Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Gabriel_of_12]

prodromos;12461674]You claim I have it backwards but you have by no means demonstrated that to be the case.

You have the Spirit backwards when you apply carnal logic to the mystery. The Word is spoken and the Spirit proceeds to make Him Known to our humanity. Breath and Word from your human logic which you wrongly interpreted my analogy does nothing, when it is the Spirit from the Word that makes known, what the Father sends.

You have not proven the Spirit does not proceed from the Word spoken described in spiritual terms describing spiritual realities, when your supposed logic never reaches such as mystery from the carnal mind.

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.

The Creed does not mention the procession of the Holy Spirit, from your quote; “Light from light, true God from true God…” It is from here, you failed argue your point by applying a quote from the Creed that does not reflect the procession.

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.

Here’s where I think you miss the point. While we both agree the Arians from the East declared Jesus is not God, which the Trinity defeated.

When a new form of Arian heresy reaches Spain, these Arians are professing the Nicene Creed, but are teaching and interpreting from the professed Creed that Jesus is not God, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from Jesus.

So, I give you credit from the original Arian heresy from the East denying the divinity of Jesus. When the Arians reach the West, this new form of Arian denies Jesus is not God, when the divinity is not brought into question, so your Light from Light, True God from True God is not brought under question from the profession., because the Arians are still holding to Jesus receiving his divinity at later time. These details are very important, because the Arian heresy still exist among protestant denominating communities calling themselves Christian.

Peace be with you

 

[Denise1957]

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).

If it is off-topic, why have you stated at least twice that the Medieval popes, and/or those associated with the reformation were corrupt? Yet you refuse to say exactly who, and what they did. You also said that Luther saw the corruption of the pope first hand, but you refuse to say what Luther saw. Why even mention it, if it’s off-topic,and you won’t back it up with any sort of explanation, specific to the popes during that time?

 

[guanophore]

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.

I wish that this were true, but I fear that history demonstrates it is not.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Oh, but the Apostolic Sacred Tradition was changed when Rome departed from the Conciliar model of Church government.

So whomever has the most difficult rules and discipline is correct? What does this have to do with anything? And what about keeping this simple like you posted previously?

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.

I am magnifying the Whole Church – The BODY OF CHRIST, not a single Bishop.

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.

Adding more insult? You fail to read that it says there was no Supremacy during the Conciliar model of Church government. But it was “Divine Revelation” and that it was really intended from the beginning.

The most abused and obscured manner of argumentation, accompanied by Sola Scriptura, of course.
Bishops look for a leader, not a ruler. The Ruler position is already taken by Christ.

Yes, I have my view supporting God’s revelation. Does your view have God on it’s side? Prove it.

More humor? I already have. And actually I didn’t have to prove anything. All I have done is present Church history.

The Supremacy you oppose, is the Supremacy God builds. So your opposition is not against the Supremacy of Peter, your view buffets the Word and work of God.

That is the Western Church claim after the 11th century. My position is against anything that doesn’t build the Church. Unless the Whole Church confirms Rome’s claims, the binding and losings are still in conflict.

Straw man is an abuse term used on these forums, to me it’s a cop out to a point, one cannot answer, when the straw view is never directly pointed out.

Just like calling a cop out by not answering to a straw man?

The Catholic Church is never a democracy sorry, so your view does not fit. We have a reigning King and His Vicar is present with us, until Jesus our King returns for His bride.

You are correct that we have a reigning King. He is alive and well and sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

Christ is in our midst, NOW and FOREVER!

 

[Randy_Carson]

We have a reigning King and His Vicar is present with us, until Jesus our King returns for His bride.

You are correct that we have a reigning King.

And a reigning Royal Steward who hold the keys given originally to St. Peter.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12461677]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.

Unity Isaiah, Unity to the Bishop of Rome is never outside the Church, is what your documents portray. The Bishop of Rome is never 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.

When are the powers to bind and loose are in conflict? No one argues the bishops united t the Popes share the power to bind and loose. When the brethren fail as did the apostles, Peter is commissioned to bring back his brethren, with the Keys Jesus gives him personally to bind and loose on earth. I think, you confuse the binding and loosing of bishops at the local level and the keys, with the power to bind and loose on Earth. Do you understand this divine revelation? When all Bishops share united with the office of Peter?

INDENT]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.

Probably because I don’t deny the failings of men in Peter’s Chair including Peter himself, which does has not infected the office of Peter Jesus builds on. The Avignon controversies only prove how important the See of Peter is recognized and reverenced by all secular powers. I have no problem discussing these recorded events, because they never Changed the Rock Jesus builds. Your view on the other hand judges the divine office or Peter Jesus builds, because those like Peter, have failed Christ in their Christian disciplines.

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.

Not a fact, because you neglect the Church history pre-Constantinople and Secular political power influence over the Early Church councils, and the persecution of Peter by pagan Rome, when Peter and the Church suffer persecution for four hundred years, prior to Constantinople. Beginning with Peter alone, who receives the heavenly vision to allow the Gentiles into the Church without circumcision when “The Way” were all Jews.

The model has not changed Isaiah, maybe in these exchanges, this can be shown to here. What has changed are the tactics that attack the Supremacy of Peter’s Chair and the Church. Peter has never left Rome, His bones and Paul’s bones are still there. Why don’t you take a view pre-Constantinople, and you will find the Roman Catholic Church has never changed since Apostolic times.

The Church existed before the New Testament, who records the memoirs of the Apostles, and NOT all is written in them, but handed down Orally. You need the Church first before you can take on what She wrote.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

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.

Yet it is the first thirty four Popes directly succeeding Peter, who are all recorded from history to suffer Martyrdom for the whole Catholic faith, and all Christians recognize and reverence these princesses of the Apostles. Those Catholic Saints who are not bishop’s of Rome, write with reverence and as high pre-eminence over all other Apostolic Sees, pre-Constantinople. Read these Early Church Fathers in their time and faith, who never new of any council post Constantinople, and you find the Roman Catholic Church has never left their apostolic model of faith of martyrdom.

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.
​

No, you have presented Scripture, sacred Tradition that do not support you view. The scripture I presented asked for your interpretation, as it presents my view, it does not in no way apply to your faith, you maybe holding at this time.

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.

No, my view supports pre-Constantinople, when your view is holding only to Ecumenical Councils? It does no good to abuse Church documents and councils with views such as yours that are foreign to them. Again in this thread, the pre-Constantinople period when Peter is always present, and no Patriarch of Constantinople does not exist yet, is where I am professing my faith. I hope to prove to you, maybe on the other thread you propose, to reveal to you, how you abuse and disrespect the Church councils with your opposition to Peter’s Chair.

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

That’s great, but which Church? Your church does not appear to be the Church Jesus builds upon Peter from the first Century to the present. When I place all my faith in God, it includes His Church Jesus builds upon Peter with unbroken Apostolic Succession. When Jesus is our head, and we are His body, united to His Vicar on earth Peter and the apostles.

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.

As the little poor Pope Leo the Great told the barbarian conqueror Attilla the Hun; Maybe you never met a real Bishop in Peter, who feared and trembled before this Pope, ran away with great fear and died.

Keep up your pursuit for Truth and don’t give up by any of my misgivings. God is faithful, and He will not allow not one of His to be snatched from His hand. By your earnest effort to disprove Peter’s Authority in the Church, God will not disappoint you.

Peace be with you​

 

[guanophore]

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.

You and your grandmother are very wise, Kathleen. Sadly, this is an important principle for all of us. Let us pray, though, that the Church will manifest, through us, the fellowship that characterized those early days.

 

[guanophore]

If it is off-topic, why have you stated at least twice that the Medieval popes, and/or those associated with the reformation were corrupt? Yet you refuse to say exactly who, and what they did. You also said that Luther saw the corruption of the pope first hand, but you refuse to say what Luther saw. Why even mention it, if it’s off-topic,and you won’t back it up with any sort of explanation, specific to the popes during that time?

I was responding to other posts. If you want, we can take it to a new thread.

 

[Denise1957]

I was responding to other posts. If you want, we can take it to a new thread.

I realize that you were responding to other posts. Still, you made the statements, and then you said that it would be off-topic to explain them. If you want to start another thread, that’s fine. Or, you can explain what you meant by the medieval and reformation popes being corrupt. If not, okay. But if you bring it up again (that the popes were corrupt), I’ll bug you about it - again - and ask for an explanation, which is only reasonable - again.

Fair enough?

 

[prodromos]

You have the Spirit backwards when you apply carnal logic to the mystery. The Word is spoken and the Spirit proceeds to make Him Known to our humanity. Breath and Word from your human logic which you wrongly interpreted my analogy does nothing, when it is the Spirit from the Word that makes known, what the Father sends.

You were the one who brought in the analogy using carnal logic. Now you want to disown it?

The Creed does not mention the procession of the Holy Spirit, from your quote; “Light from light, true God from true God…” It is from here, you failed argue your point by applying a quote from the Creed that does not reflect the procession.

It is you who fails to address my point that these clauses declare the divinity of Jesus without need for any further clarification.

Here’s where I think you miss the point. While we both agree the Arians from the East declared Jesus is not God, which the Trinity defeated.

When a new form of Arian heresy reaches Spain, these Arians are professing the Nicene Creed, but are teaching and interpreting from the professed Creed that Jesus is not God, because the Holy Spirit does not proceed from Jesus.

Here is where you make false claims regarding the Arians in Spain. They were not a new form of Arianism, they had been evangelised by an Arian missionary and existed parallel to the Nicene christians for almost a century. They did not hold a distorted interpretation of the Nicene creed because they had never received it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

No, my view supports pre-Constantinople, when your view is holding only to Ecumenical Councils? It does no good to abuse Church documents and councils with views such as yours that are foreign to them. Again in this thread, the pre-Constantinople period when Peter is always present, and no Patriarch of Constantinople does not exist yet, is where I am professing my faith. I hope to prove to you, maybe on the other thread you propose, to reveal to you, how you abuse and disrespect the Church councils with your opposition to Peter’s Chair.

If I was standing alone in what I’m reading you would have a much better argument. The problem is that an entire lung of the Church doesn’t agree with supremacy.

You misunderstand and falsely accuse me of disrespecting and abusing the Church councils and that I oppose Peter’s Chair.

While on the contrary, I have nothing but reverence for both. And my posts clearly demonstrate my reverence for the Body of Christ: The Church. I grow tired of your false accusations and lack of supporting documentation. Like Randy, you choose to engage the poster instead of the argument presented by the poster.

You mention the pre-Constantinople period and yet, I don’t see any references from Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Iraeneus, et al.

You mention the Oral Tradition and yet you have not presented any credible sources of this Tradition that can confirm what you posit.

Keep up your pursuit for Truth and don’t give up by any of my misgivings. God is faithful, and He will not allow not one of His to be snatched from His hand. By your earnest effort to disprove Peter’s Authority in the Church, God will not disappoint you.

Peace be with you

Do you mean this?

I don’t want to disprove Peter’s authority, just not by Peter alone.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Isaiah45_9;12462308]If I was standing alone in what I’m reading you would have a much better argument. The problem is that an entire lung of the Church doesn’t agree with supremacy.

No the problem here is that in the West we are one lung united to the Bishop of Rome. In the East there are many independent Church’s divided among one another not to exclude some not all in the East are remain in schism with the West. You generalized the lung example out of it’s context when it prays for unity, beginning with the east to unite as one so as to breathe with the West who is already one full lung. You draw a false conclusion from the Popes analogy. To which those in the East in communion with Peter understand the Supremacy of Peter, who do not take it to mean a man possessing superhuman powers to rule as a dictator.

You misunderstand and falsely accuse me of disrespecting and abusing the Church councils and that I oppose Peter’s Chair

.

Yes, because you list many to try and support your view, when you falsely apply your view to them when they are addressing other issues that do not touch on your view. This is an abuse and a disrespect to the Council’s findings.

Just a note for you, those council which you try and force your view upon are dealing with Ecclesial disciplines from the East, who are being infected by heretics, heresies and abuse of Ecclesial powers. When the West is not being infected with such travesties within the body of Christ. More on this later… But consider this when you reach for these early Councils.

While on the contrary, I have nothing but reverence for both. And my posts clearly demonstrate my reverence for the Body of Christ: The Church. I grow tired of your false accusations and lack of supporting documentation. Like Randy, you choose to engage the poster instead of the argument presented by the poster.

I already addressed this, there are no councils, no ECF’s writings who oppose or reject Peter as being pre-eminence over all other Church’s. Nor have you presented any, because they do not exist.

I gave you the Words of God Himself who builds His Church upon Peter with the commission to tend and feed His flock until Jesus returns.

Do you believe Christ made Peter the head of the Church? Answer the Op here, so we can move on, or address this issue.

You mention the pre-Constantinople period and yet, I don’t see any references from Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, Iraeneus, et al.

I mention this period, because the Bishop of Rome has never moved from the Rock, from which the model the Apostles hands down to the Bishop of Rome to today. This Rock appears foreign to post Constantinople, due to secular powers that move to infect both the East and West sides of the Catholic Church. Today after many centuries, Peter is free once again from secular powers, she has returned to the Apostolic model that has never changed, while the East remains under secular power influences. Peter here declares to these secular powers, Peter is supreme over the whole Church as Vicar of Christ who is our head, which is Peter’s clarion call; for the secular powers to step down, before Peter binds and looses them. Peter does this when He is free once again and persecuted once again by secular powers.

You mention the Oral Tradition and yet you have not presented any credible sources of this Tradition that can confirm what you posit.

For this OP, I only presented to you the Source God revealed to our humanity and the two witnesses who record Jesus making Peter the head of HIs Church. Do you dispute my references to which I have given you? You gave references that do not apply to your view, and makes no sense to this OP.

Do you mean this?

I don’t want to disprove Peter’s authority, just not by Peter alone.

I believe what Jesus teaches and promises. Peter is never alone! Jesus promises Peter to be with him always!!! Do you deny this?

Peter is never alone when his brethren are united to him, in the West and some from the East Peter has never lost this unity as one. So are mistaken.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

prodromos;12462192]You were the one who brought in the analogy using carnal logic. Now you want to disown it?

No, you tried to shrink my analogy to human logic. When I stated a god is dead when his breath does not proceed from his voice and word and so is the human person.

When I made it clear to you, that the breath which proceeds from the voice and the Word is the spirit who makes known the voice and the word. God has created us in His image and likeness.

If the Spirit (breath) of God does not proceed from His Voice and Word, then that god is dead, because it does not live and breathe.

To which you have not given any recourse to my clarification, except an abuse of my analogy to a human logic.

It is you who fails to address my point that these clauses declare the divinity of Jesus without need for any further clarification.

Yes, I agree, light from light, true God from God declares Jesus divinity, which the Arians have no problem Jesus receiving his divinity at a later time.

Your point does not reveal anything about the Spirit proceeding.

Here is where you make false claims regarding the Arians in Spain. They were not a new form of Arianism, they had been evangelised by an Arian missionary and existed parallel to the Nicene christians for almost a century. They did not hold a distorted interpretation of the Nicene creed because they had never received it.

Oh, great, now you have the Arians never existing, because they never professed the Nicene Creed, because they never received it? So the Pope out of the blue protected the Apostolic faith with the Filioque, because the sky decided to rain one day?

Let’s not change the subject here, and redirect to the OP. I don’t follow your reasoning to the Op here.

Peace be with you

 

[clem456]

You mention the Oral Tradition and yet you have not presented any credible sources of this Tradition that can confirm what you posit.

At some point, doesn’t it become apparent that there is no source, or proof, of oral Tradition?
Note that the word credible has it’s origin in the word for “belief”. What do you believe, and why do you believe it?

No one tape recorded Christ, catching his every word. Journalism, in the modern understanding, did not exist. Yet you ask for credible sources. Credo is a response to God, not a demand for literalist proof.

If you believe anything at all Christian, you believe what is at it’s root, a mostly unsubstantiated story about a person. Why do you want to believe in such a foolish proposition?

To be a Christian is to jump off the cliff of the unbelievable and the unprovable. He is risen, and there is no real proof. Why do you want to believe?

We believe because the second person of the blessed Trinity revealed himself, transformed the lives of those around him, gave them authority and mission. That small seed is the Christian faith, watered by His blood. If you are looking for proof, you will forever be disappointed. And if you reject the institution that Christ began, with all it’s warts, with it’s authority and other charisms, what is your faith founded on?

 

[spina1953]

At some point, doesn’t it become apparent that there is no source, or proof, of oral Tradition?
Note that the word credible has it’s origin in the word for “belief”. What do you believe, and why do you believe it?

No one tape recorded Christ, catching his every word. Journalism, in the modern understanding, did not exist. Yet you ask for credible sources. Credo is a response to God, not a demand for literalist proof.

If you believe anything at all Christian, you believe what is at it’s root, a mostly unsubstantiated story about a person. Why do you want to believe in such a foolish proposition?

To be a Christian is to jump off the cliff of the unbelievable and the unprovable. He is risen, and there is no real proof. Why do you want to believe?

We believe because the second person of the blessed Trinity revealed himself, transformed the lives of those around him, gave them authority and mission. That small seed is the Christian faith, watered by His blood. If you are looking for proof, you will forever be disappointed. And if you reject the institution that Christ began, with all it’s warts, with it’s authority and other charisms, what is your faith founded on?

Hi clem 456: Great post. I would like to add here that one reason why we believe is because the Apostles believed and were willing to die for that belief. Another reason is why would the Apostles be willing to dies for something not true? Our belief then is based on that deposit of faith of the Apostles and those who believed.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi clem 456: Great post. I would like to add here that one reason why we believe is because the Apostles believed and were willing to die for that belief. Another reason is why would the Apostles be willing to dies for something not true? Our belief then is based on that deposit of faith of the Apostles and those who believed.

And this would make a lot more sense if you were arguing against a Non-Christian.

The issues I’m addressing are one of Church government, and when those are tied into a [belief] system and/or to be held as a matter of faith and therefore salvation. We have to test said claims with the Living Tradition of the Church. Or else, it becomes [New Public Revelation] and/or [New Divine Revelation]. So if the faith was once and for all delivered to the saints, whenever something [NEW] comes along - it needs to be tested and its fruits need to be looked at. Which is why Christ left us with a COLLECTIVE authority under his Headship. That authority is the Church. You say Apostles and all I have presented is by those who succeed the Apostles.

By attacking a poster (And by no means I’m referring this to you, spina. You are very respectful), all that is demonstrated is ignorance, lack of charity and immaturity.

 

[clem456]

And this would make a lot more sense if you were arguing against a Non-Christian.

The issues I’m addressing are one of Church government, and when those are tied into a [belief] system and/or to be held as a matter of faith and therefore salvation. We have to test said claims with the Living Tradition of the Church. Or else, it becomes [New Public Revelation] and/or [New Divine Revelation]. So if the faith was once and for all delivered to the saints, whenever something [NEW] comes along - it needs to be tested and its fruits need to be looked at. Which is why Christ left us with a COLLECTIVE authority under his Headship. That authority is the Church. You say Apostles and all I have presented is by those who succeed the Apostles.

By attacking a poster (And by no means I’m referring this to you, spina. You are very respectful), all that is demonstrated is ignorance, lack of charity and immaturity.

Is that directed at me? I apologize if you took my post as a personal attack.
I hate to see a fellow Christian agonize page after page about issues that are clearly proposed by the Church.

As for the part I bolded. All those issues are clearly addressed in the CCC and other documents. The CCC is the current teaching document given to the faithful by the Catholic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Is that directed at me? I apologize if you took my post as a personal attack.
I hate to see a fellow Christian agonize page after page about issues that are clearly proposed by the Church.

As for the part I bolded. All those issues are clearly addressed in the CCC and other documents. The CCC is the current teaching document given to the faithful by the Catholic Church.

Not at you clem. But the fact that there were 12 Apostles, not 1.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Do you believe Christ made Peter the head of the Church? Answer the Op here, so we can move on, or address this issue.

I will move on from the discussion with you. There is nothing fruitful that will come from it.

To answer the OP and in typical Catholic fashion

Yes and No.

Yes in the way it was exercised up to the 11th century, and No in the way it has been exercised thereafter.

I will not ignore more than 1,000 years of Church history. Either the Church has always been present and the gates of hell did not overcome it or there was an absence and the Church failed.