R
RKO
Guest
Or possibly there was no concept of supremacy until popes started claiming it.
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
The problem is that if supremacy was the nature of primacy in the first millenium, it would have been helpful for solving disputes to elaborate on supremacy. There were many disputes, and often, one side considered Rome to be in error.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The possibility is more that there was concept ofsupremacy. ScottEH which I agreed to before this speaks on it very well.
But it is not only that. The ECFs spoke on Peter being the rock upon which the Church is being built.There is only one Peter and only one rock. Peter’s successors do have the power of the office since that Church does not end with Peter’s death.
The Pope’s suprmacy is not claimed but given.
J
jimmy
Guest
I disagree. Some of the ECF’s speak of Peter being the rock, but they don’t point to the pope receiving the authority of Peter. Cyprian speaks of Peter as the source of the authority of the whole bishopric. All bishops authority is based on Matt16. This is their source to bind and loose.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And where does any ECF make the distinction between primacy and supremacy as Orthodoxs do today?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay,but where others promised the keys? That is what needs to be answered
J
jimmy
Guest
Cyprian says all bishops received the keys from Peter.
That aside though, it is implied in Matt18 that the other apostles did as well. Binding and loosing is associated with the keys. There is no binding and loosing without them.
C
concretecamper
Guest
So either Peter can act alone or the bishops can act as a body…looks like the RCC to me.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Most of the Church’s definitions and dogmas come after being attacked or from a “misunderstanding”.
The Church has been proactive in spreading the Gospel but reactive in defining beliefs and practices until recently.
The Catechism was not written until the 20th century. That doesn’t mean that the Church didn’t believe and/or practiced the things contained therein. It only means that it was finally put together in the 20th century.
Like Nine-Two said, there are a significant number of things that are argued from apparent silence or that they were simply practiced differently under the various rites and on various timelines and on various geographical areas.
The Church is, after all, Universal.
Not even the disciples were all unanimous (Judas Iscariot). Thus, the Church as a Whole exercises the deposit of the Faith.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
You are entitled to your opinion, Jimmy. I will stick to the ECFs who speak about Peter being the rock. Mathew 16 is very clear on this. And it does not speak about all Bishops. Jesus was specifically addressing Peter. Please read the verses on Mathew 16 again.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Mathew 16:17-19 (NIV Bible, not even a Catholic Bible)
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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Mathew 18:1, 18 (NIV Bible, not even a Catholic Bible)
v1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus … .
v 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Peter (peter meaning cephas meaning rock)– rock, given keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose.
**Disciples **- authority to bind and to loose only.
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. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Mathew 18:1, 18 (NIV Bible, not even a Catholic Bible)
v1. At that time the disciples came to Jesus … .
v 18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Peter (peter meaning cephas meaning rock)– rock, given keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and to loose.
**Disciples **- authority to bind and to loose only.
J
jimmy
Guest
Your distinction makes no sense. What does it mean to have the keys except to bind and loose? They go together. It is implied in the text.
J
jimmy
Guest
I have. It isn’t addressing the pope either for that matter. As you said, Jesus is addressing Peter only.
J
jimmy
Guest
Where did you get that from what I said?
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Yes, that’s right. It was to Peter only and taken in the context of building his Church, to Peter’s successor, since the Church still exist after Peter’s death.
Pope was not mentioned in the Gospel, nor was the Trinity. The Church nevertheless has the Pope since the inception of Christianity. Of course later, they were other Christianity churches and many more Popes but Peter was indeed whom the key was given to.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Why! We are talking about supremacy, didn’t we?
The other Bishops have the authority to bind and to loose but the Pope has that extra, the key, over the other Bishops. Certainly by that implication, the Pope has something else that the other Bishops don’t. We are not saying that supremacy means the other Bishops cannot do anything but yet the key is given to Peter and to Peter alone.
They do not go together and is not implied in the text unless you make a leap for it to confirm to your interpretation. Remember the context in Mt 16 is about the building of the Church upon Peter whom Jesus renamed the rock.
R
Reuben_J
Guest
The Gospel clearly says that Jesus gave Peter the key to the kingdom of heaven. He did not say this to the other disciples. We don’t know why he did not and that was what he said. In interpreting God’s word, we cannot just lump everything together nor should we dismiss the significant of the word, in this case, “the key”, just so that it confirm to our interpretation.
There is good reason why the key was mentioned and we can look all the way back to the Old Testaments to the kingdom of David alluded to in Revelation 3:7 (… These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth
Why then that the rest of the apostles also given the authority to bind and to loose and yet not the key?
Jesus is clearly assigning the Twelve as His vicars. He is telling them that He will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all the Apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of the Apostles, Peter. He, and his successors, would be vicars of Christ on earth. They would act with an authority that is delegated, but is truly divine.
We see this principle at work in the Acts of the Apostles. When Ananias conceals information under questioning, he is charged not with having lied to Peter (which he obviously did), but with having “lied to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:3). “You have lied not to men, but to God” (v. 4). As judge, Peter acted as Christ’s vicar. To lie to Peter was to lie to God Himself. For Ananias, that sin was mortal in every sense. Immediately, he felt down dead.
Peter’s authority was, in many ways, like the authority of the other Apostles. He shared power with them; he consulted with them; he received correction from them. Yet the bucked stopped, always, with him. In Acts 1, Peter directed the apostolic college on how they should deal with the crisis of Judas’s death. In Acts 11, when “the circumcision party” confronted him, Peter simply explained to them what God had showed him—and their hostility ended, immediately, without dissent, discussion, or further question. “When they heard this they were silenced” (Acts 11:18). At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), it was Peter who put an end to the debate (Acts 15:7-12). He defined the doctrine, which James confirmed and further adapted (Acts 15:14-18).
If we do not accept the papal implications of the New Testament texts, we create many other problems.
Why, we may ask, would Jesus have named Peter as chief among His apostles if He had not intended the office to be, somehow, continued within the Church? It’s not as if the subsequent generations needed guidance less than the first generation. In fact, it’s arguable that we today need it more! Jesus performed this action for our sake, and it must have been exemplary or constitutive in some way.
Why, too, would Jesus have named Simon “rock” if He didn’t intend a unique and authoritative role for him? Simon certainly didn’t earn the new name by his rocklike character. He was impetuous to a fault. He wavered; he vacillated. Stability and reliability were not his strong suits. John was steadier, more reliable. Thus Jesus called John the “beloved disciple.” But Jesus called Peter the rock on which He would build His Church.
J
jimmy
Guest
And as cyprian said, all bishops are the successors of Peter.
- Status