Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to make a point of something. I would in no way advocate the removal of a Pope. What I believe is that the Church is a family and we don’t remove family members,especially the Holy Father of the family… I would never give up on my family members… We help lift them up to see the light and do what it necessary to keep the family intact… We don’t start over with a new family just because one member has a problem, we work to fix whats wrong. I believe that’s what our merciful God would do…
 
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.
You are right that the Apostles acted in unity, but clem is right, that James and those with him were “of the circumcision” and it was they who pressured Peter so that he no longer ate with the Gentiles in Galatia.

During the Council in Jerusalem, James and those who were “judiazing” among the Gentiles were straghtened out by the testimony of Peter and Paul. James then reversed himself, and wrote that circumcision and compliance with the Mosaic Law would not be required.
 
That’s a fine description of a Representative Republic. Is there any evidence that the Church was intended to be governed as a Republic?
Over one thousand years of it.

In addition, the College of Cardinals electing a Pope not only is a clear model of a Representative Republic but something created after the Great Schism.
 
Over one thousand years of it.

In addition, the College of Cardinals electing a Pope not only is a clear model of a Representative Republic but something created after the Great Schism.
OK, fine. I’ll wait while you look up the citation for the document that says so.
🍿
 
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.
Sorry meant to say no new revelation.
 
You are right that the Apostles acted in unity, but clem is right, that James and those with him were “of the circumcision” and it was they who pressured Peter so that he no longer ate with the Gentiles in Galatia.
Not James, but “men from James.”

12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

It’s uncertain whether these men had James’ authorization. James seems to deny it in Acts 15 (around verse 24).
 
Over one thousand years of it.

In addition, the College of Cardinals electing a Pope not only is a clear model of a Representative Republic but something created after the Great Schism.
And your point is?
Catholics are not allowed to vote?
Catholics can’t change the way they do things?
The great schism is the defining moment in Catholic operating procedure?
What?

If God would have just engraved all this authority business on a rock, life would be so easy.
Oh, wait…
 
And your point is?
Catholics are not allowed to vote?
Catholics can’t change the way they do things?
The great schism is the defining moment in Catholic operating procedure?
What?

If God would have just engraved all this authority business on a rock, life would be so easy.
Oh, wait…
Actually we are not allowed to vote.

That is exclusive to the College of Cardinals - selected by the Pope.

In addition, Catholics don’t vote for Church matters. That is something that is discussed and decided by the Representatives of each Diocese - the Bishops. Which in turn present their opinions to the President for approval - The Pope.

But that really isn’t a Representative Republic right? 😉

If you have not been following along, I’m presenting the possible contradiction and conflict with current Catholic doctrine and dogma and that of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. And how the form of Church government has been made a matter of faith. Etc.
 
Actually we are not allowed to vote.

That is exclusive to the College of Cardinals - selected by the Pope.

In addition, Catholics don’t vote for Church matters. That is something that is discussed and decided by the Representatives of each Diocese - the Bishops. Which in turn present their opinions to the President for approval - The Pope.

But that really isn’t a Representative Republic right? 😉

If you have not been following along, I’m presenting the possible contradiction and conflict with current Catholic doctrine and dogma and that of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils. And how the form of Church government has been made a matter of faith. Etc.
No the Church is the body of Christ. a living organism… A family of God, all of the above…The greatest among us will serve the least among us…
 
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.
I think that the supremacy existed from the start, but I do agree that the form in which it has expressed itself here in the West is a response to the need, and the reality of the Western Patriarchal role in secular politics.

I think that other Patriarchies would have appreciated being able to exercise this level of authority if it were possible. If the Patriarch of Constantiople had been able to exercise the supremacy over kings and kingdoms in the East as the Pope did in the West then Christendom might look very different today.
The Papacy in its present form is particular to the West not to the Church as a Whole.
Do you think that the Schism cannot be healed?
 
I don’t think so.

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 …
I am fond of the Catholic Encyclopedia as well, but it is not considered Church Teaching, as is the Catechism, which does not accuse the Eastern Patriarchs of heresy.
 
More on Peter, the Rock of the Church

Dr. Taylor Marshall lays out an interesting argument here: taylormarshall.com/2014/07/ro…html#more-5324

I’d like to present the essence of his case and to expand upon it a bit.

Prophecy Concerning the Catholic Church in Daniel 2

Daniel 2:31-49

31 “Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.

35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 “This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 “After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle.43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”

46 Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him. 47 The king said to Daniel, “Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, for you were able to reveal this mystery.”

48 Then the king placed Daniel in a high position and lavished many gifts on him. He made him ruler over the entire province of Babylon and placed him in charge of all its wise men. 49 Moreover, at Daniel’s request the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego administrators over the province of Babylon, while Daniel himself remained at the royal court.

+++

This chapter describes a dream of Nebuchadnezzar about an enormous statue composed of four different materials. First, the head was of gold. Second, the chest and arms were of silver. Third, the belly and thighs were of bronze. Fourth, the legs and feet were of iron and clay. According to the vision, a stone will be hewn from a mountain without human hands and cast into the statue. This small rock smashes against the statue’s iron and clay feet, which causes the entire statue to crumble. Then the small rock becomes a great mountain and fills the entire earth.

Looking in back in time, we understand the prophecy as corresponding to the following historical chronology when heathen kingdoms ruled over the Jews:
  1. Babylonian Empire (ca. 587-539 B.C.)
  2. Medo-Persian Empire (ca. 539-331 B.C.)
  3. Greek Empire (ca. 331-168 B.C.)
  4. Roman Empire (ca. 63 B.C.-A.D. 70)
It was in fact in the days of the Fourth Kingdom, the Roman Empire, that God established His Messianic Kingdom.

Now, the small rock, “not made by human hands”, destroyed the last kingdom, the Roman Empire, and filled the earth. But Jesus Himself is no small rock, is He? So, what other reference do we have in scripture for a rock?

Matthew 16:18
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

The Catholic Church, built upon Peter, the rock, formed by revelation from God and not from “flesh and blood” (i.e., “human hands”) is the lasting kingdom set up by God “that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.”

We have the sure word of God on that. 👍
 
Not James, but “men from James.”

12 For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

It’s uncertain whether these men had James’ authorization. James seems to deny it in Acts 15 (around verse 24).
Are you suggesting that the “men from James” had a different persepctive than James?

Why then, did James state that they all agreed not to “trouble the Gentiles further” after that council?
 
I am fond of the Catholic Encyclopedia as well, but it is not considered Church Teaching, as is the Catechism, which does not accuse the Eastern Patriarchs of heresy.
G-man,

The Catechism is a guide to our faith, not our history.

Are you saying that the Eastern Bishops were not guilty of heresy? 🤷

This is not my area of expertise, but Dave Armstrong, Mark Bonocore and others have done a pretty thorough job of documenting the fact that the Eastern Church was in heresy for hundreds of years over one issue or another, and each time, Rome (which has never fallen) sorted the matter out.

We do agree on this, don’t we?
 
I think that the supremacy existed from the start, but I do agree that the form in which it has expressed itself here in the West is a response to the need, and the reality of the Western Patriarchal role in secular politics.
I just don’t see it, guano.

There are so many factors around our particular circumstances that it is more a matter of necessity of Church government than a matter of faith. Those 2 elements (politics and faith) are so intertwined that it’s practically impossible to separate one from the other at times.
I think that other Patriarchies would have appreciated being able to exercise this level of authority if it were possible. If the Patriarch of Constantiople had been able to exercise the supremacy over kings and kingdoms in the East as the Pope did in the West then Christendom might look very different today.
It would indeed, guano. I suspect that they would have had to reach a similar conclusion to ours in terms of a Bishops Supremacy. But that is a "what if’ and I am not too fond of them, lol.
Do you think that the Schism cannot be healed?
I think that with God everything is possible. I have hope, guano. Always hope.
 
No the Church is the body of Christ. a living organism… A family of God, all of the above…The greatest among us will serve the least among us…
The other way around, Karen.

The least among us will be the greatest because the least serves all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top