Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
myfavoritmartin said:
**My challenge! seeing it is determined so detrimental to the faith…

Show ECF’s prior to the 3rd century 200 AD(seeing as it was known in every age) that recognised that Peter HIMSELF passed the keys directly to another bishop… (we know it happened in antioch) prove it happened in Rome… this is integral to the institution we know as the Catholic Church .**
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen an attempt at an Early father being posted, IF I were a member of the RCC, this would be of serious concern to me, since ECF’s are consistenly used to enforce or imply sacred tradition, This may be the biggest tradition that holds all others together…ANyone???
 
I think it absolutely necessary to seperate the honor due the church of Rome from the claimed authority of the CC.
 
Contarini said:
I know what Irenaeus says, and I believe Irenaeus. How it happened I don’t know
Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin,
Wouldn’t you agree the primary reasoning for the list of bishop succession was really to separate gnostic writings and safeguard the apostlic message?
This being the case it once again says like clement Rome was important and looked at as such but where in all this is there Uiversal Authority, as was mentioned at best it was a watermelon seed that grew into an oak tree.
I think the RCC staakes its claim on something more but the evidence is non existant.
 
Papal primacy is not the same as papal infalliblity. Read the tracts on the papacy, soonerservant.

Primacy was given to Peter by Jesus Himself in the above scripture passages, Matthew 16:16 etc. Now is Jesus a liar?
If He is God who is good, why would He lie?
I read some doubting of the truth of Jesus’ words in some of myfavoritemartin questioning of primacy and others.

The power of loosing and binding includes all disciplinary decisions, liturgical rules, appointment of bishops, annulments, excommunications, all the administrative decisions. Primacy does not make all of the above decisions made by a Pope right or infallible, but they are authoritative and to be obeyed. But they may be changed or respectfully criticized, because they are not set in stone like matters of faith, doctrine, and morals are.
Paul criticizing Peter for his double standards on following Jewish rituals is an example of such criticism of a disciplinary decision.
 
Leeta said:
I read some doubting of the truth of Jesus’ words in some of myfavoritemartin questioning of primacy and others.

.
Click to expand...
Young lady! I demand an apology, I have never once in my life doubted the word of God, your interpretation and mine are different, but don’t you dare accuse me of this. I am doubting the reality of papal primacy.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Young lady! I demand an apology, I have never once in my life doubted the word of God, your interpretation and mine are different, but don’t you dare accuse me of this. I am doubting the reality of papal primacy.
Click to expand...
Ah. From the context of your answer I see that you do deny that Peter had a real primacy in the Church.

If you deny Peter’s real primacy in the Church, it makes it hard to give you any evidence in later years that would suffice for primacy for anyone else.

It wouldn’t matter how emphatically and how repeatedly such evidence would appear. You’d simply dismiss it as an error or heretical.

But you cannot do that with Jesus. He was not in error when he gave Peter the Keys, or when he specifically told Peter that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, or made him the Rock upon which his Church was built, or when he told him to “tend his sheep”, or when he told him to strengthen his brethren apostles.

I guess you assume that Jesus was wasting his time on all these occasions where he decided to single out Peter.

It’s also odd that you’d even ask for evidence that the primacy of Peter’s office was handed on to later holders if you deny the primacy of Peter’s office in the first place!

Perhaps you should focus on the horse before you get to the cart.
 
DeFide said:
Ah. From the context of your answer I see that you do deny that Peter had a real primacy in the Church.

If you deny Peter’s real primacy in the Church, it makes it hard to give you any evidence in later years that would suffice for primacy for anyone else.

It wouldn’t matter how emphatically and how repeatedly such evidence would appear. You’d simply dismiss it as an error or heretical.

But you cannot do that with Jesus. He was not in error when he gave Peter the Keys, or when he specifically told Peter that whatever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven, or made him the Rock upon which his Church was built, or when he told him to “tend his sheep”, or when he told him to strengthen his brethren apostles.

I guess you assume that Jesus was wasting his time on all these occasions where he decided to single out Peter.

It’s also odd that you’d even ask for evidence that the primacy of Peter’s office was handed on to later holders if you deny the primacy of Peter’s office in the first place!

Perhaps you should focus on the horse before you get to the cart.
Click to expand...
Your points are a matter of scriptural interpretation, my point is your church claims immediate primacy show the people reading this that evidence.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Your points are a matter of scriptural interpretation, my point is your church claims immediate primacy show the people reading this that evidence.
Click to expand...
And Jesus singled out Peter on all those occasions because he had nothing better to do?
 
DeFide said:
And Jesus singled out Peter on all those occasions because he had nothing better to do?
Click to expand...
Any proof Linus was more than the bishop in Rome, was he more powerful than the apostle John?
 
When Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to the Corinthians to address their problems, the Apostle John was supposedly still alive. If he was, why wouldn’t he have handled the Corinthian problem, since he was at Antioch (which was closer to Corinth than Rome) and since he was one of the original apostles.
 
RNRobert said:
When Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote a letter to the Corinthians to address their problems, the Apostle John was supposedly still alive. If he was, why wouldn’t he have handled the Corinthian problem, since he was at Antioch (which was closer to Corinth than Rome) and since he was one of the original apostles.
Click to expand...
Did John resolve disputes?
You’d need show he’s done this.

Do you know whether John was at Patmos at the time?
If so was he reachable for his insight it would seem mighty tough ?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Did John resolve disputes?
You’d need show he’s done this.

Do you know whether John was at Patmos at the time?
If so was he reachable for his insight it would seem mighty tough ?
Click to expand...
This is a common sense issue.

Since John was the last of the Apostles to die, and since we see in the books bearing his name that he was known simply as “The Elder”, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the early Church looked to John for guidance in the early days.

The fact that Clement wrote his letter at all indicates that he felt well within his right as Bishop of Rome to intervene in another Bishop’s congregation. Additionally, the fact that copies of the letter are still extant indicates that the Corinthian church did not simply diregard the letter and toss it into the fire. Instead, they made copies that circulated among all the early churches. They recognized Clement’s authority and treated his letter with the respect it deserved.

If only people today would do the same.
 
2 points.
We do not know when exactly John died. We do not know exactly when Clement was written. Not to mention writing letters outside of your congregation is a common occurence!

Next point, even if one accepts Peterine Primacy, Peter has specifically stated who is in charge of the church and he draws the analogy of the shepherd and his flock to do that:
**
1st Peter**
1The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 5:2Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 5:3neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock. 5:4And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5
 
My copy of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians is in a book, Early Christian Writings, published by Penguin and translated by Maxwell Staniforth, an Anglican. , Staniforth writes in his intro to the Epistle:
Why the Church of Rome felt called upon to involve itself in the affairs of the Church of Corinth we do not know, but Clement’s tone does not falter an his authority seems assured.
Click to expand...
and a couple sentences later:
Although Clement does not write like a Pope exercising his extraordinary jursidiction, perhaps a step had already been taken in that direction.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…:hmmm:seems to me like ol’ St Clement considered himself to have some sort of leadership role, otherwise why would he meddle in the affairs of another church?
 
Fredricks said:
2 points.
We do not know when exactly John died. We do not know exactly when Clement was written. Not to mention writing letters outside of your congregation is a common occurence!

Next point, even if one accepts Peterine Primacy, Peter has specifically stated who is in charge of the church and he draws the analogy of the shepherd and his flock to do that:

1st Peter
1The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 5:2Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 5:3neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock. 5:4And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, as all the bishops of the church have viewed themselves as shepherds. That is why they carry croziers which are derived from the shepherd’s crook.

Unlike the other bishops, however the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church as the successor of Peter, the first bishop of Rome.
 
RNRobert said:
My copy of Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians is in a book, Early Christian Writings, published by Penguin and translated by Maxwell Staniforth, an Anglican. , Staniforth writes in his intro to the Epistle:

and a couple sentences later:

Hmmm…:hmmm:seems to me like ol’ St Clement considered himself to have some sort of leadership role, otherwise why would he meddle in the affairs of another church?
Click to expand...
I suppose the same reasons lots of letters were written. Did Paul and John do this? Yes.
Did Ignatius do this? Yes. Did Polycarp do this? Yes.
Did Clement do this? Yes.
Is Eusebius FULL of people who did this? Why yes, it is.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Yes, indeed, as all the bishops of the church have viewed themselves as shepherds. That is why they carry croziers which are derived from the shepherd’s crook.

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.
Unlike the other bishops, however the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church as the successor of Peter, the first bishop of Rome.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top