Romes "universal authority" known for all ages?

[simonthezealot]

Topic: Did the early church believe as is suggested from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome was specifically that person whom held universal authority?
Affirmative
Negative: Simonthezealot
Rounds: 4 rounds for a total of 8 posts.
Format: Alternating rounds initiated by the affirmative and concluding with the negative.
Time limit between posts: 1 week maximum, no minimum.
Maximum length for each post: 1000 words.
Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule, which means that each response may contain no more than 200 words which quote or reference an outside source. The quote/reference citation is not part of the grand word total for the post, but proper citation is necessary if used. I’d like to add that when quoting snippets of Early Christian Writers that they should be cited in the most complete context available.
Start Date:
Whenever

[chestertonrules]

Topic: Did the early church believe as is suggested from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome was specifically that person whom held universal authority?
Affirmative
Negative: Simonthezealot
Rounds: 4 rounds for a total of 8 posts.
Format: Alternating rounds initiated by the affirmative and concluding with the negative.
Time limit between posts: 1 week maximum, no minimum.
Maximum length for each post: 1000 words.
Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule, which means that each response may contain no more than 200 words which quote or reference an outside source. The quote/reference citation is not part of the grand word total for the post, but proper citation is necessary if used. I’d like to add that when quoting snippets of Early Christian Writers that they should be cited in the most complete context available.
Start Date:
Whenever
The Bishop of Rome became the home of the worldwide leader of the Church, but that is not related to the authority granted by Christ.

So, you initial statement needs to be adjusted in my opinion.

By "known for all ages", do you mean known by God?

Can you provide the actual statement you are referring to?

You ask:

Did they think the Bishop of Rome was specifically that person whom held universal authority?


Who is they?

[simonthezealot]

The Bishop of Rome became the home of the worldwide leader of the Church, but that is not related to the authority granted by Christ.

So, you initial statement needs to be adjusted in my opinion.

By "known for all ages", do you mean known by God?

Can you provide the actual statement you are referring to?

You ask:

Did they think the Bishop of Rome was specifically that person whom held universal authority?


Who is they?

I don't understand your first paragraph "bishop became" but it does not relate to the authority granted by Christ ? ie the keys?

"They" are the early church/Christian writers. (The ANF)

Actual statement is from here...
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm)

from there I found this...

For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the 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 this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

[chestertonrules]

I don't understand your first paragraph "bishop became" but it does not relate to the authority granted by Christ ? ie the keys?

"They" are the early church/Christian writers. (The ANF)

Actual statement is from here...
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm (http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm)

from there I found this...

For "no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the 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 this day and for ever he lives" and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council
The keys came to the Bishop of Rome, but can be placed anywhere. So a more accurate statement would be: Did the early Church fathers think that the holder of the keys of authority passed on from Peter held universal authority over the Christian Church.

I assume that "it was known in every age"
refers to every age after Christ established the Church. Is this your assumption?

Not to nitpick, but I want to be clear.

Thanks.

[chestertonrules]

((( Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule, which means that each response may contain no more than 200 words which quote or reference an outside source.))))



The entire point of this debate is to determine what the early fathers believed.

I can only debate this topic by providing their quotes.

My words can add nothing of substance to the question at hand.

What do you think?

[simonthezealot]

The keys came to the Bishop of Rome, but can be placed anywhere. So a more accurate statement would be: Did the early Church fathers think that the holder of the keys of authority passed on from Peter held universal authority over the Christian Church.

I assume that "it was known in every age"
refers to every age after Christ established the Church. Is this your assumption?

Not to nitpick, but I want to be clear.

Thanks.
Yes, essentially what I am saying is this; based on what Vat 1 says from Peter forward "it's always been known"
that his successors the bishops of "the holy roman see" have had universal authority over the church, my view is there is NOTHING for at least 170-200 years after Christ resurrection that would even give one cause to think as such, yet Vat 1 says known for every age.

I hope you understand where I am coming from here.

[stumpjumper]

Chestertonrules

Do you agree to debate Simon's proposes topic?

If so, do you agree to the parameters?

This is the proposal forum not where the debate will take place.

[simonthezealot]

((( Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule, which means that each response may contain no more than 200 words which quote or reference an outside source.))))



The entire point of this debate is to determine what the early fathers believed.

I can only debate this topic by providing their quotes.

My words can add nothing of substance to the question at hand.

What do you think?




Their quotes are fine as long as an effort to show them in their most complete context is made.

[chestertonrules]

Chestertonrules

Do you agree to debate Simon's proposes topic?

If so, do you agree to the parameters?

This is the proposal forum not where the debate will take place.
I just want to make sure the premise is clear and the conditions are valid for the debate in question.

I'm not going to agree until all is clarified.

[chestertonrules]

Their quotes are fine as long as an effort to show them in their most complete context is made.
That sounds good.

How's this for a primary premise:

Did the early church believe as is suggested from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church?

[simonthezealot]

That sounds good.

How's this for a primary premise:

Did the early church believe as is suggested from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church?
Vatican 1 declares "the see of Rome" it must be in the debate. (and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See)
This debate is on the validity of the see of Rome as the always known universal authority from specifically peter forward as vat 1 claims.

[chestertonrules]

Vatican 1 declares "the see of Rome" it must be in the debate. (and presides and "exercises judgment in his successors" the bishops of the Holy Roman See)
This debate is on the validity of the see of Rome as the always known universal authority from specifically peter forward as vat 1 claims.
The see of Rome is where the successor of Peter has come to be located, but that was not always the case.

The Vatican two quote is referring to the current location because Peter's successors are now the Bishop of Rome.

We know that Peter spent time at Antioch, for example. This in no way changed the fact that he held the keys.

Do you understand my point?

[simonthezealot]

The see of Rome is where the successor of Peter has come to be located, but that was not always the case.

The Vatican two quote is referring to the current location because Peter's successors are now the Bishop of Rome.

We know that Peter spent time at Antioch, for example. This in no way changed the fact that he held the keys.

Do you understand my point?
First Vatican not 2nd, the debate is about after Peter. Vat 1 says from Peter forward its the see of Rome, listen I know peter passed a bishopric off to Antioch who cares that has nothing to do with the claim of Universal authority known for all ages in Rome.

[stumpjumper]

So where are we here?

Can we agree on a premise of : Did the early church believe, as is suggested from Vatican 1, that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church as "the see of Rome"?

[simonthezealot]

So where are we here?

Can we agree on a premise of : Did the early church believe, as is suggested from Vatican 1, that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church as "the see of Rome"?
I'm on with it.

[stumpjumper]

Okay

If Chestertonrules agrees with it and the parameters in the OP, which seem reasonable to me, we can start the debate thread, then.

[simonthezealot]

I've sent Chesterton some messages and he hasn't responded maybe someone else is willing to take on the debate?

[simonthezealot]

Okay

If Chestertonrules agrees with it and the parameters in the OP, which seem reasonable to me, we can start the debate thread, then.
He has PM'd me and has chose not to debate based on the parameters.

[LamorakDesGalis]

I've sent Chesterton some messages and he hasn't responded maybe someone else is willing to take on the debate?

Is it necessary that the debate participant has to personally hold the affirmative?


LDG

[simonthezealot]

No why what did you have in mind?

[LamorakDesGalis]

No why what did you have in mind?

I was thinking of doing the debate even though I am not Catholic.

[stumpjumper]

That can be set up if you both like.

Are you both good with the initial parameters and this revised premise: "Did the early church believe, as is suggested from Vatican 1, that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church as "the see of Rome"?

For the record, you do not have to agree with a position to defend it and sometimes it's easier to do so...

[simonthezealot]

While I have absolutely no problem with it, one would think a Member of that church would desire to stand up for an issue so critically/historically important to their church instead of leaving an outsider to defend it.
We are seeing a churches claim and none to defend said claim.

[simonthezealot]

That can be set up if you both like.

Are you both good with the initial parameters and this revised premise: "Did the early church believe, as is suggested from Vatican 1, that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church as "the see of Rome"?

For the record, you do not have to agree with a position to defend it and sometimes it's easier to do so...
Yes

[LamorakDesGalis]

While I have absolutely no problem with it, one would think a Member of that church would desire to stand up for an issue so critically/historically important to their church instead of leaving an outsider to defend it.
We are seeing a churches claim and none to defend said claim.

And perhaps an RCC might come forward, given time...I can easily wait 2-3 weeks, and if no one does come forward, I'll jump in. Sound ok to you?


LDG

[simonthezealot]

And perhaps an RCC might come forward, given time...I can easily wait 2-3 weeks, and if no one does come forward, I'll jump in. Sound ok to you?


LDG
Sounds awesome, let's give it until the 26th.

[MrPolo]

I may jump in if the premise is as follows:

Simon takes the following position:
Using the quote in post #3, Vatican I claims it was “known for all ages” that the bishops of the Holy Roman See were Peter's successors, and these bishops obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.

I'd also like to know what Simon wishes to assert by "all ages"? Will he insist that includes B.C. dates? What is an "age"?

Also, who has to "know" about what Vatican I suggests?

Also, how many rounds it this supposed to go?

Let's start with that. I've never debated before. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/4.gif

[simonthezealot]

I may jump in if the premise is as follows:

Simon takes the following position:
Using the quote in post #3, Vatican I claims it was “known for all ages” that the bishops of the Holy Roman See were Peter's successors, and these bishops obtain the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.
I'd also like to know what Simon wishes to assert by "all ages"? Will he insist that includes B.C. dates? What is an "age"?

Also, who has to "know" about what Vatican I suggests?

Also, how many rounds it this supposed to go?

Let's start with that. I've never debated before. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/4.gif
As to the info from post three I'd tend to prefer the term "universal authority" (less ambiguos) as opposed to "primacy of peter" (which many define differenty), so it reads as such...
Vatican I claims it was “known for all ages” that the bishops of the Holy Roman See were Peter's successors, and these bishops obtain the "universal authority" over the whole Church.

As far as known for all ages,NOT BC I'm willing to suggest and give a window of 150 or so years after the Christ ascended to the right hand or even extend it as late as ireneaus-200a.d. for you to show any substantiation of the knowledge of "universal authority" as suggested by Vat1.

I've not debated formally either, 3 or 4 rounds see post 1 proposal I copied the idea from a previous debate.

[MrPolo]

[B][COLOR=darkred]As to the info from post three I'd tend to prefer the term "universal authority"

Ok so your position would be:
Vatican I erroneously claims it was “known for all ages” that the bishops of the Holy Roman See were Peter's successors, and these bishops obtain "universal authority" over the whole Church.

And my position would be to say "that assertion is incorrect."

Is that right?

[simonthezealot]

And to attempt to prove it "has been known" using historical documentation and reasoning.

[thereselittleflower]

it seems to me that the two participants should find as many points of agreement as possible before the debate starts so as to make it more effective and less encumbered.

For instance, do both agree what the keys represent?

Do both agree the keys were given only to Peter?

[stumpjumper]

This is the proposal:

Topic: Did the early church believe as is suggested from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had a successor who was in charge of the whole church? Did they think the Bishop of Rome was specifically that person whom held universal authority?
Affirmative
Negative: Simonthezealot
Rounds: 4 rounds for a total of 8 posts.
Format: Alternating rounds initiated by the affirmative and concluding with the negative.
Time limit between posts: 1 week maximum, no minimum.
Maximum length for each post: 1000 words.
Quotes and outside references are allowed. Please note that all quotes will fall under the 20% rule, which means that each response may contain no more than 200 words which quote or reference an outside source. The quote/reference citation is not part of the grand word total for the post, but proper citation is necessary if used. I’d like to add that when quoting snippets of Early Christian Writers that they should be cited in the most complete context available.
Start Date:
Whenever
http://img.christianforums.com/style/misc/progress.gif

With this updated premise as acceptable as well:

"Vatican I claims it was “known for all ages” that the bishops of the Holy Roman See were Peter's successors, and these bishops obtained "universal authority" over the whole Church and this position can be demonstrated through historical documentation and reasoning."

STZ takes the negative on that topic/premise.

[stumpjumper]

Do we have a taker on the above?

[thereselittleflower]

It's too poorly defined.

[simonthezealot]

It's too poorly defined.
TLF I believe stump is speaking toward MrPOLO...

[MrPolo]

Topic:

In the interest of moving forward, I made slight modifications and combined stumpjumper's 2 premeses:

Topic: Did the early church believe as has been read from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had successors (via the Bishops of Rome) who had universal authority over the whole Church? Can this position can be demonstrated through historical documentation and reasoning?

[stumpjumper]

If that is acceptable to STZ, we can start the debate thread.

[stumpjumper]

I would just need to know who wants to go first, if the debate will be alternating. If it is, the affirmative almost always goes first.

You could have simultaneous posts but then neither side would have a post to respond to initially.

[MrPolo]

I would just need to know who wants to go first,

Doesn't matter to me. I'd also like to encourage posts under 1,000 words, but that doesn't matter either I suppose.

[simonthezealot]

In the interest of moving forward, I made slight modifications and combined stumpjumper's 2 premeses:

Topic: Did the early church believe as has been read from Vatican 1 that it was “known for all ages” that Peter himself had successors (via the Bishops of Rome) who had universal authority over the whole Church? Can this position can be demonstrated through historical documentation and reasoning?
I'm fine with this.
If that is acceptable to STZ, we can start the debate thread.
It's okay.:thumbsup:
I would just need to know who wants to go first, if the debate will be alternating. If it is, the affirmative almost always goes first.

You could have simultaneous posts but then neither side would have a post to respond to initially.
I have no problem going first but that most assuredly will put Polo on the defensive which does seem ackward when proving an affirmative.
Either way.

Doesn't matter to me. I'd also like to encourage posts under 1,000 words, but that doesn't matter either I suppose.
I agree I believe posts that are long lose those who desire to follow along.

[stumpjumper]

Allright then I'll set up a debate thread with these parameters and the affirmative will post first.

1000 word max.

[stumpjumper]

The Debate thread can be found Here (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=46942608#post46942608)

Good luck to both.