If one wants to claim that the Bishop of Rome somehow is to rule the entire Church because of Peter...the said can be said about Antioch. Peter was actually Bishop in Antioch where as in Rome he died. The only reason Rome was given any sort of "first amongst equal" status is because it was the old capital of the empire. Trying to use a city for theological status is typical Frankish political intrigue. The 'catholic church' is a Frankish innovation.
If you listen to the teaching, you'll see that a comment about Peter is not a comment about the Pope. Cyprian says even stronger things about Peter, and he applies it to bishops in general, but it's clear that he did not recognize a Pope in Rome. There's nothing in Clement's statement mentioning Rome or even a bishop. It's a big leap of logic to take a statement that Peter is the preeminent disciple and turn it into a statement that there's a Pope in Rome.
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? Behold, we have left all and have followed you [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:35 [A.D. 200]).
And that from Clement of Alexandria, in the time frame that you claim the Pope did not exist in.
I watched all 5 parts. Good clear explanation that addresses not only the fact that the pope is a fabrication but also gives a foundational teaching of church government based on Scriptural plural eldership.
If one wants to claim that the Bishop of Rome somehow is to rule the entire Church because of Peter...the said can be said about Antioch. Peter was actually Bishop in Antioch where as in Rome he died. The only reason Rome was given any sort of "first amongst equal" status is because it was the old capital of the empire. Trying to use a city for theological status is typical Frankish political intrigue. The 'catholic church' is a Frankish innovation.
Twycross 1 year ago
great lecture!
ManaPunjabi 2 years ago
If you listen to the teaching, you'll see that a comment about Peter is not a comment about the Pope. Cyprian says even stronger things about Peter, and he applies it to bishops in general, but it's clear that he did not recognize a Pope in Rome. There's nothing in Clement's statement mentioning Rome or even a bishop. It's a big leap of logic to take a statement that Peter is the preeminent disciple and turn it into a statement that there's a Pope in Rome.
shammahbn 3 years ago
Matthew 16:18
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? Behold, we have left all and have followed you [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:35 [A.D. 200]).
And that from Clement of Alexandria, in the time frame that you claim the Pope did not exist in.
onecatholicchurch 3 years ago
Thanks, Soldyur!
shammahbn 3 years ago
I watched all 5 parts. Good clear explanation that addresses not only the fact that the pope is a fabrication but also gives a foundational teaching of church government based on Scriptural plural eldership.
Soldyur 3 years ago