Can you be Protestant and accept papal primacy?

[Reuben_J]

Hi reuben,

I would add a few things to your point. Some might say you are against the institutionalizing of authority/teaching, of any setting themselves as "ultimate’’. I am sure they thought themselves to be speaking for God, even for Moses and the Law, which we know are God given and not of themselves. Of course God is the ultimate Father, teacher, authority. Now who carries it on Earth ? But you may be leaving room for another aspect of what Jesus meant.

From the book of Job we learn that God gives understanding to whom He will, is not a respecter of persons, even office. That is even a young Elihu can have the better understanding above the ‘elder’ folk. What helps keep our teachers, ‘fathers’ and leaders humble is that the same understanding that God gives them is also given to ‘laity’ so to speak. A bit like we are all ‘priests’ . A bit like He will write the law on our heart, we will not to be taught as in the manner of olden days. So I think Jesus says yes, we will have teachers, and fathers, even spiritual ones, and elders, but accentuates our personal relationship with the Father as the ultimate, and not to supplant that by/with those folks gifted over us, both for their sakes and ours.

Blessings

Hi Ben. I am not really sure what you are trying to say but from the gist of it, I think you agreed with my thought on this. I mean, that would how I think too.

If you are saying the Pope as the ultimate ‘Father’ which Jesus abhorred in these verses, then that would be misunderstanding the position of the Pope from Catholics point of reference being Mathew 16.

As for the other poster which I replied to, I would like to say this. Understanding the Bible is not too difficult. There is a leeway, of course, where we can see certain passage differently and yet can be justified somehow. I really do not mind about that. But when someone comes out with something that is beyond the normal understanding, I would question their sincerity or that they may just want to defend their different position by manipulating the meaning of the Bible verses…

 

[Brendan_64]

Papal infallibility, and other innovations of Vatican I, are seen by many, myself included, as teachings which are not properly Catholic. Rather, it is properly Catholic (universal) to accept the fact of the Bishop of Rome’s primacy at the universal level, but that differences of understanding exist about how the primacy is to be exercised and about its scriptural and theological foundations.

Christ did not simply tell Peter that he was the rock upon which His Church would be built, He also told him, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

What did Christ mean by this, if not to give Peter (the papacy) specific authority?

And what is meant by having the power to bind on Earth and it will be bound in Heaven, if not the ultimate earthly authority to bind dogma (at least in certain circumstances)?

 

[KathleenGee]

Isn’t the basic premise of Protestantism is that regarding authority?

Christ established His Church which is both spiritual and physical.

The pope is the universal head but he is a servant of God. The problem is seeing the position as one of a man having power, rather than being a successor to Peter and serving the Church in Christ by Christ and for Christ.

 

[JonNC]

Isn’t the basic premise of Protestantism is that regarding authority?

Christ established His Church which is both spiritual and physical.

The pope is the universal head but he is a servant of God. The problem is seeing the position as one of a man having power, rather than being a successor to Peter and serving the Church in Christ by Christ and for Christ.

What does it mean that the pope is the universal head of the Church? Does it mean a primacy of honor, as it was understood in the first millennium, or a supremacy with universal jurisdiction as it is now claimed to be?

Jon

 

[Brendan_64]

What does it mean that the pope is the universal head of the Church? Does it mean a primacy of honor, as it was understood in the first millennium, or a supremacy with universal jurisdiction as it is now claimed to be?

Jon

It means seeing the Pope as having been granted by Christ the authority to bind and loose, that what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven. What is that if not universal jurisdiction?

 

[JonNC]

It means seeing the Pope as having been granted by Christ the authority to bind and loose, that what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven. What is that if not universal jurisdiction?

Yet every Disciple was granted the authority to bind and loose.
Matthew 18, John 20.
In fact, in John 20, He sends them out as equals. In Luke 22, He requires them to be equals.

Nicaea canon 6 recognizes Alexandria has having the same authority as Rome.

If one wishes to speak of a primacy, first among equals, I could not object.

Jon

 

[Reuben_J]

Yet every Disciple was granted the authority to bind and loose.

But not all were given the “Key” except the disciple Peter, one and only. I think that need to be mentioned together so that it is not inadvertently omitted and give us misleading understanding.

 

[benhur]

But not all were given the “Key” except the disciple Peter, one and only. I think that need to be mentioned together so that it is not inadvertently omitted and give us misleading understanding.

It just strikes me odd that Jesus was somewhat limited by being in only one place at a time, and how could He do greater things, or how could He say we would do greater things, after He ascended.? Seems to me to be a bit counter intuitive then to position supreme authority in one person , again.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

It means seeing the Pope as having been granted by Christ the authority to bind and loose, that what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven. What is that if not universal jurisdiction?

Yes, he and the apostles had authority. So do we all, not withstanding offices, some offices. It is a declarative authority. For example, each of us can say with certainty to anyone that if they believe in the Lord Jesus, even be baptized, they shall be saved. If they do not believe, they shall suffer damnation. Not sure if one can bind or loose more than that. The binding is also then limited if it rests in one man/office. The best you can say is that all others can do it (bishops, elders, laity) but thru the pope. But again, that would be quite restrictive, and limiting, of the Holy Spirit’s function and capability. We are there then left with Peter and Paul, along with the apostles, as being representative of what we should be like, or be in union with also, as a measure to see if we indeed be in the Spirit. The’ 'chair", the “seat”, even like Moses seat , speaks to us in that real unifying fashion but not as an office per say ( as later developed).

It is also clear that Jesus holds the keys, per Revelations (any kind of key ever made, He holds, even still, uses or will use). I gather from that what Peter (and the rest of us) was given was conditional. I would prefer to think that Jesus opens or shuts all doors, for us, and not the other way around. That is what Jesus binds, we have authority to be the instruments of that binding. That is the condition. It is not “carte blanche”. I have also read that it is also per the Greek understanding (the greater moving the lesser).

For sure Peter used the ‘keys’ on His first sermon, and in first going to a Gentile. But hopefully no one will argue that it was the Spirit, speaking thru Him, and giving understanding and conviction of sin, judgement, and righteousness, to the listeners. The condition was met, a perfect union of the Spirit’s will and man’s.The Holy Spirit also forbade Paul to go to such and such a city on several occasions, but also prompted travels to others. Again, the keys, the opening /shutting done by Jesus, as per Revelations 3:7

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben. I am not really sure what you are trying to say but from the gist of it, I think you agreed with my thought on this. I mean, that would how I think too.

If you are saying the Pope as the ultimate ‘Father’ which Jesus abhorred in these verses, then that would be misunderstanding the position of the Pope from Catholics point of reference being Mathew 16.

Hi Reuben,

You are the one that used the word ‘ultimate’( “setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures”). I think what Jesus says was ultimate was Moses seat (the Law-Holy Writ). Mat 23:2. However, those sitting in the chair (Pharisees, interpreting the Law, Holy Writ) were obviously not ultimate, or that it was conditional, upon them being free from private interpretation.I think the chapter deals with their carnality. from that carnality comes bad practices, even bad doctrine (for we are told they also had “bad doctrine, the leaven”) . The apostles were then told basically discern what to obey and what not to obey. The office, title was not sacrosanct. Scripture was above the office. Jesus really encourages individual responsibility of "revelation’’ of correct interpretation. Hence, “Do not be called rabbi for one is Master over all, but we are all brethren” . We are also all priests .So why call one rabbi, if indeed we are all rabbis? Again, we are told the NT would be different, and the "law’ , Moses seat, even Christ’s Law, would be written and residing in out hearts, and we would not have need of one man teaching the other (leading to the well, yes).

What Jesus abhorred was wrong representation of God, His Word, or intent in any tradition. Mat 23 certainly does not lay groundwork for an ultimate office, save His own. It is also about our relationship to Him. He abhors anything, or any office, that would supplant that relationship with the ultimate authority. That is, one’s decision to say for example to be Catholic, is their own and before the Lord. Ones decision to obey the pope on any matter is between one and the Lord. Like the pope is not sacrosanct , but freedom of conscience and will, and the ability to have divine revelation on the matter to follow him or not, is. In this we are brothers, before the Lord.

Blessings

 

[Brendan_64]

It just strikes me odd that Jesus was somewhat limited by being in only one place at a time, and how could He do greater things, or how could He say we would do greater things, after He ascended.? Seems to me to be a bit counter intuitive then to position supreme authority in one person , again.

Blessings

Well that is what Christ did when He built His Church on Peter, gave him the keys, and granted him the authority to bind and loose, on Earth and it will be bound in Heaven.

It might seem counter intuitive to you that Christ would grant specific universal authority in one person, but that is what Christ did indeed state. Are you arguing that Christ didn’t really mean what He said in the Gospels? Or are you arguing that what Christ said in the Gospels only applies to a specific time period?

 

[benhur]

Well that is what Christ did when He built His Church on Peter, gave him the keys, and granted him the authority to bind and loose, on Earth and it will be bound in Heaven.

It might seem counter intuitive to you that Christ would grant specific universal authority in one person, but that is what Christ did indeed state. Are you arguing that Christ didn’t really mean what He said in the Gospels? Or are you arguing that what Christ said in the Gospels only applies to a specific time period?

Hi Brendan,

Hey, I am probably arguing everything, but I appreciate you trying to keep it specific, asking about time period. I am arguing the CC interpretation of what Christ meant in the gospels. Did He really state Rome’s bishop would be supreme, judging all other bishops, infallibly, unconditionally ?

But yes, I first argue as to whether Peter ruled over the other apostles. I then obviously
argue whether there be any successors in that role, and that infallibly. So you see I would argue everything but the kitchen sink.(One can not remove the universality of Peter being at least ‘first amongst equals’, hence the ‘sink’ remains untouched by me.)

Would you argue against the Holy Spirit being the true Vicar of Christ, as seen in scripture, or history, or even in us ?

Blessings

 

[Reuben_J]

It just strikes me odd that Jesus was somewhat limited by being in only one place at a time, and how could He do greater things, or how could He say we would do greater things, after He ascended.? Seems to me to be a bit counter intuitive then to position supreme authority in one person , again.

Blessings

Frankly speaking, even if I am not Catholic, I don’t see it that way. I, as Reuben, can do greater thing because I am given the Holy Spirit, but it is up to me to use my gift. It will not be affected by the position of the person who is given the ‘Key’.

 

[Abu]

Starwarsfan2
Many Lutherans accept the bishop of Romes primacy of honor ( including me ) but reject papal supremacy and other unscriptural additions to the bishops power, but primacy was never a problem .
JonNC #42
What does it mean that the pope is the universal head of the Church? Does it mean a primacy of honor, as it was understood in the first millennium, or a supremacy with universal jurisdiction as it is now claimed to be?

Unscriptural? You must be joking!

1. The errors above arise from ignoring that from the very first ONLY Peter was given the power and authority from Christ as Christ’s Supreme Vicar as is starkly evident in this:
   **All four promises to Peter alone: **
   “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
   “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
   “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
   “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So no one else was given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

1. So from the first Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

Why deny St John and St Paul too? The Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels!

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Precisely.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321). The teaching of Ecumenical Councils has to be approved by Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

That is from the first 300 years – the rebellion took hold at Trullo in the seventh century!

 

[Abu]

jschwartz #35
Papal infallibility, and other innovations of Vatican I, are seen by many, myself included, as teachings which are not properly Catholic.

Then it is time to consider the reality which harbours no “innovations”.

Christ Himself promised the protection of the Holy Spirit “to guide you into all truth”(Jn 16:13). All truth is no error. As St Augustine of Hippo affirmed: “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” (Sermones, 131,10).
[See *Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1988, p 217].

Who can decide what is “properly Catholic” other than the Magisterium instituted by the Christ?

When a truth in the Church is challenged, She may deem it necessary to define it as dogma or doctrine. That infallibility conferred by the Christ was challenged by Gallicanism which became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.
catholicculture.org/cult…x.cfm?id=33692

That was why the need for the dogma on papal infallibility became necessary to define the reality instituted by Christ.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Brendan,

Hey, I am probably arguing everything, but I appreciate you trying to keep it specific, asking about time period. I am arguing the CC interpretation of what Christ meant in the gospels. Did He really state Rome’s bishop would be supreme, judging all other bishops, infallibly, unconditionally ?

But yes, I first argue as to whether Peter ruled over the other apostles. I then obviously
argue whether there be any successors in that role, and that infallibly. So you see I would argue everything but the kitchen sink.(One can not remove the universality of Peter being at least ‘first amongst equals’, hence the ‘sink’ remains untouched by me.)

Would you argue against the Holy Spirit being the true Vicar of Christ, as seen in scripture, or history, or even in us ?

Blessings

‘The bishops of all peoples should know the first protos] among them and recognize him as the head, and do nothing that exceeds their authority without his consideration. Each should carry out only that which relates to his own diocese and to areas belonging to it. But the first among them should also do nothing without the consideration of all.’

• the 34th Apostolic Canon

 

[Brendan_64]

Hi Brendan,

Hey, I am probably arguing everything, but I appreciate you trying to keep it specific, asking about time period. I am arguing the CC interpretation of what Christ meant in the gospels. Did He really state Rome’s bishop would be supreme, judging all other bishops, infallibly, unconditionally ?

But yes, I first argue as to whether Peter ruled over the other apostles. I then obviously
argue whether there be any successors in that role, and that infallibly. So you see I would argue everything but the kitchen sink.(One can not remove the universality of Peter being at least ‘first amongst equals’, hence the ‘sink’ remains untouched by me.)

Would you argue against the Holy Spirit being the true Vicar of Christ, as seen in scripture, or history, or even in us ?

Blessings

It seems to me that you are trying to ignore the words that Christ actually stated to Peter.

Christ built His Church on Peter - Fact (Christ said this Himself)
Christ gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven - Fact (Christ said this Himself)
Christ gave Peter the power to bind on Earth and it will be bound in Heaven and to loose on Earth and it will be loosed in Heaven - Fact (Christ said this Himself)

The teachings of the Catholic Church on this matter simply reflect the words Christ Himself actually said. If you deny the authority of Peter, you deny the words of Christ.

And the Holy Spirit is not the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the Paracelete. The Holy Spirit is God (like Christ). The Holy Spirit is not subservient to Christ, whereas Christ’s vicar is indeed subservient to Christ.

 

[benhur]

It seems to me that you are trying to ignore the words that Christ actually stated to Peter.

Hi Brandon,

Hopefully you realize that there has been another interpretation for the Lord’s words. That is, no one ignores His words - the CC, O, or P interpretations. It would be like me saying you ignore the other interpretation but I know you don’t .You merely disagree with them.

Christ built His Church on Peter - Fact (Christ said this Himself)

Absolutely agree. But where does that say if you are built upon that you were supreme leader , who appointed successors , who were infallible on faith and morals ? That requires interpretation, and is only a fact to the holder thereof, but not to another.

Besides, here is a fact we both agree on: the church was built upon the foundation of the twelve apostles, Peter being one of them, and Christ the cornerstone. Fact per Revelations. So yes, Christ built His church upon Peter, but also all the other apostles.
Christ gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven - Fact (Christ said this Himself)

Christ gave Peter the power to bind on Earth and it will be bound in Heaven and to loose on Earth and it will be loosed in Heaven - Fact (Christ said this Himself)

Absolutely agree. Just disagree with what that means exactly. The fact is the other apostles also bound and loosed, and that Christ also has the keys and uses them to open and close all doors.

The teachings of the Catholic Church on this matter simply reflect the words Christ Himself actually said.

Understand, as do the teachings of those other churches.

If you deny the authority of Peter, you deny the words of Christ.

Again , no one denies the authority given to Peter. We just disagree that he had authority over the other apostles, and all Christendom as stated and practiced by the CC.

And the Holy Spirit is not the Vicar of Christ. The Holy Spirit is the Paracelete. The Holy Spirit is God (like Christ). The Holy Spirit is not subservient to Christ, whereas Christ’s vicar is indeed subservient to Christ.

Did not know that ‘vicar’ has to mean ‘sub’ or ‘lesser’. In loose terms the Godhead is agent to itself perfectly. They serve each other, at least. It is a big deal, and one of the reasons the church is more powerful after Jesus ascended, and the Holy Spirit ‘Paracleted’, even vicared. Anyone else would be of a lesser form, indeed ‘sub’.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

Benhur #56
But where does that say if you are built upon that you were supreme leader , who appointed successors , who were infallible on faith and morals ? That requires interpretation, and is only a fact to the holder thereof, but not to another.

Because God the Son, the Christ, specifically mandated that on Peter the Rock He would build His Church and none of the Apostles ever challenged Peter’s leadership because they knew that he alone held the leadership position.

Because Peter and the apostles were promised ALL TRUTH from God Himself [Jn 16:13] and guaranteed from God Himself that “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Mt 28:20), which misguided mortal still wants to call God a liar? As clear as day, the Christ mandated successors. Where does that leave any opening for Christ’s own Church to teach error in dogma and doctrine on faith and morals to the whole of mankind?
Anyone who sets himself up to misinterpret God’s clear foundation of His own Church opposes God.

Again , no one denies the authority given to Peter. We just disagree that he had authority over the other apostles, and all Christendom as stated and practiced by the CC

.
You need to examine the reality as shown by the facts:

1. Jesus established HIS OWN CHURCH for ALL mankind (Post #52)
2. None of the Apostles challenged Peter as to teaching, precisely because He was supreme leader, and they all knew it, and even Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
3. In Mt 28:19-20, after His Resurrection, Jesus commands Peter and the Apostles to preach the good news and **promised the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all truth.” **[Jn 16:13].
4. So from the first Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12).
5. The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321).

 

[MartinJordan]

Bit off topic, but who besides God in the Bible reminded that one must endeavor to “Be Holy as I am Holy”?

MJ