Then you believe in a fallicy that cannot be proven via the historical record. Just sayin...
First there it is doubtful that I have error in my doctrine, especially when it concerns ecclesiology which includes the historical record of the "churches."
Second, I don't have a "fallacy."
And third I definitely, absolutely, 100% sure that I don't have a "fallicy." :laugh:
Hmmm... let's look a little closer at those claims...
Below, Irenaus gives a listing of the succession from Peter explicitly stating the Church of Rome as the most ancient and preeminent.
Irenaus Against Heresies Book III: 2-3 c. 180 A.D
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings;
By this time one out of two things had happened, and you haven't given the context of the quote. He either is speaking of those already in error such as gnostics and other groups that are meeting "in unauthorized assemblies" An assembly is a church. Or, less likely, considering the date, it would be the RCC speaking of Biblical churches.
[we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
It is good that these writings are not inspired due to the mistakes written in them. The writings are contradictory one to another and in each other.
1. All of the various churches: the one at Jerusalem, the church at Rome, the church at Antioch, the church at Ephesus, all seven churches that are mentioned in Rev.2,3, they are all "universally known." They were all known universally, that is known by the known world of that time.
2. Irenaus is mistaken in some of his history. There is ample proof that Peter was never in Rome, except possibly in the last year or two of his life, and that as a martyr ready to be put to death. He was never in any place of leadership in Rome. That can easily be demonstrated.
3. I think Irenaus believed in many off-the-wall doctrines, one of which may have been that Christ lived to the age of 80, didn't he? I don't believe he is a very trustworthy witness as to history.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
He is entitled to his opinion, whether or not it is Scriptural. His opinion may not be right, but the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, and they are that which is right, true, and of God.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.
Paul wrote to the church at Rome before Peter was ever there, and before he had been there. The church had already been established, and it wasn't established by an apostle. Paul doesn't address Peter, not in a greeting, nor in his farewell. He would have if he were in Rome, but Peter was not in Rome. Peter was a non-entity as far as Rome was concerned.
On the other hand what does Paul say:
Romans 16:3-5 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise
greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.
It is very probable that Priscilla and Aquilla either started or were instrumental in starting the church at Rome. The church was in their house when in its infancy. They were co-workers with Paul, who had laid down their lives for Paul, and for "all the churches of the Gentiles." Notice how the word "church" here is used in the plural. Look at this same passage in another translation, a very literal one.
Romans 16:3-5 Salute Priscilla and Aquilas, my fellow-workmen in Christ Jesus-- who for my life their own neck did lay down, to whom not only I give thanks, but also
all the assemblies of the nations-- and
the assembly at their house; salute Epaenetus, my beloved, who is first-fruit of Achaia to Christ. (Young's Literal Translation)
--A church is an assembly.
Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.
As I said, his history is not accurate. In fact it sounds like fiction. Paul lived in his own hired house, a prisoner. Not long after that he was beheaded. Peter was martyred. Every one of the apostles were martyred except John who was an exile to the Isle of Patmos. Others were sent far and wide as missionaries. As early as 52 A.D. Thomas and Barnabas arrived in India as missionaries there, and were also martyred there in 72 A.D. For the "apostles to be conversant with them", the generations of leaders that you mentioned is ludicrous. They left the scene fairly quickly except for John who lingered on in exile to the end of the first century. What chance of direct apostolic teaching did these people have? How about none!
In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.
It wasn't Rome; it was Paul who wrote the letter, and Paul did go to Rome. So the history is just being skewed a bit isn't it? Paul wrote a total of 4 letters to the Corinthians, two of which became part of the canon of Scriptures.
To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
-- Later, Augustine confirms this line of succession. --
Augustine (Letters 53:2 [A.D. 412]).
2. 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! Matthew 16:18 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.
The last time I looked, 180 AD comes way before the fourth century.
There you have evidence from the historical record showing that you are flat wrong on all of your claims
Uh oh....
The do, they can, and as shown above, they are able to back it up. You guys are so funny...
WM
If you look on Michael Wrenn website, you will find that he is the legitimate heir being that archbishop of the Celtic Anabaptist Church which also traces its roots right back to Peter pretty much using the same lines that you do. Why should I believe you any more than I believe him?
I put my trust in the Word of God, which says that the local church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the RCC.
