Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

There IS NO primus held by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Don’t take my word for it.

So I should take a German Catholic Cardinal’s word on the EO instead?

steve-b:

Cardinal Kasper, is President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

steve-b:

AND there is no more Constantinople either.

Vonsalza:

Well, sure. And there’s no longer a papal Rome. You have only Vatican City now.

How are you using “you”?

In your responses, I’m sensing you were Catholic but are no longer Catholic. Do I understand you correctly

steve-b:

That same Church is still here today. With pope Francis 266th successor to St Peter. The Orthodox can make no such claim.

Vonsalza:

Fair enough, Steve.

steve-b:

So?
That’s like
Henry VIII saying he went back to the beginning.
John Calvin saying he " " "
Martin Luther saying he " " "
John Smyth saying he " " "
etc etc etc

When
EVERYBODY dies, and everybody will, they will be immediately judged., I have given you evidence all properly referenced for my position. Where’s your proof that your argument that you have been trying to present, is true?

Vonsalza:

I wasn’t aware I was making the case for the superiority of Orthodoxy, but merely its possibility.
And with respect Steve, you’ve cited these forums and the musings of a Catholic Cardinal on Orthodox ecclesiology. For a non-Catholic, that’s probably not material recognized as authoritative.

He is the President Emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, part of that promoting unity, is his work with the Orthodox. He is not just some random Cardinal in the bunch. He had boots on the ground, personal investiture with that endeavor. IOW he knows that subject he’s commenting on. His comments are not just musings

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“the greatest μείζων among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm1 like the one who serves.”

1. There is no identification of any single apostle here (remember they were all vying for that role).

Did Peter want to be great? Nope. Did he lobby anyone for the top job? Nope. Did he ask for the keys, or to have his name changed? Nope.
Did anybody among them do something like that? Yep. The mother of James and John, who wanted big things for her sons asked Jesus if He would put her 2 sons at the right and left hand of Jesus, positions of authority.

Peter was selected for the unique position of authority over the others
BlackFrier:

1. It is clear that the 3rd person singular used here is “impersonal”. The English expression “one” is well translated in this case, it therefore does not mean “he who rules” (ie Peter) as you seem to literally and narrowly translate the Greek. It is in fact an effective plural as in “everyman”.

As I gave previously,

the one who Rules = Lk 22:26 ἡγούμενος http://bibleapps.com/greek/2233.htm the explanation is not in the plural.

1. to lead, i. e.

a. to go before;

b. to be a leader; to rule, command; to have authority over: in the N. T. so only in the present participle ἡγούμενος, a prince, of regal power (Ezekiel 43:7 for מֶלֶך; Sir. 17:17), Matthew 2:6; a (royal) governor, viceroy, Acts 7:10; chief, Luke 22:26

 

[BlackFriar]

Steve I wouldn’t give up your day job for being s Scripture scholar just yet.
You are practising eisegesis rather than exegesis I humbly suggest.

May I ask if you have any fluent facility in languages other than English or have you formally studied Koine Greek?

I see you declined to answer this question.
Not a good sign either.

 

[steve-b]

Steve I wouldn’t give up your day job for being s Scripture scholar just yet.
You are practising eisegesis rather than exegesis I humbly suggest.

May I ask if you have any fluent facility in languages other than English or have you formally studied Koine Greek?

Refute Strong’s

 

[BlackFriar]

Ahem, hes a Protestant.
Perhaps if his exegesis did point to the primacy of Peter as you are suggesting he would have converted to Catholicism.
That didnt happen as far as I know.
So you seem to have gone astray as I suggest.

Have you ever formally studied Koine Greek or Biblical exegesis?

 

[steve-b]

Ahem, hes a Protestant.
Perhaps if his exegesis did point to the primacy of Peter as you are suggesting he would have converted to Catholicism. That didnt happen as far as I know.

Same could be said of CS Lewis
BlackFrier:

So you seem to have gone astray as I suggest.

Douay Rheims Lk 22:26

“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”.

Who is this one person among THEM who is the leader, that JESUS is talking about?

 

[BlackFriar]

Sorry Steve I fear for my sanity continuing dialogue with you .

 

[steve-b]

Sorry Steve I fear for my sanity continuing dialogue with you .

IOW you don’t have an answer to my post

 

[deMontfort]

I sense a pattern with him…

 

[dochawk]

dochawk:

(Too many also think that he is “also” the Bishop of Rome, rather than understanding that he is Pope becasue he is the Bishop of Rome).

Interesting point. Do you really think that is true in practise today. It seems strange that the clergy of Rome do not choose their own Pope.

I don’t think that it can be other than that today; if a Bishop of Rome were not chosen, Peter would not have a successor.

“Pope” is more an honorific than anything else; it’s roughly “Father”. It too0k a while for the term to be in use, but to the extent the word has meaning, it’s from the formalization of the Bishop of Rome’s role and calling that role “papacy”.

There are indeed those in the east, both Catholic and Orthodox, who strongly maintain that the synod of the Archdiocese of Rome should be choosing it’s own metropolitan/archbishop when there is a vacancy (as well as the other sees. And the same for every other metropolia/archdiocese).

 

[dochawk]

Is this true, Catholics?

I am Catholic.

I just know some history.



hawk

 

[dochawk]

Do the clergy anywhere choose their bishops?

If you mean the clergy at large, I’m not aware of any Catholic or Orthodox that do this today.

If you mean the other bishops in the synod, that is the case AFAIK in every EC and EO church save the ones too small to do so (The italo-greeks, for example, ran completely out of bishops a couple of years ago, having only two, and getting the from Rome like some of the smaller EC churches, or that orthodox monastery whose abbot is consecrated a bishop by the next orthodox church over.) Also, in the diaspora, bishops are usually chosen for the EC by Rome, although the EC church’s advice is (usually) respected.

hawk

 

[BlackFriar]

I don’t think that it can be other than that today; if a Bishop of Rome were not chosen, Peter would not have a successor.

Not quite sure how this relates to my question.
All I was suggesting was that, as you say later, perhaps the Roman Clergy Synod should choose the bishop of Rome when he dies rather than the Cardinals. That seems to have been the original tradition in all dioceses as you also say.

 

[steve-b]

I sense a pattern with him…

I notice you are in RCIA. Prayers ascending for your journey

 

[deMontfort]

deMontfort:

I sense a pattern with him…

I notice you are in RCIA. Prayers ascending for your journey

Thanks! Second time around (long story)…will seal the deal this time

 

[steve-b]

I understand. Easter is just around the corner.

 

[dochawk]

Not quite sure how this relates to my question.

Welcome to the internet and thread drift

Actually, it predates the internet, and was common on usenet and list serves before they evolved into the internet . . .

anyway, as I answered way back at the beginning, there is no dispute among the Orthodox or even the more “serious” Protestant scholars. Peter absolutely led the apostles, and they deferred to him, and he resolved their differences.

Peter’s primacy is beyond any reasonable dispute when reading the Gospels and Epistles; noone who seriously looks at these disputes it any more.

But the fact of Peter’s primacy doesn’t, by itself, resolve anything from the second century on . . .

What happened to the “Petrine ministry”, though, is hotly disputed, and thus the issues. The Roman position is and has been, variously (and somewhat inconsistently) that the Bishop of Rome succeeds to the entire Petrine Ministry, that the three Petrine sees (Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome) share the Petrine ministry but with Rome exercising it first or leading the other two; that the three sees are in some way really a single see divided, and possibly others.

The Orthodox generally say that the Petrine ministry is shared by all bishops, but acknowledge some kind of primacy at least in leadership and service by the bishop of Rome, currently not applicable due to heterodoxy/heresy, but which would resume if and when Rome again professed orthodoxy (their opinion, not mine!). In particular, as the final arbiter in disputes between bishops and Churches. Also, Rome’s conservatism and slowing down innovative theology played a role in granting this role; in this regard, Rome was seen as the defender of orthodoxy.

Rome’s acceptance of the results was a major, but not determinative, factor in accepting the authority of a council as binding (which today we call “ecumenical”, although that actually means having been called by the Emperor. If anyone today has the authority to issue such a summons I suppose it would be the President of the United States, as Overlord of the West after the world wars, although the Russian Orthodox might claim the Russian president, as they have always fancied Moscow to be “third Rome”, thus the title Caesar/Czar of their emperors).

Anyway, even with universal acceptance of papal inheritance of Peter’s primacy, the problem wouldn’t be solved, as not even all of the Eastern Catholic accept Rome’s monarchial rule, let alone the EO, OO, and Protestant.

That is, the question is not whether Rome has a primacy or should be exercising it, but what that primacy means.

I’ve never verified it, but someone told me that he had seen an interview with Billy Graham in which he as asked if it would be useful to have a universal Christian leader–to which he replied something like, “We do. That’s the pope.”

[continued]

 

[dochawk]

[continuing]

All I was suggesting was that, as you say later, perhaps the Roman Clergy Synod should choose the bishop of Rome when he dies rather than the Cardinals. That seems to have been the original tradition in all dioceses as you also say.

The early church generally had elections in which the laity had a voice as well as clergy. These seem to have disappeared fairly early. The US Episcopal seem to have adopted something trying to bring this back, and I think the Methodists, too–but their “bishops” are not of the Apostolic Succession, but rather lay leaders, so . . .

hawk

 

[BlackFriar]

All very interesting but why address me - not my issue.

 

[dochawk]

At this point, it’s not “addressing you.”

Your initial question was fully and completely answered at the very beginning.

It is the related issue that was then discussed which is the actual issue between the Churches. Discussions drift like this on any forum.

hawk