DIVINE institution of the Primacy

[mardukm]

I really love the potshots you take with your every post. Can’t beat my logic…?

What logic? The following statement is not logical.

C’mon, the post clearly shows that the Catholic Church believes only one man has the authority from the keys and that is the Bishop of Rome. It is as clear as day.

First of all, the “authority of the keys” consists of the authority to govern and forgive sins. As the quote from Pastor Aeternus indicates that it is to St. Peter that the keys were given, then the “only one man has the authority” claim would need to apply to the time of St. Peter. That would mean that the Apostles did not have the authority to govern and forgive sins.

By the same token, as the “authority of the keys” consists of the authority to govern and to forgive sins, then the “only one man has the authority” claim means that no bishop has the authority to govern and forgive sins.

“Illogical” is really too kind of a word to describe this “logic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

No, the priesthood of the NT is definitely not a continuation of the priesthood of the OT.

I had assumed it was a given that every Christian knew that the OT priesthood ended upon the advent of Christ, and that the NT priesthood continued the line in a fulfilled, perfected sense. I was wrong to assume everyone knew that. Sorry.

There are no more sacrifices to be made. What our priests today do is call God to remembrance.

OK. This is clearly heretical. The Eucharist is a REAL sacrifice as attested to by all the Fathers as well as the dogma of the Catholic Church. It is not a mere remembrance.

There is really only one priest today, and he is Jesus Christ.

A priest exists ONLY to make sacrifice. How can this be reconciled with the “no more sacrifices” statement? Where is the “logic?”

The argument of absence is explicitly implied.

How can something be explicit and implied? Yeah, I know, but I couldn’t resist.

Because what need is there for a visible head of the Church if the ever present head is there?

Yeah, that’s exactly what a lot of Protestants say. The bishop is the visible head of the local Church, and Protestants utilize the exact same argument to deny the office of bishop. Where is the “logic?”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mathewjoseph]

The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

 

[mardukm]

Dear fellow Catholics,

I was reading up on the Magisterial documents on the keys, and have come to a conclusion which many Catholics may not like:

The fact that Jesus handed over the keys to St. Peter is not per se indicative that the the keys are to be handed down to his successors. After researching the Magisterial documents on the issue, I’ve found that they all explicitly only assert that it is to St. Peter that the keys were given and that it is St. Peter to this day who possesses the guardianship of the keys.

I believe the proper interpretation of the keys is the following:

The keys have been entrusted to St. Peter alone. As I’ve affirmed in the past, the idea of “Peter” is a theological ideal, more akin to an office of the Church. The keys are the possession of the Church (which is why Magisterial documents refer to the keys as “the keys of the Church”) attached specifically to this office of St. Peter that is in the Catholic Church. Like everything else about this Petrine office, the keys only exist for the Church as a whole in service to her. So each occupant of the Petrine office is not handed the keys by the previous occupant, nor does he himself hand the keys to his successor. Rather, the keys perpetually exist with St. Peter, and the keys and St. Peter are perpetually attached to this particular office of the Church. St. Peter himself shares the keys as the principle of unity with the current occupant of his Chair, and the current occupant of the Chair thence shares the keys with his brother bishops, just as St. Peter shared it with his fellow Apostles. So the keys have never left St. Peter so as to be handed down by each of his successors.

In any case, the case for the Primacy of Peter being handed down must rest on other proofs (since the Church’s understanding of the keys, though it was handed to St. Peter by Christ, do not admit a notion of being handed over by St. Peter to his successor and by his successor to subsequent successors, but remains ever in St. Peter’s care). I do believe those proofs exist. I will give a presentation after brother MilesVitae, for whom I started this thread, has a chance to read through what has been discussed so far.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Matthewjoseph,

Welcome to the thread. We are at this point focused on one particular issue - whether the Primacy of St. Peter was handed down to a successor. Coming from a Syriac Tradition, your (name removed by moderator)ut would be most welcome, as I know that the Syriac Traditions place an important emphasis on the theological basis for the primacy. Do you have any scriptural or (especially) patristic proofs that demonstrate that the Primacy of St. Peter was handed down in the Church down through history?

Blessings,
Marduk

The Catholic Church through the Council for Christian Unity, has already begun a dialogue on the primacy. I think we should continue the dialogue and seek a common agreement with the Eastern Churches, as there was in the first four centuries of Christianity. At that time there was a common understanding of the primacy. Now the Orthodox Church argues that it is impossible to go back to theology before the Council of Chalcedon because we do not possess any documents from that era. But I think that from the documents and statements subsequent to the time of Chalcedon there would be the possibility of dialogue and agreement on the Petrine ministry. Because there is the phrase primus inter pares. We all need a Petrine ministry of unity, which is a reference for all the Churches. I hope that a halfway point is found where the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches could come together in full communion with the Church of Christ.

 

[mathewjoseph]

In the apostlolic acts, more emphasis is given to Peter. Several parts, Peter is mentioned rather than the names of other apostles.
In the letters of Paul, name of Peter is mentioned several times, The name of Antioch is mentioned several times.
Ignatius of Antioch has wqritten several letters to other churches. It shows his authority.
Before the bishop of Constantinople accumulated powers, most of the bishops were adhered to bishop of Antioch.

 

[Nine_Two]

In the apostlolic acts, more emphasis is given to Peter. Several parts, Peter is mentioned rather than the names of other apostles.
In the letters of Paul, name of Peter is mentioned several times, The name of Antioch is mentioned several times.
Ignatius of Antioch has wqritten several letters to other churches. It shows his authority.
Before the bishop of Constantinople accumulated powers, most of the bishops were adhered to bishop of Antioch.

So Antioch, not Rome, is the chief bishopric?

 

[MilesVitae]

Dear fellow Catholics,

I was reading up on the Magisterial documents on the keys, and have come to a conclusion which many Catholics may not like:

The fact that Jesus handed over the keys to St. Peter is not per se indicative that the the keys are to be handed down to his successors. After researching the Magisterial documents on the issue, I’ve found that they all explicitly only assert that it is to St. Peter that the keys were given and that it is St. Peter to this day who possesses the guardianship of the keys.

I believe the proper interpretation of the keys is the following:

The keys have been entrusted to St. Peter alone. As I’ve affirmed in the past, the idea of “Peter” is a theological ideal, more akin to an office of the Church. The keys are the possession of the Church (which is why Magisterial documents refer to the keys as “the keys of the Church”) attached specifically to this office of St. Peter that is in the Catholic Church. Like everything else about this Petrine office, the keys only exist for the Church as a whole in service to her. So each occupant of the Petrine office is not handed the keys by the previous occupant, nor does he himself hand the keys to his successor. Rather, the keys perpetually exist with St. Peter, and the keys and St. Peter are perpetually attached to this particular office of the Church. St. Peter himself shares the keys as the principle of unity with the current occupant of his Chair, and the current occupant of the Chair thence shares the keys with his brother bishops, just as St. Peter shared it with his fellow Apostles. So the keys have never left St. Peter so as to be handed down by each of his successors.

In any case, the case for the Primacy of Peter being handed down must rest on other proofs (since the Church’s understanding of the keys, though it was handed to St. Peter by Christ, do not admit a notion of being handed over by St. Peter to his successor and by his successor to subsequent successors, but remains ever in St. Peter’s care). I do believe those proofs exist. I will give a presentation after brother MilesVitae, for whom I started this thread, has a chance to read through what has been discussed so far.

Blessings,
Marduk

Having read through the thread, I was starting to think I’d need to start a whole new thread just to discuss the original issue.
(As far as the claim that a visible head of the Church conflicts with Christ’s true and present headship of His Church - I’ve never bought that argument. First of all, if Christ is head of the Church, He is free to institute a visible head. More to the point, as has been pointed out in the past, if Christ’s headship conflicts with the papacy, it also conflicts with the notion of Bishops. Christ is the true, present head of every local Church, but this does not conflict with the divinely established office of a visible head, the Bishop).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Having read through the thread, I was starting to think I’d need to start a whole new thread just to discuss the original issue.
(As far as the claim that a visible head of the Church conflicts with Christ’s true and present headship of His Church - I’ve never bought that argument. First of all, if Christ is head of the Church, He is free to institute a visible head. More to the point, as has been pointed out in the past, if Christ’s headship conflicts with the papacy, it also conflicts with the notion of Bishops. Christ is the true, present head of every local Church, but this does not conflict with the divinely established office of a visible head, the Bishop).

No, because the ecclesiology that Christ left is conciliar. He chose 12 Apostles. Every Church is lead by a council of presbyters (elders). In Acts, James was referred to as a presbyteros, not an episkopos. There was no formal distinction at that time between the elders and the chief elder, or the First Among Equals of the elders of a particular Church (today translates to a diocese/eparchy). Only later on was the title episkopos bestowed upon the senior presbyteros. One ruling bishop assumes Christ within himself. A conciliar Church (one ruled by a council) epitomizes the communion of believers forming the one Body of Christ (which is the Church).

 

[MilesVitae]

No, because the ecclesiology that Christ left is conciliar. He chose 12 Apostles. Every Church is lead by a council of presbyters (elders). In Acts, James was referred to as a presbyteros, not an episkopos. There was no formal distinction at that time between the elders and the chief elder, or the First Among Equals of the elders of a particular Church (today translates to a diocese/eparchy). Only later on was the title episkopos bestowed upon the senior presbyteros. One ruling bishop assumes Christ within himself. A conciliar Church (one ruled by a council) epitomizes the communion of believers forming the one Body of Christ (which is the Church).

Interesting.

What do you mean “one ruling bishop assumes Christ within himself”?

 

[PJM]

=bzkoss236;9983356]The “one man” concept is from Christ only bestowing the Keys to Peter. And from what I gather from the NT, Christ didn’t claim to give the Keys to the other apostles, or did He or Peter imply that it was shared with the other apostles.

And you can’t deny that aside from the Eucharist, Christ is physically away from the Church. He is not here on Earth in a human form with which to communicate and guide. This is the role of the Pope as the Vicar.

Where do you get that Peter shared the Keys?

to All the Apostles in Matt. 18:18

To the Sucessors to Peter by absolute necessity] in Matt. 28:16-20:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[ConstantineTG]

Interesting.

What do you mean “one ruling bishop assumes Christ within himself”?

The Church was always structured as a communion. A local Church has a council of Elders (presbyters) and the chief or senior elder is the episkopos or bishop. Bishops form councils too. In every rank of honor of bishop, they form a council from that rank. Bishops form an Archdiocese/Archeparchy with an Archbishop/Metropolitan. Metropolitans forms a Patriarchate. Then the Patriarchs form the Church. The only level that stands without council is Christ, as he is King. For one bishop to pressume he stands apart from everyone else is pressumptive of Christ’s role in the Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother CTG,

No, because the ecclesiology that Christ left is conciliar. He chose 12 Apostles. Every Church is lead by a council of presbyters (elders). In Acts, James was referred to as a presbyteros, not an episkopos. There was no formal distinction at that time between the elders and the chief elder, or the First Among Equals of the elders of a particular Church (today translates to a diocese/eparchy). Only later on was the title episkopos bestowed upon the senior presbyteros. One ruling bishop assumes Christ within himself. A conciliar Church (one ruled by a council) epitomizes the communion of believers forming the one Body of Christ (which is the Church).

This is inconsistent rhetoric. The statement above says “NO” to brother MilesVitae’s affirmation of a visible head for the Church (on different levels), then inconsistently utilizes the example of St. James in the Council of Jerusalem who clearly spoke with the authority of a head or chief elder. The best that is being offered here is that the TITLE of episkopos was developed and later applied, but the theory and praxis of having a chief was the reality even before the application of the title.

The Church was always structured as a communion. A local Church has a council of Elders (presbyters) and the chief or senior elder is the episkopos or bishop. Bishops form councils too. In every rank of honor of bishop, they form a council from that rank. Bishops form an Archdiocese/Archeparchy with an Archbishop/Metropolitan. Metropolitans forms a Patriarchate. Then the Patriarchs form the Church.

More inconsistent rhetoric. The conciliar form of ecclesiastical government of the visible Church inherently includes a visible chief figure, as every one of the examples proposed above demonstrates. But not only is the rhetoric above inconsistent, it is also unpatristic, for there is indeed a universal conciliar reality in the Church called the Ecumenical Council, where the bishop of Rome is the chief bishop.

The only level that stands without council is Christ, as he is King.

So Christ is not king on the level of the diocese, the Metropolitan See and the Patriarchal See?

For one bishop to pressume he stands apart from everyone else is pressumptive of Christ’s role in the Church.

At each level of the heirarchy (diocese, Metropolitan, Patriarchal, universal), there is one who has the role of chief shepherd as representative of Christ who is King.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is inconsistent rhetoric. The statement above says “NO” to brother MilesVitae’s affirmation of a visible head for the Church (on different levels), then inconsistently utilizes the example of St. James in the Council of Jerusalem who clearly spoke with the authority of a head or chief elder. The best that is being offered here is that the TITLE of episkopos was developed and later applied, but the theory and praxis of having a chief was the reality even before the application of the title.

Yes, but St. James was among the elders, he wasn’t above them. And again St. Peter was in that same council and yet St. James clearly never spoke as a subordinate of St. Peter, as some proponents of Papal Supremacy would imply. And St. James’ authority is only for the Church of Jerusalem. The Church of Antioch has its own council of elders. The only reason that Jerusalem got involved is because they deferred to Jerusalem, not because Jerusalem by its own initiative decreed over other Churches. Another important point when looking at Primacy in the early Church.

More inconsistent rhetoric.

You can’t really discuss without potshots, can you?

The conciliar form of ecclesiastical government of the visible Church inherently includes a visible chief figure, as every one of the examples proposed above demonstrates. But not only is the rhetoric above inconsistent, it is also unpatristic, for there is indeed a universal conciliar reality in the Church called the Ecumenical Council, where the bishop of Rome is the chief bishop.

If there is a rhetoric here, it is this one. Sorry, but this presentation of the conciliar model shows a lack of understanding about conciliarity in the early Church. There was no ecumenical council that meets to discuss Church matters as a whole, that is why it is impossible for the Pope or anyone else to even chief such council. Ecumenical councils only gain the nature of ecumene later on, not at the time the council was called nor even during it. In fact, most of the Ecumenical Councils didn’t even had the Pope attend. He would only send legates. The acceptance of the Pope did indeed make a council Ecumenical, but not because the Pope accepted it solely. It is because he as one of the Patriarchs accepted it together with the other Patriarchs that the council’s decisions applied to all. If the Pope did not accept a council then it would have been deemed a local council, such as the Quintisext Council.

So Christ is not king on the level of the diocese, the Metropolitan See and the Patriarchal See?

Of course he is, but the bishop is not the head of another diocese other than his own. That is the difference. Christ’s headship transcends the different bodies of Churches while a bishop can only have a part of it. Plus there are other things inherent in a bishop that shows him not to be any sort of stand-in for Christ. For example, the conciliar nature states that infallability belongs to the Church as a whole. When the Church is “homothumandon”, that is in one mind (or accord), then that is the sign the Holy Spirit speaks to all and guides all as one. This cannot be assumed by one person. That is why the conciliar nature is important and that equality is important.

At each level of the heirarchy (diocese, Metropolitan, Patriarchal, universal), there is one who has the role of chief shepherd as representative of Christ who is King.

As I clearly noted in my post, there is always others of the same level in the Church. There’s isn’t only one diocesan or eparchial Bishop, there isn’t only one Metropolitans, there isn’t only one Patriarch.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother CTG,

I promise to address and refute what has been written in this post, but it will be later, as much of this post has to do with the third issue - “How is Primacy to be interpreted?.” Right now, I am preparing my presentation for the second issue “Was the Primacy of St, Peter passed on after the Apostles?”

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, but St. James was among the elders, he wasn’t above them. And again St. Peter was in that same council and yet St. James clearly never spoke as a subordinate of St. Peter, as some proponents of Papal Supremacy would imply. And St. James’ authority is only for the Church of Jerusalem. The Church of Antioch has its own council of elders. The only reason that Jerusalem got involved is because they deferred to Jerusalem, not because Jerusalem by its own initiative decreed over other Churches. Another important point when looking at Primacy in the early Church.

You can’t really discuss without potshots, can you?

If there is a rhetoric here, it is this one. Sorry, but this presentation of the conciliar model shows a lack of understanding about conciliarity in the early Church. There was no ecumenical council that meets to discuss Church matters as a whole, that is why it is impossible for the Pope or anyone else to even chief such council. Ecumenical councils only gain the nature of ecumene later on, not at the time the council was called nor even during it. In fact, most of the Ecumenical Councils didn’t even had the Pope attend. He would only send legates. The acceptance of the Pope did indeed make a council Ecumenical, but not because the Pope accepted it solely. It is because he as one of the Patriarchs accepted it together with the other Patriarchs that the council’s decisions applied to all. If the Pope did not accept a council then it would have been deemed a local council, such as the Quintisext Council.

Of course he is, but the bishop is not the head of another diocese other than his own. That is the difference. Christ’s headship transcends the different bodies of Churches while a bishop can only have a part of it. Plus there are other things inherent in a bishop that shows him not to be any sort of stand-in for Christ. For example, the conciliar nature states that infallability belongs to the Church as a whole. When the Church is “homothumandon”, that is in one mind (or accord), then that is the sign the Holy Spirit speaks to all and guides all as one. This cannot be assumed by one person. That is why the conciliar nature is important and that equality is important.

As I clearly noted in my post, there is always others of the same level in the Church. There’s isn’t only one diocesan or eparchial Bishop, there isn’t only one Metropolitans, there isn’t only one Patriarch.

 

[Vico]

Luke 22:24-34

And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them:The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And the Lord said:Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Who said to him:Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
And he said:I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me.

 

[PJM]

=Vico;9991439]Luke 22:24-34

And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And he said to them:The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth: And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
And the Lord said:Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
Who said to him:Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.
And he said:I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me.

YES, but
Jesus ALSO said:

Mt. 16:16-19 "16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I [WHO AM GOD] say to thee:[here ALONE] That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I [GOD] will build my church,[SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I [God] will give to thee [Peter Alone here] the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

John 21: " [15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.

He [God] saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: [YOU-PETER] Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

There is only ONE INFALLIBLE Rule in gaining RIGHT understanding of bible teaching; ONLY ONE

NEVER EVER CAN. MAY OR DOES ONE PASSAGE VOILD, INVALIDATE OR OVER-RIDE ANOTHER PASSAGE:thumbsup:

 

[Nine_Two]

PJM: Why are you on the Eastern Catholic board if you believe they are an aberration?

I ask this because you clarified that Christ meant a singular Church. Obviously a kick at our decentralized structure, but one which hits Eastern Catholics, who all belong to different Churches and have a similar decentralized structure.

 

[ConstantineTG]

PJM: Why are you on the Eastern Catholic board if you believe they are an aberration?

I ask this because you clarified that Christ meant a singular Church. Obviously a kick at our decentralized structure, but one which hits Eastern Catholics, who all belong to different Churches and have a similar decentralized structure.

Some Roman Catholics do believe that Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholics with an Eastern Rite. That we are all under the Pope, which means we are one Church (which means one organizational structure).

It took me a while to understand the Communion Ecclesiology but now that I do I completely understand it and completely accept it. It makes sense in relation to the entire faith. So I don’t agree that one Church has to have one ecclesiastical heirarchy. Because the Church is a living being (it is the body of Christ) and not an organization.

 

[malphono]

Some Roman Catholics do believe that Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholics with an Eastern Rite. That we are all under the Pope, which means we are one Church (which means one organizational structure).

What’s worse is that it’s not only Romans/Latins (whichever term is in fashion today). Sad to say, but far too many Easterners/Orientals believe the very same thing.