Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[benjohnson]

I
The primacy if Peter is unquestionable. But it is not Sola Cephas, . This Primacy is not alone, but **with **the others (Mark 1:36, Acts 2:14, Acts 15).

Jose, even if you do come to the conclusion that the Pope has perhaps over-reached, I hope you’re not having a crisis of faith! We Lutherans would remind you that it’s entirely possible to have a full faith within a broken church - or at least we hope so, as that’s what we’ve been doing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am Jose

Ah. Nice to meet you.

What you present says nothing about what Dictatus Papae establishes and Lumen Gentium affirms in regards to the Church Catholic practice in Her first 1,000 years, where both principle are absent. Further, it doesn’t present why it is now necessary as a condition of salvation and after the Schism — without the Whole Catholic Church. And how after a thousand years it became a requirement of the faith to be affirmed in order to obtain salvation. Again, something absent in those first 1,000 years.

Why does this matter? Prior to certain councils, the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union were undefined. Would you say that a Christian needs to understand them (to some degree at least)?

More, it wasn’t Peter alone at Rome but with Paul and when we read Romans, the Church was already established and known about in the whole world when neither one of them had made it there yet.

Paul had not, but what is your basis for saying that Peter had not?

Was Saint Peter in Rome or Antioch? The Chronology of Peter’s Papacy
By Dr. Taylor Marshall
taylormarshall.com/2012/01/was-saint-peter-in-rome-or-antioch.html

Catholic Tradition holds that Saint Peter arrived in Rome for the first time in about AD 44. This coincides with the martyrdom of St James the Greater and St Peter’s arrest in Jerusalem and subsequent departure:

“But he, beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison. And he said: Tell these things to James and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.” (Acts 12:17, D-R)

Here, Peter departure to “another place,” is his departure from Jerusalem to Rome. After the imprisonment and attempted murder of Peter, the Apostle’s location throughout the New Testament is kept secret and hidden.

Saint Peter established the Church in Rome from AD 43 till AD 49 when he and all Jews were expelled from Rome by the decree of Claudius in AD 49. Why were they expelled?

According to Roman historians the Jews were expelled from the city of Rome in AD 49 because the Roman Jews were fighting over a Jew named “Chrestus.” Hmmm…Jews in Rome fighting over “Chrestus”…there must have been a mighty preacher (Pope) of “Chrestus” or “Christ” in Rome in the AD 40s to lead to all that infighting within the synagogues! This has Peter’s fingerprints all over it.

Also remember that Saint Peter pops back into Jerusalem from “another place” in AD 49, which is the occasion for the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 regarding circumcision and baptism.

From AD 49 till AD 54 (during the Jewish expulsion from Rome), we find Saint Peter reigning temporarily in Antioch. This is why Peter is known also as the first bishop of Antioch. It was the first “Babylonian captivity” of the Pope.

Tradition holds that in AD 54, when Nero revoked the Jewish expulsion from Rome, Saint Peter moved back to Rome and continued to reign as the first Pope of the Apostolic See.

In my book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicism I present a theory that Saint Paul cryptically refers to St Peter in Rome in the book of Romans:

“And I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20, D-R)

The Greek is μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ.

Here “another man” is Saint Peter as the Catholics of Rome would know. What other man (singular) had built a foundation for the Church in Rome? Paul had not yet preached there because “another man” was laying the “foundation” of the Church in Rome, Saint Peter.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why does this matter? Prior to certain councils, the doctrines of the Trinity and the hypostatic union were undefined. Would you say that a Christian needs to understand them (to some degree at least)?

Because the Whole Church agreed on those doctrines. The Supremacy is exclusive to the Western Church. More so as a condition for salvation.

Paul had not, but what is your basis for saying that Peter had not?

Was Saint Peter in Rome or Antioch? The Chronology of Peter’s Papacy
By Dr. Taylor Marshall
taylormarshall.com/2012/01/was-saint-peter-in-rome-or-antioch.html

Catholic Tradition holds that Saint Peter arrived in Rome for the first time in about AD 44. This coincides with the martyrdom of St James the Greater and St Peter’s arrest in Jerusalem and subsequent departure:

“But he, beckoning to them with his hand to hold their peace, told how the Lord had brought him out of prison. And he said: Tell these things to James and to the brethren. And going out, he went into another place.” (Acts 12:17, D-R)

Here, Peter departure to “another place,” is his departure from Jerusalem to Rome. After the imprisonment and attempted murder of Peter, the Apostle’s location throughout the New Testament is kept secret and hidden.

Saint Peter established the Church in Rome from AD 43 till AD 49 when he and all Jews were expelled from Rome by the decree of Claudius in AD 49. Why were they expelled?

According to Roman historians the Jews were expelled from the city of Rome in AD 49 because the Roman Jews were fighting over a Jew named “Chrestus.” Hmmm…Jews in Rome fighting over “Chrestus”…there must have been a mighty preacher (Pope) of “Chrestus” or “Christ” in Rome in the AD 40s to lead to all that infighting within the synagogues! This has Peter’s fingerprints all over it.

Also remember that Saint Peter pops back into Jerusalem from “another place” in AD 49, which is the occasion for the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 regarding circumcision and baptism.

From AD 49 till AD 54 (during the Jewish expulsion from Rome), we find Saint Peter reigning temporarily in Antioch. This is why Peter is known also as the first bishop of Antioch. It was the first “Babylonian captivity” of the Pope.

Tradition holds that in AD 54, when Nero revoked the Jewish expulsion from Rome, Saint Peter moved back to Rome and continued to reign as the first Pope of the Apostolic See.

In my book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicism I present a theory that Saint Paul cryptically refers to St Peter in Rome in the book of Romans:

“And I have so preached this Gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20, D-R)

The Greek is μὴ ἐπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομῶ.

Here “another man” is Saint Peter as the Catholics of Rome would know. What other man (singular) had built a foundation for the Church in Rome? Paul had not yet preached there because “another man” was laying the “foundation” of the Church in Rome, Saint Peter.

I have Dr. Marshall’s book. It argues outside Sacred Tradition and from silence. I mean it’s a compelling argument but one that is not verified. While it is [possible] Peter’s presence in Rome prior to 54AD, Paul’s silence actually screams considering all the people he mentions in Romans (Especially Ch. 16).

Tradition also holds Peter as being Bishop of Antioch prior to Rome. But that is a non-sequitur.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jose, even if you do come to the conclusion that the Pope has perhaps over-reached, I hope you’re not having a crisis of faith! We Lutherans would remind you that it’s entirely possible to have a full faith within a broken church - or at least we hope so, as that’s what we’ve been doing.

Howdy ben,

My faith is rock solid. (See what I did there? )

I am finding my place in the body of Christ. I’m knocking at the door. It seems I’ve been knocking at the wrong doors. I’ve offered myself and have been denied so far. I’m not a bible and me only kind of person. Be in the world but not of the world. Be a witness of Christ’s Love and Mercy and be a vessel of His peace, which surpasses **ALL **understanding.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have Dr. Marshall’s book.

As do I. The whole trilogy, actually.

It argues outside Sacred Tradition and from silence. I mean it’s a compelling argument but one that is not verified. While it is [possible] Peter’s presence in Rome prior to 54AD, Paul’s silence actually screams considering all the people he mentions in Romans (Especially Ch. 16).

Tradition also holds Peter as being Bishop of Antioch prior to Rome. But that is a non-sequitur.

Peter himself said that he was in Rome, so the only question is when. Given the fact that a courier could be stopped on the road at anytime by the Romans, I’m not sure Paul would have put Peter’s name into the letter, do you?

 

[benhur]

I am Jose :tiphat:

What you present says nothing about what Dictatus Papae establishes and Lumen Gentium affirms in regards to the Church Catholic practice in Her first 1,000 years, where both principle are absent. Further, it doesn’t present why it is now necessary as a condition of salvation and after the Schism — without the Whole Catholic Church. And how after a thousand years it became a requirement of the faith to be affirmed in order to obtain salvation. Again, something absent in those first 1,000 years.

More, it wasn’t Peter alone at Rome but with Paul and when we read Romans, the Church was already established and known about in the whole world when neither one of them had made it there yet.

The primacy if Peter is unquestionable. But it is not Sola Cephas, . This Primacy is not alone, but **with **the others (Mark 1:36, Acts 2:14, Acts 15). The Rock is not the cause or first cause of the Church, because that is only Christ. As Paul says in Eph 2:20 [We are fellow members of the household of God - CHURCH] built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Peter being that first rock but not the only rock, as a rock by itself cannot make a foundation.

As for my other posts - I’m sure you know you can search within the specific thread exclusively by the username and filter only the posts by the user you are interested in . That way you don’t have to go through all the pages in the thread. :tiphat:

Good. I was thinking Jesus is the foreshadowed key keeper in Isaiah as House was saying . For sure Peter shared/was given the role as Randy points out . But as you say, it was others also. In fact we are all stones in that building, and even a foundation for others to go on top of us. Christ called all His disciples as friends, to be One with Him. We are to be disciples, even partakers of the keys, not withstanding offices and giftings. A disciple by definition does, imitates His Master. Peter definitely used the keys first and dramatically(Pentecost ect.) . However, the temptation must be resisted to institutionalize this partnership of God and the man Peter ( like Peter wanting to stay and memorialize the Transfiguration). The Church moves on, with many others doing dramatic entrances with their keys also. And we haven’t even mentioned what can happen when a corporate council takes place, with a bunch of "rocks/stones’’ and key holders.

 

[rcwitness]

The Catholic Catechism says: “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” but nothing presented, not by scripture or Tradition, here on this thread provides evidence of that supremacy.
Jon

What I see as a concern for this is only when Bishops dont trust the Holy Spirit to work through the leadership of the Chief Steward. After such a long time of “supportive” doctrine which basically refrains the Pope from stepping outside of the Holy Spirit in Teaching, the Church was ready to realize this authority within the office. But the Church also says this:

1. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

This expresses the manner in which Peter had a particular authority to speak as Steward, and the Bishops together are able to speak as Steward.

Good. I was thinking Jesus is the foreshadowed key keeper in Isaiah as House was saying . For sure Peter shared/was given the role as Randy points out . But as you say, it was others also. In fact we are all stones in that building, and even a foundation for others to go on top of us. Christ called all His disciples as friends, to be One with Him. We are to be disciples, even partakers of the keys, not withstanding offices and giftings. A disciple by definition does, imitates His Master. Peter definitely used the keys first and dramatically(Pentecost ect.) . However, the temptation must be resisted to institutionalize this partnership of God and the man Peter ( like Peter wanting to stay and memorialize the Transfiguration). The Church moves on, with many others doing dramatic entrances with their keys also. And we haven’t even mentioned what can happen when a corporate council takes place, with a bunch of "rocks/stones’’ and key holders.

The keys are not just randomly used by any individual. The successor of Peter’s office is the only individual able to use them. The collective Bishops are able to use them too. This fulfills Jesus’ giving the keys to Peter first and only, even though the others were present, then giving them to the rest collectively.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What I see as a concern for this is only when Bishops dont trust the Holy Spirit to work through the leadership of the Chief Steward.

[IF] that would have been the way the Holy Spirit worked through the Whole Church since the beginning, your assertion would be valid. But that is not the case. What it does is that it eradicates the fact that the Holy Spirit works through the Whole Church, not a single individual exclusively.

The problem is that Rome is concerned that the Holy Spirit can no longer worked through the Whole Church, as such it placed herself above all the other Bishops in a supreme and absolute manner.

Check out:

The First Council at Nicea - 325AD

Concerning those, whether of the clergy or the laity, who have been excommunicated, the sentence is to be respected by the bishops of each province according to the canon which forbids those expelled by some to be admitted by others. But let an inquiry be held to ascertain whether anyone has been expelled from the community because of pettiness or quarrelsomeness or any such ill nature on the part of the bishop. Accordingly, in order that there may be proper opportunity for inquiry into the matter, it is agreed that it would be well for synods to be held each year in each province twice a year, so that these inquiries may be conducted by all the bishops of the province assembled together, and in this way by general consent those who have offended against their own bishop may be recognised by all to be reasonably excommunicated, until all the bishops in common may decide to pronounce a more lenient sentence on these persons. The synods shall be held at the following times: one before Lent, so that, all pettiness being set aside, the gift offered to God may be unblemished; the second after the season of autumn.

the First Council of Constantinople - 381

Canon 2

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

Let’s check out The Council Of Ephesus - 431 A.D.:

We will state briefly what we are convinced of and profess about

• the God-bearing virgin and
• the manner of the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God –
• not by way of addition but in the manner of a full statement, even as we have received and possess it from of old from
  
  * the holy scriptures and from
  [*]the tradition of the holy fathers,
  [*]adding nothing at all to the creed put forward by the holy fathers at Nicaea.
  [*]For, as we have just said, that creed is sufficient both for the knowledge of godliness and for the repudiation of all heretical false teaching. We shall speak not presuming to approach the unapproachable; but we confess our own weakness and so shut out those who would reproach us for investigating things beyond the human mind.
  ​

​

​

Check out The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who dare either to compose another creed or even to promulgate or teach or hand down another creed for those who wish to convert to a recognition of the truth from Hellenism or from Judaism, or from any kind of heresy at all:** if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be deposed from the episcopacy** and the clerics from the clergy; if they be monks or layfolk, they are to be anathematised.

Did you know that the Bishop of Rome cannot be deposed?

How is that consistent with the Canon of the Catholic Church?
When were we able to override Church Canon?

After such a long time of “supportive” doctrine which basically refrains the Pope from stepping outside of the Holy Spirit in Teaching,

Excuse me!? The Pope **cannot **be refrained. Have you not read the documents I’ve posted? Canon Law?

This expresses the manner in which Peter had a particular authority to speak as Steward, and the Bishops together are able to speak as Steward.

Except that it is no longer a *Steward *but a **Monarch **with supreme, absolute, **immediate **jurisdiction. Something **new **and **absent **for a *millennium *.

The keys are not just randomly used by any individual. The successor of Peter’s office is the only individual able to use them. The collective Bishops are able to use them too. This fulfills Jesus’ giving the keys to Peter first and only, even though the others were present, then giving them to the rest collectively.

The keys are used randomly by any individual…

Again, we cross from Primacy to Supremacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good. I was thinking Jesus is the foreshadowed key keeper in Isaiah as House was saying . For sure Peter shared/was given the role as Randy points out . But as you say, it was others also. In fact we are all stones in that building, and even a foundation for others to go on top of us. Christ called all His disciples as friends, to be One with Him. We are to be disciples, even partakers of the keys, not withstanding offices and giftings. A disciple by definition does, imitates His Master. Peter definitely used the keys first and dramatically(Pentecost ect.) . However, the temptation must be resisted to institutionalize this partnership of God and the man Peter ( like Peter wanting to stay and memorialize the Transfiguration). The Church moves on, with many others doing dramatic entrances with their keys also. And we haven’t even mentioned what can happen when a corporate council takes place, with a bunch of "rocks/stones’’ and key holders.

In Isaiah, there are three relevant “people”:

1. God (who chooses Eliakim to replace Shebnah);
2. King Hezekiah (who is implied since Eliakim will be his Royal Steward);
3. Eliakim (who receives the keys).

In Matthew, there are three relevant “people”:

1. God (who reveals to Peter that Jesus is the son of God and thereby to Jesus that Peter is the one);
2. King Jesus (who inherits the throne of his father, David);
3. Peter (who receives the keys).

Jesus is the king as Luke tells us. Peter is the Royal Steward as Matthew tells us.

God chooses. The King dispenses the keys. The Steward receives the keys.

Any attempt at alternate explanations is forced by ecclesiological affiliation and not a pure reading of the text.

 

[pablope]

In Isaiah, there are three relevant “people”:

1. God (who chooses Eliakim to replace Shebnah);
2. King Hezekiah (who is implied since Eliakim will be his Royal Steward);
3. Eliakim (who receives the keys).

In Matthew, there are three relevant “people”:

1. God (who reveals to Peter that Jesus is the son of God and thereby to Jesus that Peter is the one);
2. King Jesus (who inherits the throne of his father, David);
3. Peter (who receives the keys).

Jesus is the king as Luke tells us. Peter is the Royal Steward as Matthew tells us.

God chooses. The King dispenses the keys. The Steward receives the keys.

Any attempt at alternate explanations is forced by ecclesiological affiliation and not a pure reading of the text.

And may I add, the changing of the name from Simon to Peter or Cephas or Rock, which with the Jews, no one was named Rock before.

 

[rcwitness]

[IF] that would have been the way the Holy Spirit worked through the Whole Church since the beginning, your assertion would be valid. But that is not the case. What it does is that it eradicates the fact that the Holy Spirit works through the Whole Church, not a single individual exclusively.

The problem is that Rome is concerned that the Holy Spirit can no longer worked through the Whole Church, as such it placed herself above all the other Bishops in a supreme and absolute manner.

Thanks for your persistence “J”. I know this is heavy on you. I am with you in your search for understanding. I don’t have much time, however, because I have a child, and a prego wife. Hopefully, Randy can help give proper research into these Councils and your quotes. I plan to look into them in time. For now…

I don’t think Rome Teaches that Diocese can’t or don’t manage their affairs, and that the Holy Spirit guides them through their respective Bishops. The difference is that the Holy Spirit does not work outside what He Teaches through Rome, and that Rome has a Universal See, as opposed to a diocese which has jurisdiction only within itself.

Check out:

the First Council of Constantinople - 381

Quote:
Canon 2

Diocesan bishops are not to intrude in churches beyond their own boundaries nor are they to confuse the churches: but in accordance with the canons, the bishop of Alexandria is to administer affairs in Egypt only; the bishops of the East are to manage the East alone (whilst safeguarding the privileges granted to the church of the Antiochenes in the Nicene canons); and the bishops of the Asian diocese are to manage only Asian affairs; and those in Pontus only the affairs of Pontus; and those in Thrace only Thracian affairs. Unless invited bishops are not to go outside their diocese to perform an ordination or any other ecclesiastical business. If the letter of the canon about dioceses is kept, it is clear that the provincial synod will manage affairs in each province, as was decreed at Nicaea. But the churches of God among barbarian peoples must be administered in accordance with the custom in force at the time of the fathers.

Interestingly, this does not mention Rome at all, right? Is Rome considered a Diocese in the same manner as these? Why would Rome be excluded?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Good. I was thinking Jesus is the foreshadowed key keeper in Isaiah as House was saying . For sure Peter shared/was given the role as Randy points out . But as you say, it was others also. In fact we are all stones in that building, and even a foundation for others to go on top of us. Christ called all His disciples as friends, to be One with Him. We are to be disciples, even partakers of the keys, not withstanding offices and giftings. A disciple by definition does, imitates His Master. Peter definitely used the keys first and dramatically(Pentecost ect.) . However, the temptation must be resisted to institutionalize this partnership of God and the man Peter ( like Peter wanting to stay and memorialize the Transfiguration). The Church moves on, with many others doing dramatic entrances with their keys also. And we haven’t even mentioned what can happen when a corporate council takes place, with a bunch of "rocks/stones’’ and key holders.

There is no need to undermine Church authority. And there is no need to add the descriptive: corporate to the councils. Unless you are also willing to call the Council at Jerusalem - corporate. Church Councils are indeed a model of what we see in Scriptures. The Episcopal model is indeed a model of what we see in Scriptures as well.

What I am arguing is entirely different from what you are saying. We are not partakers of the keys, those are for the Bishops who can bind and lose in unison with the Church. Like many like to point out, truth cannot contradict itself, the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church. The Whole Church, not a single Bishop. That is my argument.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks for your persistence “J”. I know this is heavy on you. I am with you in your search for understanding. I don’t have much time, however, because I have a child, and a prego wife. Hopefully, Randy can help give proper research into these Councils and your quotes. I plan to look into them in time. For now…

I don’t think Rome Teaches that Diocese can’t or don’t manage their affairs, and that the Holy Spirit guides them through their respective Bishops. The difference is that the Holy Spirit does not work outside what He Teaches through Rome, and that Rome has a Universal See, as opposed to a diocese which has jurisdiction only within itself.

Interestingly, this does not mention Rome at all, right? Is Rome considered a Diocese in the same manner as these? Why would Rome be excluded?

It doesn’t say Rome is excluded but it shows the jurisdictional model for the Bishops and how there was no universal immediate absolute jurisdiction from a single Bishop to the Whole Church.

 

[rcwitness]

It doesn’t say Rome is excluded but it shows the jurisdictional model for the Bishops and how there was no universal immediate absolute jurisdiction from a single Bishop to the Whole Church.

Either that or it’s not expressing the “boundaries” of Rome because it has greater boundaries. I’m not convinced that they would specifically mention all the major diocese of the Church in the context of determining what Bishops have authority over and excludes the most controversial See of them all. Do you not find that peculiar?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Either that or it’s not expressing the “boundaries” of Rome because it has greater boundaries. I’m not convinced that they would specifically mention all the major diocese of the Church in the context of determining what Bishops have authority over and excludes the most controversial See of them all. Do you not find that peculiar?

Not at all. Everything must be read [in context] and a whole.

Can we override an Ecumenical Council in the deposition of a Bishop?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Either that or it’s not expressing the “boundaries” of Rome because it has greater boundaries. I’m not convinced that they would specifically mention all the major diocese of the Church in the context of determining what Bishops have authority over and excludes the most controversial See of them all. Do you not find that peculiar?

Not at all. Everything must be read [in context] and a whole.

Can we override an Ecumenical Council in the deposition of a Bishop?

Y’all do know this thread is about re-establishment of the office of the Royal Steward, right?

I’ve asked three simple questions:

1. 
   *]Is Jesus a king (cf. Luke 1:31-33)?
   *]Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward (cf. Is. 22:20-22, Mt. 16:18-19)?
   *]Would the existence of other stewards (patriarchs who have their own legitimate areas of authority) prevent Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, from continuing to serve in the office of chief steward today?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Papal Primacy in the First Councils

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Y’all do know this thread is about re-establishment of the office of the Royal Steward, right?

I’ve asked three simple questions:

1. 
   *]Is Jesus a king (cf. Luke 1:31-33)?
   *]Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward (cf. Is. 22:20-22, Mt. 16:18-19)?
   *]Would the existence of other stewards (patriarchs who have their own legitimate areas of authority) prevent Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, from continuing to serve in the office of chief steward today?

1. 
   Define Royal Steward and how is his power exercised.
   
   Can we override an Ecumenical Council?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The Papal Primacy in the First Councils

unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/98-papal-primacy-in-the-first-councils.html

Who’s arguing primacy?

 

[steido01]

Y’all do know this thread is about re-establishment of the office of the Royal Steward, right?

I’ve asked three simple questions:

1. 
   *]Is Jesus a king (cf. Luke 1:31-33)?

1. 
   Undeniably. The King of kings.
   

   1. Did He re-establish the office of the Royal Steward (cf. Is. 22:20-22, Mt. 16:18-19)?

   I don’t like “re-establish.” Did Christ institute a particular teaching office to administer the Keys? Absolutely. And that office is exercised by every rightly called and ordained servant of the Word (bishop) by virtue of their call and ordination by and within the church, in general - it is not derived from, or of an otherwise lesser sacred power/authority than, any particular bishop.
   

   1. Would the existence of other stewards (patriarchs who have their own legitimate areas of authority) prevent Peter’s successors, the Bishops of Rome, from continuing to serve in the office of chief steward today?

   By human right, no, sure. By divine right, see above. Again, we go back to primacy vs. supremacy.