Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Isaiah45_9]

Peter and Paul labored together in Rome, and very likely ordained Linus together.

Anyway, Peter had successors from his time in Antioch, but those did not carry the Petrine responsibilities that were passed on to Linus.

Don’t you think that has to do more to the city and the fact that Paul was in that same city with Peter?

Also, Paul did leave us the best example of discipleship other than Christ, if his relationship with Timothy can tells us anything.

 

[spina1953]

Peter and Paul labored together in Rome, and very likely ordained Linus together.

Anyway, Peter had successors from his time in Antioch, but those did not carry the Petrine responsibilities that were passed on to Linus.

Paul had successors all over the empire, but none of them ever claimed the Keys given to Peter either.

HI Guanophore: My point exactly.

 

[joe371]

Don’t you think that has to do more to the city and the fact that Paul was in that same city with Peter?

Also, Paul did leave us the best example of discipleship other than Christ, if his relationship with Timothy can tells us anything.

Do you believe the following to be true: Peter had successors from his time in Antioch, but those did not carry the Petrine responsibilities that were passed on to Linus"?

 

[joe371]

Don’t you think that has to do more to the city and the fact that Paul was in that same city with Peter?

Also, Paul did leave us the best example of discipleship other than Christ, if his relationship with Timothy can tells us anything.

Jesus is the God-Man architect who builds His church, and His Church is built, not on confessions/professions, but rather on confessors - actual men - right? If this is so then is it possible (when Jesus said the following) that He was referring to Peter the confessor as opposed to his confession/profession - “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” Of course the Catholic Church embraces both…

“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

 

[guanophore]

Don't you think that has to do more to the city and the fact that Paul was in that same city with Peter?

Yes. I think that the “fullness of time” created the conditions the Gospel needed to flourish.

Also, Paul did leave us the best example of discipleship other than Christ, if his relationship with Timothy can tells us anything.

Yes his pastoral letters and legacy are so strong that some have accused him of re-creating Christianity.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Do you believe the following to be true: Peter had successors from his time in Antioch, but those did not carry the Petrine responsibilities that were passed on to Linus"?

It depends on what point of view you hold, Joe.

If you advocate for the keys alone, then anyone named by the keys will carry on the succession. In this case, the first person to succeed Peter is Evodius.

If you advocate for the keys and the city, then you’d have to make a case for the city. In which case, it does take away from the person with the keys.

Which one is it?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jesus is the God-Man architect who builds His church, and His Church is built, not on confessions/professions, but rather on confessors - actual men - right? If this is so then is it possible (when Jesus said the following) that He was referring to Peter the confessor as opposed to his confession/profession - “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” Of course the Catholic Church embraces both…

If it was so clear a matter of faith for Peter to be supreme.

How come the Whole Church missed this as an article of faith for over 1,400 years?

And how come the other Apostolic Sees still disagree with this development to this day?

“Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

Is the Church in one Apostle or in all the Apostles and the Prophets?

Can’t have both, Joe.

More than a thousand years of the Church’s Sacred Tradition holds to this very same passage you just quoted.

 

[joe371]

If it was so clear a matter of faith for Peter to be supreme.

How come the Whole Church missed this as an article of faith for over 1,400 years?

And how come the other Apostolic Sees still disagree with this development to this day?

Is the Church in one Apostle or in all the Apostles and the Prophets?

Can’t have both, Joe.

More than a thousand years of the Church’s Sacred Tradition holds to this very same passage you just quoted.

Why can’t you have both? We have the royal priesthood of all the believers and the ministerial priesthood of Jesus Christ. In the same way we have the royal priesthood of the baptised/ministerial priesthood without diminishing the uniqueness of Christ’s priesthood, we also have the foundation of the apostles etc. without diminishing the Petrine office in which Jesus selected one person as the Rock on which He would build his church; Jesus proceeded to tell Simon that He would give him alone the keys and His one church, of which He is the Cornerstone, built on Cephas – Satan can never infect with doctrinal errors. If Satan succeeded to do just that then hell would have prevailed.

Of course, interpret any way you want. However, when two people disagree like you and me (assuming I am a protestant for a sec because catholics take the doctrinal differences to the church as was done in the early CC) after deferring to sacred scripture and reaching an impasse - what should be our next step to resolve the problem?

If it was so clear a matter of faith for Peter to be supreme.

How come the Whole Church missed this as an article of faith for over 1,400 years?

And how come the other Apostolic Sees still disagree with this development to this day?

Peter the man was not supreme over anyone. It’s the Petrene office that is protected against the powers of Hell trying to upset the apple-cart, so to speak. The Whole Church did not miss this as an article of faith for over 1,400 years. However if I show citations you will just tell me I’m wrong.

When you say 'how come the other Apostolic Sees still disagree with this development to this day" - are you referring to our eastern brothers and sisters in Christ? If so then it’s simple they stopped believing what their predecessors believed. I hava an extensive list of quotes from EO leaders, early on, who supported the Petrine office.

 

[joe371]

It depends on what point of view you hold, Joe.

If you advocate for the keys alone, then anyone named by the keys will carry on the succession. In this case, the first person to succeed Peter is Evodius.

If you advocate for the keys and the city, then you’d have to make a case for the city. In which case, it does take away from the person with the keys.

Which one is it?

Agreed. That’s a good question: Did the Petrine office begin with Peter in Rome who then passed on the metaphorical keys to his successor, again, in Rome?

 

[YADA]

Agreed. That’s a good question: Did the Petrine office begin with Peter in Rome who then passed on the metaphorical keys to his successor, again, in Rome?

I would say the Petrine Office resided with Peter … thus it traveled with Peter to Rome. Until Peter’s life mission ended - his office stayed with him … thus as he traveled establishing Christian communities on his way to Rome - he left behind local leadership - Bishops like Evodius …

When Peter died - the person who succeeded him in his primary role as the “Foundation upon which [Christ] built His Church” and in the role of “strengthening his brethren, feeding and caring for Jesus’ lambs and sheep” is the successor .- that is the one who received the Keys … Peter did not leave the keys behind when he went to Rome - he still possessed them … Clearly the early church fathers identified that successor as being the one who succeeded Peter in Rome and not any other geographic location - unless you are reading different extant writings then I have.

Here is an example … When I first started my company - I started in my home in southern Oregon. I was not only the President but also the field staff, office staff, the book keeper, and janitor … I operated in primarily in two counties.

As I grew - I moved my company headquarters across the state - still operated out of my home but I expanded into a larger geographical area and hired some temporary part-time help …

Still later I moved to office space separate from my residence and I hired permanent field staff and office staff. I obtained the services of a bookkeeper … I began to focus my time on different tasks and delegate more.

Leaving a responsible person in southern Oregon to handle the operations there does not make that person my successor. No - that person was placed in a specific office to perform a role in a specific location. I may have performed that same role as a part of my responsibilities and even as the initial work of my company. That was not the limit of my role even as my role was not yet clearly defined and even when I had not thought about expanding or even the next project.

My successor can only be the person who comes after me in the role of the President of the company - the one charged with the overall responsibility for the corporation - its assets and liabilities, employees, customers and well being… This is true - even if like me - that person at times still functions as the janitor in addition to being President.

 

[joe371]

I would say the Petrine Office resided with Peter … thus it traveled with Peter to Rome. Until Peter’s life mission ended - his office stayed with him … thus as he traveled establishing Christian communities on his way to Rome - he left behind local leadership - Bishops like Evodius …

When Peter died - the person who succeeded him in his primary role as the “Foundation upon which [Christ] built His Church” and in the role of “strengthening his brethren, feeding and caring for Jesus’ lambs and sheep” is the successor .- that is the one who received the Keys … Peter did not leave the keys behind when he went to Rome - he still possessed them … Clearly the early church fathers identified that successor as being the one who succeeded Peter in Rome and not any other geographic location - unless you are reading different extant writings then I have.

Here is an example … When I first started my company - I started in my home in southern Oregon. I was not only the President but also the field staff, office staff, the book keeper, and janitor … I operated in primarily in two counties.

As I grew - I moved my company headquarters across the state - still operated out of my home but I expanded into a larger geographical area and hired some temporary part-time help …

Still later I moved to office space separate from my residence and I hired permanent field staff and office staff. I obtained the services of a bookkeeper … I began to focus my time on different tasks and delegate more.

Leaving a responsible person in southern Oregon to handle the operations there does not make that person my successor. No - that person was placed in a specific office to perform a role in a specific location. I may have performed that same role as a part of my responsibilities and even as the initial work of my company. That was not the limit of my role even as my role was not yet clearly defined and even when I had not thought about expanding or even the next project.

My successor can only be the person who comes after me in the role of the President of the company - the one charged with the overall responsibility for the corporation - its assets and liabilities, employees, customers and well being… This is true - even if like me - that person at times still functions as the janitor in addition to being President.

Awesome.

 

[Butzi]

If it was so clear a matter of faith for Peter to be supreme.

How come the Whole Church missed this as an article of faith for over 1,400 years?

And how come the other Apostolic Sees still disagree with this development to this day?

Is the Church in one Apostle or in all the Apostles and the Prophets?

Can’t have both, Joe.

More than a thousand years of the Church’s Sacred Tradition holds to this very same passage you just quoted.

+1.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

So true. I have explained it and explained it in this thread and still folks refuse to believe… Frustrating.

Who are you that we should believe you? What authority do you, your Bishops and your denomination possess? It all comes down to authority and the Lutheran denomination has none as far as I am concerned. The only other christians that I take seriously and am at risk of being convinced of and converting to is Orthodoxy, the rest are an anathema.

 

[guanophore]

Is the Church in one Apostle or in all the Apostles and the Prophets?

Can’t have both, Joe.

More than a thousand years of the Church’s Sacred Tradition holds to this very same passage you just quoted.

We do have both. Certain Apostles were given specific responsibilties, but all are part of the foundation, and we ourselves are being built into it also as living stones.

No other Apostle fulfilled Paul’s role in the widespread planting of Churches. No other Aposlte fulfilled Peter’s role as the custodian of the Keys, and the responsibility to feed and care for the whole flock.

 

[clem456]

This circular attempt at restorationism can never be profitable. We don’t live in the past . We live in the present. The vine is always growing. The one and same seed is the source of all, but the organism can never exist statically. It changes, grows, and develops, all the while remaining united to it’s source. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. It is a living organism, because He lives. To believe that we can hack portions of it’s development off to our own liking is folly.

Christ’s authority through Peter has been expressed in different ways over the centuries. So? It still Christ’s gift.
At different times Peter has been a political ruler as well as shepherd. Some Popes were corrupt. So? Are we to believe that human frailty negates what Christ gave us?

Peter himself is not here anymore. We live now. The gift has been passed on. The question is, where do you trust that it resides?

Can there be a rupture in the gift Christ gave Peter? As for me, I trust that Christ’s gifts are durable and worthy of my trust.

 

[guanophore]

Peter the man was not supreme over anyone. It’s the Petrene office that is protected against the powers of Hell trying to upset the apple-cart, so to speak. The Whole Church did not miss this as an article of faith for over 1,400 years. However if I show citations you will just tell me I’m wrong.

It is precisely this idea of supremacy that was “developed” in the West. There is no evidence in the first millenia of the universal, immediate jurisdiction that was later claimed by the Papal office.

When you say 'how come the other Apostolic Sees still disagree with this development to this day" - are you referring to our eastern brothers and sisters in Christ? If so then it’s simple they stopped believing what their predecessors believed. I hava an extensive list of quotes from EO leaders, early on, who supported the Petrine office.

No, the Eastern Church has not “changed”. They do not engage in the development of doctrine the way we do in the West. For the other Sees, the Primacy and the Keys never meant what the Latin Patriarch later determined that they meant.

Further, decisions about interpreting the meaning of the Once for All divine deposit of faith, in the first millenia, were always made with the participation of the other Sees. That means that the West departed from the practices and beliefs of the other Sees, in order to expand and expound upon the role of the successor of Peter.

It is not fair now, to accuse THEM of departing!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This circular attempt at restorationism can never be profitable. We don’t live in the past . We live in the present. The vine is always growing. The one and same seed is the source of all, but the organism can never exist statically. It changes, grows, and develops, all the while remaining united to it’s source. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. It is a living organism, because He lives. To believe that we can hack portions of it’s development off to our own liking is folly.

Christ’s authority through Peter has been expressed in different ways over the centuries. So? It still Christ’s gift.
At different times Peter has been a political ruler as well as shepherd. Some Popes were corrupt. So? Are we to believe that human frailty negates what Christ gave us?

Peter himself is not here anymore. We live now. The gift has been passed on. The question is, where do you trust that it resides?

Can there be a rupture in the gift Christ gave Peter? As for me, I trust that Christ’s gifts are durable and worthy of my trust.

As someone who has spent several years in both Catholic and Protestant camps, the similarities of the accusational and dismissive apologetics are remarkable.

I don’t know if you are referring to my arguments as restorational, and I hope you are not.

But just in case. Here and in my other thread I have presented documents from the beginning of the Church to present Catholic canon law. Hardly something stuck in an era of time.

The issue being looked at is the particular development of the Western Church to that of the Eastern Church. And how the West departed from the Conciliar model of Church government to that of an Ecclessiastical Monarch for the Whole Church with supreme, absolute, immediate and ordinary powers in every Apostolic See.

Something that was enacted **after ** the schism and because of the need of particular problems to the West.

The biggest problem is that I have found that some Catholics, when presented to these facts, react the same way some Protestants do when presented with the facts of the Historical Church: badly.

And all of a sudden, Sola Scriptura is acceptable and Church history and Her Sacred Tradition is not that important.

If you are fine with accepting dogmas and doctrines that were no and article and requirement of faith for a far longer time than Sola Scriptura, that’s your prerogative. And it is after all the same personal choice that some Protestants make.

Let’s please be honest and not pretend that it has always been this way. The Papacy in its present form wasn’t affirmed in a Western Church Council until the 1,400 (Florence) - **only **100 years before Sola Scriptura. In fact, the Council of Constance (Sacrosancta-1415) clearly declares that the power of Council is **OVER **any Pope. So still, before Florence - this supremacy was not there.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would say the Petrine Office resided with Peter … thus it traveled with Peter to Rome. Until Peter’s life mission ended - his office stayed with him … thus as he traveled establishing Christian communities on his way to Rome - he left behind local leadership - Bishops like Evodius …

When Peter died - the person who succeeded him in his primary role as the “Foundation upon which [Christ] built His Church” and in the role of “strengthening his brethren, feeding and caring for Jesus’ lambs and sheep” is the successor .- that is the one who received the Keys … Peter did not leave the keys behind when he went to Rome - he still possessed them … Clearly the early church fathers identified that successor as being the one who succeeded Peter in Rome and not any other geographic location - unless you are reading different extant writings then I have.

Here is an example … When I first started my company - I started in my home in southern Oregon. I was not only the President but also the field staff, office staff, the book keeper, and janitor … I operated in primarily in two counties.

As I grew - I moved my company headquarters across the state - still operated out of my home but I expanded into a larger geographical area and hired some temporary part-time help …

Still later I moved to office space separate from my residence and I hired permanent field staff and office staff. I obtained the services of a bookkeeper … I began to focus my time on different tasks and delegate more.

Leaving a responsible person in southern Oregon to handle the operations there does not make that person my successor. No - that person was placed in a specific office to perform a role in a specific location. I may have performed that same role as a part of my responsibilities and even as the initial work of my company. That was not the limit of my role even as my role was not yet clearly defined and even when I had not thought about expanding or even the next project.

My successor can only be the person who comes after me in the role of the President of the company - the one charged with the overall responsibility for the corporation - its assets and liabilities, employees, customers and well being… This is true - even if like me - that person at times still functions as the janitor in addition to being President.

This has to do with what you determine.

Rome was first in honor in accordance with the Church Councils. Not supreme.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It is precisely this idea of supremacy that was “developed” in the West. There is no evidence in the first millenia of the universal, immediate jurisdiction that was later claimed by the Papal office.

Exactly.

Joe:

Take a peak on the Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome thread. All the documents are linked there.

No, the Eastern Church has not “changed”. They do not engage in the development of doctrine the way we do in the West. For the other Sees, the Primacy and the Keys never meant what the Latin Patriarch later determined that they meant.

Further, decisions about interpreting the meaning of the Once for All divine deposit of faith, in the first millenia, were always made with the participation of the other Sees. That means that the West departed from the practices and beliefs of the other Sees, in order to expand and expound upon the role of the successor of Peter.

It is not fair now, to accuse THEM of departing!

Thank you.

 

[clem456]

snip

Let’s please be honest and not pretend that it has always been this way. **The Papacy in its present form wasn’t affirmed in a Western Church Council until the 1,400 (**Florence) - **only **100 years before Sola Scriptura. In fact, the Council of Constance (Sacrosancta-1415) clearly declares that the power of Council is **OVER **any Pope. So still, before Florence - this supremacy was not there.

And so what?
Who’s pretending anything? The Church accepts change. That’s the point of my post. What hasn’t changed is that Christ gives authority to a man. How it plays out in practical ways changes. A lot.
Assuming you are married, does your relationship with your wife change? How do you respond to those changes. Do you throw the marriage covenant out when she disappoints you? Point out the her personal inconsistencies constantly?

The vine is growing. The vine does not exist in exact detail like it existed at the resurrection. The Church is organic.
So, are there two vines, one then and one now? Or has the vine been hacked to the ground and now we recapture the original somehow?

I’m sorry you took personal offense at my post.