Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Randy,
Rome was the imperial capitol, it was the wealthiest and largest church, membership in the mid 3rd century in the church exceeded 30,000, it had a rep for orthodoxy and charity… All that being said you can see why Clements writing was important,but it still gives no basis for papal primacy only highly regarded respect.
Simon
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Randy,
Rome was the imperial capitol, it was the wealthiest and largest church, membership in the mid 3rd century in the church exceeded 30,000, it had a rep for orthodoxy and charity… All that being said you can see why Clements writing was important,but it still gives no basis for papal primacy only highly regarded respect.
Simon
Click to expand...
What is the difference between primacy and highly regarded respect?
 
mercygate said:
What is the difference between primacy and highly regarded respect?
Click to expand...
Official Church teaching says that Peters successor beared supreme authority (primacy) over the whole church. This is confirmed in 1st Vatican counsel in 1870…
big difference.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Official Church teaching says that Peters successor beared supreme authority (primacy) over the whole church. This is confirmed in 1st Vatican counsel in 1870…
big difference.
Click to expand...
That’s the oak tree. And he exercises that authority only along very strictly contained lines and never contrary to the already-formed teaching of the Church. He is not some swaggering bully wielding his personal will over the Church but is a servant-shepherd. That’s why he has the nickname “Papa”.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
Official Church teaching says that Peters successor beared supreme authority (primacy) over the whole church. This is confirmed in 1st Vatican counsel in 1870…
big difference.
Click to expand...
Respect and authority, Colin Powell is greatly respected
President Bush has Authority.
See the difference.
 
mercygate said:
That’s the oak tree. And he exercises that authority only along very strictly contained lines and never contrary to the already-formed teaching of the Church. He is not some swaggering bully wielding his personal will over the Church but is a servant-shepherd. That’s why he has the nickname “Papa”.
Click to expand...
He’s also known as Servum Servorum Dei- “Servant of the Servants of God.”
 
RNRobert said:
He’s also known as Servum Servorum Dei- “Servant of the Servants of God.”
Click to expand...
The title"papa" originally expressed a fatherly care of ANY and EVERY bishop of HIS flock, it wasn’t endured to the bishop of rome until the 6th century, long after the claim of primacy!
 
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?
 
DeFide said:
You just asked about papal primacy before 200 A.D. This qualifies. So I ask again:

And Jesus singled out Peter on all those occasions because he had nothing better to do?
Click to expand...
Actually…

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
 
DeFide
This is a too common apologetic device of saying that because someone does not attach the same significance, Mary for example, that we somehow demean or lessen their role, “nothing better to do”. When in fact, all we seek to do is give them the role established for them in the Bible. But back on topic!!!
 
DeFide said:
You just asked about papal primacy before 200 A.D. This qualifies. So I ask again:

And Jesus singled out Peter on all those occasions because he had nothing better to do?
Click to expand...
The thread is about universal power to the successors of Peter not Peter, quit trying to sidetrack… The onus is on you not me!
 
This is what troubles me, the lack of acknowledgement in the eyes of truth. It couldn’t be more obvious and as i started studying this, many historians agree with the stand myself and Fredricks are arguing…Yet not one Catholic on here is willing to admit that this may or is the case, I say may because I’m hoping someone steps up for the sake of saving face.
Simon
 
myfavoritmartin said:
The thread is about universal power to the successors of Peter not Peter, quit trying to sidetrack… The onus is on you not me!
Click to expand...
Let me spell this out for you. If Peter had a real primacy in the Chruch, you have evidence for a real primacy in the office holders that follow.

Why? Because Jesus, being God, must have had a real reason and purpose for having an authority structure extend all the way up to the highest of the Church in the form of the Pope. It must have been part of his design for his everlasting Church. The function God ordained in that office fulfilled a need that did not go away after 30 years or 50 years or 200 years.

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: Imagine if Jesus had set up a church on earth that did not have an authority structure that extended all the way to the top:

The Gospel of St. Bizarro:
“And Jesus said to them, 'I will build my Church on all of you equally, and none of you will have universal jurisdiction. Your authority will be limited to your own local church and the gates of hell will not prevail upon my Church…”

Now if instead THIS was God’s design, you would find it incomprehensible that the next generation of bishops would decide to have a certain bishop have primacy! If you’d reject that, you should also reject the idea that the next generation of Christ’s Church would decide to eliminate a function that God ordained in the Papacy.
 
DeFide said:
Let me spell this out for you. If Peter had a real primacy in the Chruch, you have evidence for a real primacy in the office holders that follow.
Click to expand...
Lets show that there was a real primacy in the office holders that followed shall we? that is the goal after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top