Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Peter_J]

Thanks, Guanophore. I’ll take a look at that (well, did already a little).

I just finished reading your conversation with HH. I don’t have any specific comment or question about it (or, depending how you look at it, I don’t have time to come up with one) but I’d like to ask a general background question: are you for or against ultramontanism (or neither for nor against but some other alternative)?

 

[Karen107]

God knew her response before the angel left heaven. But let’s assume for a moment that Mary surprised God by saying no. Do you think it would have been so difficult for God to wait 16 years for another young girl to grow up?

I wouldn’t make light of Mary’s Yes for one minute and I don’t believe you would either…That was a brave thing for Mary to do and something that we should learn from…

Our choices do matter, but God would not have been deterred in His plans for the Incarnation if one young Jewish girl had turned Him down.

Like He wouldn’t have a backup plan?

Now Now does God need back up plans if He knows everything we will say or do?? Haha!!

 

[Karen107]

Right, because people are willing to believe not truth. Or maybe, I don’t know, they don’t see the truth according to some people.

Scriptures and the Church both attest to each other.

They both agree that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. Not one single person, right?

And the Church as Pillar and Bulwark of truth believes in the Supremacy of the Pope.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks, Guanophore. I’ll take a look at that (well, did already a little).

I just finished reading your conversation with HH. I don’t have any specific comment or question about it (or, depending how you look at it, I don’t have time to come up with one) but I’d like to ask a general background question: are you for or against ultramontanism (or neither for nor against but some other alternative)?

Yes, am an ultramontanist.

I went through a period of exposure to Baptists who believed that the Pope was the antiChrist, then on my journey home to the Catholic Church, very nearly went East. But through much study and prayer, I have become a fanatical papist. I think this has been enhanced by the sanctity of the Popes in the last 100 years. I cannot say this would be the case had I lived in Luther’s time. I may have bailed out, and would be a Lutheran!

 

[Peter_J]

biblelight.net/burn-heretics.htm

Thanks for the link.

One comment; toward the bottom it says “In August of 2002 Matthew Bunson replaced Dr. Carroll in the EWTN History Forum. Note this defense of burning heretics at the stake:” While a defense of burning heretics at the stake does indeed follow, it should be noted that it is by one Gregory Dulmes, not by Matthew Bunson.

Yes, am an ultramontanist.

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Seriously, I appreciate knowing that because it helps in understanding your side of the conversation.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you for your further answer. Am I correct in that you are saying Jesus changed Peter’s name because he shared that Jesus was the Christ? Jesus changed it to rock to signify …

You’re more than welcome. I can’t at all relate to your confusion though. As I understand the fact is there are differences in matters of faith. Catholics have their faith. And believe it to be truth. Those who have a different belief than Catholics do about Peter might say the change signified that what Peter said was the rock on which Christ meant for His Church to be built. Namely being that Jesus was the Savior Son of God. And on this belief Christians by in large are united. So that’s the best I can do to try making it less confusing for you. I have nothing further but hopes that helps. Peace.

 

[KathleenGee]

If Peter merely represents the bulwark of the Church, Isaiah, then you have so many ecclesiastics of various regions in the universal Church…and different ways due to culture and politics.

So which part do you want to follow?

The fact that Christ appointed Peter as head also fulfills the Jewish form of leadership: one head…vs partisonship. Likewise Paul’s confrontation to Peter shows the need for council and communion of the papacy and the bishops.

I come out of dioceses where there were anti church movements to greatly reduce the rightful authority of ecclesiastics with a congregationalist movement from the bottom…lay led liturgies and women priests, for example.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sy, Peter was given the keys to heaven. Peter was concerned solely about establishing the Church and not at all with the peripheries of Imperial Rome.

Keys designates authority.

Catholics are Ecclesial Deists. Christ is big enough and great enough…True God – and – True Man to have weak but chosen men to administrate His Church.

It is not just about representation.

It is about Peter being given the keys to heaven and the Jewish people in the times following Christ’s earthly mission knew very well what it meant to have one person designated with the keys.

As Randy pointed out in Isaiah, there was always one person representing authority who would actually wear a large key on the outside of his person to designate himself to the rest of the community.

The earliest Church was Jewish. And when Peter arrived in Rome, there were already Jewish Christians living there who had escaped the Diaspora.

Some think the 144,000 in Revelations is referring to the 12 tribes of Nazarene Jews who escaped the destruction of Jerusalem.

The bottom line is authority and this is the real issue why people cannot accept the Catholic Church irregardless of even Protestant theologians agreeing the Church is most correct.

Greek and Aramaic ‘Peter’ refer to person, not a small symbolic stone.

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, am an ultramontanist.

I went through a period of exposure to Baptists who believed that the Pope was the antiChrist, then on my journey home to the Catholic Church, very nearly went East. But through much study and prayer, I have become a fanatical papist. I think this has been enhanced by the sanctity of the Popes in the last 100 years. I cannot say this would be the case had I lived in Luther’s time. I may have bailed out, and would be a Lutheran!

And yet you seem to be truly bothered by the imperfectness of some of the Popes, especially during the middle ages, and that this lead to the Reformation. But the average Catholic in the pew wouldn’t have had much knowledge of the sins of Popes in the middle ages. Most of them would not have left the Church on their own because of this, but only when instigated to do so by heretics (most of whom had a basic problem with authority). This was especially true in England, when most Catholics thought thought they would just ride out the problem with King Henry, and his starting of a new church of King Henry. Most of them wanted nothing to do with the new church, but rather it was forced on them, due to extreme anti-Catholic laws there.

We have the example of St. Peter, who was far from perfect to the point that he denied our Lord three times. All the Apostles abondoned Him when He went to His passion and death, except for St. John.

Some of the saints had been great sinners at one time, or in their early lives. Our Lord didn’t come for saints, or to call saints, but he came for sinners, that they might be converted through Him. It takes awhile for some to get to that point. Sometimes it isn’t until the moment before death. You seem to expect that Popes should all (or mostly) been saints when they were elected to the Papacy. It’s just not realistic to think this way, IMO.

Take, for example, Pope Leo, who excommunicated Martin Luther. He wasn’t really a bad pope, but he paid more attention to trying to restore the Church to its former glory, and didn’t seem to see what was going on in Christendom around him, especially Germany. Popes are human. I don’t expect them to be perfect, but our prayers and personal sacrifices can help them if they do things that are obviously wrong. The Popes of the last 100 years or so haven’t been perfect either.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12459423]

Just like there are no Councils that contest or reject the authority of the Bishop of Constantinople (Or any other Bishop for that matter).
​

I must conclude by your post here, you are unable to find any Church documents or councils who contest or reject the Chair of Peter. I understand your confusion of trying to fit all Bishops as Peter, but Christ does not reveal your view. All valid Bishops possess the same power as Peter in their respected Apostolic sees domestically. Peter alone possesses the keys to bind and loose on Earth and tend and feed the flock of Jesus.

Excuse me; but there are many contention’s with the Patriarch’s of Constantinople. So much as Excommunications took part. Including Great Saints who refused the office of Patriarch of Constantinople mainly due to the secular powers infecting it. One incident comes to mind, when the Pope is addressed to help settle their disputes in the East.

All the Bishops are addressed from certain councils, and disciplines are focused on certain action by certain bishops that are not named, because the discipline applied to all Bishops by the actions of a certain few.

In fact, when the Sees are mentioned in the council it is specifically mentioned in order of honor.

It’s needless to say, the Bishop of Rome is always given the reverence and honor first including from Holy Writ and Saint writings.This is not to say the other Apostolic sees are without honor and prestige, they all are.

It goes without saying, the secular powers included reverenced the Bishop’s of Rome, when all other’s are never addressed in such honor as the Bishop’s of Rome.

When the Church Councils mention a single Bishop, it is the Bishop of Rome who is held in high regard here for all other’s to follow.

“Blue”]There is no need to. There were no exceptions/waivers to any Bishop for the first 1,000+ years of Church history.

I beg to differ; I wonder what ever happened to the Sola Scriptura Protestant clarion call that exclaimed; “IF JESUS DID SAY IT, I WON’T BELIEVE IT, BUT IF JESUS SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT”

Here is what Jesus said; “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!.. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and what ever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew gives witness to this divine revelation account from history.

John another apostle is the second witness who gives an account of Jesus commissioning Peter alone in the presence of all the apostles except one, when Jesus tells Peter after He resurrected from the Dead; “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my Sheep”, “Feed my sheep”.

Isaiah, it is to these first century divine revelations from God who speaks and commissions Peter over the whole flock, that supersedes any and all future councils to which you have prescribed that; never disqualifies Matthew’s or John’s eyewitness account of Jesus placing Peter over His whole flock.

Here is my faith, Isaiah; I put my trust in no man, but I place all my faith in only God. It appears your conflicting the man with God’s providence, promise over Peter’s distinct office God commissions Peter to feed lambs, tend the sheep, and feed the sheep.

I appeal to Jesus, not Church councils, who dare contradict Jesus divine revelation, when it comes to placing my faith in God’s providence. The Supremacy of the key holder over the whole flock, has Jesus Christ promise to be with him until the end of time. My faith is content with God here, not the man.

It is to this direct teaching from Jesus Christ, that I measure all other councils, who never conflict or teach against Jesus giving the keys and commission to Peter alone to tend God’s flock on earth.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

No. It is the opinion of Rome alone that she is exempt of any and all rules and under the authority of the Whole Church. There is no provision whatsoever that excludes any of the Sees from the mandates of the entire Church. Until Rome claimed it for herself

.

Rome has the most difficult of rules and discipline to apply by than all others; One She can never teach anything contrary to Jesus teaching’s and divine revelations, two, She can never change the Scriptures nor the Apostolic Sacred Traditions handed down us.

If you magnify each apostolic see, you will find the See of Peter has never failed here, when all others have, which is in keeping with divine providence. You can bring up many historical misgiving’s by the men who sit in Peter’s Chair, but they do not infect the consecrated office of Peter by divine right.

“Blue”]ANY BISHOP means any Bishop. No exceptions. The Church as a Whole has spoken. 1 Tim. 3:15.

Sure, it applies to all Bishop’s including the Bishop of Rome over his apostolic see at the local level. The council dares not question the Chair of Peter, Jesus builds on. Show me a council doing so, and will show you a devil.

In my other thread regarding the “Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome”, the Vatican as well as the USCCB both agree with what I am presenting:
JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
Ravenna, 13 October 2007

Lol… forgive my humor here, but do you seriously intend to disprove the Supremacy of Peter, Jesus commissions, with an Ecumenical dialogue between commissioners? These documents do not disprove the Supremacy of Peter’s Chair.

Let me put in nutshell for you; The key word that get’s overlooked is unity, united with Peter or the Bishop of Rome. Since the first Millennium, this has always been the case. Your document does not mention anything about all other Bishop’s being united to the Patriarch of Constantinople? It is to the Bishop of Rome, all Bishops look to for unity.

Secondly the local powers all bishops are commissioned by Jesus, which the council addresses and other saints such as St. Cyprian, only deal with the care of baptism, and forgiving sins. The tending, and feeding of the whole flock deals with unity with Bishop of Rome. When ever history proves this is not possible due to secular powers, Peter takes the leading role over the flock, when all others fail their local flocks, and Jesus commissions Peter alone here, to bring his brethren back and receive them.

Thanks for your response;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If the filioque never changed then I am sure there are no issues between East and West regarding it, right?

To date, many Eastern theologian have investigated the filioque without prejudices and left confirming the filioque does not conflict nor change the professed faith within the Nicene Creed and no longer object to it.

Those who view the filioque with prejudices, do so, not accepting Latin Catholic Faith expression and mainly against the authority to approve the filioque without their council, when they are suffering persecution or rejection by their Emperors that refused their Patriarchs from traveling to Rome, and who fear a united Catholic Church again, which threatens their Empire’s. These are things that are missed in the discussions of the filioque, infallibility, Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, supremacy of Peter’ s Chair.

For the record the Bishop of Rome does not dictate policy over any or all other apostolic sees locally. It is the Bishop of Rome who sits on the Chair of Peter who speaks for all. This Chair of Peter is protected by divine providence and the unity of all his brethren world wide. No other hierarchy in all the world, due to this unity with Peter has ever outlived what Jesus builds upon Peter.

INDENT]Why does it not apply to the Petrine Office(s)? Do you have anything other than silence to support this assertion during those first 1,000 years? Any Bishop means any Bishop unless there is an exception, which is absent

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello prodromos
No, you have it all backwards, When it is the Spirit (the Breath of God) who makes the Word known… Who has spoken through the prophets. The Father sends the Word and the Spirit proceeds from both to make them known.

God’s breath is a person, living and being One God in presence.

A human Son knows his human father’s voice because the father’s spirit proceeds from his voice and word, when the father speaks the word “I love you”, the father’s spirit proceeds to the hearing of the son and the son receives his father’s love.

If a stranger spoke those identical words to the same son, the son would not receive the love the stranger sends from his words " I love you", because the son does not recognize the spirit which proceeds from the stranger’s word In the “I love you”.

That is my analogy that reflects the breath of life in the spiritual reality of the Spirit, never the logic which stems from carnal minds and understanding, which means nothing compared to the doctrine of the filioque.

You failed to mention the procession of the holy spirit, when the Nicene creed only states the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and allows faith to be suspended, when Arians declared the Son is not God, when the creed only has the Spirit proceeding from the Father. The filioque fills the void and removes all doubt that Jesus is God.

The Light from light, True God from True God, begotten not made does not reference the Holy Spirit proceeding, and does not address the Arian’s interpretation of the Nicene Creed that Jesus is not God when it is professed that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father.

The Filioque removes any and all heretical views and heresies from ever trying to infect the Nicene Creed to deny Jesus is God. It is here Peter, the Bishop of Rome exercises His divine Keys to bind and loose on Earth those things that try to infect those things God revealed to His body the Catholic church.

Peace be with you

bump for podromos;

 

[guanophore]

And yet you seem to be truly bothered by the imperfectness of some of the Popes, especially during the middle ages, and that this lead to the Reformation.

I would hope that any committed disciple of Christ, ultramontanist or not, would be “truly bothered” by such a lack of sanctity in the shepherds of the Church.

There were many factors in the Reformation, but the personal failings of the successors of Peter were some of the most aggregious. To those whom much is given, much is required.

But the average Catholic in the pew wouldn’t have had much knowledge of the sins of Popes in the middle ages. Most of them would not have left the Church on their own because of this, but only when instigated to do so by heretics (most of whom had a basic problem with authority).

Yes, I believe this is true.

One must remember, though, that Luther went to Rome, and that he witnessed many of these corruptions first hand. I do not think this was the only factor in his departure from the One Faith, but I am sure it had an influence.

This was especially true in England, when most Catholics thought thought they would just ride out the problem with King Henry, and his starting of a new church of King Henry. Most of them wanted nothing to do with the new church, but rather it was forced on them, due to extreme anti-Catholic laws there.

Yes. I think this is one reason that Traditional Anglicanism today looks very much still like Medieval Catholicism.

Some of the saints had been great sinners at one time, or in their early lives. Our Lord didn’t come for saints, or to call saints, but he came for sinners, that they might be converted through Him. It takes awhile for some to get to that point. Sometimes it isn’t until the moment before death. You seem to expect that Popes should all (or mostly) been saints when they were elected to the Papacy. It’s just not realistic to think this way, IMO.

Yes, I think that they should have at least met the biblical an traditional requirements for ordination, which many of them did not. There was a prevailing secular culture, similar to what there is today in the US, where secular values often overshadowed the Spiritual - there was more concern and attention given to temporal authority than spiritual.

Take, for example, Pope Leo, who excommunicated Martin Luther. He wasn’t really a bad pope, but he paid more attention to trying to restore the Church to its former glory, and didn’t seem to see what was going on in Christendom around him, especially Germany. Popes are human. I don’t expect them to be perfect, but our prayers and personal sacrifices can help them if they do things that are obviously wrong. The Popes of the last 100 years or so haven’t been perfect either.

You give a very good example here.

Further testimony that, had the Church not been infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit, the shortcomings of her human elements would have caused a collapse millennia ago.

 

[Denise1957]

I would hope that any committed disciple of Christ, ultramontanist or not, would be “truly bothered” by such a lack of sanctity in the shepherds of the Church.

There were many factors in the Reformation, but the personal failings of the successors of Peter were some of the most aggregious. To those whom much is given, much is required.

One must remember, though, that Luther went to Rome, and that he witnessed many of these corruptions first hand. I do not think this was the only factor in his departure from the One Faith, but I am sure it had an influence.

Yes. I think this is one reason that Traditional Anglicanism today looks very much still like Medieval Catholicism.

What failings of the Popes were particularly aggregious in relation to the reformation? I’ve asked you to explain this in a specific (specific to popes) manner, but you wouldn’t. What corruptions of the Pope were witnessed by Luther first hand?

Traditional Anglicanism today may look like Medieval Catholicism, but it isn’t. Appearances can be deceiving.

 

[prodromos]

bump for podromos;

You claim I have it backwards but you have by no means demonstrated that to be the case.
I have not failed to mention the procession of the Holy Spirit, it is simply not necessary since there is nothing lacking in declaring the Son as being God in the clauses I posted. You have not answered my question of how the Arians in Spain got around those clauses.
What you did say, that “Arians declared the Son is not God, when the creed only has the Spirit proceeding from the Father.”, is nonsense because that was never an argument of the Arians, nor does it address the earlier clauses outright stating the divinity of the Son.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I must conclude by your post here, you are unable to find any Church documents or councils who contest or reject the Chair of Peter. I understand your confusion of trying to fit all Bishops as Peter, but Christ does not reveal your view. All valid Bishops possess the same power as Peter in their respected Apostolic sees domestically. Peter alone possesses the keys to bind and loose on Earth and tend and feed the flock of Jesus.

Just like I can’t find any documents or councils that give the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop an exception and/or waiver that place said Bishop outside the Church.
The keys can’t bind and lose alone. The power to bind and lose is shared among the Magisterium of the Whole Church. This is why, not only Church history but Scriptures demonstrate a Conciliar model of Church government when the powers to bind and lose are in conflict. Those who against the Church are deposed and/or excommunicated. No exceptions. No amount of Exception theology can take away from Scriptures and Church history.

Excuse me; but there are many contention’s with the Patriarch’s of Constantinople. So much as Excommunications took part. Including Great Saints who refused the office of Patriarch of Constantinople mainly due to the secular powers infecting it. One incident comes to mind, when the Pope is addressed to help settle their disputes in the East.

In like manner, we can bring up the Papal Schism and the entire Avignon controversy. By you pointing out problems in other Sees, you do nothing but to point to the problems of your own See. If you want to engage in throwing dirty clothes, I will have no choice but to stop engaging you.

All the Bishops are addressed from certain councils, and disciplines are focused on certain action by certain bishops that are not named, because the discipline applied to all Bishops by the actions of a certain few.

The entire Church is addressed from the Councils. It is the model we have in Scriptures and Church history. This model changed in the West after the Great Schism. That is a fact.

When the Church Councils mention a single Bishop, it is the Bishop of Rome who is held in high regard here for all other’s to follow.

Because the Bishop of Rome has primacy. We have had many heroes of the faith that have been Bishops of Rome. We have had many others that are not. Peter AND Paul were in Rome and both were martyred in Rome.

I beg to differ; I wonder what ever happened to the Sola Scriptura Protestant clarion call that exclaimed; “IF JESUS DID SAY IT, I WON’T BELIEVE IT, BUT IF JESUS SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT”

And there goes my hope to have a meaningful conversation with you… This is not what we are discussing here. If you wish to insult me and present me as a narrow minded person like this – you have succeeded. I have not only presented Scriptures but Sacred Tradition and Magisterial documents.

Isaiah, it is to these first century divine revelations from God who speaks and commissions Peter over the whole flock, that supersedes any and all future councils to which you have prescribed that; never disqualifies Matthew’s or John’s eyewitness account of Jesus placing Peter over His whole flock.

Your version of history lacks support and documentation. You are more than welcome to participate in the thread about the Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. All of your claims lack support from Church Councils and practice for the first 1,000+ years. Saying it was doesn’t make it so. You have to substantiate said claims.

Here is my faith, Isaiah; I put my trust in no man, but I place all my faith in only God. It appears your conflicting the man with God’s providence, promise over Peter’s distinct office God commissions Peter to feed lambs, tend the sheep, and feed the sheep.

Fantastic. That is your personal choice. I place all my faith in God and His Church.

I appeal to Jesus, not Church councils, who dare contradict Jesus divine revelation, when it comes to placing my faith in God’s providence. The Supremacy of the key holder over the whole flock, has Jesus Christ promise to be with him until the end of time. My faith is content with God here, not the man.

It is to this direct teaching from Jesus Christ, that I measure all other councils, who never conflict or teach against Jesus giving the keys and commission to Peter alone to tend God’s flock on earth.

Who’s Sola Scriptura now? Never in my life did I think it would be possible that by engaging my fellow Catholic brothers I would face argumentation that separates Church History, Church Councils, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. Never!
This view is absent from the Church for over 1,000+ years. You would have a much better argument if you present why is it necessary to change into this view.

 

[KathleenGee]

However, when there were disputes between Rome and Constantinople, Rome always sided with the nature of the Church simply being ecclesial, and refuting any stand tainted with imperialism.

Ecclesia rules over imperialism…and subsequent nationalism which happened to Germany and England.

 

[guanophore]

What failings of the Popes were particularly aggregious in relation to the reformation? I’ve asked you to explain this in a specific (specific to popes) manner, but you wouldn’t. What corruptions of the Pope were witnessed by Luther first hand?

I have not responded to this request because it is off topic in this thread. The corruption of the medieval popes has no bearing on the fact that Christ made Peter the Rock upon which He would bulid His Church.

Those who are interested in these events of history might be inclined to investigate the warring families of Italy, and their relation to the Papacy. Three Popes in particular, Rodrigo Borgia, who became Alexander VI (1492–1503), Giuliano Della Rovere, who became Julius II (1503–13), and Giovanni de Medici, who became Leo X (1513–21).

 

[KathleenGee]

I am a cradle Catholic who grew up in the late 60’s and early 70’s and it took me awhile to find my focus on Christ in the Church and not its leadership.

Likewise, my pastor told us he had the lowest opinion of the pope during Luther’s time…this pope having the cardinals’ tower…

But back to point, as a Catholic you learn where to keep your focus in times of controversy and confusion. During that time, my grandmother was in such a parish and she told me to just go to Mass, hear the Word of God and receive the sacraments, do your prayers and leave.