Orthodoxy, Papacy

[josephdaniel29]

I used to make this same exact argument on this forum when I was a normal Eastern Orthodox. But when there were still apostles here, in the event that an apostle was residing at a place where there was a bishop, that would not be two bishops in one See; and yet would not that apostle have greater authority than the bishop because he would out rank him? And if this is the case and Rome today is an actual apostle, and the only actual apostle, would that not give him universal jurisdiction without creating a scenario where there is more than one bishop in a See?

Quite frankly John the idea that each successive Bishop of Rome is somehow anointed as an Apostle is more than a little ridiculous. Did you make that up or is that an actual teaching of the Catholic; that the pope is not a bishop, but actually a living Apostle; and that because of that the bishops of the Church are subservient to him?

 

[rinnie]

Quite frankly John the idea that each successive Bishop of Rome is somehow anointed as an Apostle is more than a little ridiculous. Did you make that up or is that an actual teaching of the Catholic; that the pope is not a bishop, but actually a living Apostle; and that because of that the bishops of the Church are subservient to him?

Why is that ridiculous to you Joseph? Are you saying that St Peter had more authority then the Pope of today? Is so when did Jesus say that the authority passed down is somehow less?

 

[rinnie]

Quite frankly John the idea that each successive Bishop of Rome is somehow anointed as an Apostle is more than a little ridiculous. Did you make that up or is that an actual teaching of the Catholic; that the pope is not a bishop, but actually a living Apostle; and that because of that the bishops of the Church are subservient to him?

And also may I add if this is so ridiculous to you how do you explain in the bible Judas being replaced?

 

[guanophore]

Does no one see the irony in this title?

Yes, of course. :blush:

 

[guanophore]

Catholics believe that the Church will always be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth (as Jesus Christ said it would), but it is important to note that this Spirit must needs act through something/someone, i.e., for us it is through the magisterium headed by the Pope.

While I do agree that the HS acts through the Magesterium in unity with the successor of Peter, I don’t think that the HS “must needs act” this way. Jesus chose to set it up this way, but the HS is not confined to the Magesterium. At times, the HS has had to act through people outside the Magesterium (such as Francis of Assisi) to purify and reform His One Body, the Church. Such persons are also in unity and obedience to the Magesterium. This is one of the measures of their authenticity.

Holy Spirit needs a way to communicate truth in a manner visible (and consistent) to the Church.

Again I think that God has chosen to work through the people He has placed in positions of authority in His Church to communicate with the flock. However, the HS does not “need” to do it this way. A fully formed Bible COULD have fallen out of the sky, if God desired it to do so. Jesus did not “have” to be born into humanity. He could have arrived fully grown on the earth.

 

[guanophore]

As I recall, in the 100s St. Irenaeus said that the Church is handed on through Apostolic Succession, and that it is the Roman Succession which has the Tradition of the Apostles pre-eminently.

Yes, it was expressed among the Fathers that the Faith was handed on thrugh the Apostolic succession.

However, the Roman (Latin) Rite did not emerge until after the age of the Post Apostolic writers, so none of them would have claimed that “the Roman Succession” had the Tradition pre-eminently. On the contrary, many of them were from the East.

Rome was considered a pre-eminent Apostolic See of Sacred Tradition because both Paul and Peter travelled there from the East, where Bishoprics had already been established, and built up the Church in Rome prior to being martyrd there.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Why is that ridiculous to you Joseph? Are you saying that St Peter had more authority then the Pope of today?

Of course he did, so did the other twelve Apostles.

Is so when did Jesus say that the authority passed down is somehow less?

When did Jesus say any authority was “passed down” for that matter?

I don’t think your idea can be plausibly defended from Scripture of the fathers. The Apostles appointed presbyters to oversee (episcopos) the various communities. Can you give me any examples of Church Fathers calling the pope an “Apostle”? Can you point to any Catholic document that calls the pope an Apostle? What are the implications of this? If each pope is also an Apostles is there some 265 sets of keys to the Kingdom? Do the popes cease to be Apostles and lose the keys after they die or do they continue to be an Apostles and keep them?

In Christ
Joe

 

[rinnie]

Of course he did, so did the other twelve Apostles.

When did Jesus say any authority was “passed down” for that matter?

I don’t think your idea can be plausibly defended from Scripture of the fathers. The Apostles appointed presbyters to oversee (episcopos) the various communities. Can you give me any examples of Church Fathers calling the pope an “Apostle”? Can you point to any Catholic document that calls the pope an Apostle? What are the implications of this? If each pope is also an Apostles is there some 265 sets of keys to the Kingdom? Do the popes cease to be Apostles and lose the keys after they die or do they continue to be an Apostles and keep them?

In Christ
Joe

Well like yeah, starting with Peter. Simon was changed to Peter Peter translates to Rock, Rock translates to Papa, Papa translates to Pope. Would that not be a good start? Or do deny that also?

Or do you deny that Peter was an Apostle now?

Also does scripture say or not say that Judas was replaced? Was Judas a Apostle or not?

By the way if the RCC did not think that Peter was the First Pope when did you think we had the first Pope? And how did you think the word Pope came about?

 

[rinnie]

Of course he did, so did the other twelve Apostles.

When did Jesus say any authority was “passed down” for that matter?

I don’t think your idea can be plausibly defended from Scripture of the fathers. The Apostles appointed presbyters to oversee (episcopos) the various communities. Can you give me any examples of Church Fathers calling the pope an “Apostle”? Can you point to any Catholic document that calls the pope an Apostle? What are the implications of this? If each pope is also an Apostles is there some 265 sets of keys to the Kingdom? Do the popes cease to be Apostles and lose the keys after they die or do they continue to be an Apostles and keep them?

In Christ
Joe

By the way the Pope and the Bishops with him still appoint Presbyters (Priests) to oversee the various communties. Its still the same in the RCC it never changed!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Well like yeah, starting with Peter. Simon was changed to Peter Peter translates to Rock, Rock translates to Papa, Papa translates to Pope. Would that not be a good start? Or do deny that also?

Absolutely nothing to do with my question.

Or do you deny that Peter was an Apostle now?

What are you even talking about?

Also does scripture say or not say that Judas was replaced? Was Judas a Apostle or not?

Judas was not a bishop, he was an Apostle just like St Peter.

By the way if the RCC did not think that Peter was the First Pope when did you think we had the first Pope? And how did you think the word Pope came about?

What does any of that have to do with the question at hand? I know where the term pope comes from, I don’t think you do.

 

[josephdaniel29]

By the way the Pope and the Bishops with him still appoint Presbyters (Priests) to oversee the various communties. Its still the same in the RCC it never changed!

Wow, I’m not even sure where to begin with this one. In the New Testament and the early Church the terms “presbyter” and “episcopos” were often used interchangeably. Did you not know that? When I say the Apostles appointed “presbyters”, using the language of the New Testament, I mean they appointed “bishops” in the modern sense of the term. Only later did the term presbyter come to signify the priests specifically as an office dependent on the episcopacy.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Nine_Two]

Well like yeah, starting with Peter. Simon was changed to Peter Peter translates to Rock, Rock translates to Papa, Papa translates to Pope. Would that not be a good start? Or do deny that also?

Or do you deny that Peter was an Apostle now?

Also does scripture say or not say that Judas was replaced? Was Judas a Apostle or not?

By the way if the RCC did not think that Peter was the First Pope when did you think we had the first Pope? And how did you think the word Pope came about?

Papa comes from “Father”, not “Rock”, and it was first used by the Patriarch of Alexandria, not the Bishop of Rome.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Papa comes from “Father”, not “Rock”, and it was first used by the Patriarch of Alexandria, not the Bishop of Rome.

So the first “pope” was actually the Patriarch of Alexandria and the first “Petrine See” is actually Antioch, not Rome.

 

[rinnie]

Absolutely nothing to do with my question.

What are you even talking about?

Judas was not a bishop, he was an Apostle just like St Peter.

What does any of that have to do with the question at hand? I know where the term pope comes from, I don’t think you do.

And I told you it came from the word Father which translates to Pope from the Greek word Papa .

 

[rinnie]

Papa comes from “Father”, not “Rock”, and it was first used by the Patriarch of Alexandria, not the Bishop of Rome.

Where do you think the word Papa comes from?

 

[rinnie]

Wow, I’m not even sure where to begin with this one. In the New Testament and the early Church the terms “presbyter” and “episcopos” were often used interchangeably. Did you not know that? When I say the Apostles appointed “presbyters”, using the language of the New Testament, I mean they appointed “bishops” in the modern sense of the term. Only later did the term presbyter come to signify the priests specifically as an office dependent on the episcopacy.

In Christ
Joe

And where did I say that I was not using the term of today. I said that the Church is ran today the same as it was with the original Apostles with the Pope as the leader with his Bishops.

Now please answer my question. Where does it state that the Power given to Peter dies with Peter and is not given to the Pope of Today?

Because the gospel states I will be with you until the end of time. Now If Christ is with the Church and the Pope and Bishops and Priests how can that power be gone? The Power of the Holy Spriit that came to the Church at Pentecost is still there leading the Church of today. And please show me where it it stated in the bible when Peter died the keys to the kingdom died with him. Because Jesus stated otherwise. He said the gates of hades shall not prevail which means the death of the original Apostles. Please show me scripture that states otherwise, So until you can then the Pope still has the power handed down to him by the keys to the kingdom that he got when he became Pope.

 

[josephdaniel29]

And I told you it came from the word Father which translates to Pope from the Greek word Papa .

Precisely. The Greek word papa means “father” not “rock.”

 

[rinnie]

Precisely. The Greek word papa means “father” not “rock.”

Father is the same as Rock, just like Papa is the same as Father, Just as Papa is the same as Pope. They all mean the same thing for goodness sakes. Papa Pope Father, Rock all the same word. Did it sink in yet?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Father is the same as Rock, just like Papa is the same as Father, Just as Papa is the same as Pope. They all mean the same thing for goodness sakes. Papa Pope Father, Rock all the same word. Did it sink in yet?

Papa = Father

Papa = Pope

Petra = Rock

Petra ≠ Papa

Petra and papa are two different words meaning two different things.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

While I do agree that the HS acts through the Magesterium in unity with the successor of Peter, I don’t think that the HS “must needs act” this way. Jesus chose to set it up this way, but the HS is not confined to the Magesterium. At times, the HS has had to act through people outside the Magesterium (such as Francis of Assisi) to purify and reform His One Body, the Church. Such persons are also in unity and obedience to the Magesterium. This is one of the measures of their authenticity.

Again I think that God has chosen to work through the people He has placed in positions of authority in His Church to communicate with the flock. However, the HS does not “need” to do it this way. A fully formed Bible COULD have fallen out of the sky, if God desired it to do so. Jesus did not “have” to be born into humanity. He could have arrived fully grown on the earth.

Guanophore you must have missed my post because I wrote something similar to what you said here to Contarini (so don’t worry I’m not trying to curtail the Holy Spirit).