A
Abu
Guest
When “feelings” are the criteria, no wonder there is confusion, dissension and whatever goes to suit the “feelings”.
- Status
H
Holly3278
Guest
I think the fact that Saint Peter was always listed first among the lists of the disciples is very strong evidence of the primacy of Saint Peter. All of the early Church Fathers also agreed about the primacy of Saint Peter as well from what I understand.
M
Misplaced_Book
Guest
No, we don’t.
Our view of Rome is the pained feeling of watching a beloved brother, who we shared much with and saw as a solid foundation in the Faith, go astray.
A
Abu
Guest
It is precisely because Adolph von Harnack is such a radical that his admittance – using facts and reason as an “outsider” – is so valuable. With the evidence from the Sacred Scriptures that Peter was chosen by Christ, on whom He built His Church, von Harnack’s reference to “the special guardian of the common unity” is very apt – Peter holds the primacy, and his successors likewise, as Christ had instituted His Church until the end of time, so the primacy on earth must exist until the end of time in Peter’s legitimate successors – in the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter – claimed and exercised.
The Orthodox and all others are always very welcome to the same unity through assent and obedience, the life-blood of Christ’s Church. The unity of the Latin and Eastern Rite Catholics means just that – unity in teaching, sanctification and governance. One, holy, catholic and apostolic.
‘(785) There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.’
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787
The Orthodox and all others are always very welcome to the same unity through assent and obedience, the life-blood of Christ’s Church. The unity of the Latin and Eastern Rite Catholics means just that – unity in teaching, sanctification and governance. One, holy, catholic and apostolic.
‘(785) There are about twenty groups of Eastern Orthodox Churches existing as national Churches in a state of separation from Rome and independently of one another as regards authority or jurisdiction. So we have the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Syrian, or Russian, or Rumanian, or Bulgarian, etc. As contrasted with these twenty separated groups, there are nine or ten different Eastern Rite Churches which are in union with Rome, acknowledging Papal Supremacy. These are popularly spoken of as the “Uniate Eastern Churches” and members of them are recognised by the Pope as Catholics every bit as much as Western or Latin Rite members of the Catholic Church.’
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-5.php?t=15&n=787
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You are correct.
Remember, in other passages, Jesus is called the cornerstone and God is called the rock. The use of metaphors is common in scripture.
However, and this is key
p), in Matthew 16:18 Jesus is the builder, Peter is the rock, and Jesus promises to build his church on Peter. There is simply no getting around this, and most Protestant scholars agree with this interpretation.Moreover, Peter was told to “strengthen your brothers” and to “feed my sheep”; therefore, while all of the apostles may be considered foundations of the Church, Peter was clearly given a unique role among them.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Your description of the purpose of the keys is incomplete. Peter also has the authority to close the door, as well. This is the binding.
However, what you are missing is the fact that in giving one man, Peter, the keys, Jesus was re-establishing the office of the Royal Steward in His kingdom. The office was in perpetuity…it did not end with the death of the office holder, and this is all the more true since the king, Jesus, cannnot die. While He is away from the earth in heaven, His Royal Stewards, the popes, continue to watch over His household, the Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Don’t be too hasty. This was never said by Abu or by Jesus.
If you disagree, then please provide the verse wherein Jesus gives out 11 more keys.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
“First among equals.” What exactly does that mean, and how does it play out in real life?
If you are “first among equals” on a basketball team, does that mean that the other team members look to you for leadership when you need a big basket at the end of the game? If you are “first among equals” does it mean that you make decision about how to defend a hill in battle?
When I hear that phrase “first among equals”, I hear a weak attempt at avoiding the obvious: Peter was the leader of the Apostles, and everyone, including Paul who went to confer with Peter twice and the Jews who had Peter arrested, knew it.
P
pocohombre
Guest
I thought so. Quite well put, and in love .Thanks.
P
pocohombre
Guest
I thought one of the better lists, not of popes but of bishops,leaders,founders of Rome, is Iraneus. He lists Peter and Paul as the first.
P
pocohombre
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I could certainly use some help from you since I have little familiarity with Orthodoxy.
Eastern apologists insist upon conciliarism as the appropriate form of church structure, and for them, ecumenical councils constitute the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine.
Could you please show me where an ecumenical council has decreed that ecumenical councils are the final authority for the Church?
And would it be accurate to say that if the universal Church is properly conciliar in structure, then the Eastern Orthodox do not have either a true church constitution or a regular church government because they cannot summon an ecumenical council?
Thanks in advance for your insights.
P
pocohombre
Guest
Well, I thought first amongst equals has been used by the early church, both catholic and otherwise to defer to patriarchs, even popes. No one denies Peter was leader. The phrase properly designates group dynamics that Jesus was not ignorant of and used but stops short of institutionalizing leadership. Jesus did say the church leadership would not be like the world. In my opinion He did not mean it just in attitude (service vs lording over) but in not institutionalizing of top office and all the wrangling it could bring, not to mention the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
P
pocohombre
Guest
If I may butt in RC post #71 talks of the first council in Jerusalem showing more than a humble Peter as some would like to explain it, but indeed shows conciliarism at work, from the beginning.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Correct. Jesus did establish the conciliar structure of the Church founded upon the Apostles. But to maintain harmony with the council and among his followers down through the ages, he also established the papacy as the center and guarantor of unity. It’s not “either-or”; it’s “both-and”.
However, I do appreciate your high regard for conciliarism. When was the last council attended by the EO or by your faith community?
A
Abu
Guest
From the first the fact that Our Blessed Lord made Peter Supreme has been recognised.
Catholic Answers provides the facts in Peter’s Successors:
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
A
Abu
Guest
At the Council of Jerusalem St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11).
E
ezeekl
Guest
Never happened fella. Let us not forget that the first eight councils were called for heresies that occurred in the “Orthodox East” And one of those heresies was started by none other than the Bishop of Constantinople, good ole Nestorius. Then you have scripture recording Jesus saying he would establish his church upon Peter and the forces of hell would not prevail against it. If the successors of Peter went astray as you claim then Jesus was a liar for the forces of hell did prevail. So who went astray?
E
ezeekl
Guest
A humble Peter? Not in the least. The council set the procedure for all following councils. The issue is debated amongst the attendees. Acts 1 5tells us there was much debate. Then Acts 15 tells us that when Peter rose, the assembly kept silence. Why they didn’t keep silence before. They were debating, arguing, stating their case. But when Peter stands up everyone kept quiet. They knew full well that the Boss man was
going to speak. They did not show that kind respect for anyone else but because they knew who the shepherd of the flock was and the shepherd was going to speak, they kept quiet.
- Status