Do you have questions about Catholic beliefs & Practices

[Abu]

Benhur #108
He definitely spoke authoritatively, as he should have, for God gave him the command/vision much earlier, as he did to Paul. These are the reasons many say Peter was first amongst equals , but not over the others.

The “many” are totally wrong, for they deny Christ as he BUILT His Church on the ROCK that was Peter as Christ Himself proclaimed:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)

**It’s time to realise that the cited “many” are in error, and follow the Christ.

Christ’s Peter and the Papacy
Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
Also see JIMMY AKIN, 06/09/2013, at:
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/was-james-not-peter-the-head-of-the-church-after-jesus

There are no Gospel texts against the texts of Christ’s installation of Peter as head of His Church and the texts showing the evidence of his leadership as Christ’s chosen on whom He built His Church.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Correct, no denominations back then, nor “Catholic”, nor Orthodox,but One Shepherd, Christ, with Christian followers.

It most definitely was Catholic. I said before, it was not “Roman Catholic”. And the Catholic Church has One Shepherd who is Jesus. This Jesus commissioned Peter to “shepherd” His Church in a unique capacity after He would go to the Father.

Understand. It has it place, but also it’s problems. Judaism had the same issues, for they also claimed a type of succession. Paul reminds us that, rites and institutionalizing can fall short, and that one has to indeed be ordained in Spirit. Circumcision, to sit in Moses seat, is not necessarily effectual or genuine, if not in the Spirit. Hence I said, “apostolic is as apostolic does”. I do not rule out the Spirit’s anointing of some leaders/teachers, who do not have the rite/sacramental, or physical succession anointing that you speak of and who indeed do as the apostles.

Ordination does not guarantee anyone to be wise and faithful. The Catholic faith does not Teach this. So I agree with this aspect of your concern. I don’t know what Teaching from Paul you are referring to… can you explain? Infallibility of the Magisterium is something, I believe, which takes wise discernment to understand.

Sorry you went there, but not sure that discernment of hierarchy, even of pertaining scripture, is due to personal preference. If anything, I personally find it attractive, appealing, logical, and even desirous of top down, one leader, as your pope. I mean after all, that is how it will be in His kingdom. We will gladly throw our giftings and honors and rewards at His feet, and gladly do His bidding. He is our King, our General, our Teacher and “Husband”. But my sentiment and preference must be set aside when discerning His will for us now in the interim. Another words, we seek discernment of proper interpretation of scripture and tradition on their own merits and not personal preference.

I’m a little confused here. I don’t know what you mean by “personal preference”. Certain “matters of faith and morals” which have already been “declared” by the Magisterium are bound to the Church. We cannot “discern” them as contradicting what has been declared. Yet it happens, and the personal blame worthy of individuals is always determined by God, in the end. The Church does not condemn those who through no fault of their own do not have proper understanding of something they are rejecting.

Understand, but we also know that the apostles after this still argued as to who was greater, and who indeed would have the exclusive office of sitting at His right hand

They did not know what they were asking. Jesus explained what true greatness means. Then He addresses Peter… that the devil will tempt him… then Jesus prays specifically for his faith not to fail… then He commissions him to strengthen, or confirm, the others!

 

[benhur]

The “many” are totally wrong, for they deny Christ as he BUILT His Church on the ROCK that was Peter as Christ Himself proclaimed:
**“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18) **Hi Abu,

He also built it on the other 11 equally.The only unequal stone/rock is the Cornerstone.

Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

 

[PJM]

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

I asked adrift is Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father?

The second question is about 1 Cor 3:13-14.
The expression" for the day ( of the Lord) shall declare it.
What is the meaning of this in this context?

That my friend needs to be placed into a more correcting:

[1] In the entirety of the OT: GOD never appeared in a PHYSICAL form.

The “face to face” references are thought ti be angels representing God; NOT God “in Person”

[2] This is attested to by** St John 4:23-24**

“[23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. [24] God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.”

Whether Jesus is with the Father in His “natural sate” [SPIRIT] or with the manifestations of BOTH His human nature and Divine Nature is beyond my competence:shrug: Either is of course possible for GOD.

So this passage ought t be taken from a metaphysical perspective.

[3] Humanity is destined upon death to decompose:

Genesis 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return

Man in emulation of God: Genesis 1:26-27 does so by being gifted with a connected-package of a mind, intellect, freewill & soul; ALL similar to God in that they too are SPIRITUAL REALITIES; & immortal. And it this * that is destined to spend Eternity in Heaven or Hell [OUR choice].

So Is Jesus UNITED tot the Father? ABSOLUTELY. Exactly how is not yet revealed to us.

Blessings,

Patrick*

 

[PJM]

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS

I asked adrift is Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father.

The second question is about 1 Cor 3:13-14.
The expression" for the day (of the Lord) shall declare it.
What is the meaning of this in this context?

1st Cor. 3: [13] Every man’ s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’ s work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man’ s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
REPLY:
This speaks to the First Judgment at the instant our soul separates from our dead bodies.
It’s termed; THE IMMEDIATE JUDGMENT.
Because our lives ARE to be lived with evidence of our God in control of our life-choices
Isa. 43: 7 & 21
[7] “everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." & [21] the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise. ”
The Moral in your passage & this one is that “actions HAVE consequences.” “The Lords day” in Corinthians is a synonymous expression for “Judgement day.
The reference to “in-fire” is too metaphysical; holding out the distinct possibility of either Purgatory [a real possibility if one dies with NO unconfessed / unforgiven [Jn 20:19-23] MORTAL –sins [1 Jn 5: 16-17], or Eternal Hell. OUR choice.
Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”

1 Peter 1: 17 “Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one’s works, conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning, “

Thanks for asking
God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

Which “One” is that? The only"one" I cited was “Jews” or Israel, which is equivalent to "Christians or the “Church” (with no name or adjective). So are you saying any other names, adjectives are not of God, at least in OT ?

Blessings

NO they are not the same in the context, NOT of your expression, BUT of your thought.

The Jewish people NOT the fragmented “Jews”; BUT the “Chosen people” as conveived and desired by God; would equate to “the Church”; also as conceived and established by God.

Blessings,

PJM

 

[PJM]

Hi PJM,

No, we all freely choose what to believe.

Sure

Some make the right choice [singular] as a Body-of-Faith; others not so much so:shrug:

OK, just that some Catholic posters said apostles were not calling themselves “Catholic” (not that they were not Catholic -like).

And that is because the term Catholic had yet to be “invented” [110 A.D.] AND all of the original Apostles including John were deceased by that date.

Good .Thank you. Not sure where I was prideful for both our progression history is identical, but thank you for the biblical matching texts.

Blessings

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

I didnt know that & will check it out.

THANKS,

PJm

 

[benhur]

NO they are not the same in the context, NOT of your expression, BUT of your thought.

The Jewish people [NOT the fragmented “Jews”; BUT the “Chosen people” as conveived and desired by God; would equate to “the Church”; also as conceived and established by God.

Blessings,

PJM

OK.Agree.Then to me the “Church” is all of us, the called out ones,the "chosen’’, and not any particular "fragment’’ . I see it as the same context. Catholicism ,and Orthodoxy and Protestantism all developed and would be fragments within the whole.

But I understand your context, that Roman Catholicism = Judaism as far as conceived, and desired, and established by God per each testament, and O’s and P’s are fragments deriving from but still under the umbrella of Roman Catholicism, and not desirous, established, or conceived of God.

Blessings
[/QUOTE]

 

[Abu]

Benhur #512
Re Peter:
Abu: He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15)
No he did not, James did

The primary purpose of the Council of Jerusalem was to answer the debate that Paul and Barnabas had with men from Judea about whether or not circumcision was necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1-2).

It was Peter who made the pronouncement that, not only was circumcision not necessary, but also that salvation comes through the grace of Jesus.

The convener of the council could be interpreted more as an administrative function, and James was the bishop of Jerusalem, which would make that function his responsibility as bishop of Jerusalem.

James’ statements were in support of Peter’s statements and then Peter made the final judgement in 19-21.

Abu: [Peter] announced the first dogmatic decision
No he did not, James did.

At best, you have a single story lending weak support for the idea that James held the more prominent role.

**But we have multiple stories unmistakably showing Peter’s leadership role.
This text does not show that James was more authoritative than Peter, for several reasons:
**Peter, along with Barnabas, Paul, and James, are viewed together as the debate closers. It is “after much debate” that Peter speaks. He initiates the process of closing the debate and coming to a conclusion.

Peter reminds people of his unique role in how the question was originally settled.

**James also refers to how the question was originally settled through Peter.
**
James makes his comments about not scandalizing Jewish believers as a pastoral way of implementing a decision that he, Peter, and Barnabas and Paul are all in agreement on.

**If you study the lists of the apostles found in the Gospels and Acts, they are all divided into three groups of four names. Peter heads the first list in every case, and James the son of Alphaeus heads the third list in every case. This establishes Peter as a first rank apostle and James son of Alphaeus as a third rank apostle.

Thus, however one reads the data, Peter has a more prominent rank than James**.

After all, it was to Peter that Jesus said: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” [Mt. 16:18].
He did not say this to James.

See Jimmy Akin at:
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/was-james-not-peter-the-head-of-the-church-after-jesus

The “first among equals” rubbish denies Christ’s explicit foundation of His Catholic Church and acts as a sop to avoid assenting to what Christ actually teaches through His Magisterium in His Church – some of which the deniers wish to avoid.

 

[benhur]

Ordination does not guarantee anyone to be wise and faithful. The Catholic faith does not Teach this. So I agree with this aspect of your concern

Hi rc,

OK but would you go further and say anointing can be had by a leader/teacher without your ordination (physical, successive line). Another words do you agree with CC that most P leaders/ teachers are not properly ‘authorized’ ?

I don’t know what Teaching from Paul you are referring to… can you explain?

I think I meant where Paul talks of circumcision of the flesh (proper lineage/succession) was to no avail, that one needs to be circumcised in the heart. Peter referred to it also at the council.

I’m a little confused here. I don’t know what you mean by “personal preference”.

Maybe I had it wrong, but I took you to mean that I found it “offensive” that one would rule over another, as if I personally have issues with being ruled over, or anyone else being ruled over. I would now only add P’s do believe in offices, just not the papal office, but other yes until His return. Then we shall have a visible Head.

They did not know what they were asking. Jesus explained what true greatness means

Well there certainly is greatness in the kingdom, even rankings ,even one who will sit at Hid right hand . Jesus did not deny this. What He did say is that they did not understand how to achieve those places. So the apostles knew what they were asking in that they were a reality( greatness, and a seat at His right hand), but they did not know, understand the cost and the method (being the least). Again, their bickering may imply a first amongst equals understanding, and not Peter being officially over them.

Thank you for your views/explanations.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

It was Peter who made the pronouncement that, not only was circumcision not necessary, but also that salvation comes through the grace of Jesus.

It was a pronouncement of faith, and questioned why believe something else.

The convener of the council could be interpreted more as an administrative function, and James was the bishop of Jerusalem, which would make that function his responsibility as bishop of Jerusalem.

Good, agree. There is an administrative function, and a leadership function. Many see Peter’s function one of leadership and not of head administrator.

James’ statements were in support of Peter’s statements

Absolutely, and brought in scriptural support.

and then Peter made the final judgement in 19-21

Not sure but not in most bibles James, as administrative leader, said,

"“It is my (James) judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God…Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them.” Acts 15:19…

At best, you have a single story lending weak support for the idea that James held the more prominent role.

I did not say that .But we defined administrative roles from leadership roles. Both are prominently necessary.

But we have multiple stories unmistakably showing Peter’s leadership role.

Sure, OK

This text does not show that James was more authoritative than Peter, for several reasons:

Correct, different roles. It also does not show Peter more authoritative than James. Many good Catholics if I recall correctly, argued as such during the middle ages when coucilarism was staking its ground.

Peter reminds people of his unique role in how the question was originally settled

That is right, if you refer to his dream and Cornelius etc.,something Peter went back on , when he caved before the judaizers (from Jerusalem). Paul confronted Peter for his hypocrisy. It was fitting that Peter would stand tall again and do right by God’s command at the council.

If you study the lists of the apostles found in the Gospels and Acts, they are all divided into three groups of four names. Peter heads the first list in every case, and James the son of Alphaeus heads the third list in every case. This establishes Peter as a first rank apostle and James son of Alphaeus as a third rank apostle.

So is Paul the highest rank, for he is mentioned more than any one of them ? But I agree as to those apostles being most mentioned , most known, most popular.

Thus, however one reads the data, Peter has a more prominent rank than James

.
Yes ranking in being more known, mentioned, popular. He was their leader in many ways, but not all ways. Peter said he was a co-worker, co-elder, co as in co worker, fellow worker.

After all, it was to Peter that Jesus said: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” [Mt. 16:18].
He did not say this to James.

No, but James is an equal foundation to Peter .

“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”. Rev 21:14

The “first among equals” rubbish denies Christ’s explicit foundation of His Catholic Church and acts as a sop to avoid assenting to what Christ actually teaches through His Magisterium in His Church – some of which the deniers wish to avoid.

Rather harsh, but that is ok, it has gone both ways. However, I will not say either of the arguments are rubbish, but certainly they both have some good and bad (rubbish) fruits/consequences, as seen in both histories .

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Hey ben!

OK but would you go further and say anointing can be had by a leader/teacher without your ordination (physical, successive line). Another words do you agree with CC that most P leaders/ teachers are not properly ‘authorized’ ?

I do agree with the Catholic Church that P leaders are NOT properly ‘authorized’. I think you are using the term “anointed” to imply that God is calling these men to lead church communities in rejection of the fulness of the faith, and thus perfect union in His Eucharist. This I do not believe is from Jesus. However, I’m not saying I doubt that many, many non-Catholic Christians are genuine, compelled by Him, and doing His will in with many good works!

I think I meant where Paul talks of circumcision of the flesh (proper lineage/succession) was to no avail, that one needs to be circumcised in the heart. Peter referred to it also at the council.

These are two different matters you are combining. They are referring to the faith/justification/salvation of men. We are talking about lawful ordination in the Church of God, right?

Maybe I had it wrong, but I took you to mean that I found it “offensive” that one would rule over another, as if I personally have issues with being ruled over, or anyone else being ruled over. I would now only add P’s do believe in offices, just not the papal office, but other yes until His return. Then we shall have a visible Head.

I was questioning your acceptance of Church leaders, and that you feel the term ‘rule’ is only negative in the Church. But I think that is not the deeper issue. It seems to be that “ordination” is only authoritive if an individual Christian agrees with the ordained party. And I use “party” because the Catholic faith does acknowledge that individual ordained men can be question, though it should be done respectively and properly, but the “party” (being the leaders acting in harmony with Church law) must be submitted to in obedience after reasonable questioning is exhausted.

Well there certainly is greatness in the kingdom, even rankings ,even one who will sit at Hid right hand . Jesus did not deny this. What He did say is that they did not understand how to achieve those places. So the apostles knew what they were asking in that they were a reality( greatness, and a seat at His right hand), but they did not know, understand the cost and the method (being the least). Again, their bickering may imply a first amongst equals understanding, and not Peter being officially over them.

I could be wrong, but weren’t these Apostles seeking a heavenly high place? I don’t want to make too many assumptions over this event in Scripture because I should study more on it. My understanding was that they were talking about after this world. He does tell them they will sit on seats of judges. But He goes on to explain the true merit in heaven is determined by how faithful one fulfills their duty. And He immediately recognizes Simon Peter’s position and it’s consequences. One consequence is a particular test from the Devil. Another is a particular prayer from Jesus, and yet another is a commission to strengthen/confirm the other Apostles.

Thank you for your views/explanations.

You are most welcome ben. I appreciate your shared faith and concerns as well!

 

[rcwitness]

It was a pronouncement of faith, and questioned why believe something else.

Yes, it was a pronouncement of faith which silenced the assembly. This was the faith that Jesus gifted Peter through prayer and for his office.

Absolutely, and brought in scriptural support.Not sure but not in most bibles James, as administrative leader, said,

"“It is my (James) judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God…Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them.” Acts 15:19…

I think this part is important…
James replied, “Brethren, listen to me.14*Symeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.15And with this the words of the prophets agree, as it is written…

Here, James assents to the pronouncement that silenced the assembly and correlates it with Scripture. His Judgment was not so much to give authority to Peter’s pronouncement, but to request the things about blood and such.

It also does not show Peter more authoritative than James. Many good Catholics if I recall correctly, argued as such during the middle ages when coucilarism was staking its ground.

Peter drew on the “choice” the Lord made that by his mouth, the gentiles will hear the word. And remember, Peter had already commanded that the Gentiles be Baptized before this Council. But it was because of the hardness of heart of some that the Council was necessary. They should have just asked Peter… but the confirmation of Peter speaking at a council is more effective on some.

That is right, if you refer to his dream and Cornelius etc.,something Peter went back on , when he caved before the judaizers (from Jerusalem). Paul confronted Peter for his hypocrisy. It was fitting that Peter would stand tall again and do right by God’s command at the council.

Peter behaved contrary to the declaration he made as leader. It is very different from trying to Teach that the Gentiles are not to be accepted by God. He was being a hypocrite of the very law he pronounced. Yet, we can believe he turned from this personal struggle to accept them in his own heart just as he told the Church that God accepts them in His heart.

 

[Abu]

Benhur #521
It also does not show Peter more authoritative than James.

It certainly does, as James’ statements were in support of Peter’s statements and then Peter made the final judgement in 19-21.

Many good Catholics if I recall correctly, argued as such during the middle ages when coucilarism was staking its ground.

While partly true, that, unfortunately doesn’t acknowledge the real problem.

The Church only declared infallibility when Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.
catholicculture.org/cult…x.cfm?id=33692

To explain the real issue we have the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
‘CONCILIARISM. The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council’s superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).’

‘In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)’
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[benhur]

While partly true, that, unfortunately doesn’t acknowledge the real problem.

The Church only declared infallibility when Gallicanism became Conciliarism after the Great Western Schism, claiming the superiority of council over the Pope, and promoted by John Gerson (1363-1429) and Peter d’Ailly (1350-1420). The French Revolution drove the bishops into the arms of the Pope and dealt a mortal blow to Gallicanism, but the basic idea was still alive until the First Vatican Council formally condemned it in 1870.
catholicculture.org/cult…x.cfm?id=33692

To explain the real issue we have the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J.
‘CONCILIARISM. The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council’s superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had “full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world.” He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but “all the fullness of this supreme power.” Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope’s authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).’

‘In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a “magisterium of theologians” or “consensus of the people of God” against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)’
Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Thank you Abu. Good info.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hey ben!

I could be wrong, but weren’t these Apostles seeking a heavenly high place? I don’t want to make too many assumptions over this event in Scripture because I should study more on it. My understanding was that they were talking about after this world.

I think I am wrong that they were debating a status in heaven. They did seem to be ambitiously desiring a high status in the Church. Though, when they were disputing this, it was not in their understanding that Jesus would be leaving (dying). I think when He was actually gone, the reality set in, and Peter was the one whom Jesus gave strength to lead. This is all part of a development of the order of administration.

 

[rcwitness]

I believe the essence of a hierarchy, which contains an office with ultimate available authority, is that we are NOT governed by a democracy, but a king… and a king who is physically absent (save His Eucharistic blessing) to exercise His rule. Instead we have a government based on harmony and obedience. And faith that He is able to give Confirmation to the whole Church, by means of a vicar and steward who was established on Peter first, in matters of faith and morals.

 

[benhur]

I was questioning your acceptance of Church leaders, and that you feel the term ‘rule’ is only negative in the Church.

Hi rc,’

OK that is not how I feel, and was saying that might be your perception however. I did state that we believe in leaders, and have them. We have biblical offices, all of them except your one office of papacy . As you know day in and day out we are more governed, shepherded by our local priest/bishop pastors etc., than say the pope or head of any denomination etc…Bottom line is I do not see bishop, presbyter, elder as a negative, but a genuine church office/gifting.

I could be wrong, but weren’t these Apostles seeking a heavenly high place?

Good question, but I think at that particular time they thought (hoped) Jesus was going to set up His kingdom then and there, if not, within their lifetime, upon His return.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I think I am wrong that they were debating a status in heaven. They did seem to be ambitiously desiring a high status in the Church. Though, when they were disputing this, it was not in their understanding that Jesus would be leaving (dying). I think when He was actually gone, the reality set in, and Peter was the one whom Jesus gave strength to lead. This is all part of a development of the order of administration.

Ok thanks. Actually, I would think the apostles may have had an inkling of things to come (death, resurrection , and maybe even departure) for Jesus certainly alluded to them early on or in middles of the three years ministry. Of course they also did not want to face that, or were hopeful to the contrary, and their understanding was limited. I mean even when they saw eminent death of Jesus , Peter still fought and used the sword. But thank you for saying the apostles bickered over something in the near future.

Blessings