Papal Primacy, Known For All Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hasty reading is more likely… POST 223 Clearly says what para 937 is then I follow up with how that Para 937 is troubling.
Oooops, my bad. Forgive me. I didn’t (and actually still don’t) entirely understand the syntax of your sentence:
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.
But with your clarification, I better understand that you were not intending to quote the Catechism, which was my concern.

Please allow my mistake to only serve as additional clarification for anyone else who may have been confused by your sentence structure.
 
BTW Jane,
I see what your attempting…You are trying to draw me back to scripture for this argument.

Wait did I just say that? I am the Protestant and you the Catholic right?
 
BTW Jane,
I see what your attempting…You are trying to draw me back to scripture for this argument.

Wait did I just say that? I am the Protestant and you the Catholic right?
This leads me to believe that you realise there is no proof of universal authority KNOWN TO ALL AGES!
 
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)
What MFM is missing is the Extent of the Roman Empire during at this writing. The Roman Empire(region, country, report) extended as far as the farthest local church.

Romans were not just in Rome, they were everywhere.

http://www.asmilan.org/teachers/kwheatley/maps/roman_empire_height.JPG
 
Early Christians Didn’t consider successors of Peter and Paul to have control over the universal church and your lack of proof reititates this fact.
 
So Jane the care of millions of souls hinges on whether or not Ignatius meant universal authority or local authority?
Simon, I understand your frustration here. Truly, I do, more than you can imagine. Our very nature begs that we not submit. Our brokenness tells us to doubt anyone or anything that would attempt to assert power over us, especially when it is so counter-intuitive.

However, yes, I trust that Christ has power enough to guide His Church, under the successors of St. Peter, throughout Christendom without stain or blemish, in matters of faith and morals. I trust that through the Holy Spirit, the Church has been prepared and preserved since Christ Himself gave the keys to Peter.
That is the one ECF you are willing to hang your hat on?
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.

To be sure, no one ECF is sufficient on his own. This is particularly why the writings of the Early Church Fathers serve as brushstrokes within the canvas of Catholic theology and Catechetical teaching.
Even though, over and over you can see evidence to the contrary from other writers that is was both Peter and Paul
Once again, the prominence of Peter AND Paul at Rome does not diminish the role of Peter as keeper of the keys. There is no contradiction here.
and you can see Roman bishops being chastised by other bishops and even threats of excommunication,
I think an honest consideration of human nature provides clear insight into why this would be the case. 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. Don’t we all at some point want to be the greatest, too? That’s human nature.

The important thing to consider, however, is despite any evidence of dissent or threats, who holds the key? All the bishops hold thrones of judgment. All the bishops are capable of fraternal correction. This does not contradict papal primacy.

What makes this issue even more interesting regarding the issue of Peter is what Jesus says immediately after he gives the Apostles their thrones. In the very next verse, he turns to Peter. He says to him, “Simon, Simon! Remember Satan has asked for you, to sift you all like wheat. But I have prayed for **you **that **your **faith may never fail. You in turn must strengthen your brothers” (Lk. 22:30). Just three verses before he says this to Peter, he tells all the Apostles, “Let the greater among you be as the junior, the leader as the servant” (Lk. 22:26). You can imagine the eyes that turned to Peter as Jesus begins to single him out in such a tone as “Simon, Simon!” You can just imagine the muffled snickers. . .Oooh, Peter’s gonna get a lesson! Jesus is very demonstratively turning Peter into the “junior” who is being given a warning about Satan and his temptation. Then, still in keeping with his previous instruction, he gives Peter a special responsibility, enforced by Christ’s own prayer for him, to serve his brothers. To strengthen them. Certainly, the Apostles would not have missed tthe connection.

And this is the connection we see as we consider the Pope’s capacity to receive correction even as he holds the key. He is the servant. He is the greatest. And at times he is corrected for the glory of God and the benefit of the Church. His charge then is to stregthen his brothers in turn.
your going to hang it all on Ignatius?
No I don’t.
What if your wrong?
What if I’m right?
Likewise.

And further, how does your submission to the Bishop of Rome jeopardize your salvation in Jesus Christ? Pascal’s wager is echoing here. . .where is the weight of expected value? The patristic consensus is sound and strong. The Scriptural support is solid. And history is in favor of a Christian church under the authority of the Roman episcopate.

I am assured that my submission to Peter’s successor keeps me in line with the Apostolic tradition. My adherence to the Church’s teachings, charged to the Magisterium, has served only to bring me more in line with the gospel and convert my soul towards my Lord and God, Jesus Christ.
 
BTW Jane,
I see what your attempting…You are trying to draw me back to scripture for this argument.

Wait did I just say that? I am the Protestant and you the Catholic right?
No, I wasn’t trying to draw you back to scripture. I never supposed you left. I merely was demonstrating that you have misinterpreted Isaiah 22:25, as others have.
 
Early Christians Didn’t consider successors of Peter and Paul to have control over the universal church and your lack of proof reititates this fact.
Really, Simon? That’s your conclusive argument?

I provided Ignatius’ testimony that Rome holds the presidency of the Church. I provided Irenaeus’ testimony that the episcopate of Rome, “because of its superior origin,” is the one church with which “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.”

And your conclusion is that Rome had no jurisdiction over “the universal church”?

I suppose your definition of universal may be different from mine. Be that as it may, I am more comfortable with Ignatius’ definition–“all Churches. . .all the faithful in the whole world. . .everywhere.”
 
Simon, I understand your frustration here. Truly, I do, more than you can imagine…
Just looking for answers, important ones Jane! Your thoughts and insights in this matter are admirable and appreciated!
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
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
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.
To be sure, no one ECF is sufficient on his own. .
What does this say for sacred tradition?
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.
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.
The important thing to consider, however, is despite any evidence of dissent or threats, who holds the key? . ,.
Christ is the Key!
 
Christ is the key, Christ is the author of the keys, Christ is the owner of the keys and the** creater** of the keys. You can state all these things and have no arguement from a Catholic or a catholic position…

The One who** is** the key, the author, creator, and owner of the keys entrusted the keys to another, to Simon renamed Peter “the Rock”.

The passage makes no sense in the handing on the keys except to Peter and then the reference is like Isaiah ‘an office’
Jesus does not hand the keys to himself [as he is the ultimate possessor]. Similarly, you cannot hand the the keys to an inanimate object like a boulder as some would render the passage. Also, handing the keys to a profession of faith [thin air] is also non-sensical. The keys were handed to a man, the man Peter. The binding and loosing and the prevention of the gates of hell all reference a passage of time, and thus a continuing posssesor or a position.

Scripture developed during the ‘upto 200 AD’ time line and beyond and can be held to be from the earliest Church Fathers.

And as for the number of times Paul is mentioned compared to Peter…Peter did not have to travel to Paul to gain his authoritative ministry in the Church. It was Paul who travels to Jerusalem to recieve instruction and approval rom Peter. Also, Paul writes many of the new testament epistles and many of those references to Paul are self references, which is not the case with Peter. This lends greater authority to a recognition of Peter’s primacy by others and not a self declaration of primacy by Peter.

That Paul is an apostle proves the apostolic succession in a very profound way. The bishops of today are the successors of the apostles. Paul had no contact with the man Jesus but only with the ressurected Jesus. And he had been a persecutor of the Church. Paul did not get to self declare himself an apostle and a minister in the Church. Although he had a conversion experience and began preaching, his authority was challenged and he sought approval from the head of the Church, namely Peter. All this is attested to in the early writings of the church…
 
And as for the number of times Paul is mentioned compared to Peter…Peter did not have to travel to Paul to gain his authoritative ministry in the Church. It was Paul who travels to Jerusalem to recieve instruction and approval rom Peter
.

:eek:
That Paul is an apostle proves the apostolic succession in a very profound way. The bishops of today are the successors of the apostles. Paul had no contact with the man Jesus but only with the ressurected Jesus. And he had been a persecutor of the Church. Paul did not get to self declare himself an apostle and a minister in the Church. Although he had a conversion experience and began preaching, his authority was challenged and he sought approval from the head of the Church, namely Peter. All this is attested to in the early writings of the church…
*Gal 1:1 ¶ Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Gal 1:11 ¶ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. *
Paul needs no ones approval, the whole tone of Galatians shows this.
 
.

:eek:

Gal 1:1 ¶ Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Gal 1:11 ¶ But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Paul needs no ones approval, the whole tone of Galatians shows this.
Really? The Approval was given in Gal 2:9 and having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision `may go’,

I think it is safe to say they could not have continued unto the gentile nations without this “Right Hand of Fellowship”
 
Really? The Approval was given in Gal 2:9 and having known the grace that was given to me, James, and Cephas, and John, who were esteemed to be pillars, a right hand of fellowship they did give to me, and to Barnabas, that we to the nations, and they to the circumcision `may go’,

I think it is safe to say they could not have continued unto the gentile nations without this “Right Hand of Fellowship”
That is not what it says at all, nothing about approval at all.:confused: Paul had been preaching to the
gentiles for 17 years!

He clearly states he did not feel like he needed the approval of any man:

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: Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
There is nothing in Galatians to support this at all. Paul goes to great lengths to express his independence. He is explained how little he needed to rely on them.

*Gal 2:11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. *

To further strenghten his case, he describes how Peter feared James and his supporters:

*Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. *

The whole tone and content of this letter speaks against what you are suggesting.
 
That is not what it says at all, nothing about approval at all.:confused: Paul had been preaching to the
gentiles for 17 years!

He clearly states he did not feel like he needed the approval of any man:

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: Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
There is nothing in Galatians to support this at all. Paul goes to great lengths to express his independence. He is explained how little he needed to rely on them.

*Gal 2:11 ¶ But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. *

To further strenghten his case, he describes how Peter feared James and his supporters:

*Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. *

The whole tone and content of this letter speaks against what you are suggesting.
No it does not. You are reading a specific tone created in your own mind into it where that specfic tone does not exist.

Paul’s rebuking does not undermine or disprove approval or primacy.
 
The church in Jerusalem sends Peter and John.

James presides over the council in Acts 15 and gives the final judgement.

Ga 2:8 - For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

1Pe 5:1 - To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Peter describes himself as a fellow elder, not universal overseer.

No Hint of Universal authority in the scriptures
 
No it does not. You are reading a specific tone created in your own mind into it where that specfic tone does not exist.

Paul’s rebuking does not undermine or disprove approval or primacy.
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.

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: *

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.

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

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
 
The church in Jerusalem sends Peter and John.

James presides over the council in Acts 15 and gives the final judgement.

Ga 2:8 - For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

1Pe 5:1 - To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Peter describes himself as a fellow elder, not universal overseer.

No Hint of Universal authority in the scriptures
Here is a link to almost 70 verses in Sacred Scripture that do more than hint at the primacy of St. Peter, (as well as just as many, if not more, quotes from the earliest Christians and Church Fathers that show beyond a shadow of doubt that they recognized St. Peter’s primacy among his fellow Bishops.)
 
Here is a link to almost 70 verses in Sacred Scripture that do more than hint at the primacy of St. Peter, (as well as just as many, if not more, quotes from the earliest Christians and Church Fathers that show beyond a shadow of doubt that they recognized St. Peter’s primacy among his fellow Bishops.)
No hijacking allowed, there are other threads discussing Peter legitimacy using scripture.
This is about ECF’s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top