Papacy question

  • Thread starter Thread starter jco2004
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh bother. Yeah, sure, I’ll find a patristic quote that says exactly that, when you find me one that says, “Peter and his successors have universal jurisdiction and primacy.” I hope you were kiddin
Click to expand...
This might help you.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION. [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)
 
Chris W:
The Pope had to be infallible. What good is an inerrant Bible, if no one can say for sure what the Bible means? If we cannot know with absolute certainty what the correct interpretation (truth) is, then we cannot claim to know God who identifies Himself as Truth.

The Church, Christ’s body on earth, animated by the Spirit, is our infallible guide. Although I believe that the Bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, plays an indispensable role in the Church, he is not himself the Church, as Vatican I comes close to saying. There is no substitute for the Spirit working through all of the bishops, including the pope, and with the (name removed by moderator)ut, yes, of the laity.

We know the belief has existed from the earliest times. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in 252 A.D., “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” Someone may dispute whether Cyprian was correct, but we can at least say the belief is not new.

You have to be careful with Cyprian of Carthage. He thought all bishops sat on the seat of Peter, in some sense. It’s not always clear if he’s referring to any bishop, or the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
jco2004:
40.png
Lorarose:
I am referring to Acts 15, and if you read it as Peter making the final decision, then all I can say is that you’re on a different plane of reality from me.
Click to expand...
Well, she shares that “plane of reality” with a heck of a lot of respected scholars. They note that Peter made the doctrinal decision–to which everyone else immediately acceded–while James (as bishop of Jerusalem) merely added practical provisions designed to allay the concerns of local Jewish Christians.

Scripture scholars say this. You want references? We can get 'em for ya. 😉

But something tells me you’re not here to be confused by the facts. :cool:

ZT
Click to expand...
 
40.png
jco2004:
Chris W:
You have to be careful with Cyprian of Carthage. He thought all bishops sat on the seat of Peter, in some sense. It’s not always clear if he’s referring to any bishop, or the Bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
Fr. Luke Rivington has a very extensive discussion of Cyprian in The Primitive Church and the See of Peter. And Fr. Stanley Jaki has a brilliant discussion of Cyprian vs. Pope Stephen in The Keys of the Kingdom.

Highly recommended–just to put Cyprian into perspective. Know what I mean? 😉

Otherwise, we can pick nits, split hairs, and major in minors till the cows come home, without getting an accurate sense of how Cyprian (overall) regarded the papacy. 😃

ZT
Click to expand...
 
Was it written in scriptures that Peter would become the holder of the keys?

Is there a quote in the OT that says a fisherman will be singled out to become the Lord’s servant on earth after the Lord departs?

I am just interested , as many non Catholics question why we follow the Pope, and what the link is between Peter and the Pope.

If it is from just Jesus saying the rock stuff and the keys stuff, is there any theological view as to why he singled Peter out for this role?

Love Kellie
 
Kellie,

I am a little confused about what you mean when you say theological view on why Jesus picked Peter. There is no way to speculate on why Jesus picked Peter. The most important thing about why we follow the Pope (the sucsessor of Peter) is that he was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and that he was the Rock on which Christ Built the Church.
 
ZoeTheodora: Well, she shares that “plane of reality” with a heck of a lot of respected scholars. They note that Peter made the doctrinal decision–to which everyone else immediately acceded–while James (as bishop of Jerusalem) merely added practical provisions designed to allay the concerns of local Jewish Christians.

That’s pure spin, nothing more.

Zoe Theodora: Scripture scholars say this. You want references? We can get 'em for ya. 😉

I’m sure there are some apologists who say this. Heck, there are “scholars” who deny the Holocaust. I already have read scholars such as Fr. John McKenzie, SJ, and Fr. Raymond Brown sya, and it confirms what any common sense reading shows. Sure, trot 'em out. If an actual scholar appears on the list, I’ll look at them.

Diane: But something tells me you’re not here to be confused by the facts. :cool:

Diane, you’ve never let the facts get between you and a nice shallow argument.

ZT
 
Does the infallibility of the papacy include issues of doctrine and discernment of heresy?
 
By the time that the last book of the Bible (Revelation) was written, the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope.
St. Irenaeus listed the first 14 Popes in “Against Heresies”, 3:3:3, 180 AD
  1. St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18
  2. St. Linus (67-76), 2Timothy 4:21
  3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
  4. St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
  5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
  6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
  7. St. Sixtus I (115-125)
  8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
  9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
  10. St. Pius I (140-155) * St. Anicetus (155-166)
    10 St. Soter (166-175)
  11. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
  12. St. Victor I (189-199)
  13. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
  14. St. Callistus I (217-22)
 
40.png
jco2004:
ZoeTheodora: Well, she shares that “plane of reality” with a heck of a lot of respected scholars. They note that Peter made the doctrinal decision–to which everyone else immediately acceded–while James (as bishop of Jerusalem) merely added practical provisions designed to allay the concerns of local Jewish Christians.

That’s pure spin, nothing more. ZT
Click to expand...
Pure spin? Very interesting jco.

let’s see:
  • a problem arose about circumcising gentile converts.
  • there arose no little dissention and debate by Paul and Barnabas.
  • Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem about this question.
  • they met to see about the matter (apostles and presbyters).
  • Scriptures says that, “after much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them …”, when he was done, "The whole assembly fell silent. (that’s verses 7-12, but you know that already).
  • Paul and Barnanbas give testimony.
  • Then James responded. He referred to what both Symeon (Peter) said and what the Prophet (Amos) said. (He points to Peter and the OT).
  • James says, It is my judgment, but nothing he says after that is in reference to doctrinal issues. Peter addressed the doctrinal issue [should gentile be curcumcised? Peter said ‘NO’, (cf.verse10)] James does give practical provisions, it’s no spin. (atleast not on this side)
Remember, there was debate that even Paul couldn’t silence. Peter speaks, all fall silent. Then are happy to hear testimony from Paul. Then James adds to what Peter has already determined.
 
Tyler Smedley:
Kellie,

I am a little confused about what you mean when you say theological view on why Jesus picked Peter. There is no way to speculate on why Jesus picked Peter. The most important thing about why we follow the Pope (the sucsessor of Peter) is that he was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and that he was the Rock on which Christ Built the Church.
Click to expand...
I suppose theology isnt the correct term.
Just that everything Jesus seemed to do fulfilled Scripture.
Why was Peter singled out from the 12?
Thats all
 
jco2004 wrote “The Church, Christ’s body on earth, animated by the Spirit, is our infallible guide.”

While this statement is not false, it is somewhat vague in my opinion. If by “Church” you mean the whole body of Christian believers, I would disagree with this statement. The whole body of believers claiming the guidance of the Holy Spirit is not a dependable means of determining truth. This is evident from the existance of numerous denominations, each contradicting the other on some topic. If the individual (or even a group) reliance on the Holy Spirit was sufficient, then all men of good will would agree.

However, if you mean by “Church” the Catholic Church, including the infallible authority of the Pope, then your statement is correct. Jesus’ promise was to protect His Church, in which he established the Papacy, from error (through the guidance of the Holy Spirit). For if Jesus’ promise was to protect from error all who profess any form of Christianity, then Jesus has not done what he promised.
 
Cehpas,

Being added to your buddy list sounds like something good, but I have no idea what that means. I am new to internet discussions.

This is great! I am learning a lot already. It is comforting knowing there are others out there who can jump in and back me up if I pose an argument that is a little weak (been there already, and it’s only been a few days).
 
40.png
Trento:
This might help you.

It’s a very important passage, but it doesn’t say the pope has universal jurisdiction. It says agreement with the Church of Rome is necessary to the proper functioning of the universal Church. And I believe that. It does not say that the pope has the authority to intervene in the affairs of every local church or appoint bishops for every church, which is what universal jurisdiction says. It also does not say that the pope can unilaterally formulate doctrine to be held by the whole church, without the agreement of any other bishops, which is what supremacy and infallibility say.

ST. IRENAEUS OF LYON (c. 180-199 AD)

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. FOR WITH THIS CHURCH, BECAUSE OF ITS SUPERIOR ORIGIN [or “preeminent authority”] ALL CHURCHES MUST AGREE, THAT IS, ALL THE FAITHFUL IN THE WHOLE WORLD; AND IT IS IN HER THAT THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE HAVE MAINTAINED THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION. [then follows a list of successors to Peter as bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Cephas:
Pure spin? Very interesting jco.

let’s see:
  • a problem arose about circumcising gentile converts.
  • there arose no little dissention and debate by Paul and Barnabas.
  • Paul and Barnabas go to Jerusalem about this question.
  • they met to see about the matter (apostles and presbyters).
Indeed. They didn’t just ask Peter. They called for a council. Get it?
  • Scriptures says that, “after much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them …”, when he was done, "The whole assembly fell silent. (that’s verses 7-12, but you know that already).
Yes. Peter gives the most influential speech. He reminds the council of the operative principle “We are saved by faith…” the assembly falls silent. Then:
  • Paul and Barnanbas give testimony.
Interesting. Why would there be further testimony if the judgement had already been rendered?
  • Then James responded.
“Responded”? He summed up the testimony and gave the decision. that’s what the presider at a council does.

-He referred to what both Symeon (Peter) said and what the Prophet (Amos) said. (He points to Peter and the OT).

He summed up the testimony.
  • James says, It is my judgment,
Exactly. “Ego krino”, “I decide” or “I judge”

but nothing he says after that is in reference to doctrinal issues.

WRONG. “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought not to cause God’s Gentile converts any difficulties.” (v. 19, NAB). That clearly is in reference to the doctrinal issue being discussed, whether to require circumcision for Gentiles. James renders the judgment that they should only be required to abstain from idols, etc. That logically implies that they are not required to be circumcised. James essentially echoes the language used earlier by Peter, except in the form of a judgment. Neither explicitly used the term “circumcision” but that’s what they were talking about. What do you think they were talking about, the price of tea in China?

-Remember, there was debate that even Paul couldn’t silence. Peter speaks, all fall silent.

Apples and oranges. Paul was prior to the council, among the laity. No decision was going to be made there. Peter was at a council, with the bishops and presbyters. Surely you can make that distinction. Besides, we’re not talking here about Peter vs. Paul, we’re talking Peter vs. James.

-Then are happy to hear testimony from Paul. Then James adds to what Peter has already determined.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right. That’s not what St. John Chrysostom thought:

‘Then all the multitude kept silence,’ etc. (v. 12) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and I think it no hardship… ‘And after that they held their peace, James answered’, etc. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 33rd Homily.
 
Reading this thread, it seems we have wandered a bit, as will happen. It should be noted that the Church has the charism of infalibility, which, until recently, has been exercised through the bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome. As best I can determine, the issue of his infallibility on his own is of recent definition, and the Bishop of Rome has only spoken twice ex cathedra; once for the Immaculate Conception and once for the Assumption. He has, as Bishop or Rome, been the final arbiter of issues, but not on his own; rather, in union with the rest of the bishops.
Doctrine is not created out of whole cloth; but it does develope in terms of our understanding of it.
 
40.png
kellie:
Why was Peter singled out from the 12?
Click to expand...
I guess the best reply to that is Jesus wanted to. :o I don’t really think that there is anything you are going to find on that…have fun with that though and if you get anything let me know.
 
40.png
jco2004:
Yeah, right. That’s not what St. John Chrysostom thought:

‘Then all the multitude kept silence,’ etc. (v. 12) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and I think it no hardship… ‘And after that they held their peace, James answered’, etc. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 33rd Homily.
Click to expand...
You’ve convinced me, Joe. The bishop of Jerusalem is the pope. :whacky:

But seriously–this famous passage from Chrysostom should be cited in context. Else you are pulling a Michael Whelton–a cut-&-paste trashing of the Fathers.

Elsewhere, after all, the same Chrysostom makes it abundantly clear that he does NOT regard James as holding authority even equal to Peter’s, let alone higher. He calls Peter the Rock, the Coryphaeus of the apostolic choir, etc., and says that Peter “taught the whole world.” And that’s not even scratching the surface–Chrysostom has much to say re Peter’s unique role as supreme leader.

But I think you know that. Perhaps you’re just being disingenuous in citing this little snippet completely out of context (which gives a very misleading impression of Chrysostom’s views on Petrine primacy).
😃

BTW–you do know how worn and hackneyed your arguments are, right? The very same arguments, the very same patristic passages, are routinely trotted out by people like James White, William Webster, and Eric Svendsen.

You’re in good company. :dancing:

ZT
 
It’s a very important passage, but it doesn’t say the pope has universal jurisdiction. It says agreement with the Church of Rome is necessary to the proper functioning of the universal Church. And I believe that. It does not say that the pope has the authority to intervene in the affairs of every local church or appoint bishops for every church, which is what universal jurisdiction says. It also does not say that the pope can unilaterally formulate doctrine to be held by the whole church, without the agreement of any other bishops, which is what supremacy and infallibility say.
Click to expand...
**The corinthians appealed to Rome: just as the early church of Antioch appealed to the Apostles at Jerusalem for a solution to their problems in Acts 15:2
Here is one example of Universal jurisdiction of an Early Pope intervening in the affairs of other churchs For doctrine there are other examples.
Clement’s letter to the Corinthians:

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (First Clement, Chapter 1)

There was no living Apostle living in Rome at this time. The Corinthians should hae appealed to nearby Ephesus as they did in the days of Paul: 1 Cor 7:1 and 16:8, where the Apostle John was still alive and presiding.

This is documented by St. Irenaeus, who writes:
“Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the Apostles.” (Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, Book 3:3, c. 180 AD)

The Emperor Trajan reigned from AD 98 until AD 117. Therefore, the Apostle John was indeed presiding in nearby Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to Pope St. Clement at Rome.
Clement also speaks of Rome “turning its attention” to the problems of Corinth, thus implying that Rome routinely instructed the other churches. He he also praises the faith of the Corinthians in a universal cotext that he could only invoke if Rome had universal jurisdiction. **
​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top