Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

[Fredricks]

I am tempted to get into an in-depth debate with an Anglican about the Papacy. I chuckle at that!
No doubt you present a very…reasoned Catholic(Anglo-Catholic…) apologist perpsective for the Papacy. I am familiar with the seed theory(not to be confused with seed theology of ORU grads). There is also no doubt in my mind that is not what the document cited is claiming when it says primacy over the whole church. I do not believe Clement, Linus, etc possessed that. If that was “known” to all the ages, you would not have a split or much disagreement over the Papacy.
It is exactly the kind of discussion we should be engaging in. The debate about authority(primacy), or overstepping one’s authority or understepping I suppose, is central to what seperates Christianity regardless of denomination. Historical events, and the results of them, must always be considered fresh. While that paradigm conflicts with those consumed with their understanding of Apostolic Succession, the Christian church marches on discovering OR REDISCOVERING a system set up so many years ago. We are not divorced from the history of OUR collective church.
We are participants in its continuation for future Christians.

 

[Fredricks]

So Fred, since you acknowledge that succession was a concept passed down (at least in the eyes of the Fathers), are you Catholic or Orthodox?

I am an orthodox Christian who is a part of the holy catholic church. I believe that the early Church was concerned with lineage to preserve correct doctrine from the Apostles, which obviously I feel over time wavered some, John was already stating such in Revelation. Although doctrinally, we are probably 90% plus in agreement. I do not believe many of the traditions are the teachings of the apostles.

 

[contramundum7]

Papal primacy is integral to Catholocism…
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papae1.htm

from there I found this…
For “no one can be in doubt, indeed** it was known in every age** that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives” and presides and “exercises judgment in his successors” the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

"Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church.
So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted,
and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received "
First Vatican Council

There is no room for development. According to this the first person to succeed Peter would have primacy over the whole church.

**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 .**

 

[contramundum7]

contramundum7:
What are ECFs?

Also, am having a hard time understanding exactly what you are saying (maybe i should have read other posts before yours??)…

R u saying u agree that St. Peter was the first pope (etc)??

 

[SoonerServant]

I have a question for all the catholics. What sort os authority does the Pope have. Not just as the primeminister, but over the church entirely?

 

[Redbandito]

I am an orthodox Christian who is a part of the holy catholic church. I believe that the early Church was concerned with lineage to preserve correct doctrine from the Apostles, which obviously I feel over time wavered some, John was already stating such in Revelation. Although doctrinally, we are probably 90% plus in agreement. I do not believe many of the traditions are the teachings of the apostles.

Does this not beg the question? So, if the early Church preserved the correct doctrine from the Apostles through lineage, at what point did they stray from the “true teachings” as you see it? And the fact that there were multiple heresies in the early Church does not necessarily speak to the integrity of the Church itself. For wasn’t it the Church that responded to these heresies and preserved “orthodox” Christian teaching? Furthermore, how are you to say you are “orthodox” if you do not agree with the “traditions” that have been passed down through this lineage?

 

[SoonerServant]

contramundum7:
So when did Peter gain this “rock” like strength? If I’m not mistaken, he was corrected by Paul as written in the first letter to the Corinthians. Any christian who withstands the persecution in these days, in my opinion, has even more persverence than Peter. Because we face a new kind of temptation, apathy. The christians in the first century were motivated by eyewitnesses and had there lives threatebed daily. Today, we have only the scriptures.(the only tangible evidence)

 

[Redbandito]

I have a question for all the catholics. What sort os authority does the Pope have. Not just as the primeminister, but over the church entirely?

You are going to have to clarify this question. However, the Pope possesses the authority that Christ Himself bestowed upon him, which is “the keys to the kingdom,” “binding and loosing,” “shepherd of Christ’s flock” (Mt 16:16-19, Jn 21:15-18).

 

[SoonerServant]

Ok, first, what was he given the power to bind and loose?

 

[Redbandito]

So when did Peter gain this “rock” like strength? If I’m not mistaken, he was corrected by Paul as written in the first letter to the Corinthians. Any christian who withstands the persecution in these days, in my opinion, has even more persverence than Peter. Because we face a new kind of temptation, apathy. The christians in the first century were motivated by eyewitnesses and had there lives threatebed daily. Today, we have only the scriptures.(the only tangible evidence)

Actually, that was in Gal 2:11. And Paul did not oppose Peter’s teaching. In fact, Peter was being a hypocrite. Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Since no Catholic claims Peter was impeccable, this verse really has no relevancy to the discussion of infallibility.

 

[SoonerServant]

I apologize, I just thought of that part of the scripture off the top of my head. It just seems to me that I would rather have someone like Paul as my primeminister than a hypocrite like Peter. That’s just not good politics. And if Peter was such a great leader, than why did Paul have to step up and correct him? Aren’t leaders supposed to be the example?

 

[SoonerServant]

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought Jeses told the Apostles to practice what they preached? I guess I must have misread something.

 

[Redbandito]

Ok, first, what was he given the power to bind and loose?

Mt 16:19- “whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” Peter was given the authority to bind and loose over “whatever.” This is properly understood within the context of the Davidic Kingdom. Thus, we go back to the OT to see what Jesus is conferring on Peter. Is 22:22 states, “Then I will set (AD)the key of the (AE)house of David on his shoulder,
When he opens no one will shut,
When he shuts no one will (AF)open.”

Hmmm. Sounds earily similar. As a Catholic I would state that Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and loose doctrine upon the faithful since the context in which Jesus bestows this authority is one of doctrinal clarification.

We see this earlier in the passage when Jesus asked, “Who do people say that (Q)the Son of Man is?”

14And they said, “Some say (R)John the Baptist; and others, (S)Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.”
15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16Simon Peter answered, “You are (T)the Christ, ((“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew 16;&version=49;#cen-NASB-23689U”))the Son of (V)the living God.”

Thus, Peter’s first pronouncement on doctrinal truth is centered on the nature of the Son of Man, or Jesus. For this reason, Catholics say Peter and his successors have infallible authority of matters of the faith. Infallible naturally follows, because how could God bind or loose something in Heaven that was in error?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I apologize, I just thought of that part of the scripture off the top of my head. It just seems to me that I would rather have someone like Paul as my primeminister than a hypocrite like Peter. That’s just not good politics. And if Peter was such a great leader, than why did Paul have to step up and correct him? Aren’t leaders supposed to be the example?

Ouch, thats a bit harsh when speaking of one of Christs apostles.
You may want to think about editing this.

 

[Redbandito]

I apologize, I just thought of that part of the scripture off the top of my head. It just seems to me that I would rather have someone like Paul as my primeminister than a hypocrite like Peter. That’s just not good politics. And if Peter was such a great leader, than why did Paul have to step up and correct him? Aren’t leaders supposed to be the example?

Absolutely! Yet, what does this have to do with the ability to teach doctrine without error? Peter failed MANY times prior to this. In fact, it is before Christ bestows the authority of “shepherd” in Jn 21 that Peter had denied Christ 3 times. This shows that Peter is a sinful, doubting man like the rest of us. Nevertheless, Jesus promised to preserve Peter from error over matters of faith. Don’t lose track of the discussion.

 

[Redbandito]

Oh, I’m sorry, I thought Jeses told the Apostles to practice what they preached? I guess I must have misread something.

He did! Absolutely! Yet, what does this have to do with infallibility? Stay on topic.

 

[Redbandito]

Ouch, thats a bit harsh when speaking of one of Christs apostles.
You may want to think about editing this.

Thank you myfavoritemartin. I would hate to see us start demeaning some of God’s greatest servants for the sake of polemics.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

What are ECFs?

Early church fathers (writers) from about 90 ad on.

R u saying u agree that St. Peter was the first pope (etc)??

I am actually in a sense making a case against it.

 

[mercygate]

Well…since Catholics usually date his Papacy around 88 AD, I will agree with the earlier date and agree that it is not an example of the Papacy! Either way…

If he was the bishop of Rome, he was the bishop of Rome. That’s all it takes to be Pope.

 

[Redbandito]

BTW, SoonerServant, are you an OU fan? Texas Longhorn representing here. Hook 'em!