I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Good stuff right there!
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
Work?It’s not like the Church couldn’t work without Rome’s immediate, supreme and absolute jurisdiction for 1,000 years…
Lots of churches work and work quite well, yet there arises schisms. The idea is to work together and in ultimate obedience to Jesus and His direction.
I agree with alot of what you bring to attention regarding the development of the definitions of the papacy. Some of it may very well come out of anger. But the question is, did these definitions and powers invoked have actual authority from Christ?
We obviously know that there are sometimes poor leaders who abuse their position and authority. But those who remain faithfull to His Teaching through the Stewards are serving Jesus by doing so.
Luke 12
Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?
Luke 22
32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
John 21
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
We have been down this road before.
Again, Primacy does not mean absolute supreme immediate jurisdiction. You are making the same arguments our protestant brothers make - exception theology. Bringing example of division problems does not address the fact that even bigger division have happened with the Papacy than without. The Reformation happen with absolute supreme immediate jurisdiction.
Keep in mind that this development happened without the Orthodox Churches. We need to make references to this from 1054 AD forward. Not before. If the Scriputral support you and others make was so convincing, we would have seen something different in those first 1,000 years. But that is not the case.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The reformation “happened” because of a number of reasons, including poor management and abuse by leaders. Yet when this leadership was forced to address the issues, reform was taking form. Reform of Teaching in defining terms and reform of malpractice. Division however, happened without conform and obedience to “absolute, supreme, and imediate jurisdiction”. When the dust settled, those who upheld the authority of the successor of Peter avoided heresy, though their behavior may have had faults.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Also, aren’t you making a similar arguement as non Christians when they reject Jesus because “more blood has been spilled over ‘religion’ than any other cause.”?
Don’t take that as a personal accusation that you reject the papacy. But you seem to give blame for division to the terms of the papacy which took form, as opposed to the issues which the papacy dealt with.
I think some ECF’s would possibly have some discomfort with these developments. But like St Jerome was pleased to defend the Papacy when St Damasus was in office but struggled to defend his successor St Siricius, its difficult to defend the office when the man is difficult to work with.
BTW, i’m still trying to learn about these Popes and ECF’s. For example, I didn’t know, til now, that Pope Siricius is a Saint.
…
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
The point is that the Papacy didn’t stop, arguably, the biggest break in Church history. In the end the Papacy in its new form works for us.
And last I checked our Orthodox brothers are still standing.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Not at all, my argument is that the Papacy, after the Great Schism, is not this perfect system some try to project.
To be honest, I won’t be offended if you don’t care what I think
. I mean it, lol.What we need to focus on is the facts. The fact is that there has been developments that didn’t exist for a thousand years. Us, as Catholics, tooting the Pope as if it’s something that has always been present since the beginning is as naive as Protestants tooting Sola Scriptura. We are both wrong to that effect.
Church Divine Revelation and Church Government are not necessarily synonymous. Our Church government works for us. There are, have been, and will be other forms of Church government outside of Rome.
This is my whole point. There a various opinions on the matter. But our current development was born out of division. Mea Culpa.
That’s a lifetime of learning joy!!!BTW, i’m still trying to learn about these Popes and ECF’s. For example, I didn’t know, til now, that Pope Siricius is a Saint.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Standing still?
I think the Catholic Church gets railed constantly for standing up to current issues and delivering Teaching (“their portion of food at the proper time”). You hardly hear the Orthodox rocking the secular world.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Nor could the Lord, presumbably, stop Judas from betraying His son, either (free will and all that).
The papacy, in its *current *form, is a natural development given the potential that was there all along.
Of course. They have stayed true to that which they knew 1,000 years ago, and that WAS solid then…just like our more developed papacy is solid today.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
But really, this thread is about the fact that a king, named Jesus, of the House of David appointed a royal steward by the name of Peter. :yup:
R
rcwitness
Guest
Be carefull here. The Pope has been there since Jesus appointed Peter as a Steward of even the Apostles. That’s what this thread is addressing.
I realize you are uncomfortable with some “developments” in doctrine, but that’s like saying Mary was assumed into heaven when Pope Pius XII declared it, as opposed to him merely Teaching what had happened long before.
The Churches ability, in the Pime Bishop alone or in the Magisterium, to declare any of the powers which the papacy holds has always existed, yet was expressed at a particular time. We can debate whether that time was wise, or was compelled by selfish ambition, but the fact is, that the Church has Taught supreme, immediate, and universal jurisdiction is in the person who sits in the Chair of Peter.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, this is simply flat, dead wrong.
I have posted the argument for Jesus’ re-establishment of the office of Royal Steward in posts #1, 5 & 6.
Then read #8 & 39 to get an understanding of the development of the papacy.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Universal supreme immediate jurisdiction is not there. Acts 15 clearly demonstrating its absence. The first 7 ecumenical councils also attest to this.
The Royal Stewart did not practice universal supreme immediate jurisdiction in the Church Universal.
If you think I am wrong, you need to present more compelling arguments based on historical facts like the ones I have given.
You are arguing against a straw man I am not presenting. I am not arguing Primacy.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Why do you think this is the case?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
We all know He could. But it was according to His plan.
Matthew 16:22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
That is our opinion.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I understand what you are arguing, and you are wrong.
This was explained in posts 8 & 39.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Acts 15:6The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
12And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. 14Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. 15And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written,
16“‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen;
I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will restore it,
17that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord,
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,
says the Lord, who makes these things 18known from of old.’
19Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
I am missing Peter’s Papal Bull here
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
From your post #8
How can any of the things you posted deny the facts of what I am saying?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, I see that you are. Here’s what you are missing:
Peter, James and the Council of Jerusalem
Many non-Catholics claim that Peter could not have been the head of the earthly Church or “pope” because they believe that it was James, not Peter, who gave the final decision concerning circumcision of the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15.
This position indicates a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the council. Mark Bonocore, a noted Catholic apologist, addressed this misunderstanding in his debate with Jason Engwer in 1999.
Regarding the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, I pointed out in my [opening statement] how Peter gives the definitive teachings and how, after he speaks, all debate comes to an end. However, Engwer rejects this, citing the amendments given by James, and says how James is the only one to render “judgment.”
Well, first of all, it must be noted that James bases his remarks on Peter’s teaching:
“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described how …” (Acts 15:13-14).
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
Secondly, look at what James actually says in relation to his “judgment”:
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles” (Acts 15:19).
Well, who is this “we”? Who was “troubling the Gentiles”? Certainly not Peter (Acts 10:44-49, 11:1-18, 15:7-10). Certainly not Paul or Barnabas. So, who? Acts 15:1 tells us:
“Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised …, you cannot be saved.”
It was the Jewish faction under James (bishop of Jerusalem) that was troubling the Gentiles (Acts 15:5, Gal 2:12).
Thus, James is speaking for them, not for the whole council. Indeed, that’s why his remarks are recorded at all—to show that the leader of the Jewish faction subscribed to the decisions of the council, and so silence the Judaizers who Paul will encounter later (Titus 1:10-11).*
*Taken from: Mark Bonocore v. Jason Engwer: Was the Papacy Established by Christ? (bringyou.to/apologetics/debate13.htm)
In addition to Bonocore’s comments, I would point out that as leader of the church in Jerusalem, James was the head of a congregation which counted among its members many priests and Pharisees who still held to their Jewish roots and believed that Gentiles must become Jews through circumcision in order to become Christians. I refer you to the following:
Acts 4:36-37
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 6:7
7So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Some from among this group had gone to Galatia and upset the Gentile believers there.
Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
From this, we can see that the Council of Jerusalem was divided into two camps: those who believed the Gentile converts should be circumcised and those who did not. Peter addresses the former with these words:
“Now then, why do you [Judaizers] try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:10-11)
James addresses them, also:
“Brothers, listen to me. 14Simon (note that James even used Peter’s Hebrew name when speaking to the Judaizers) has described to us (James must be speaking here to the believers from Jerusalem since those from Galatia would already have been familiar with God’s work in that province!) how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself…19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we (the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem) should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them…” (Acts 15:13-20)
Thus, after hearing Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, James rose to speak and addressed those from his own flock whom he knew would have the hardest time accepting Peter’s decision. James accepted Peter’s teaching and added his own pastoral comments for the benefit of the pro-circumcision group present and for those who might be tempted to doubt that the leader of the “Judaizers” really had accepted the decision of the full ecumenical council that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles.
- Status