Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Isaiah45_9]

trimmed

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

No offense, frustration.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

That’s 2 Apostles.

What are we going to do with the other 10?

 

[Peter_J]

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

I don’t know Joe, but just from reading your question I have to ask what about this: “Neither; the Church is in St Peter and the other apostles and the prophets and the bishops and the faithful”?

(That’s not even a full list.)

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t know Joe, but just from reading your question I have to ask what about this: “Neither; the Church is in St Peter and the other apostles and the prophets and the bishops and the faithful”?

(That’s not even a full list.)

Yes.

 

[clem456]

I don’t know Joe, but just from reading your question I have to ask what about this: “Neither; the Church is in St Peter and the other apostles and the prophets and the bishops and the faithful”?

(That’s not even a full list.)

Isn’t the Church “in Christ”?
All can be united in Christ in one Church.

Question: When all of the Church is said to be in Christ, does being in Christ mean all are the same?
Are all gifts the same, from Pope to bishop to priest to layperson?
Or is every person uniquely gifted?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isn’t the Church “in Christ”?
All can be united in Christ in one Church.

Dominus Iesus addresses the Catholic perspective on this subject.

Question: When all of the Church is said to be in Christ, does being in Christ mean all are the same?

There are no individual distinctions in Christ. No Jew or Greek, etc.

Are all gifts the same, from Pope to bishop to priest to layperson?

No. We all have different gifts. In fact, we all have different callings as well.

Or is every person uniquely gifted?

Yes. We might be similar thou

 

[Denise1957]

I don’t think that the EO churches are opposed to change. Regarding divorce, have the EO always allowed for divorce, as they do now? I think that they now allow for two remarriages, if I’m not mistaken. And have they always allowed couples to use artificial contraception? (Well, since the advent of the practice of using artificial contraception, that is). Or is this a fairly recent innovation?

At least the Latin Church has held out (so far) to the true teachings of our Lord regarding divorce and remarriage.

 

[benhur]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

Well infallibility hadn’t been declared yet !? The basis for it was His promise, of being with us/them. Yet you rightly say Jesus could not have been more closer to Peter and *with him *during one of his major errors. The grace of Infallibility, binding, use of keys, quite seem quite conditional.

 

[benhur]

]When they argued about who was the greatest among them, did Jesus say Peter? No. It was a perfect opportunity.

Agreed . Catholics should understand this .They use same argument when talking of literally "eating’ Him in John 6 discourse, that Jesus never
corrected a literal interpretation by the people, hence must be literal. Not only does Jesus not say it is Peter who will be greatest, He goes on to say “whosoever” wants to be greatest must be the least, even like a child (as we are all to be). Not an exclusive club.

 

[guanophore]

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

I am sad to say I must agree.

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.

By definition, canon law does address current issues and disciplines in the Church, ,and therefore is “bound” to the issues in time which it is regulating.

That being said, it is valid until and unless it is changed.

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.

Actually I think it would be more acccurate to say that the role of the Latin Patriarch was expanded. The Church still uses the conciliar model.

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

While there were some dogmatic statements madeafter the schism, the estrangement began to occur much earlier (centuries) and what finally resulted in the schism also had it’s roots in the mentality/attitude of supremacy that was not formally declared until later.

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.

It does tend to provoke defensiveness to have one’s fundamental values and presuppositions questioned and challenged. I remember when I was in seminary, the professors would talk about how so many students “lost their faith” in the second year, because they were exposed to so many ways of looking at things that were contradictory.

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

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.

We certainly will not enhance any efforts toward unity by pretending as such.

 

[guanophore]

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?

It is a good analagy. I think, though from the point of view of the East, I think what is questioned is that the original “marriage covenant” did not lay the foundation for what currently exists…that the West looks back, and redefines the original to support the result.

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?

It seems like a better description might be that the Western branch of the vine began growing off in a different direction than the rest of the vines.

 

[guanophore]

That’s 2 Apostles.

What are we going to do with the other 10?

It seems to me, according to Tradition, each of them had very specific missions. We know more about some than others, but their differences in ministry and mission does not reduce the dignity and office of any.

Peter was given responsibilities that were not given to any other, as was Paul.

 

[guanophore]

The basis for it was His promise, of being with us/them. Yet you rightly say Jesus could not have been more closer to Peter and *with him *during one of his major errors. The grace of Infallibility, binding, use of keys, quite seem quite conditional.

You are right Ben, the basis for the gift of infallibility is in God, not man.

I fail to see the conditionallity of God. The gifts and the call of God are irevocable.

Agreed . Catholics should understand this .They use same argument when talking of literally "eating’ Him in John 6 discourse, that Jesus never
corrected a literal interpretation by the people, hence must be literal. Not only does Jesus not say it is Peter who will be greatest, He goes on to say “whosoever” wants to be greatest must be the least, even like a child (as we are all to be). Not an exclusive club.

Not entirely. Although we do see that everyone took Him literally in that passage, and he made no effort to correct them (as He did Nicodemus who took “born again” literally), the meaning harmonizes better with the other Scriptures that refer to Eucharist. In addition, we see that all the Churches founded by Aposltes held this understanding of the Teaching, and that those who did not were considered “heretics”.

That being said, I certainly support your point that Jesus’ teaching on leadership was clearly that of servant leadership.

It is difficult to see the servant attitude when someone is proclaiming theselves imperialistically as the greatest.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve B: One thing I would like to point out is the fact that St. Paul did not have a successor in Rome, only Peter.

True.

I was merely using the language Irenaeus used with the elevation of Linus to bishop of the Church of Rome

"the apostles, (Peter & Paul) then, having founded and built up the Church (of Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. "

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It seems to me, according to Tradition, each of them had very specific missions. We know more about some than others, but their differences in ministry and mission does not reduce the dignity and office of any.

Ah, but it does. When you place a single Bishop over all the Bishops and even any Church Council, you do reduce the dignity of the other Sees and you force the Head to fight with the Body.

It seems that the Papacy is as divisional as Sola Scriptura.

Peter was given responsibilities that were not given to any other, as was Paul.

Amen, and both realized the responsibilities of the others and did not place themselves **over **the others. It is unthinkable for either of them to have claimed supremacy over the others. Paul, even more than Peter, clearly advocates for an Episcopal form of Church government. Not a Monarchical form of Church government. Other than Christ, of course.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Steve B: One thing I would like to point out is the fact that St. Paul did not have a successor in Rome, only Peter.

How about Timothy, Titus and many others?

 

[spina1953]

True.

I was merely using the language Irenaeus used with the elevation of Linus to bishop of the Church of Rome

"the apostles, (Peter & Paul) then, having founded and built up the Church (of Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. "

Hi Steve B: Understood and I agree! I sometimes think that some like to think that St. Paul had a hand in making Linus the successor to Peter.

 

[spina1953]

How about Timothy, Titus and many others?

Hi Isaiah: Were Timothy and the others you are thinking of in Rome when both Peter and Paul were executed? Seems to me that they weren’t. besides peter was in Rome long before St. Paul came to Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Steve,

This is not an invention.

Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople - 381
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.*

Canon 28 of The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.
[in fact a resolution passed by the council at the 16th session but rejected by the Pope]

*Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome – *

[snip for space]

Notice that it passed, it was confirmed at Trullo and later also recognized at the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215AD with the caveats added after the Great Schism in regards to Rome.
[Canon 5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum12-2.htm#The dignity of the patriarchal sees)
*Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord’s disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ’s faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. *

[snip for space]

These are not opinions, these are **decrees **of the Catholic Church during the first millennium.

I see I should have been clearer

When you asked for what started the seperation #632 , I gave 2 links as an pverview in post #642.
Then Card Ratzinger, looking back on 2000 years of history, notes the patriarchal system that focused on equalizing sees, as in making 5 sees equal in authority with Rome only being 1st among equals was never accepted by any Roman pontiff. The thought of creating such a system which began in the East, was laying the seeds for a train wreck. That argument on a much smaller scale already took place in the upper room after the last supper. Jesus settled the argument the apostles were having over who is the greatest among THEM. Satan is behind that kind of argument as Jesus tells them. (Lk 22:24…] But as one can see, it’s Peter AGAIN that gets the nod from Jesus as the greatest among the apostles.

The 2nd link I provided in post 642 was from The Melkite Bp John. His history of his Church in Antioch was 1st Catholic, then Orthodox, then back to Catholic.

I thought he made his point extremely well in discussing this issue of supreme authority in the Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes.

So you admit it!

Isn’t the Church “in Christ”?

That too.