Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Karen107]

at Spina1953

 

[KathleenGee]

Second that, Spina you gave an excellent post.

I always draw on the time Christ appointed Peter to head His church and then within minutes call him Satan, being led by him, going against Christ’s mission.

Ours is Ecclesial Deists…Christ chosen fragile men to administer His Church, and when they succeed, it is not them we see at work but Christ.

My last class on the Petrine authority…only went to the early 300’s, and did not go all the way to the 600’s. Not enough time.

Our next seminar will focus on frail popes and how they still taught infallibly in spite of themselves.

Remember…our faith is about the fullness of faith in Christ, not people. So many times people look at people too much and not enough on the Lord.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would like to point out that while there have been bad Popes not once did they add new doctrines or new dogma’s different from what the deposit of Faith is or of Scripture. Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who will vie for an office or power, and or riches and do what they will contrary to what the office is.

That’s not entirely accurate.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed thatno one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.*

• Canon 1 - We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.
• Canon 2 - If any bishop performs an ordination for money and puts the unsaleable grace on sale, and ordains for money a bishop, a chorepiscopus, a presbyter or a deacon or some other of those numbered among the clergy; or appoints a manager, a legal officer or a warden for money, or any other ecclesiastic at all for personal sordid gain; led him who has attempted this and been convicted stand to lose his personal rank; and let the person ordained profit nothing from the ordination or appointment he has bought; but let him be removed from the dignity or responsibility which he got for money. And if anyone appears to have acted even as a go-between in such disgraceful and unlawful dealings, let him too, if he is a cleric, be demoted from his personal rank, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be anathematised.

Lumen Gentium:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.* The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.**(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.*

Current Canon Law:

• Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

In other words - The Bishop of Rome has placed himself above the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and anything and anyone in the Church. That is, new dogma (That was enacted after the Great Schism and without the voice of the Whole Church) that is inconsistent with the deposit of faith. Unless there is a way to harmonize this conflict that I am unaware of. So far, I have not seen it.

1 Tim 3:15; Eph 2:19-22

 

[guanophore]

I agree. A man’s personal sins do not change what God has joined together.

Nor does it invalidate the office, as is clear by Peters personal failings.

Not long before his death, Pope Alexander Vl was trying to reform the curia, including reform of the sale of Church property, and planned reforms for stricter moral codes for clergy, which seems ironic, given his moral failings.

Perhaps a testimony to the struggle of the Spiritual man with the Carnal, as described in Romans 7?

I think, too, that he died repentant of his sins. ]/qutoe]

Let us pray so.
Denise1957;12456970:

The bottom line is that he did not change or corrupt any Church teaching (except on a personal level), and he did not mess with the Deposit of Faith at all, despite his moral failings. Also, he has been accused of nepotism, but it might also be the case that he wanted to appoint men in his family that he could trust.

I think this is very true. Nepotism was the most common function of royal courts, and it had to do with trust, and legacy. He served during a time when there were many rival families in Italy all vying for power. One account I read insisted he died of poisoning, so it was not a practice confined to secular courts.

It should be mentioned, too, that Pope Alexander’s uncle, Pope Callixtus lll, wasn’t such a bad Pope, from what I’ve read. One of the things that he did which may not have been a good thing was to appoint his nephew, Rodrigo Borgia, to the Cardinalate, since it was this nephew who later became Pope Alexander the Vl.

Appointment of pre-teens to the office of Bishop & Cardinal was already a practice by the time of the Medice popes. The same practice was used in secular circles, engagning royal children at birth or shortly after, and padding positions of influence with one’s relatives and children of friends.

Again, as with Pope Alexander Vl, Pope Paul lll did not corrupt or change Church teaching, despite his moral failings, nor did he mess with the Deposit of Faith. The main duty of a Pope is to pass on the Deposit of Faith. Even if some have done so in a weak manner, it not disqualify them from being a Pope, nor does it disqualify the office of the Papacy.

This is truly a sign of the Holy Spirit at work! He is able to write straight with crooked lines.

Yes, the Popes and Bishops were involved in political intrigue and sometimes emeshed in dealings with the local monarchs or emperors, but this was also the case too with the EO; in fact,** it was much worse with the EO**

.

I am not sure how you reach this conclusion.

None of these reasons given above are sufficient to provoke a Reformation, IMO. I expect others to disagree.

I don’t disagree, and I also don’t think it was necessarily the bad behavior of individual popes that preciptated the Reformation. I think it was centuries of cumulative bad behavior by not only Popes but Cardinals, Bishops, and priests. In the end, I think the Reformation had as much to do with political and economic issues as anything else.

What torqued the German princes and persuaded them to back Luther had as much to do with Papal taxes and Church owned property as anything else.

 

[guanophore]

Fuel for protesting the Pope or those near the Pope does not mean leaving the Church and starting a new church… That’s not what the scriptures say… The Scripture says that God is forever Faithful to His people and the gates of hell shall not prevail over His Church. Here it stands still today… A living organism bound together by the Holy Spirit… The body of Christ who is the bride…It endured through tribulations just as Jesus said it would and still it stands and continues to GROW!!! That’s how we know God is forever faithful to it despite those who try to take it down because of their actions or inactions…God is still producing holy souls through it each and every day!

Ephesians 5: 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.** 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.**

I certainly agree, and I am not trying to turn the thread into a Pope bashing or justification for the Reformation. I am only pointinng out that the hubris of Eastern Patriarchs was not isolated to Constantinople. It was suggested that the Eastern Patriarchy did not begin to find fault with the primacy of Peter until the reinforcement of the Empire was there.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12457503]

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed thatno one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised*
​

This never applies to the Pope nor the filioque. The filioque never changes the Creed nor adds to the creed differently than what is already professed, that Jesus is God. She inserts the filioque when Eastern heretics infected the Nicene Creed in the west by claiming Jesus is not God because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from Jesus. The filioque confirmed our profession of Jesus is God incarnate and defeated this Eastern heresy from infecting the West.

To apply your interpretation here by using Church councils, then you must reject the church’s new findings and wording to the Creed and profession of faith of the blessed Trinity. Your own (and today’s Orthodox Church’s) interpretation from early church documents when applied rejects the early Church councils findings, and developed dogmas to defeat their Eastern heretics and heresies, when they themselves introduced a new Creed of Nicea that is never used pre-Constantinople.

For the record and for your information the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed and never parted from it long before the Church invented the Nicene Creed. It is the Latin Church who remains true to Orthodoxy here, because we maintain our Apostolic Creed from the original apostles, which predates any Creed invented post Constantinople period. In fact we continue to baptize our members with the Apostles Creed never with the new invented Nicene Creed, which your interpretation of your document should reject.

*]
Canon 2 - If any bishop performs an ordination for money and puts the unsaleable grace on sale, and ordains for money a bishop, a chorepiscopus, a presbyter or a deacon or some other of those numbered among the clergy; or appoints a manager, a legal officer or a warden for money, or any other ecclesiastic at all for personal sordid gain; led him who has attempted this and been convicted stand to lose his personal rank; and let the person ordained profit nothing from the ordination or appointment he has bought; but let him be removed from the dignity or responsibility which he got for money. And if anyone appears to have acted even as a go-between in such disgraceful and unlawful dealings, let him too, if he is a cleric, be demoted from his personal rank, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be anathematised.

Again you apply a wrong interpretation to this document. For one it never addresses the Chair of Peter. So your current 20th century interpretation flew out the window, when the church is addressing current contemporary issues of the time.

Secondly; Consider the current mindset of the Church at the time, for which it is addressing, and which Bishops at the time were ordaining bishops for self gain. You will be surprised to learn the Eastern Orthodox Church’s were not immune to such travesties during this time. Again this does not address the Chair of Peter. It addresses the local Bishops over the local Church’s. Context, context is applied here. We don’t read Church documents without the mind of the Church, as Protestants read their bibles, without the mind of Christ and sacred Tradition.

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

INDENT]But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.* The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.[/INDENT]

At last we reach a council that finally addresses the Chair of Peter, when the others dare to reject or contest the authority Jesus gives to Peter. The Church Councils on Peter’s Chair, thanks to those powers and principalities who try to infect God’s Work and who reject what God has ordained upon Peter himself until Jesus returns.

Current Canon Law:

• Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

The Canon laws here confirm Christ work and promise upon Peter the Rock of whom Jesus builds His Church.

• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

Amen! I love when the Church speaks from the mind of Christ supported by the Word of God = 1Cor.1;15 “The Spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one”. Our carnal minds do not reach what many of these Church Fathers united to Peter expound upon. We error every time when we read their spiritual writings from a carnal mindset. In fact today, there are many historian, Doctors, theologians who are still studying and interpreting Vatican II documents. This goes to show, how we struggle and misjudge a Church councils mindset.

In other words - The Bishop of Rome has placed himself above the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and anything and anyone in the Church. That is, new dogma (That was enacted after the Great Schism and without the voice of the Whole Church) that is inconsistent with the deposit of faith. Unless there is a way to harmonize this conflict that I am unaware of. So far, I have not seen it.

NO he has not; and there is no Church council to support or agree with your interpretation.

Your interpretation not only goes against Apostolic Tradition, but your view rejects the divine revelation of Jesus, whom Matthew quotes as renaming Simon to Rock =Peter and commissioned Peter to feed and tend His flock until He returns. Jesus revealed the revelation of Peter, the Church dogmatized this divine revelation to separate the sheep from the goats. Consider the Church never invents a dogma, she makes a dogma binding on all believers, when the original Apostolic teachings and divine revelations of Jesus come under attack.

To take your view or interpretation here, you would have to reject the first council at Jerusalem, when Peter, Paul, James are all present, who invent a new dogma of not allowing Gentiles to be circumcised. Your view and interpretation flies out the window every time. For a view to be True? We need to use the mindset of the Church at the time with the mind of Christ as one. When you apply this Truth, only Jesus is given the glory and honor, not the Bishop of Rome, who is only the Vicar of Christ, who is given the commission by God to tend and feed God’s flock.

Peace be with you

 

[Karen107]

That’s not entirely accurate.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed thatno one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.*

• Canon 1* - We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.
• Canon 2 - If any bishop performs an ordination for money and puts the unsaleable grace on sale, and ordains for money a bishop, a chorepiscopus, a presbyter or a deacon or some other of those numbered among the clergy; or appoints a manager, a legal officer or a warden for money, or any other ecclesiastic at all for personal sordid gain; led him who has attempted this and been convicted stand to lose his personal rank; and let the person ordained profit nothing from the ordination or appointment he has bought; but let him be removed from the dignity or responsibility which he got for money. And if anyone appears to have acted even as a go-between in such disgraceful and unlawful dealings, let him too, if he is a cleric, be demoted from his personal rank, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be anathematised.

Lumen Gentium:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.* The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

Current Canon Law:

• Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

In other words - The Bishop of Rome has placed himself above the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and anything and anyone in the Church. That is, new dogma (That was enacted after the Great Schism and without the voice of the Whole Church) that is inconsistent with the deposit of faith. Unless there is a way to harmonize this conflict that I am unaware of. So far, I have not seen it.

1 Tim 3:15; Eph 2:19-22

Where specifically did the Pope and which one created new doctrine? Jesus placed His authority in the Popes hand by giving Peter and his successors the keys to the kingdom.

 

[guanophore]

I would like to point out that while there have been bad Popes not once did they add new doctrines or new dogma's different from what the deposit of Faith is or of Scripture. Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who will vie for an office or power, and or riches and do what they will contrary to what the office is.

We have had bad priests, Bishops and Popes throughout since the founding of Christianity. Yet, for the most part, the CC has remained. Why? because there are those who listen to the will of God and do as they are called. If reform is needed they try and work towards it removing what is or who is the causes that prompts reform.

Truly a testimony to how God keeps his promises.

If Peter was not the leader, He would not have made Linus his successor.

I think the sense of what you are saying here is that Peter would not have passed on the Petrine gifts and ministry to Linus if he was not convinced this was necessary.

All the Apostles made successors for themselves in the Bishops. and all the Bishops share in the feeding and guidance of the flock. It is also interesting to note that there is an even older line of Bishops from Peter when he was in Antioch, and none of them seemed to feel charged with the duties that Peter gave to Linus.

Peter in many ways was a humble man, but also stubborn at times. Peter was also very zealous in his love for the Lord. He led differently because the rest of the Apostles were united with him. As time went by, there came a time when some Bishops were not united with Peter's successor's, much due to outside influences. But anyway on read Scripture especially Matthew 16, it seems very plain that Jesus made Peter the head, the foundation of the Church Jesus was going to build. iow's, On Peter, Jesus is going to build His Church. he did not say that he was going to build His Church on all of the Apostles but only on Peter, with the rest of the Apostles in unity with Peter.

I can easily concede to those who wish to discredit the office of the Papacy that many Popes did not lead as Peter did, and that many rights and responsibilities developed over time in response to the needs of the Church. The fact that what we have today is not like what we see in Scripture does not concern me, because Jesus said His Church would start like a mustard seed and grow into the largest of trees.

 

[Karen107]

Whoo whoa… I may just be a simple lay person but this is what I believe… Peter was martyrd… This is believed in scripture as stated by Jesus to Peter… John 21:18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.

And it was the bishops who chose the new Pope, Linus, because Peter had died. Much the same as is done today. Bishops do not choose new bishops to replace themselves, the Pope appoints them with the counsel of the Bishops. As found in Scripture…

Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his homestead become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;
and

‘Let another take his position of overseer.’
Acts 1:21 So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed and said, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which one of these two you have chosen 25 to take the place[e] in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

 

[spina1953]

Truly a testimony to how God keeps his promises.

I think the sense of what you are saying here is that Peter would not have passed on the Petrine gifts and ministry to Linus if he was not convinced this was necessary.

All the Apostles made successors for themselves in the Bishops. and all the Bishops share in the feeding and guidance of the flock. It is also interesting to note that there is an even older line of Bishops from Peter when he was in Antioch, and none of them seemed to feel charged with the duties that Peter gave to Linus.

I can easily concede to those who wish to discredit the office of the Papacy that many Popes did not lead as Peter did, and that many rights and responsibilities developed over time in response to the needs of the Church. The fact that what we have today is not like what we see in Scripture does not concern me, because Jesus said His Church would start like a mustard seed and grow into the largest of trees.

Hi Gaunophore: I agree you just said better than I did and shorter too.

 

[spina1953]

That’s not entirely accurate.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed thatno one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all: if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.*

• Canon 1* - We have deemed it right that the canons hitherto issued by the saintly fathers at each and every synod should remain in force.
• Canon 2 - If any bishop performs an ordination for money and puts the unsaleable grace on sale, and ordains for money a bishop, a chorepiscopus, a presbyter or a deacon or some other of those numbered among the clergy; or appoints a manager, a legal officer or a warden for money, or any other ecclesiastic at all for personal sordid gain; led him who has attempted this and been convicted stand to lose his personal rank; and let the person ordained profit nothing from the ordination or appointment he has bought; but let him be removed from the dignity or responsibility which he got for money. And if anyone appears to have acted even as a go-between in such disgraceful and unlawful dealings, let him too, if he is a cleric, be demoted from his personal rank, and if he is a lay person or a monk, let him be anathematised.

Lumen Gentium:

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.* The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

Current Canon Law:

• Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.
• Can. 1404 The First See is judged by no one.

In other words - The Bishop of Rome has placed himself above the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and anything and anyone in the Church. That is, new dogma (That was enacted after the Great Schism and without the voice of the Whole Church) that is inconsistent with the deposit of faith. Unless there is a way to harmonize this conflict that I am unaware of. So far, I have not seen it.

1 Tim 3:15; Eph 2:19-22

Hi Isaiah: I agree with what you posted. However you did not answer the question or what you wrote did not have anything to do with I was posting.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

This never applies to the Pope

Why not? I have not found any exceptions/waivers for the Bishop of Rome (Nor any Bishop for that matter). Instead of presenting an assertion perhaps you can support said assertion with Church documents pertinent to that era. Not after the fact.

nor the filioque. The filioque never changes the Creed nor adds to the creed differently than what is already professed, that Jesus is God. She inserts the filioque when Eastern heretics infected the Nicene Creed in the west by claiming Jesus is not God because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from Jesus. The filioque confirmed our profession of Jesus is God incarnate and defeated this Eastern heresy from infecting the West.

If you stop the recalcitrant prose against the Eastern Church your posts would have a lot more credibility. It seems you jump at every opportunity for criticism against the East.

I’m not talking about when the Creed was confirmed by the WHOLE CHURCH, that means EAST AND WEST. I’m talking about the later change in regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit.

To apply your interpretation here by using Church councils, then you must reject the church’s new findings and wording to the Creed and profession of faith of the blessed Trinity. Your own (and today’s Orthodox Church’s) interpretation from early church documents when applied rejects the early Church councils findings, and developed dogmas to defeat their Eastern heretics and heresies, when they themselves introduced a new Creed of Nicea that is never used pre-Constantinople.

There is no interpretation. Of course you need to make it an interpretation in order to discredit what the document actually says:

ANY BISHOP.

That means ANY. Again, you present nothing to support your assertion.

For the record and for your information the Latin Church has always used the Apostles Creed and never parted from it long before the Church invented the Nicene Creed. It is the Latin Church who remains true to Orthodoxy here, because we maintain our Apostolic Creed from the original apostles, which predates any Creed invented post Constantinople period. In fact we continue to baptize our members with the Apostles Creed never with the new invented Nicene Creed, which your interpretation of your document should reject.

For your information. The Church is **not **Latin. The Church is Catholic.

Again you apply a wrong interpretation to this document. For one it never addresses the Chair of Peter. So your current 20th century interpretation flew out the window, when the church is addressing current contemporary issues of the time.

Secondly; Consider the current mindset of the Church at the time, for which it is addressing, and which Bishops at the time were ordaining bishops for self gain. You will be surprised to learn the Eastern Orthodox Church’s were not immune to such travesties during this time. Again this does not address the Chair of Peter. It addresses the local Bishops over the local Church’s. Context, context is applied here. We don’t read Church documents without the mind of the Church, as Protestants read their bibles, without the mind of Christ and sacred Tradition.

cont.

Present documents that support your assertion.

 

[Karen107]

I certainly agree, and I am not trying to turn the thread into a Pope bashing or justification for the Reformation. I am only pointinng out that the hubris of Eastern Patriarchs was not isolated to Constantinople. It was suggested that the Eastern Patriarchy did not begin to find fault with the primacy of Peter until the reinforcement of the Empire was there.

Had the empire of Rome not taken the Church under it’s wing as the State religion perhaps Christianity would have died because there would have been no legal way to put the bible together, the Church would still be under persecution and although the Roman empire was not at all that holy, it did pave the way for evangelization of the world much better than the Church could on it’s own had it continued to be illegal to be a Christian. Now looking back the Roman Empire died but the Church lives on… All this part of Gods providence…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12457987]Why not? I have not found any exceptions/waivers for the Bishop of Rome (Nor any Bishop for that matter). Instead of presenting an assertion perhaps you can support said assertion with Church documents pertinent to that era.

Let’s keep it simple shall we? There are no councils which contest or reject the authority of the Popes presiding in Peter’s Chair period.

Those who oppose the authority of Peter, have not codified any official document, or council to date that contests or rejects the authority of Peter’s Chair.

It remains an opinion from those who reject and oppose the authority of Peter’s Chair. This opinion is never supported by any Church council including the ones you provided.

I can’t produce any because none exist. Show me one document from a Church council that rejects the Chair of Peter or contests’ the Bishop’s of Rome authority presiding as Vicar of Christ. All other views remain an opinion stemming from a political background that pretends to usurp, and object to the authority Jesus places upon Peter.

If you stop the recalcitrant prose against the Eastern Church your posts would have a lot more credibility. It seems you jump at every opportunity for criticism against the East.

I have only addressed the opinion which you take from the Orthodox who reject the authority of Peter’s Chair. Protestants take many different views of the Petrine primacy, which is not part of our discussion, I am not isolating the Orthodox here, while keeping within our view’s within it’s Context, context please. I don’t take you as the type who goes all over the board just to discuss one issue.

I’m not talking about when the Creed was confirmed by the WHOLE CHURCH, that means EAST AND WEST. I’m talking about the later change in regards to the procession of the Holy Spirit

.

I answered it already for you:shrug: Your view indicates no one can change the Nicene Creed. I answered no one has. I qualified this to show your view does not stand. Should your view take any precedence, then you would have to reject the Nicene Creed when it was changed over time from early Bishops, including the Trinity dogma.

Secondly I introduced to you a fact; I mention the Latin Church only, kept the original Apostles Creed which predates the new Nicene Creed, holding to the Apostolic Orthodox faith from the apostles. This Creed from the Apostles is still practiced in the Latin Church unchanged for those entering the Kingdom of God by baptism.

We profess the Nicene Creed in liturgy, which is a profession of our faith, that unites the one body of Christ. We do not use the Nicene Creed to baptize.

There is no change of faith in the Holy Spirit procession. It is defended and clarified within the already professed Nicene Creed to weed out heretics and heresies, ok, I will not qualify this heresy as coming from the East, which it did, instead, I will label it for what it is a form of Arianism which tried to infect the Nicene Creed in the West. The filioque procession of the Holy Spirit who is the breath of God proceeds from the Voice and the Word of God, whom we profess the voice to be the Father and the Word to be the Son.

If the breath of God does not proceed from the voice and the word? Then your god is dead, because it does not live and breath. Try speaking without your breath not proceeding from your words? You will find a dead person speaking which no one can hear.

The filioque professes that Jesus is God, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. When the Arians were professing from the Nicene Creed that Jesus is not God, because the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father and not Jesus. Filioque defeated this Arian heresy in the West.

The filioque never changes what is already professed with in the Nicene Creed. Thus your document does not apply, when Peter binds and looses on earth a defeated heresy with the filioque. The Trinity does the same thing, but for some odd reason your objection does not apply to the whole Church changes the Nicene Creed in it’s development. Yet, for some unknown reason, your view only applies to the Popes? Truth does NOT divide itself and Truth takes no enemies.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There is no interpretation. Of course you need to make it an interpretation in order to discredit what the document actually says:

ANY BISHOP.

That means ANY. Again, you present nothing to support your assertion.

Any Bishop applies to any Bishop in his domestic Church. This does not apply to the Petrine office, because the Petrine office is not included in any such document from which you take your opposition, when there never is an opposition to the Petrine office. Your own document you provide proves my case here.

The Bishop of Rome is equal to all his brethren as a Bishop of Rome, which the rule applies. When the Bishop of Rome presides in Peter’s Chair over the whole Church, your document does not address the Primacy of Peter, and no council document contests or objects to the Petrine Primacy. Only echo’s of opinion’s objecting to Peter’s Chair, or they want to claim Peter’s authority to themselves, which Jesus never does.

For your information. The Church is **not **Latin. The Church is Catholic.

Correct, she is many nations, tongues, tribes and peoples of all ages. I mention the Latin Church still practices the Apostles Creed long before the Nicene Creed was invented to defeat heretics and heresies. To my knowledge the Orthodox do not practice the Apostles Creed, so I can’t speak for them.

Present documents that support your assertion

.

You already have; No Church document contest or reject the Petrine Primacy. If any thing the commentaries to the documents support the Petrine Primacy.

It is to your view that requires support from any church council that rejects or contest’s the Petrine Primacy. NO one gives credence to your objection of the Petrine Primacy of any official Church documents or councils. Your documents addresses specifically the local Bishops never the Primacy of Peter.

When a Church council addresses the Primacy of Peter, she does so in support of my view which I presented in support of Jesus revelation and divine authority, Jesus places upon Peter alone.

Please produce a Church council, that rejects the Primacy of Peter. Maybe a Protestant can help you here, because after 1600 years of Catholic Christianity, protestants enter history and produced for themselves anti-Pope documents that reject the Primacy of Peter. But these don’t apply, not even for the Eastern Church’s.

I would love to share more with you about the Holy Spirit proceeding, but this is not the thread to address the filioque.

Peace be with you

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Gabriel,

I will address your responses tomorrow as time permits. But just so you are aware:

I am not contesting primacy but supremacy.

If you see my posts in other threads this will be clearly the case.

Peace be with you as well.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, that is what a lot of Protestants believe, but since it probably is of no interest to anyone around here, I will just let this little thread die a lonely,miserable death. Sigh.

What you may not realize is that many of us Catholics are well educated about protestants. So if this ^^ is of “no interest” to us, it is only because we know it and perhaps take it for granted.

As a general remark, your picture of Catholicism depends greatly on which Catholics you watch/read/listen to. (In my experience, many of the non-Catholic Christian posters on this forum make rather strange choices concerning which Catholics to listen to, and therefore have a rather strange picture of Catholic attitudes. )

-my two cents.

 

[guanophore]

Had the empire of Rome not taken the Church under it’s wing as the State religion perhaps Christianity would have died because there would have been no legal way to put the bible together,

Do you honestly believe this?

Is God so lacking in the ability to keep His promises that He is unable to put the bible together even though it was illegal?

Besides, the Septuagint, used by the Apostles, was already accepted and available througout the empire, and so were most of the books of the NT for almost 150 years before Christianity became legal.

the Church would still be under persecution and although the Roman empire was not at all that holy, it did pave the way for evangelization of the world much better than the Church could on it’s own had it continued to be illegal to be a Christian. Now looking back the Roman Empire died but the Church lives on… All this part of Gods providence…

Yes, the “fullness of time” in which Christ came was the perfect foundation for the spreading of the faith. A commom language, Roman roads, the Pax Romana, all these secular conditions afforded the fastest possible spread of the faith. In Acts we can see the benefit of Paul being a Roman Citizen did for the Church.

 

[prodromos]

If the breath of God does not proceed from the voice and the word? Then your god is dead, because it does not live and breath. Try speaking without your breath not proceeding from your words? You will find a dead person speaking which no one can hear.

You’ve got that all backwards. There can be no words spoken without breath, which essentially requires that the word proceed from the breath according to your logic.
“your god is dead”? So you think the uncreated God, who is unknowable in His essence, can be accurately described in terms of our created humanity? Wow!

The filioque professes that Jesus is God, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. When the Arians were professing from the Nicene Creed that Jesus is not God, because the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father and not Jesus. Filioque defeated this Arian heresy in the West.

“Light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made. Of one essence with the Father, through whom all things were made.”
Do tell us, how does Arianism get around the above clauses of the Nicene creed?