Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Clem-

Some mistakenly believe that all the apostles were equal in all respects. This error ignores the fact that Peter alone received the keys, symbol of the office of Royal Steward.

The keys are used to open doors and gates…a large responsibility. The other 11 were given responsibility for binding and loosing with regard to smaller matters (people and things) contained within those walls. The context of Mt. 18:15-18 makes this clear.

And this has been pointed out in this thread and others very recently.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Clem-

Some mistakenly believe that all the apostles were equal in all respects. This error ignores the fact that Peter alone received the keys, symbol of the office of Royal Steward.

The keys are used to open doors and gates…a large responsibility. The other 11 were given responsibility for binding and loosing with regard to smaller matters (people and things) contained within those walls. The context of Mt. 18:15-18 makes this clear.

And this has been pointed out in this thread and others very recently.

For the record:

I am not one of those some. I believe in Peter’s primacy, not supremacy.

 

[clem456]

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

All 12 were unique human beings. God gives us that uniqueness and respects it. He gives us a diversity of unique gifts, according to the abilities we have, according to his will. Because we have unique gifts we are not all “the same”. We can be said to be “equal” as human beings in the eyes of God, but we have unique gifts.

Authority is a charism. Do you accept the basic premise that authority is a charism?
The charism of authority given to one person does not detract from the gifts of others. The charism given to any particular person is always exercised in the context of Christ’s body, the “holos” in Catholic.

God does not view grace (charism) like we do. Grace is not a limited quantity, there is plenty for everyone. But we’re not all given the same gifts. One has a unique gift. That gift should not arouse fear, suspicion, and jealousy in us. The other 11 also have unique gifts.

I wish you would read what the Church teaches on authority. Not all 12 apostles are the same. One has a unique gift, but the unique gifts of all are unified in the holos.

 

[spina1953]

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.

Hi Isaiah 45: Understood. However, There is new revelation only a better understanding of what has already been revealed by Christ and handed down to us from the Apostles. I rather doubt that any of the Apostles were not in unity with Peter and I think they looked to Peter as their leader and spokesmen for the early Church I also doubt that any of the Apostles would have said anything different from what Peter said or did. Peter was put into authority by Christ Himself and the rest of the Apostles understood that.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Fair enough. I will only bring it up if there is any claim made that the Successors of Peter are more deserving of the position of the Vicar of Christ because they have behaved better than other Bishops, many of whom have now rejected his authority over them.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Fair enough. I will only bring it up if there is any claim made that the Successors of Peter are more deserving of the position of the Vicar of Christ because they have behaved better than other Bishops, many of whom have now rejected his authority over them.

Has anyone made that argument?

Now, the fact that other Sees have succumbed to heresy is a different matter than that of “behavior”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

For the record:

I am not one of those some. I believe in Peter’s primacy, not supremacy.

It would be fruitful to learn your view of the difference between Peter’ primacy and Peter’s supremacy? without attacking the Popes with an Orthodox view who are out of communion with one another and remain in schism with Peter today.

You mentioned the first thousand years of Church history to include the Early church councils the church remained as one and then takes on a change thereafter?

The first four hundred years after Pentecost, only Peter and his united brethren suffer the persecution pre-Constantinople.

Post Constantinople, is when the Church suffers a different persecution from secular powers that begin the road of infecting and poisoning the Ecclesial offices, and begin to introduce new Patriarch’s from Constantinople who usurp authority from original Apostolic sees. When the Popes suffer sometimes by imprisonment by the Eastern Emperors, because the Popes refuse to allow the secular powers to engage Church faith, while the Eastern Church has to council with the saints in full communion with Peter, in order to battle this power struggle and to fend off heretics, heresies trying to infect the Apostolic deposit of faith.

The councils you present do not deal with the Supremacy of Peter, it is a given, so is the supremacy of the Popes in Rome fully recognized by the Emperor’s themselves, so much so, at a time of peace the Emperor surrenders his Pontiff title as religious high priest over the entire Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome, who accepts the title of Pontiff religious high priest over the entire Roman Empire.

Now if this does not reveal to you, that the Bishop of Rome has and is recognized as Supreme Pontiff over the Roman Empire by a secular power then I cannot help you here.

I hope to give you my sources on the other thread that addresses these issues to open your eyes to a real and true Church history, that reveals heretical Eastern Emperors aligned with Emperor induced power Patriarch’s of Constantinople who begin the politics of usurping the authority from Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem to himself.

Secondly, my sources will prove to you, that the Emperor induced powerful Patriarch’s of Constantinople, attempted to usurp the authority from the Bishop of Rome, which should disprove your view, when the Bishop of Rome is reverenced as High Pontiff and Peter pre-eminent over all Church’s (flock).

When the Patriarch of Constantinople learns he cannot usurp the poor and unsupported Bishop of Rome, he produces a council which you accept, to declare himself equal to the Bishop of Rome. Who never signs and rejects such canons by an Eastern Emperor supported Council to usurp the Chair of Peter’s supremacy as Pontiff over the whole Roman Empire.

If this does not prove to you, that Peter’s supremacy is recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople, who fails at usurping the Bishop of Rome 's Authority, and claims he is equal to the Bishop of Rome and all others are not!! Should prove to you, a change has taken place in the East in regards to authority, when the West is never infected by secular powers as was the Eastern Empire. Did the Pope crown a Western Emperor? Yes he did, and this begins a long path of the Popes fighting to keep the Chair of Peter from secular powers.

Today the Pope’s are free from secular powers, which returns the Popes to the same model St. Peter handed down to us, as Peter the key holder of heaven and earth to bind and loose the Earth not the local Church, the Bishop of Rome binds and looses here.

Peace be with you

 

[clem456]

Hi Isaiah 45: Understood. However, There is new revelation only a better understanding of what has already been revealed by Christ and handed down to us from the Apostles. I rather doubt that any of the Apostles were not in unity with Peter and I think they looked to Peter as their leader and spokesmen for the early Church I also doubt that any of the Apostles would have said anything different from what Peter said or did. Peter was put into authority by Christ Himself and the rest of the Apostles understood that.

12 apostles all with unique gifts, 1 with unique authority.
Were they in unity of opinion and approach? I hardly think so, any more than our bishops are today. Being human beings, their disagreements were probably as heated back then as they are now. (see the Acts)

But, in the end, being part of the Church means accepting that you are part of Christ’s body, even with all it’s rich diversity. You are in relationship with the whole body, including Peter who has a unique gift. The relationship itself with Christ and his people is what the unity consists of.

Despite differences of opinion and approach, that relationship with the “holos” is maintained. Unity is not merely equal to agreement on doctrine, dogma etc…it is maintaining a relationship with the Body. Unity is a personal thing (see what I did there, there is that “p” word again), between persons, not -just- concepts. It is rooted in the person of Christ, who despite our stupidity, distrust, and pride, nevertheless maintained his relationship with all his people. It’s about trusting others, assenting to things we cannot understand, humility (I need me some a that), respect for God’s gifts, in short it’s about faith.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I think this is very well stated, and accurate.

 

[spina1953]

12 apostles all with unique gifts, 1 with unique authority.
Were they in unity of opinion and approach? I hardly think so, any more than our bishops are today. Being human beings, their disagreements were probably as heated back then as they are now. (see the Acts)

But, in the end, being part of the Church means accepting that you are part of Christ’s body, even with all it’s rich diversity. You are in relationship with the whole body, including Peter who has a unique gift. The relationship itself with Christ and his people is what the unity consists of.

Despite differences of opinion and approach, that relationship with the “holos” is maintained. Unity is not merely equal to agreement on doctrine, dogma etc…it is maintaining a relationship with the Body. Unity is a personal thing (see what I did there, there is that “p” word again), between persons, not -just- concepts. It is rooted in the person of Christ, who despite our stupidity, distrust, and pride, nevertheless maintained his relationship with all his people. It’s about trusting others, assenting to things we cannot understand, humility (I need me some a that), respect for God’s gifts, in short it’s about faith.

Hi clem456: In Acts about the council I think the argument was more with Pharisees who were saying that one had to follow the Law of Moses in order for the Gentiles to be saved and the Apostles saying that it was believing in Christ Jesus was one saved. Sure there were times when they were with Jesus that the Apostles may have argued and not understanding what was being taught to them by Jesus is one thing, but it just seems to me that the Apostles by and large did not just go off by themselves with their own beliefs but were in accord with each other as well as with Peter. They were unified.

 

[clem456]

Hi clem456: In Acts about the council I think the argument was more with Pharisees who were saying that one had to follow the Law of Moses in order for the Gentiles to be saved and the Apostles saying that it was believing in Christ Jesus was one saved. Sure there were times when they were with Jesus that the Apostles may have argued and not understanding what was being taught to them by Jesus is one thing, but it just seems to me that the Apostles by and large did not just go off by themselves with their own beliefs but were in accord with each other as well as with Peter. They were unified.

I agree with what you say, I am just trying to flesh out what the unity is for those who are struggling with Catholicism. Peter and Paul had a disagreement. Imagine for a moment the profound nature of that argument, what it must have been like.

Yet the bond of love keeps us unified through disagreements. When things don’t go the way we’d like, respect for the person is the unifying glue.

What does that respect for the person consist of?

Recognizing and accepting the gift of authority, giving our assent to the person (or the office) when it hurts or is mystifying.

The person with authority recognizing his need for the (name removed by moderator)ut of others who may be wiser than him and have gifts that he must recognize to exercise his authority with respect for Christ.

The point I’m trying to make is, these things go beyond demanding proof. Catholic Tradition asks for trust between people.

 

[tskrobacz]

The Church is the mail carrier, not the author. People who have an issue with Catholic teachings have an issue with the Trinity, not Rome. The Catholic church guards and protects the wisdom of the tradition, and of Jesus’ message…it does not rewrite the narrative of God.

If I write a book…you can decide to change it’s characters or meaning but you cannot force me to change also…after all, I (or in this case God) wrote the book.

 

[Karen107]

For the record:

I am not one of those some. I believe in Peter’s primacy, not supremacy.

I probably missed the discussion on this awhile back but Primacy vs Supremacy…

From the dictionary.

pri·ma·cy
ˈprīməsē/Submit
noun

1. the fact of being primary, preeminent, or more important.
   “the primacy of air power in the modern war”
   synonyms: greater importance, priority, precedence, preeminence, superiority, supremacy, ascendancy, dominance, dominion, leadership
   “the primacy of industry over agriculture”

I hate to use the example of the President here, but he’s Commander in Chief of our armed forces, yet, he doesn’t get involved in the day to day command… The day to day commander are responsible for their troops, if they fail, they may get court martialed and lose their job, yet the President, who oversees the commanders and though a commander may lose their job, that doesn’t necessarily mean the President will… Yet there remains a power to impeach the President if the President is directly responsible for wrong doing … In the same way if a Pope asks anyone to do something that is knowingly outright sinful, a person doesn’t have to follow the Popes direction because we are beholden to God first. That’s how I understand it… So there are checks and balances even for a Supreme leader. In this way everyone in the Church is equal…

 

[guanophore]

Has anyone made that argument?

Now, the fact that other Sees have succumbed to heresy is a different matter than that of “behavior”.

You are making assertions beyond those made by your own Church!

Be very careful here, when leveling this accusation at other Patriarchs that are not in communion with the successor of Peter, because the Successor of Peter considers their Holy Orders and Sacraments valid, which would not be the case had they fallen into heresy.

 

[spina1953]

I agree with what you say, I am just trying to flesh out what the unity is for those who are struggling with Catholicism. Peter and Paul had a disagreement. Imagine for a moment the profound nature of that argument, what it must have been like.

Yet the bond of love keeps us unified through disagreements. When things don’t go the way we’d like, respect for the person is the unifying glue.

What does that respect for the person consist of?

Recognizing and accepting the gift of authority, giving our assent to the person (or the office) when it hurts or is mystifying.

The person with authority recognizing his need for the (name removed by moderator)ut of others who may be wiser than him and have gifts that he must recognize to exercise his authority with respect for Christ.

The point I’m trying to make is, these things go beyond demanding proof. Catholic Tradition asks for trust between people.

Hi clem456: I totally agree with you on the points you made. Just as in any boardroom there will those who disagree but when its all over and done with all go with the plan. Yes, trust is a part of Tradition and Tradition is also the oral teachings that were not written down but retained and passed on along with the Scriptures.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I probably missed the discussion on this awhile back but Primacy vs Supremacy…

From the dictionary.

pri·ma·cy
ˈprīməsē/Submit
noun

1. the fact of being primary, preeminent, or more important.
   “the primacy of air power in the modern war”
   synonyms: greater importance, priority, precedence, preeminence, superiority, supremacy, ascendancy, dominance, dominion, leadership
   “the primacy of industry over agriculture”

I hate to use the example of the President here, but he’s Commander in Chief of our armed forces, yet, he doesn’t get involved in the day to day command… The day to day commander are responsible for their troops, if they fail, they may get court martialed and lose their job, yet the President, oversees the commanders and though a commander may lose their job, that doesn’t necessarily mean the President will… Yet there remains a power to impeach the President if the President is directly responsible for wrong doing … In the same way if a Pope asks anyone to do something that is knowingly outright sinful, a person doesn’t have to follow the Popes direction because we are beholden to God first. That’s how I understand it…

The President analogy works to what I’m presenting. The President represents the Executive power, whereas Congress represents the Legislative power, whereas the Supreme Court represents the Judicial power.

The President can be removed, whereas the Pope cannot.

What you are presenting relates exclusively to the military exercise of command. And still in the military (Judge Advocate General) there is recourse to remove commanders, whereas there are none to remove a Pope.

The Conciliar model of Church government is seen in Scriptures and in the Living Tradition of Church history. Where a Bishop is amenable to be deposed or excommunicated by the Church as a Whole. Whereas that is no longer possible for the Pope (After the Great Schism).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

All 12 were unique human beings. God gives us that uniqueness and respects it. He gives us a diversity of unique gifts, according to the abilities we have, according to his will. Because we have unique gifts we are not all “the same”. We can be said to be “equal” as human beings in the eyes of God, but we have unique gifts.

Authority is a charism. Do you accept the basic premise that authority is a charism?
The charism of authority given to one person does not detract from the gifts of others. The charism given to any particular person is always exercised in the context of Christ’s body, the “holos” in Catholic.

God does not view grace (charism) like we do. Grace is not a limited quantity, there is plenty for everyone. But we’re not all given the same gifts. One has a unique gift. That gift should not arouse fear, suspicion, and jealousy in us. The other 11 also have unique gifts.

I wish you would read what the Church teaches on authority. Not all 12 apostles are the same. One has a unique gift, but the unique gifts of all are unified in the holos.

Hi Isaiah 45: Understood. However, There is new revelation only a better understanding of what has already been revealed by Christ and handed down to us from the Apostles. I rather doubt that any of the Apostles were not in unity with Peter and I think they looked to Peter as their leader and spokesmen for the early Church I also doubt that any of the Apostles would have said anything different from what Peter said or did. Peter was put into authority by Christ Himself and the rest of the Apostles understood that.

This is not the way it was and it is proven by the Living Sacred Tradition of the Church.

The papacy had to develop into what it is today in the West because of the West’s particular problems. Unless you look into the Avignon Controversy, Gallicanism, Ultramontanism, the conflicts of Church/State you can’t truly understand the particularity of the Papacy in the West and why such supremacy is not present from the creation of the Church till after the 11th century.

The Papacy in its present form is particular to the West not to the Church as a Whole. To attempt an argument that justifies supremacy since the beginning is to ignore more than 1,000 years and the particulars of the Whole Church around the world.

 

[Karen107]

The President analogy works to what I’m presenting. The President represents the Executive power, whereas Congress represents the Legislative power, whereas the Supreme Court represents the Judicial power.

The President can be removed, whereas the Pope cannot.

What you are presenting relates exclusively to the military exercise of command. And still in the military (Judge Advocate General) there is recourse to remove commanders, whereas there are none to remove a Pope.

The Conciliar model of Church government is seen in Scriptures and in the Living Tradition of Church history. Where a Bishop is amenable to be deposed or excommunicated by the Church as a Whole. Whereas that is no longer possible for the Pope (After the Great Schism).

Antipopes? I’m not an expert on this, but I have heard that if we are told to do something that is a sin, we don’t have to abide because no one has the right to interfere with our salvation.

I found this.

rosarychurch.net/answers/qa082002a.html

The idea of removing a Pope against his will is a much more tricky question. Over the years theologians have advanced many tentative answers, but no official Church teaching has been formulated. There is at least general agreement that a Pope might be removed for heresy – even among theologians who are adamant that the Pope cannot be removed, this exception is often thrown in. For any other offence or inability, the waters are very muddy indeed.

A major problem is that the Pope has no earthly superior, either to charge him with heresy or to demand his resignation for this or any other reason. Some suggest that this might be done by a General Council or by the College of Cardinals, others say the Holy Roman Emperor (the Emperor had a veto power over papal elections until the reign of Pope St. Pius X), others a successor Pope, and still others say that the heretical Pope removes himself but it is up to a successor Pope to declare that removal took place.

However, we do have a few historical examples of Popes being removed. History is not theology, and cannot speak to the validity of the papal removals or of the elections of the men chosen as replacements. But history does give us the benefit of knowing how the Church acted in specific concrete cases, and how subsequent Popes and generations of Catholics looked back on these actions.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

You are making assertions beyond those made by your own Church!

I don’t think so.

Be very careful here, when leveling this accusation at other Patriarchs that are not in communion with the successor of Peter, because the Successor of Peter considers their Holy Orders and Sacraments valid, which would not be the case had they fallen into heresy.

Why?

You seem quite exercised here, guano. But the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to support my statement:
An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East.

Now, about my question …

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The President analogy works to what I’m presenting. The President represents the Executive power, whereas Congress represents the Legislative power, whereas the Supreme Court represents the Judicial power.

The President can be removed, whereas the Pope cannot.

What you are presenting relates exclusively to the military exercise of command. And still in the military (Judge Advocate General) there is recourse to remove commanders, whereas there are none to remove a Pope.

The Conciliar model of Church government is seen in Scriptures and in the Living Tradition of Church history. Where a Bishop is amenable to be deposed or excommunicated by the Church as a Whole. Whereas that is no longer possible for the Pope (After the Great Schism).

That’s a fine description of a Representative Republic. Is there any evidence that the Church was intended to be governed as a Republic?