scripture the instant they were penned through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, regardless of what men agreed to or disagreed with. They are not made scritpure by any proclamation from any pope's claimed authority. Jews disagreed with the canon as well, but that did not stop them from understanding that Jesus was reading from scripture when He read from the scrolls of Isaiah in the synagogues. They had no pope to tell them this. Think about that a minute. Was the world adrift, having no idea whether Genesis or Malachi were holy scriptures until some council said it was so? There have always been "great debates". Mormons continue to debate that their books are scriptural as well. The Saducees didn't want to accept anything except the Pentateuch. Did that affect the fact that Isaiah is scripture?

Someone or some body has to discern which books are scriopture and which are not.

Are you suggesting that everyone does this for themselves.

The fact is that the early Church went through much discussion and the finala decision was made by Pope Damasus 1 and confirmed by several councils including Hippo and Carthage.

This is only claimed by the one organization that claims this authority for itself. It is self-justifying. The world and the church operated just fine before this final decision was made. The early church grew from its infancy to be the official religion of the empire without this "final decision". How could that be? Did the Holy Spirit actually build the church without this "final decision"? This idea that the world had no idea what was or was not God's Word prior to the fourth century is not credible.

This early Church was the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ set up and propmised would lead into all truth.

Research St. Jerome's thoughts on the deuterocanonical books.

Jerome had no authority to decide on the canon and accepted instruction from Damasus 1 as to what to include,.

 

[Brother James]

This early Church was the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ set up and propmised would lead into all truth.

As I say so often, that is the crux of the matter. This is the claim the church makes for itself, which I do not find to be historical. Even the supposed succession of popes is questionable even among Catholics. What is clear is that the Catholic Church that we know today emerged in the fourth century. There is nothing that convinces me that the church of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries was the Roman Catholic Church. For that, one must place one's faith in the Sacred Traditions of the church. Even NewAdvent.com says of Clement I that he is "the first of the successorsof St. Peter of whom anything definite is known." Between Peter and Clement the lists are fuzzy, and nothing is known about the various men on the various differing lists.

Again, I understand the Catholic doctrines and teachings very well. I've discussed them at length with numerous Catholic friends. I do not find them convincing, and God has not led me to put my faith in those teachings. I don't try to convince Catholics not to be Catholics, but I do present the good reasons non-Catholics have for not accepting the claims of the church that violate what we believe God's truths teach us.

 

[Mungo]

As I say so often, that is the crux of the matter. This is the claim the church makes for itself, which I do not find to be historical. Even the supposed succession of popes is questionable even among Catholics. What is clear is that the Catholic Church that we know today emerged in the fourth century. There is nothing that convinces me that the church of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd centuries was the Roman Catholic Church. For that, one must place one's faith in the Sacred Traditions of the church. Even NewAdvent.com says of Clement I that he is "the first of the successorsof St. Peter of whom anything definite is known." Between Peter and Clement the lists are fuzzy, and nothing is known about the various men on the various differing lists.

Again, I understand the Catholic doctrines and teachings very well. I've discussed them at length with numerous Catholic friends. I do not find them convincing, and God has not led me to put my faith in those teachings. I don't try to convince Catholics not to be Catholics, but I do present the good reasons non-Catholics have for not accepting the claims of the church that violate what we believe God's truths teach us.

Naturally I disagree but I'll leave it there.

Thanks for the discussion Brother James.

 

[neophyte]

Successors of Peter;

Irenaeus

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

Tertullian

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

The Little Labyrinth

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

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

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

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . 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], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
...
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Ambrose of Milan

"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

Augustine

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (Letters110 [A.D. 445]).
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004​

​

​

​

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

• tracts home
• browse tracts

filter by Category
Apologetics
Bible
Church
Eschatology
Eucharist
Evangelization
Heresy
History
Jesus
Mary
Morality
Non-Catholic
Papacy
Prayer and Devotion
Sacrament
Saints
Trinity








"Your online radio shows have aided me in my journey back to the Church this past year. No matter which program I listen to, I am bound to learn more concerning our beautiful teachings and traditions."
~ Jim, Chicago, IL






Related




Video



What about the bad Popes?




Infallibility of the Pope




Is Peter the Rock in Matthew 16:18?


Tracts


Apostolic Tradition



Origins of Peter as Pope



Papal Infallibility


Radio Shows


Pope Fiction



The Primacy of Peter



What Did the Early Church Look Like?


Quick Questions


What are the criteria for a pope in choosing his new name?



Why is the pope called the "Holy Father" instead of just "Father"?



The Bible says that Peter wasn't in Rome. So how could he be its first bishop?


Magazine Articles


The Name Game



Stewards of the Kingdom



How Do We Know It’s the True Church?







Inside The Mind of Benedict XVI
In this easy-to-read, concise booklet, you'll find the most important passages from Cardinal Ratzinger's books, essays, papers, speeches, and public statements on theology, morality, and the role of the Church in the world today. It also answers the spurious charges made against him and uses his past writings to give a fascinating look at what Ratzinger may do during his Papacy.








"Since He Himself has declared and said of the bread: This is My Body, who shall dare to doubt any more?"
~ Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, Doctor of the Church, Saint; unambiguous on the Real Presence (circa A.D. 347).