Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[JaneFrances]

HERE IS ONE…
Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.

Not the bishop of Rome…

This is not, as you assert, “identical phrasing” to Ignatius’ address to Rome.

Here, Ignatius is acknowledging the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as true and supreme shepherd among shepherds. Afterall, the only claim any episcopate can make towards authority is derivative of his participation in the shepherding of Christ, The Good Shepherd.

The bishop of Rome, in his place as presidor among the churches, does not compete with God as shepherd over all the bishops.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The bishop of Rome, in his place as presidor among the churches, does not compete with God as shepherd over all the bishops.

.

Jane you are making false connections here! presidor among rome churches… that is quite a …leap

 

[YADA]

Papal Primacy:

Acts 20:28

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Hoy Spirit hath ade you Episkopous [Presbyters and/or called Bishops ie the Apostles]

1 Peter 2:25

For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shephard and *Episkopous *[Bishop - singular head Apostle Peter - the one to whom Jesus commanded to “the feed my sheep” John 21:15] of our souls

 

[JaneFrances]

Jane you are making false connections here! presidor among rome churches… that is quite a …leap

So, your conclusion is that Rome presides over Rome?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well this is when the role of bishops and elders were interchangeable, the system of government established by the New Testament and supported by the Great Apostle and elder, Peter.

Peter is the first bishop of Rome? Um…So no Christian church until he left Antioch?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you share with me proof from these witnesses?

Another thread of one-liner attacks from MFM…

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Another thread of one-liner attacks from MFM…

Questioning truth? We are called to do so! I keep answers short for the benefit of the readers.

 

[mercygate]

No.
Reference to others and cooperation is explicit or implicit throughout.

Thanks for the clarification. We see it that way also. Otherwise why would Paul need to make those trips to Jerusalem? Why would he bother to keep writing letters to the Churches he had already planted?

 

[JaneFrances]

Questioning truth? We are called to do so! I keep answers short for the benefit of the readers.

For the benefit of the readers. . .

OP: Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

C: Yes.

OP: Prove it.

C: Peter’s primacy and the primacy of his successors as exhibited by patristic witness and Scriptural exegesis.

OP: But what about Peter AND Paul?

C: No problem, Peter and Paul worked together in Rome. Peter had the keys, a symbol of authority. Peter and Paul passed Peter’s authority onto Linus. . .etc.

OP: But Paul corrected Peter!

C: Right. And? He corrected his behavior which contradicted Peter’s teaching, but Paul didn’t (and couldn’t) deny Petrine primacy and authority.

OP: But what about the successors. . .who says Peter had successors?

C: The EFC’s did.

OP: Prove it using pre 200 A.D. patristic witnesses

C: Ignatius and Irenaeus.

OP: But they don’t say that Peter’s successors had jurisdiction outside of Rome.

C: Ignatius says that Rome ALONE holds presidency among the churches.

OP: No he doesn’t. . .he just says that Rome presides.

C: Presidents preside.

OP: But Rome only presides in Rome.

C: Prove it.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Peter had the keys, a symbol of authority. Peter and Paul passed Peter’s authority onto Linus. . .etc.

So now you at least agree that at no point did Peter himself specifically turn UNIVERSAL power over to Linus.
(would the Catholic church agree?)
Thanks for honesty, it is much appreciated. Just as I admitted on the fatima thread.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

OP: But what about the successors. . .who says Peter had successors?

You are miss stating me, Peter had successors we know…In Antioch amongst other places, why is Rome the head of Antioch for example their is no proof!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

C: Ignatius says that Rome ALONE holds presidency among the churches.

Now you are adding alone… Lets look again,

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,2 worthy of being deemed holy,3 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.*

 

[mercygate]

You are miss stating me, Peter had successors we know…In Antioch amongst other places, why is Rome the head of Antioch for example their is no proof!

I don’t understand your need for proof. Proof of what? Rome enjoys the precedence because it is the site of Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom.

 

[mercygate]

So now you at least agree that at no point did Peter himself specifically turn UNIVERSAL power over to Linus.
(would the Catholic church agree?)
Thanks for honesty, it is much appreciated. Just as I admitted on the fatima thread.

Whether Peter had a hand in selecting Linus as a successor would not make any difference. The bishop of Rome is the bishop of Rome, and that is where the privilege lies. Popes may have made their wishes known about who their successor should be but it is by election that the successor is named.

And remember: The Keys do not belong to the stewards, Peter and his successors, they belong to the King.

 

[Redbandito]

There is no conclusive evidence that Romes bishop had exercised jurisdiction outside of Rome until 200+ad.
It is integral to the Church of Rome to prove otherwise, isn’t it?

Not really. Simply stating that there is “no conclusive evidence” on the subject does not mean it didn’t happen. The fact that we do have evidence it happened after 200 ad suggests that the early Church believed they had this authority. Don’t you think it would have been a point of huge disagreement if all of the sudden, in 200 ad, Rome started claiming this crazy authority? I’d say the silence is deafening in response to this.

 

[Redbandito]

Questioning truth? We are called to do so! I keep answers short for the benefit of the readers.

I actually thank you for that. The only thing I would ask is that you actually respond to the questions asked of you. Other than that, I think you do an excellent job.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I actually thank you for that. The only thing I would ask is that you actually respond to the questions asked of you. Other than that, I think you do an excellent job.

Thanks Red I know I can appear evasive at times but often I am one answering to 20. I tend to answer things I can with out a ton of research first. And ussually my posts aren’t about MY opinion rather they are food for thought from research and study and many times as opposed to people researching what i’ve posted, they tend to take it to me personally. I guess thats part of the spot I put myself in.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Hi,
Im reading a book about the History of Christianity written by a catholic and a Protestant and something just dawned on me. The CC says that the Pope is the only one who can intrepret Scripture without error–right?
Why then are the ECF’s so relied upon? Im reading this book and I havent come across any mention of the Pope yet or even a single Bishop that was set apart from the rest and I am about the 200’s in my reading. It seems in the first 300 years noone is given any absolute authority over the whole church. The ECF fathers became apologists because they had to vigorously defend the faith against the Pagans. So, Im wondering where is the Pope and why isnt he the one fighting off the false beliefs of the pagans?

I would think this would be in my book because a catholic is co-author.
Im just wondering

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I don’t understand your need for proof. Proof of what? Rome enjoys the precedence because it is the site of Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom.

The point is 1st vat made a very bold claim that it has been known for all ages that Peter and his succesors had UNIVERSAL authority. But it is proving to not be the case.
Most CC doctrine relies heavily on the succession of universal authority.
THIS IS A VERY REAL ISSUE, AND VERY INTEGRAL TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH, is in NOT?

 

[Contarini]

Hi,
Im reading a book about the History of Christianity written by a catholic and a Protestant and something just dawned on me. The CC says that the Pope is the only one who can intrepret Scripture without error–right?

The Pope is the only *individual *who can make infallible declarations. But that’s rare anyway. In Catholic theology, it is the Church as a whole that interprets Scripture. The Church is led by the bishops in communion with the Pope, and it is this “college” that has the final say in interpreting Scripture. Most Catholic teaching falls under what is called the “ordinary magisterium”–the day to day activity of the Church in teaching the truth and interpreting Scripture. General Councils or “ex cathedra” Papal statements (the two kinds of specific Church teachings that are infallible) are called acts of the “extraordinary magisterium.” They are not the normal means by which the Church teaches.

None of the Church Fathers is infallible on his own–but taken together they provide an invaluable witness to what the Church believed in the first few centuries after the Apostles. That’s why they are given such a high place, not only by Catholics and Orthodox but by more traditionally minded Protestants.

In Christ,

Edwin