Hi, all. This started as a question about a specific anti-Catholic preacher named Charlie Campbell (Always Be Ready Ministries - associated with Calvary Chapel), and it was suggested that I create specific threads about the different topics he covers in his video “Roman Catholicism,” to which I am trying to create a response. So, reposting this part from my previous, general thread:
In the first part of the video, Campbell takes a direction I didn’t expect as much. He doesn’t get into the scriptural analysis of, for example, Matthew 16:18 and the Petros/petra thing; in fact, he doesn’t even address that at all. Essentially, he argues that Catholic history is untrue.
About seven minutes in, he starts with: “Most scholars, outside of the Catholic Church,” he says, “reject the popular teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, that the church at Rome was established by Christ Himself through the apostle Peter.” Following are Campbell’s basic points:
[list]No record of Peter as bishop of Rome.
[list]Irenaeus’ list of “the first twelve leaders of the church of Rome… Peter’s name does not appear. Irenaeus says that the first leader of the church in Rome was actually a man by the name of Linus.”[/list]
[list]Eusebius “never mentions Peter as the Bishop of Rome. He does tell us that Peter came to Rome ‘about the end of his days’ and was crucified there.” (emphasis his)[/list]
[list]Paul doesn’t name Peter in his greetings in the letter to the Romans. “That would be a strange omission if Peter was living in Rome, and especially if he was the overseer of the church there.”[/list]
I found Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies,” Book III Ch. 3, and it’s easy to see where he left out the part about Peter and Paul “hand[ing] over the office of the episcopate to Linus.” I also found Eusebius’ “Church History,” Book III Ch. 4, that says that Linus was “Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there.” So while it’s not explicit (i.e., “Peter was the Bishop of Rome”), I think it’s hard to be the successor of someone who wasn’t in that position. It does raise a question that I’d like to be able to head off: Eusebius says that Clement was the third bishop, but shouldn’t he be fourth? Irenaeus lists Linus (2), Anacletus (3), and Clement (4).
[list]Next up: “Most scholars date the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church at 590 A.D…” My question: Where’s this date from? Haven’t heard this before.[/list]
[list]Then: “Rome’s claim to supremacy and legal jurisdiction was vigorously resisted by other church leaders and could never be enforce in the eastern portion of the Empire.” Then dissension remained between Rome and Constantinople, culminating in the big split in 1054.[/list]
I think once I get past this and into the doctrinal things (mostly that we’re un-Biblical), it’ll be a little easier for me to find information. Anything that can get me started with the history would be wonderful. Thanks!