Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[YADA]

The Catholic Church does not say that the Pope is the only one who can interpret Scripture without error. The Church handed on the Scriptures to us. The Scriptures did not fall from heaven wholly formed and developed in the manner that we have it today. The Church pre-exists the 27 books that comprise the New Testament and of course the Hebrew Scriptures come from our Jewish roots. Because the Church is the author and compiler of the Christian writings, the Church is the authoritative voice.

The Church states that the Pope when he speaks “Ex Cathedra” or from the Chair of Peter [as the Sucessor of Peter] on matters of FAITH and MORALS cannot teach error.

This is true also when the Pope, in concert with the Bishops [the successors of the Apostles] exercise thier ministry cannot teach in error as to faith and morals. We refer to this as the Magestarium the “teaching authority” of the Church.

The Church that Jesus founded is the same Church that compiled, safe guarded and handed on the New Testament writings. Before 200 AD and after 200 AD, Peter was the earthly head and his successors have exercised that pastoral position through the ages. Part of your problem is that you only see this as an exercise in authority [like an abusive parent], the Popes through the ages see this as a servant role. They serve the Church, Jesus is the Lord, the Master, the Author. The popes serve Jesus and by that service love the Church [the body of Christ]. They woud lay down their lives [and have] for the Christian believer. That is what you see in the eary Church writings.

The early Christians were less concerned about ‘authority’ and who was the ‘boss’ That is why the Acts of the Apostles do not have anyone questioning Peter when he said thay must discern a replacement for Judas. The other Apostles did not respond with “Who died and made you the Boss?” I guess they knew the answer all ready…

 

[mercygate]

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

This is just a guess. First: I would like to see the quote that says that only the Pope can interpret Scripture without error. I am sure it doesn’t say that Pope JoeBlow, sitting around in his papal apartment, thinking about Scripture, is a definitive interpreter.

When it is stted that “the Pope” (i.e., the Magisterium) is the only one who can interpret Scripture “without error” the meaning is quite specific: when he makes a definitive, identified statement concerning faith and morals, which is tied to a specific passage of Scripture, THEN, and only then is the Pope the only dude who can interpret Scripture without error. The term “without error” is one of those phrases (like “the certainty of faith”) that looks like plain English but is actually loaded with a whole pile of theological specificity.

And lest you throw up your hands and say: Who NEEDS all these complications, keep in mind: “complications” – like laws – are never set up until they are needed. You don’t have an answer until you have a question. That is why we need magisterial authority. People say “the Catholic Church thinks it has all the answers.” Uh-uh. It’s because we don’t even have all the questions that we know Jesus meant what he said when he told us he would send a “comforter to guide you into all the truth.”

Actually, I understand that there are fewer than a dozen passages of Scripture that Catholics must interpret in only one certain way. Otherwise we are free to read them as the Spirit moves us.

I am guessing that your book is not specifically about Papal authority – is it? The ECFs are valuable because they show how the early Church struggled with heresy, how it worked through all those Swiss cheese passages, where Scripture is not utterly and absolutely clear about what is being said.

 

[mercygate]

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?

Universal authority = Keys. This does not mean Peter and his successors are the only men with *any *authority. The Keys are (heh, heh): the key. “You are Peter, and upon this rock . . .” The Scripture is pretty hard to skirt. Vatican I – which even Newman felt was an inadvisable proclamation (not that he doubted it, but he doubted the wisdom of making it de fide) – seems to have made a prophetic declaration.

Looking at Humanae vitae, and all the flak Paul VI took for restating the ancient teaching of the Church against the use of contraception – despite the contrary advice of many bishops – I see a prophetic interdigitation of two prophetic acts: the *definitive *proclamation of Papal infallibility, and the heroic act of one Pope who stood virtually alone in defending the faith on this issue. Gives me goosebumps!

That issue alone convinced me that Vatican I made the correct interpretation of the tradition.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

This does not mean Peter and his successors are the only men with any authority. .

The Catechism seems to paint a different picture

The Pope, “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” (CCC 882).
He enjoys by divine istitution “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CCC 937).

937 may be of most concern is that if there is a lack of early proof, but now** care of souls are in their hands**.

 

[JaneFrances]

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?)

I can not agree with this statement as I’m not entirely sure what “Peter himself specifically” means. Would the Catholic Church agree with what?

So, far I have provided viable proof that Peter established the “greatest and most ancient Church” at Rome. Peter alone was in possession of the keys. The keys indicate authority. This authority, as predicated in the Old Testament type in Isaiah, is over all the King’s house. In the New Testament, the keys to the kingdom are given to Peter, connoting his prime and unique place of authority in the Church. Ignatius supports this prime and unique authority by recognizing Rome ALONE as presiding, or holding the presidency (depending on your translation). Peter’s authority was passed from Peter to Linus in succession, as reported by patristic witness.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Ignatius supports this prime and unique authority by recognizing Rome** ALONE **as presiding, or holding the presidency (depending on your translation).

Jane, my friend** ALONE**, adding that word seems a bit deceptive, Ignatius’ words did not say as such.

Have you read other epistles of Ignatius so as to understand his style of introductions?

 

[JaneFrances]

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.*

My syntax may have been faulty such that you have misunderstood my statement. I will clarify.

Rome ALONE is recognized by Ignatius as presiding, or holding the presidency.

This particular identification and qualification is not used to describe any other church Ignatius addresses.

Once again, the issue with the presidency boils down to 2 options:

1. Ignatius is saying that Rome is the president of Rome
2. Ignatius is saying that Rome is the president of the Church

The first one is simplistic and redundant and opposes patristic consensus which consistently recognizes the primacy of Peter and the subsequent authority vested in the successors of Peter at Rome.

 

[JaneFrances]

Jane, my friend** ALONE**, adding that word seems a bit deceptive, Ignatius’ words did not say as such.

This from the guy who flattered me with platitudes of honesty!

Have you read other epistles of Ignatius so as to understand his style of introductions?

Yes, I have read Ignatius. Yes, I am very familiar with his complimentary style of address. And yes, I am confident enough to state that Rome ALONE is addressed by Ignatius as holding the presidency.

I never said Ignatius said the word “ALONE.” Instead, I am pointing out a fact that ONLY Rome is addressed in such a particular way among the Churches to which Ignatius writes.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Once again, the issue with the presidency boils down to 2 options:

1. Ignatius is saying that Rome is the president of Rome
2. Ignatius is saying that Rome is the president of the Church

Actually Jane option 3 is what ignatius says…
3.)the Church which presides over the Romans.
That is alls it says.

see…
the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans

 

[YADA]

I have been reflecting upon this arbitrary date of 200 AD…We did not even possess the New Testament as we have it today in 200 AD These scriptures are of that time [individually] and they give ample testimony to the primacy of Peter.

New Testament Scripture gives a distinct preeminence [pimacy and or prominence] to Peter. Of the original 12, Peter is listed by name 195 times. The rest of the Apostles, eleven combined are listed significantly less than 150 times or about 75 percent. ST John, the beloved disciple is the next most often listed Apostle, less than 30 times. St. Peter - 195, St. John - 29 references by name. James the Greater - 24, Philip - 6, and Judas Iscariot - 23.

M. Lagrange, concluded in his theological study of the Gospel of Mark that the greek word protos defined Peter as being the ‘chief’’ or leader of the Apostles. The latin rendering is primus.

• Peter os the Apostle who always speaks on behalf of the other Apostles.
• The women are told by the angel to "go tell the disciples and Peter’’ that Jesus was going to Galilee.
• The Beloved Disciple awaits to enter the empty tomb until after Peter does.
• Jesus appears to Peter first before the other disciples.
  A famous protestant theologian [William Hendriksen] wrote

The meaning is ‘you are Peter, that is Rock and upon this Rock that is you, Peter, i will build my church’ our Lord speaking Aramaic, probably said ‘And I say to you, you are Kepha,’ and on this kepha I will build my church.’ Jesus then is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view

Now the Church was still wrestling with the Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ, as well as forming the faith community during this early time. Gnosticism, Arianism and a host of other “isms”. Defining and formulating words to describe the realities of Christian faith and belief.

One thing we know is that the Church predates the New Testament Scriptures, the writings of the early church fathers and Protestantism. It is the Church who gives us the “bible”… It is the Church who wrote, compiled, who determined authenticity and validity, translated, copied, preserved and handed on the scriptures to us today. Likewise it is only throught he church that any writings of the early church fathers come down to us. It is the Church who speaks authoritatively upon these writings, through the ages. It does not changes; as has the faith [and interpretation of Christianity] of protestantism.

 

[mercygate]

The Catechism seems to paint a different picture

The Pope, “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” (CCC 882).
He enjoys by divine istitution “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CCC 937).

937 may be of most concern is that if there is a lack of early proof, but now** care of souls are in their hands**.

This last sentence is confusing but I think it’s just hasty typing. I will not judge that it represents a hasty conclusion. Yes. Of course papal authority enjoys universal power. Again, I believe you are reading the words – “immediate, and universal power” as they might be understood in common parlance, and not the specific meaning they have in this context.

In the Catholic Church, pastoral care is shared all along the ministerial lines from the bishops through priests and deacons. As has been affirmed on this thread, all bishops share fully in the Apostolic ministry. Here, “full, immediate, and universal power” means that in certain cases even the very least of the the faithful has access to the pope in decisions requiring extraordinary pastoral judgment. The meaning of “immediate” here is not “timely” but rather the original meaning of the word: “being without the intervention of another.”

As you say: the care of souls is in their hands. In the general course of business, with good bishops all over the world, there would be no need for the exercise of this “insurance policy” of immediacy. And in fact, it is rarely used.

Again, not by way of argument but by way of witness, I refer you to *Humanae vitae. *This is a case where a Pope almost single-handedly upheld the ancient and unbroken teaching of the Church against contraception: a prophetic act exercised in his papal prerogative.

 

[Sixtus]

prove it happened in Rome… this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .

It is well known that Peter went to Rome. There is enough evidence he was there. So too the apostle Paul.

If it could be proven to satisfy you, then you would ask ‘where in Rome’ then ‘how’, then ‘who was present’. etc

I really do not see the relevance of the Nth degree of interogation. It seems that folk who try to pursue this line, have lost the plot.

I sometimes think we put too much emphasis on ‘Peter’ the Protestants not enough:
Paul said ‘we must not say I am for Peter, I am for Apollo, I am for Paul, we must say I am for Christ’. That is a rebuke not only for folk 2000 years ago but for Protestants and Catholics today.

I think Paul wanted to get hold of a Catholic and Protestant and bang their heads together! AND RIGHTLY SO! AMEN!!

 

[JaneFrances]

Actually Jane option 3 is what ignatius says…
3.)the Church which presides over the Romans.
That is alls it says.

see…
the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans

You are misquoting and thereby misinterpreting. Here are Ignatius’ words from three separate translations:

the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans (New Advent)

the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; **to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans **(Jurgens)

the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans (CCEL)

Your contention that Ignatius is saying “the Church which presides over the Romans” is entirely historically innacurate, for as we know the Church was not in a place of political superiority at this time. “The Church” did not preside over the Romans. Instead, Ignatius is asserting that the Church, in the place of the country of the Romans, holds the presidency.

Then, of course, we must determine what is the nature of this presidency. Is it 1) Rome is president of Rome? Or, is it Rome is president of the Church?

These are the choices.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

and they give ample testimony to the primacy of Peter.

New Testament Scripture gives a distinct preeminence [pimacy and or prominence] to Peter. Of the original 12, Peter is listed by name 195 times. The rest of the Apostles, eleven combined are listed significantly less than 150 times or about 75 percent. ST John, the beloved disciple is the next most often listed Apostle, less than 30 times. St. Peter - 195, St. John - 29 references by name. James the Greater - 24, Philip - 6, and Judas Iscariot - 23.

.

This silly scripturecatholic argument again sheesh!
Why did you have to specify the original 12 why not include Saul/Paul
Paul was an apostle! Was he not?
blueletterbible.org shows Paul 176 and Peter 175.

That’s why he is not included it deflates this silly point, as I have posted on here before.

 

[JaneFrances]

The Catechism seems to paint a different picture

The Catechism’s “picture” parallels very well the “picture” painted by the Sacred Author in Isaiah. I will denomstrate.

The Pope, “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” (CCC 882).

compare to:

He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Christ is the King. He is Son of the Most High, God the Father. The Vicar of Christ, in the New Jerusalem, holds this place of fatherhood which is given to the steward in the palace. The steward, likened to a father, serves as supreme authority among the couselors and subjects, only second to the King himself. The steward, in possession of the King’s key, is given **universal power **such that “what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts no one can open.”

He enjoys by divine istitution “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CCC 937).

compare to:

23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat [a] of honor for the house of his father.

Having already treated the “supreme, full, . . .and universal” issues, I will focus this on the issue of “immediacy” and “the care of souls.”

The “peg” in the “firm place” serves the Church, as mercygate keenly points out, as an “immediate” and sure authority. As Irenaeus asserts, “all the faithful everywhere” only need to look to the Bishop of Rome to know that they have received the true “tradition and faith” of the Church. This is the immediate authority upon which the Church can rely.

And as steward charged with “the care of souls,” the Pope holds a “seat of honor for the house of his father.” His fatherhood is implicit in his episcopate. And as a shepherd of souls, we recognize the Pope espeically as holding a place of honor among the fraternity of bishops.

Again, the picture painted by the Catechism is a reflection of the picture painted in Sacred Scripture.

937 may be of most concern is that if there is a lack of early proof, but now** care of souls are in their hands**.

I am hopeful, too, that this last line is a product of hasty typing and not meant to suggest that everything you write following the number 937 is a passage from the Catechism. For this is what paragraph 937 says in its entirity:

The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CD 2).

 

[myfavoritmartin]

You are misquoting and thereby misinterpreting. Here are Ignatius’ words from three separate translations:

the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans (New Advent)

the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of Him that has willed everything which is; **to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans **(Jurgens)

the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans (CCEL)

Your contention that Ignatius is saying “the Church which presides over the Romans” is entirely historically innacurate, for as we know the Church was not in a place of political superiority at this time. “The Church” did not preside over the Romans. Instead, Ignatius is asserting that the Church, in the place of the country of the Romans, holds the presidency.

Then, of course, we must determine what is the nature of this presidency. Is it 1) Rome is president of Rome? Or, is it Rome is president of the Church?

These are the choices.

So Jane the care of millions of souls hinges on whether or not Ignatius meant universal authority or local authority?

That is the one ECF you are willing to hang your hat on?

Even though, over and over you can see evidence to the contrary from other writers that is was both Peter and Paul and you can see Roman bishops being chastised by other bishops and even threats of excommunication, your going to hang it all on Ignatius?
What if your wrong?
What if I’m right?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

JaneFrances;1847781:

I am hopeful, too, that this last line is a product of hasty typing and not meant to suggest that everything you write following the number 937 is a passage from the Catechism. For this is what paragraph 937 says in its entirity:

Hasty reading is more likely… POST 223 Clearly says what para 937 is then I follow up with how that Para 937 is troubling.

 

[JaneFrances]

This silly scripturecatholic argument again sheesh!
Why did you have to specify the original 12 why not include Saul/Paul
Paul was an apostle! Was he not?
blueletterbible.org shows Paul 176 and Peter 175.

That’s why he is not included it deflates this silly point, as I have posted on here before.

This “silly scripturecatholic argument” is only silly when one mistakes a stepping stone for a bridge.

Paul is not included in this particular comparison because, in the gospels, he did not occupy one of the 12 thrones (Matt. 19, Luke 22) representing the authority Christ invests to His Apostles over His Church, the new Jerusalem. And among the 12, the frequency of Peter’s name and position as first is not unimportant when demonstrating his primacy. Peter’s primacy does not diminish the essential role Paul had as Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

The Catechism’s “picture” parallels very well the “picture” painted by the Sacred Author in Isaiah. I will denomstrate.

He enjoys by divine istitution “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls” (CCC 937).

compare to:

23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat [a] of honor for the house of his father.

The “peg” in the “firm place” serves the Church, as mercygate keenly points out, as an “immediate” and sure authority. As Irenaeus asserts, “all the faithful everywhere” only need to look to the Bishop of Rome to know that they have received the true “tradition and faith” of the Church. This is the immediate authority upon which the Church can rely.

:

Jane,
It is appropriate to put the scriptural address in, but seeing as you didn’t, allow me to finish the last 2 verses of the chapter.

23"I will drive him like a (AG)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a (AH)throne of glory to his father’s house.

24"So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars.

25"In that day," declares the LORD of hosts, "the (AI)peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even (AJ)break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the (AK)LORD has spoken."

Doesn’t speak well in comparison.

 

[JaneFrances]

Jane,
It is appropriate to put the scriptural address in, but seeing as you didn’t, allow me to finish the last 2 verses of the chapter.

23"I will drive him like a (AG)peg in a firm place,
And he will become a (AH)throne of glory to his father’s house.

24"So they will hang on him all the glory of his father’s house, offspring and issue, all the least of vessels, from bowls to all the jars.

25"In that day," declares the LORD of hosts, "the (AI)peg driven in a firm place will give way; it will even (AJ)break off and fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut off, for the (AK)LORD has spoken."

Doesn’t speak well in comparison.

I’m sorry I didn’t give you Scriptural address. I supposed you were familiar with this passage, but as you have demonstrated, I can only assume that you are relying on the faulty interpretation which plagued SoonerServant in his thread.

This is what the text says:

First, God is speaking a message to Shebna.

Quote:
This is what the Lord, the LORD Almighty, says:
"Go, say to this steward,
to Shebna, who is in charge of the palace:

16 What are you doing here and who gave you permission
to cut out a grave for yourself here,
hewing your grave on the height
and chiseling your resting place in the rock?

17 "Beware, the LORD is about to take firm hold of you
and hurl you away, O you mighty man.

18 He will roll you up tightly like a ball
and throw you into a large country.
There you will die
and there your splendid chariots will remain—
you disgrace to your master’s house!

19 I will depose you from your office,
and you will be ousted from your position.

Then, the Lord gives Shebna a prophecy of what will happen in his stead. He reveals:

Quote:
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat [a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

25 “In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

So, within context, God is speaking to Shebna. He reveals to Shebna the consequences of his squandering stewardship. He begins his prophecy, with the line “In that day” or also translated “On that day.”

And what day is the Lord prophesying? It is the day in which he will remove SHEBNA from his office.

So, when the Lord again says in verse 25, “in that day” he again is referencing the day in which he is removing SHEBNA from his office. Shebna is the “sure peg” which is being sheared off and replaced by another “sure peg,” Eliakim. Verse 25 serves as a prophecy for Shebna, then, as well as a warning for Eliakim and all successors to the office of palace steward.

This prophecy and warning are strong admonishments regarding the authority that comes with the keys. It in no way indicates that the office will be vacant in the New Jersusalem, the Church of Jesus Christ. Thus, we see the fulfillment of this Old Testament type in Peter and his successors.