Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[JaneFrances]

Originally Posted by myfavoritmartin

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
Our brokenness tells us to doubt anyone or anything that would attempt to assert power over us, especially when it is so counter-intuitive.

.
My brokeness was what Christ used to build me as a; temple an indwelling for the Holy Spirit

I am not so familiar with your theology as to fully understand this statement, but I believe Christ uses His grace, in spite of my brokenness, to draw me to Himself that I may become an acceptable offering, sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:16). I do know, however, that even as the Spirit dwells within me, calling me to constant conversion, I, like St. Paul, find myself “not do[ing] what I want to do but what I hate (Rom 7:15). And so, I continually seek opportunities to abandon my own will and seek Him where he is.
This is the Christian call. This is our struggle as humans in this world. And our loving and benevolent Shepherd has bestowed upon us His ministers, his chosen shepherds, that we may, as St. Peter instructs, “bow humbly under God’s might hand” through our obedience to those he places in positions of authority over us (1 Peter 5:5-6).

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
However, yes, I trust that Christ has power enough to guide His Church, under the successors of St. Peter,.

I’d say yes Christ has power enough to guide his church
with or without the authority assumed under the speculative successors of Peter

Interesting opinion, Simon. However, Christ chose to guide his church “with” Peter. Christ chose to give Peter the keys to His kingdom. Christ told Peter that he would build his church on him. And we have Scriptural and historical witness indicating the succession of Apostolic authority.

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
Do not misunderstand me, Simon. I never have said nor implied that Ignatius alone is sufficient to “hang my hat.” Instead, I provided his strong and pointed witness as proof to satisfy your arbitrary pre-200 A.D. qualification. ,.

Strong and pointed is overstating Ignatius to qualify your stand.

You think so? Let’s read his words again. . .
“to the Church which also hold the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans.”

All you asked for was some sort of proof that would indicate Rome held a place of authority prior to 200 A.D. I did that.
My stand, based on this quotation, is that Ignatius recognized Rome alone as holding any sort of presidency among the Churches. I think Ignatius’ words are clear, strong, and pointed. You may disagree, but you also disagreed that he ever meant “presidency” and then, when proven wrong, that he just meant Rome as president of Rome.

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
To be sure, no one ECF is sufficient on his own. .

What does this say for sacred tradition?

I have no idea what you mean.

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
This is particularly why the writings of the Early Church Fathers serve as brushstrokes within the canvas of Catholic theology and Catechetical teaching.

,.
Brushstokes are one thing; coloring outside the lines are another.

Okay? That sounds nice. Not terribly substantive, but it sure does sound good! Care to ellaborate?

 

[JaneFrances]

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
We all have authority over us that we sometimes deny. We want so badly to be our only authority or to suppose our authority over others. ,.

We should all succomb to His authority, ONLY.

Once again, that sounds really nice. If only it were accurate!

God is sovereign, to be sure. But, in his sovereign design he has seen fit to provide us with others who hold legitimate positions of authority over us. It is only by His ordaining that these authorities can claim any measure of power, but our denial of their power does not nullify the Divine ordinance. Instead, we have absolute Scriptural and the earliest historical witness in support of Church authority to which “we should all succumb.”

Matthew 23: 2-3"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

1 Peter 5:2 **Be shepherds **of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be

Luke 9:1 Jesus Sends Out the Twelve ] When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases. . .

Romans 13:1-2 Submission to the Authorities ] Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

2 Corinthians 10:8 For even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us for building you up rather than pulling you down, I will not be ashamed of it.

Titus 2:15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you.

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.

from Pope St. Clement of Rome: “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; and Jesus Christ was sent from God. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements, then, are by God’s will. Receiving their instructions and being full of confidence on account of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth in complete assurance of the Holy Spirit. . .and they appointed their earliest converts. . .to be bishops and deacons of future believers. (c. 80 A.D., Letter to the Corinthians, [42, 1])

from St. Ignatius of Antioch: “Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ. . .it is necessary, therefore,–and such is your practice,–that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ” (c. 110 A.D., Letter to the Trallians [2,1])

from St. Ignatius of Antioch: “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles.” (c. 110 A.D., Letter to the Smyrnaeans [8, 1])

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
The important thing to consider, however, is despite any evidence of dissent or threats, who holds the key? . ,.

Christ is the Key!

That’s quite a doctrinal stand, however, I do wonder if it is Scriptural. I am only aware that Christ is Lord and God. He is King. And He holds the keys and He gave the keys to His Kingdom to Peter, as a sign of authority and stewardship.

 

[JaneFrances]

Your lack of historical evidence. .

Let me first, remind you of the substance of my historical evidence which fulfills your qualifications for ECF citations prior to 200 A.D. as I think, in your struggle to poke holes, you may be losing sight of what has been provided thus far:

"the Church which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of sucess, worthy of sanctification, and **because you hold the presidency **of love, named after Christ and named after the Father: her therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, Address)

In this ECF witness, Ignatius identifies Rome as president.

“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. . .For with this Church, because of its superior origin, 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.” (irenaeus, 3, 3, 2)

In this ECF witness, Irenaeus 1) legitimizes Rome’s Apostolic succession and 2) clarifies the scope of Rome’s presidency–“that is, all the faithful in the whole world.”

Thus, the synthesis of two ECF’s prior to 200 A.D. give a strong witness to Rome’s universal authority.

. . .is driving you back to scripture.
Jane, scripture won’t give any type of universal authority to Rome and you know it!

Simon, I have provided the historical ECF proof that you asked for, but I will not abandon Scripture. It is the Word of God and I will cling to it, most especially as it serves to provide strong foundational support for Christian doctrine.

The witness of Isaiah’s account of Shebna and Hilkiah, serves as Old Testament support for the “universal” scope of the cheif steward in the King’s household. He was second only to the King himself and, as Scripture tells us, “when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.”

And the witness of St. Matthew in his account of Christ giving the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy.

In light of the picture painted by Ignatius and Irenaeus, these Scriptures are essential in understanding the papacy. And the harmony of ECF’s witnesses and Scripture serves as evidence of God’s grace throughout salvation history as he shepherds His people by His own hand.

I realize you want smoking guns, Simon. You want absolute, exact, and forensic proof on your terms. Sometimes our most merciful Lord does let us reach out and feel his wounds and put our hands into his side, but sometimes he tells us: “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Trust Him.

 

[E.E.N.S]

No hijacking allowed, there are other threads discussing Peter legitimacy using scripture.
This is about ECF’s

No hijacking here - I only reponded to the poster who said that there was no hint of it in Scripture, I showed that there was and also posted just as much, if not more, quotes from the ECF.

Next time please read the entire post of the person you are trying to discredit.

 

[JaneFrances]

No Hint of Universal authority in the scriptures

Here’s a hint. . .Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. The password is “key.”

Then, when you’ve determined what the key is for and who is holding it, check out 1 Tim 3:15 to find out the New Testament definition of the King’s household.

Just connect the dots.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Paul did not go to see them because he needed approval. He went because he received a revelation. He was not summoned. The Galatians had been following another gospel

that emphasized the Law over Grace.

Brian, what “gospel” exactly are you referring to?

Also, you are not addressing Joey’s point, in fact, you jump to another incident (the rebuking of St Peter) about something totally different than what the OP: the question of papal primacy.

Paul did not need anyones approval and did not seek it, fellowship, yes, that is not approval.
BH

The Church kept St Paul’s letters because they are the oldest documents we have on some goings on in the early years after the Resurrection of our Lord.

His letters address specific abuses and situations, if the Catholic Church uses some specific part of a Pauline letter for some tradition it is because it had always been handed down that way. This is what we mean by ‘tradition.’

St Paul treated different situations with different approaches. St Paul was forever explaining his different treatment of early Christians who were circumcised and were not. He accepted money from the Galatians and refused it from the Corinthians. He gave DIFFERENT advice on observance of the Jewish kosher code to the Galatians and to the Romans.

Don’t take St Paul literally or you will be frustrated. And remember that the Gospels (and Acts) were all written from 25 to 50+ years AFTER St Paul’s letters.

The whole thing about the Bishop of Rome did evolve, just like the Articles of Confederation evolved into the Constitutional Convention (wasn’t that meeting supposed to be about fishing rights in Chesapeake?). I am sure it (the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome) comes from many sources (many have been cited) and that when the early Church was evolving (where are those Churches now? Under Islam) there was a lot of agitation as to what earthly form it should take.

It’s easy and simple to have ekklesiai (our word ‘churches’) when the movement is new and expecting the Second Coming any moment. When it didn’t come, things started to fracture: look at St Paul’s letters for evidence of the varying degrees of ‘what is christian’ and ‘what Jesus meant re the Old Covenant.’

Remember, it was the Catholic Church, bringing together the disparate member churches throughout the Roman Empire that carried the Gospel to all ‘nations.’ Pagan converts to Christianity greatly outpaced Jewish Christians. The face and expectations of the Church changed, and the Church responded with organization. Looking back to the scriptural references in the NT, it was common sense to understand that among the ‘Apostles’ Peter was given a leadership role by Jesus. To deny that, you have opened the gate for others to deny ANY direct statement recorded in the NT from Jesus about ANYTHING.

There is NO end to that kind of proof texting.

Heck, I don’t see any teachings of Jesus referred to in the Pauline letters! Should I (by the reasoning of some SS posters) denigrate St Paul’s theology because of this??? St Peter knew Jesus, St Paul did not. His was a revelation (his, not Luke’s version in Acts) and the Church has always accepted it.

Why is it so hard to accept other traditions from the early Church (Pentacost through Constantine)??

 

[mercygate]

Paul did not go to see them because he needed approval. He went because he received a revelation. He was not summoned. The Galatians had been following another gospel that emphasized the Law over Grace.

Gal 2:1 ¶ Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.
Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Actually, he went up to Jerusalem 3 years after returning to Damascus from Arabia – a desert place, where there is no record of his evangelization. I have a good buddy – Plymouth Brethren, not Catholic by any stretch – who concurs with my speculation that Paul went out to the desert with the precious “parchments” he requests in 2 Tim 4 in order to re-read the Scriptures with his “new eyes.” So after only 3 years in Damascus, not after 14 years, as you indicate by citing the next chapter of Galatians, but after only 3 years back in Damascus, which was a well-established Church before he got there – he went up to Jerusalem and spent 15 days with Cephas and James.

He did not need anyones approval and says so right here:

*Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: *

THEN he goes back to Jerusalem again after another 14 years because of an undisclosed revelation and “laid before them the gospel which I preach . . . lest somehow I should be running or had been running in vain.” In other words: let’s be sure our stories match. Then he boasts of it by saying that “they added nothing to me.”

He was not taught the gospel by any of the Apostles for at least 3 years. He did not need approval by anyone but Christ.
Christ told him to preach the gospel.

Actually, Christ does not “tell him to preach the gospel” Christ tells Saul to go to Damascus, where he will be told what to do. In Damascus, Ananias had been told the Paul was the chosen messenger of the Gospel. Paul heard the news from the Church – which, as our Lord tells him – “me”: Jesus. "Why do you persecute me?"

Why would Paul go to great lengths to explain he did not see one of the other Apostles for 3 years?

. . . because he was operating out of a well established Church in Damascus, where a leader, Ananias had also received a revelation that Paul had been specially chosen, even though not an eyewitness to the resurrection or one of the 12 . . . Ananaias healed him: cured his blindness. This was no backwater operation. God put Paul where his special revelation would be nourished and not perverted.

Why did he tell the story about how Peter feared James and he rebuked him?

Paul did not need anyones approval and did not seek it, fellowship, yes, that is not approval.
BH

Don’t buy it. He needed the Good Housekeeping seal of approval to take back home so that he could say to the wayward Galatians: SEE! I preach the same gospel the eyewitnesses preach. THAT’s why he HAD to confront Peter publicly in Antioch. Peter had not practiced what he preached and was catering to the Jewish congregation that craved the security of the old law. This is a question of clashing missionary technique, not of doctrine.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread on Papal Primacy. Sorry for the digression.

 

[JaneFrances]

Suppose Simon’s gone now. . .does that mean we pack it up?

 

[JoeyWarren]

hmmmmmmmmmmm is the thread dead?

 

[SoonerServant]

Ok, it’s not dead. I’ll carry this on. Let’s look at your main basis for Apostlic Succesion. I believe it’s Mt. 16:17-and following, correct? Where Jesus gives Peter the “keys” to the kingdom and supposedly builds his church on him. The problem I have with it is, Peter was never raised from the dead, or maybe I missed that part of the bible. Anyway, when Jesus says,"…and the gates of hades will not over come it" this is where I run into trouble understanding where you guys get Peter. The Greek word “Hades” is referring to the grave. So, who was it that the grave never over came? I think you know where I’m going with this.

 

[adrift]

Ok, it’s not dead. I’ll carry this on. Let’s look at your main basis for Apostlic Succesion. I believe it’s Mt. 16:17-and following, correct? Where Jesus gives Peter the “keys” to the kingdom and supposedly builds his church on him. The problem I have with it is, Peter was never raised from the dead, or maybe I missed that part of the bible. Anyway, when Jesus says,"…and the gates of hades will not over come it" this is where I run into trouble understanding where you guys get Peter. The Greek word “Hades” is referring to the grave. So, who was it that the grave never over came? I think you know where I’m going with this.

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm#foot13

The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

 

[SoonerServant]

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm#foot13

Uh, thanks for saying what I sayed?

 

[SoonerServant]

Btw, you never addressed the the question. Who was it that the grave never over came?

 

[JaneFrances]

Btw, you never addressed the the question. Who was it that the grave never over came?

Romans 6:5
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

St. Peter qualifies.

 

[SoonerServant]

Romans 6:5
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

St. Peter qualifies.

So do I.

 

[adrift]

Uh, thanks for saying what I sayed?

Death is not the same as the grave.

 

[SoonerServant]

I guess that makes me the Pope. And I demand that you stop teaching this heresy!

Pope Isaac, that has a nice ring to it.

 

[SoonerServant]

Death is not the same as the grave.

Stating random facts is not a very good debating approach.

 

[adrift]

Stating random facts is not a very good debating approach.

It isn’t as if I said some fish fly that would be random.

You are speaking of the grave and I merely pointed out that it is talking about death not the grave. Hades was Greek Mythology for a place where the dead went. They aren’t talking about the grave where the body is buried. It is understood by Christians to mean either hell or limbo. Limbo being the temporary place where those who died before Jesus died on the cross. Where Jesus preached to the dead. Hell is where the demons are. The demons tried to defeat Jesus but they can’t neither can they defeat The Church that Jesus founded on Peter.

 

[JaneFrances]

Originally Posted by SoonerServant
Btw, you never addressed the the question. Who was it that the grave never over came?

Originally Posted by JaneFrances
Romans 6:5
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

I see you have changed your tune a bit, Isaac. Interesting.

However, you do not qualify as a pope as you have not been handed the keys to the kingdom as St. Peter was and as his successors inherited.