Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alex_Swol said:
To all of you: I apologize if I have offended anyone. I do not mean to seem like
a know-it-all or an arrogant person. Forgive me.
I am on this site to learn and to share as all of you are. When I say I know a lot it is due
to my education. I went to Catholic grammar school, high school and some college. My
faith is very precious to me and without it I would not have endured all that I have gone
thru. I have survived abuse, alcoholism, mental breakdowns and clinical depression. Now
I am in a wheelchair due to botched up back surgery. My faith has brought me thru all this
and will see me thru more if it becomes necessary.
I really enjoy communicating with all of you, but I admit to getting annoyed when some of
you go to extremes with answers. I prefer to keep it simple.
One of you asked where in Upstate New York I lived. I will answer this way: I live between
Irondequoit Bay and Canandaigua Lake. If you know where they are you can figure it out.
If you are savvy with a computer, you can find me. Please don’t rush to try it. I prefer my
privacy as i am sure most of you do to. I am a 72 year old very much married grandmother
of 18 and mother of 5.
Have a great nite. I am watching DWTS at 8:00 :)👍
Click to expand...
Hi Alex: It is nice of you to apologize but the thing is that many of us have been taught our Catholic faith in grammar, high and college schools, yet there are a great many who were not or had very little education in regards to their catholic faith and also there are those wanting to learn who know nothing about what it means to be Catholic.

The topic is about whether or not Peter was the head of the CC and some say he was and others seem to think he was not or that the Papacy did not develop as it now is, so any debate is worth discussing.
 
Spina, You are right. So back on topic. “And upon this rock I shall build my church.”
I do believe Peter was the first Pope if you will. I also believe he was the one who took the
place of Jesus. Peter was the most likely to suceed Jesus. That is my thought. It may not
be correct, but that is what I have always thought.
I was very interested in reading about Peter’s name change. Some of you are very very
knowledgeable about such things. THAT was very informative.
:)😃
 
steve_b said:
I’ve asked this question dozens of times. No answer yet… but I’m hopeful for an answer

When is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see “Orthodox Church”?

Please give the reference properly referenced.
Click to expand...
When is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see Roman Catholic Church? 😉
 
Seraphim73 said:
When is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see Roman Catholic Church? 😉
Click to expand...
Since that is not actually the formal name of the Church, why would that matter?

But since you asked…

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father’s home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.

Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.

In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these “non-Roman” rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

Now, what can you tell us of the history of your church’s name?
 
Seraphim73 said:
The “Orthodox Church” is not the formal name either. So perhaps we can put this irrelevant question to bed now?
Click to expand...
First, please see my edited post for additional details.

Second, what is the formal name of YOUR church, Seraphim, and how would you like for us to refer to the 17? 19? autocephalous “churches” which loosely refer to themselves as the “Orthodox”?
 
St Ignatius in 107 AD called the Church Catholic, his name, Universal Christian Church (including both Latin and Eastern Orthodox), using the Greek the English here as Catholic.

The Roman Church was called so to designate its geographical location, just as the Church of Jerusalem, Church of Antioch, Church of Alexandria…the epistles and Revelation speak of specific churches in Asia Minor.

The literal meaning…Roman Universal Church…just wasn’t referred to as Roman Catholic Church in those times. Just the Church of Rome.
 
Seraphim73 said:
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
From my post above:

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
 
We are specifically members of the Latin Universal Christian Church…whose head is in Rome, and of which there are 22 rites within it.
 
Alex_Swol said:
Spina, You are right. So back on topic. “And upon this rock I shall build my church.”
I do believe Peter was the first Pope if you will. I also believe he was the one who took the
place of Jesus. Peter was the most likely to suceed Jesus. That is my thought. It may not
be correct, but that is what I have always thought.
I was very interested in reading about Peter’s name change. Some of you are very very
knowledgeable about such things. THAT was very informative.
:)😃
Click to expand...
Hi Alex: Thanks for your reply. I happen to agree with you in that Peter was the first Pope and that it was he who decided who would replace him when he was martyred. I also believe that Jesus Himself choose Peter to not just build His Church as the rock and foundation but to lead and to strengthen his brethren in the faith.

I would also like to point out that it is due to the Apostles believing in Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God as Son of Man that we have faith, the faith handed down to us from them and all who have believed, otherwise, if this were not so, our faith would be in vain. Moreover, Though Jesus died on the Cross for us and all mankind, had Jesus not resurrected our faith would certainly be worthless, since by rising from the dead Jesus proved He was truly the Son of God!

Now some do not believe and some like to think that Peter was really not in Rome or that he was never the first Pope, Others think that maybe he was but that he was just equal to the others so that all were equal to each other. In on sense this is true but in another Peter was the chosen leader, both by the other Apostles as shown in the Gospels and by Jesus as also shown in the Gospels. Its in the end the matter of interpretation, and who interprets it to mean whatever they want it to mean which in some cases may not be the correct interpretation but only that which fits their own preconceived notions.

Sharing your thoughts and thinking, helps us all to understand better what we believe or not believe, as well as helping others to be better informed and become maybe just a little more knowledgeable in the faith given to them.
 
KathleenGee said:
We are specifically members of the Latin Universal Christian Church…whose head is in Rome, and of which there are 22 rites within it.
Click to expand...
The entire Church is not Latin. Also, there are 23 churches, not rites, that make up the universal Catholic Church.
 
The point I’m making is that the term “Orthodox Church” is a modern convention of really just the last century. It of course has existed from the first millennium but in writings and Church documents from the schism to the present day you see references, when speaking of the Orthodox communion, to the “Catholic Church.” Here is a relatively recent example from the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.

“Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17), has been compelled to combat.”

I just counted them and there are about 40 references to the “Catholic Church” in that encyclical. Of course the use of the term “Orthodox” is also very ancient. You find it over and over and over again in the acts and canons of the ecumenical councils. But again, using the term “Orthodox Church” is really just a convention. It’s really no different that the term “Roman Catholic.” That phrase too is a modern convention that is just used out of convenience. But despite that for some reason some Roman Catholic apologist think they are being smart by trying to play gotcha with the name thing. Both Churches call themselves the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and both in modern usage use modifiers (Roman Catholic/Orthodox), to differentiate themselves.
 
Seraphim73 said:
When is the 1st time in history, in writing, that we see Roman Catholic Church? 😉
Click to expand...
“Roman” as a qualifier, if you will, is a “rite” as in Roman, or Latin rite of the Catholic Chuirch. As are Melkite for example as a “rite,” in the Catholic Church. The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. The Catechism is titled, “Catechism of the Catholic Church”

“Roman” as a qualifier, as you use it came from the following

Roman Catholic

The Catholic Church in writing was used from the 1st century #34 of which the Church of Rome holds the presidency, [Ignatius of Antioch] on account of it’s “pre-eminent authority” [Irenaeus]
 
steve_b said:
“Roman” as a qualifier, if you will, is a “rite” as in Roman, or Latin rite of the Catholic Chuirch. As are Melkite for example as a “rite,” in the Catholic Church. The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. The Catechism is titled, “Catechism of the Catholic Church”

“Roman” as a qualifier, as you use it came from

Roman Catholic
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is correct. It would be the Melkite Greek Catholic Church or the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church. But either way I know how the term “Roman Catholic” is used. I was simply asking to illustrate the silliness of trying to play gotcha with the modifier “Orthodox” when you yourselves use the modifier “Roman.”
 
Seraphim73 said:
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Click to expand...
If one is in any city of the world, and one asks for the Catholic Church, or they look in the phone book in those cfities for the Catholic Church, will they be directed to an “Orthodox Church”?
 
Seraphim73 said:
I don’t think that is correct. It would be the Melkite Greek Catholic Church or the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
From Bp John a Melkite bishop https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome
S:
But either way I know how the term “Roman Catholic” is used. I was simply asking to illustrate the silliness of trying to play gotcha with the modifier “Orthodox” when you yourselves use the modifier “Roman.”
Click to expand...
Bp John above isn’t playing gotcha.
 
steve_b said:
If one is in any city of the world, and one asks for the Catholic Church, or they look in the phone book in those cfities for the Catholic Church, will they be directed to an “Orthodox Church”?
Click to expand...
Not in English speaking countries. But in Russia and Eastern Europe and many traditionally Orthodox countries you would be.
 
steve_b said:
From Bp John a Melkite bishop https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

Bp John above isn’t playing gotcha.
Click to expand...
I like what he said here:

According to the Catholic teaching, Christ did not create a church with five heads of equal importance. He established One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church whose invisible head is the Lord, but whose visible head is the Pope of Rome.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches states it in these terms: “The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.” (Canon 43 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

If an Orthodox subscribes to the Canon quoted above, he/she can be called Catholic and be considered “united to Rome” or in full communion with the Catholic Church.

An illustration may help: Is the Province of Quebec a province of France united to the British Crown through Canada, or a Canadian province with special relations to France? Is the Melkite Church a hundred per cent Catholic with special relations with the Orthodox Churches or a hundred per cent Orthodox with special relations to Rome. Certainly, the first case is true:

The Melkite Church is a hundred per cent Catholic, but not a hundred per cent Orthodox.

Independence and sovereignty or dependence on another Church? Such a decision is difficult to make. However, the Melkite Church has chosen dependency as a price for unity, in order to comply with the will of our Lord who prayed repeatedly “that all may be one.” (John 17)

I wish others from the East would choose similarly for the same reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top