ECF on the Papacy

[jimmy]

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.

The thing is, I see it as you just trying to make the text fit your own interpretation. Your distinction doesn’t fit. It’s like me saying ‘go start the car’ but then refusing to hand over the keys. It really makes no sense. The keys are essential to start the car.

 

[Reuben_J]

The thing is, I see it as you just trying to make the text fit your own interpretation. Your didisagrn doesn’t fit. It’s like me saying ‘go start the car’ but then refusing to hand over the keys. It really makes no sense. The keys are essential to start the car.

I state my mind in posts 36 & 37 and in post 38 I gave the explanation for my reason in saying so. Which part that you disagree with? I don’t remember we are talking about starting a car and if you want to use that argument you have to elaborate because I don’t understand your logic. Saying that my reasoning doesn’t fit is one thing but it’s another to rebut it. I would be glad to hear your justification though.

 

[Reuben_J]

…
Double postings.

 

[concretecamper]

jimmy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

So either Peter can act alone or the bishops can act as a body…looks like the RCC to me.

Where did you get that from what I said?

you stated Mat 18 says that all the apostles received the power to bind and loose. That statement is true since the apostles (bishops) as a group and bind and loose which is exactly what happened at Nicea, Ephesus, Trent, etc. Peter can bind or loose. The bishops as a group can bind or loose. This IS the RCC

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Reuben_J]

And as cyprian said, all bishops are the successors of Peter.

Insofar they are vicars for Christ. But there is only one Peter (Pope) at a time.
Reuben J:

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 buck 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).

 

[brjoseph]

It should be made clear that the majority of the ECF’s did recognize the Papacy as having some sort of primacy. The problem arises when we ask if that primacy was the same as having supreme power over the church, and if that primacy was innate to the office, and irrevocable, or not.

You’ll find the Fathers are silent on the idea of supremacy, which would seem to mean they are unfamiliar with it. They also seem to be silent on the idea of revocability, which probably means they never thought it would need to be done.

I don’t know about that line of reasoning. It’s dangerous to base a theological or doctrinal concept on the idea of what WASN’T said. For example, nowhere in Scripture are we told that Jesus loved his mother.
May we assume he did, and that such a statement was so generally accepted as true that writing it seemed unnecessary, or should we presume, based on the absence of information, that Christ either despised or was apathetic toward Mary? Which is the more logical?
So to with the supremacy of the Pope of Rome… it is clearly a generally accepted premise- enough so that those few- and it’s VERY few- Church fathers who questioned the idea DID write it down. See what I mean? “The sky is blue” doesn’t make the newspapers daily. But if one day it turned green, it would; someone presenting the idea that though we all believe it to BE blue, it’s actually green would have to write down this opinion, because it so wildly disagrees with generally accepted thought.
Of course the early Church accepted the primacy and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. that’s WHY those with other ideas wrote them down in the first place.

 

[KathleenGee]

Can’t delve into the details…time and work cannot permit.

But when the papacy further defined its eminence as the source of unity in universal Christianity, the clear and present presence of the Holy Fathers in these past hundreds of years has been such a tremendous grace to Catholics and to the world.

I heard a radio commentator saying a few years back that the only true and consistent voice we hear publicly was Pope Benedict.

Likewise I am reading the exoneration of Pope Pius XII, and the tremendous work he did facing Naziism, the atomic bomb, communism, the great writings as well as the number of teachings he did, that the witness of the papacy is testament to itself that the seat of Peter continues.

The world needs witness more than anything…affirmed by John Paul II.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Cyprian says all bishops received the keys from Peter.

Correct. All Bishops receive the keys from Peter, as long as they are with Peter and his successors. Once the connection from the See of Rome is severed, those not in communion with the Chair of Peter have their copies of the keys taken away .