Papal primacy

[Abu]

Misplaced_Book #160
Unquestionable you say? And here we are, centuries upon centuries later, discussing it.
Your Ultramontanism is old hat,

As there is no reasonable or logical refutation to the primacy St Peter appointed as His Supreme Vicar the objections ring hollow as they are unrealistic. Only Christ’s Supreme Vicar has the authority to teach with His authority on faith and morals.

“…this warfare by the Rationalist-Protestant-Modernist coalition against “Clericalism” or “Ultramontanism” is, fundamentally, directed against integral Catholicism – that is, against papal, anti-Liberal, and counter-Revolutionary Catholicism.
newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

Thus the Orthodox Churches, like so many thousands of Protestant sects, do not contain all the elements of the true faith – they explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Unlike the Protestant sects, the Orthodox Churches do have the priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments and are thus much closer to Christ’s Church than Protestant sects.

pocohombre #156
I guess St.Peter goofed when he said we are a royal priesthood.

No pocohombre goofed again unfortunately, not knowing the meaning as usual. As the Church teaches:
CCC 1547
"The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace - a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit - ,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. the ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders." [My emphasis].
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P4T.HTM

The cloud of unknowing seems endemic to some here.

 

[ezeekl]

Posting the Anathemas of the Western Council of Trent is not very convincing.

Sure it is. Just because the Orthodox did not want to attend does not make it any less than what it was intended to be and that was a general council.

 

[pocohombre]

As there is no reasonable or logical refutation to the primacy St Peter appointed as His Supreme Vicar the objections ring hollow as they are unrealistic. Only Christ’s Supreme Vicar has the authority to teach with His authority on faith and morals.

“…this warfare by the Rationalist-Protestant-Modernist coalition against “Clericalism” or “Ultramontanism” is, fundamentally, directed against integral Catholicism – that is, against papal, anti-Liberal, and counter-Revolutionary Catholicism.
newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

Thus the Orthodox Churches, like so many thousands of Protestant sects, do not contain all the elements of the true faith – they explicitly have fallen into the grave errors of permitting divorce and remarriage, denying the reality of the infallibility of the Pope and His supremacy, and rejecting the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Unlike the Protestant sects, the Orthodox Churches do have the priesthood, the Sacrifice of the Mass and the seven Sacraments and are thus much closer to Christ’s Church than Protestant sects.
No pocohombre goofed again unfortunately, not knowing the meaning as usual. As the Church teaches:
CCC 1547
"The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, “each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ.” While being “ordered one to another,” they differ essentially.22 In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace - a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit - ,the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. the ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders." [My emphasis].
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P4T.HTM

The cloud of unknowing seems endemic to some here.

Thank you. I am quite aware from previous posters of the dual definition of priesthood by CC. It is a fine line but a steep drop in definition and practice. We all agree in priesthood of all believers. Some priests are then ordained as “elders”, with evidence of their gifting. Good. However, I can not lower St.Peter’s correct terminology that we are priests to simply "lay"people and all that it implies in CC.

 

[pocohombre]

Sure it is. Just because the Orthodox did not want to attend does not make it any less than what it was intended to be and that was a general council.

The first council to declare an anathema was also the one that shows equal patriarchs. It is sad that it is the first time when civil authorities could impose penalties with those anathemized. That council still did not settle issues. The final authority was scripture that upheld Christology at Nicea, against later heretics and councils, emperors and soldiers especially as defended by Anthanasius…St. Augustine to Maxim, “I must not press the authority of Nicea against you,nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other,but let us come to ground that is common to both-the testimony of the Holy Scriptures” (Augustine,To Maxim the Arian)

 

[pocohombre]

Sorry about my post #159 ,where a quote printed many times. I was having computer problems, meant to put quote of canon # 6 once. Sorry, wasn’t shouting.

 

[pocohombre]

The Council of Chalcedon in 451, attended by the Eastern Bishops, ended its discussion with the unanimous cry, “Peter has spoken by Leo,” when the Pope’s decision was given.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes comes form word meaning elder, older person. It is not the same word used for priest (Levitical) in the OT (hiereus) that Peter uses for all lay people being a priesthood (like OT). So like I said, presbyter is used in NT and OT for “elder”. What is used in old testament for priest (hiereus) is not used for church office, leader in new testament but for all believers.
churchsociety.org/issues_new/misc/questions/iss_misc_questions_whypriests.asp

The sacrament of holy orders is conferred in three ranks of clergy: bishops, priests, and deacons.

Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called “evangelists” in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).

In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)

Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos (“servant” or “minister”; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.

Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a “fellow elder,” [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.

The term for bishop, episcopos (“overseer”), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.

Although the terms “bishop,” “priest,” and “deacon” were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.

 

[ezeekl]

The first council to declare an anathema was also the one that shows equal patriarchs. It is sad that it is the first time when civil authorities could impose penalties with those anathemized. That council still did not settle issues. The final authority was scripture that upheld Christology at Nicea, against later heretics and councils, emperors and soldiers especially as defended by Anthanasius…St. Augustine to Maxim, “I must not press the authority of Nicea against you,nor you that of Ariminum against me; I do not acknowledge the one, as you do not the other,but let us come to ground that is common to both-the testimony of the Holy Scriptures” (Augustine,To Maxim the Arian)

Patriarchs were intended to aid in the government of the church in an age when communication was slow but patriarch are not scriptural in the New Testament and the patriarchs of the OT share the name but that is all. And the NT patriarchs are not equal.

As for Augustine, you will note that what he is saying is that the Arians did not accept the Council’s (Nicea) decision but used their own council to base their claims on. That council was not accepted by anyone except the Arians. But what you fail to state is that Scripture did not settle the Arian heresy. Arianism continued long after and in fact is still present today in some protestant denominations. Again we find that what scripture says is really what one’s interpretation says it is. Peter was correct in saying that people will twist scripture to their own demise.

 

[rfournier103]

I think it’s funny that so many of the posters on this thread who deny Papal primacy just up and leave when BIBLICAL evidence is presented to support it.

I don’t think this has been mentioned (maybe it has… I haven’t read EVERY post), but a VERY good resource is John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy”.

Also, what kind of a country would the United States be of the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, and then left us all to fend for ourselves with NO government and ONLY that one document? I can say that the U.S. wouldn’t have lasted very long…

There’s NO way God would have left us on our own without some official guidance. To those who say our ONLY guidance is the Bible; what/who was our guide between c. 100 AD (death of the last Apostle) and c. 394 AD (compilation of the Holy Bible as we know it today)???

Anyone…?

Just something to consider…

 

[ezeekl]

Abu;11338524:

here is a canon from council-Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops

beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him…Seems a bit different than Nicea where all were equal (as Luther pointed out the contradiction in councils). Rome had primacy because she was a royal city ? I have often argued that Iraneus said high things of Rome partly because of this, or even why Corinthians wrote letter to Roman church for help. Royal city seems worldly and "political’.

Did you read what you posted? U]"…should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and **rank next after her **;

Who was ranked after who? Constantinople was ranked after Rome in ecclesiastical matters. Not equal to but ranked after Rome. Bear in mind that a Patriarch of Constantinople, a guy whose name you may have heard, taught heresy and was hauled before a council for it. Does the name Nestorius ring a bell with you? And if memory serves me correctly Nestorius was not the only Patriach of Constntinople to teach heresy.

 

[Abu]

ezeekl
Its not ABU but Pocohombre, in #166, who is confused and whom you quote in your #170.

 

[ezeekl]

ezeekl
Its not ABU but Pocohombre, in #166, who is confused and whom you quote in your #170.

You are correct sir and I extend my apologies to you.

 

[pocohombre]

Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as “presbyters” or “elders.” In fact, the English term “priest” is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).

Thanks .Why then not stick with “presbyter” from the Greek without contraction? Why do we go with “priest”, a term more familiar to Jews and pagans ?

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;11339331:

Did you read what you posted? U]"…should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and **rank next after her **

; Who was ranked after who? Constantinople was ranked after Rome in ecclesiastical matters. Not equal to but ranked after Rome. Bear in mind that a Patriarch of Constantinople, a guy whose name you may have heard, taught heresy and was hauled before a council for it. Does the name Nestorius ring a bell with you? And if memory serves me correctly Nestorius was not the only Patriach of Constntinople to teach heresy.

Yes I read what I posted. Did you read my comments on it ? Yes “rank after” because it was a “royal city”. What does that mean ? I said how that differed from Nicea… I do not doubt that as time went on Rome and her seat became primary, but she was not in 325 AD apparently ,but by Chalcedon yes

 

[pocohombre]

I think it’s funny that so many of the posters on this thread who deny Papal primacy just up and leave when BIBLICAL evidence is presented to support it.

Of course there has to be something wrong with someone to deny papacy.?

I don’t think this has been mentioned (maybe it has… I haven’t read EVERY post), but a VERY good resource is John Salza’s “The Biblical Basis for the Papacy”.

Thanks. I am sure CC has biblical, and early fathers and history to support papal claims, just as opponents do.

Also, what kind of a country would the United States be of the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution of the United States, and then left us all to fend for ourselves with NO government and ONLY that one document? I can say that the U.S. wouldn’t have lasted very long…

Well, we almost didn’t last that long. Anyways the analogy is hyperbole. Why ? It is to easy to argue that way. The correct analogy would be we had a constitution with 2 branches of government instead of three, just leave out the presidency. Why do you leave out all three? Do you think we haven’t heard of biblical giftings and offices, because we contest only one of the bunch ?

There’s NO way God would have left us on our own without some official guidance.

Yes, we have talked about this thing about being “orphaned”, again as if two branches of government weren’t enough. Man. it is like no one ever said the Holy Spirit is Christ’s Vicar also ,as is every bishop. You can over institutionalize a good thing (just look at how our government today)

To those who say our ONLY guidance is the Bible;

More hyperbole. Nobody really says this . Nobody denies the Holy Spirit. Nobody denies a presbyter or a teacher or a parent or a good council or even some tradition. All use the Word of God as authority, and none better.

 

[pocohombre]

Patriarchs were intended to aid in the government of the church in an age when communication was slow but patriarch are not scriptural in the New Testament and the patriarchs of the OT share the name but that is all. And the NT patriarchs are not equal.

Thank you but they were for awhile, at least until Nicea

As for Augustine, you will note that what he is saying is that the Arians did not accept the Council’s (Nicea) decision but used their own council to base their claims on. That council was not accepted by anyone except the Arians. But what you fail to state is that Scripture did not settle the Arian heresy.

I did state in other posts that to be fair the councils nor the pope and as you point out scripture can eliminate such things. I have also stated that scripture is not enough (even walking with Jesus for 3 years is not enough, or being in the right church or religion), that one needs to be in line with and have divine revelation.

Arianism continued long after and in fact is still present today in some protestant denominations.

It is not the fault of either your doctrine of papal and tradition authority or mine,conciliarism and Sacred Scripture. I still say Augustine rested on scripture as the main authority (to which his beloved catholic church rested as did the good councils etc )

Again we find that what scripture says is really what one’s interpretation says it is. Peter was correct in saying that people will twist scripture to their own demise.

Irrelevant. Truth is truth and can be rejected no matter where it comes from. Do you think Augustine gave up on scripture because Arianism persisted ? Do you think he gave up on councils or the Church ?

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #163
I can not lower St.Peter’s correct terminology that we are priests to simply "lay"people and all that it implies in CC.

The one who demotes and totally disregards Christ’s factual institution of St Peter and his successors as His “Rock” on whom He builds His Church, the only ones with the Keys of Christ’s Kingdom, to strengthen their brethren, and to feed Christ’s sheep – the same now wants to deconstruct St Peter’s describing the converted readers of his first epistle as a royal priesthood and a holy nation to mean the priest of the Last Supper! All just to satisfy his ego that he, and anyone he chooses, is a “priest”, but quite unable to consecrate bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus of Nazareth when He commissioned His Apostles as priests and bishops to “Do this in memory of Me.” (Lk 22:19).

Naturally he is quite unable to explain why he doesn’t have Christ’s seven sacraments in his sect, nor Christ’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks .Why then not stick with “presbyter” from the Greek without contraction? Why do we go with “priest”, a term more familiar to Jews and pagans ?

Words evolve and change meaning over time.

None of us are still speaking Shakespearean English, for example.

 

[ezeekl]

ezeekl;11340199:

Yes I read what I posted. Did you read my comments on it ? Yes “rank after” because it was a “royal city”. What does that mean ? I said how that differed from Nicea… I do not doubt that as time went on Rome and her seat became primary, but she was not in 325 AD apparently ,but by Chalcedon yes

Well let’s see now, we have the evidence from the first century where Corinth went to Rome rather than Ephesus or Jerusalem for guidance but to you that does not mean there was a primacy then. Of course in the first century Constantinople was a little fishing village named Byzantium. It would not become Constantinople until Constantine decided to move the capital there. Surprisingly, while he took the political and governmental machinery to Byzantium he did not take the church heirarchy with him. That’s odd if Catholicism became the state religion in 312 AD as some protestants claim.

You made the comment, “… Yes “rank after” because it was a “royal city”. What does that mean ? I said how that differed from Nicea.” I think you are fixating too much on the term, “royal city”. Yes Rome was a royal city because that is where the emperor was. The same is true of Constntinople. But does that have any bearing on governing the church. I think the very fact that when Constantinople became the “new Rome” that the government of the church remained in “Old Rome” Nicea changed nothing in that regard. The authority of the church remained with the stewards of the church, the bishops, as,it still does today, with the bishop of Rome being the chief steward with the keys to the kingdom. Isaiah 22:22 fulfilled.

In another thread you made mention of Augustine using scripture as his final argument position. But Augustine was no sola scripturist. He was decidedly Catholic and just as I and others, have used scripture to prove you wrong, so did Augustine. But I am no more of a sola scripturist than was Augustine. Here is another quote from Augustine to prove my point. In 411 AD Augustine wrote concerning the Pelagian jheresy:

“… two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).

He also wrote this in 397 AD acknowledging the authority of the Catholic Church:

“There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[JohnR77]

Feelings are from God. When based on fact they are very powerful and indicative. I am not orphaned based on the word of God, hence the feeling I am not orphaned but a child of the heavenly Father, with a down payment of my inheritance inside me that being the Holy Spirit.

True, you are not an orphan. But, you are disobedient. The gift of the Papacy is a gift to you as much as to me. ( I just acknowledge it as such.)

Does the fact that you can claim Our Father in heaven as your father indicate you are not an orphan ?

**NO ! That is wrong. An orphan has a father. His father may be in heaven, hell, or purgatory, but he has a father. **
​

There would be not such thing as an orphan to use that argument.

Can the claim of not being an orphan be reduced to just having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ?

No. The fact we are not orphans means and includes a direct communication, a guaranteed audible and ongoing infallible (in regards to explaining what was intended) voice, between the father and the child. Divine public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. How to interpret the Bible, or even answering the question of which books belong in the Bible was still to be answered. There are over 32,000 contradicting Protestant denominations who follow “Bible Alone” who all have valid Baptism and Holy Spirit. All these contradictions cannot be true – as is evident by the fact they do not worship in the same house. And therefore, these groups are failing to recognize a fundamental component of the gift and the guidance of Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit works to guide us by overcoming the sins of the particular successor of St. Peter so that we might have a clear audible guidance on how to go to heaven and an infallible decree on which books belong in the New Testament.

If one rejects the voice given to us through the successor of St. Peter he is being disobedient and acting as if he was an orphan.

Feelings are a blessing. Correctly understood they can help us in our spiritual walk. Jesus says we have to be willing to die to our very selves to go to heaven. No one wants to die to his desires. So, our feelings are often prejudiced. Therefore, the feeling that this or that doctrine is true indicates where we have to be extra careful in how we might have deceived ourselves. Because of Original Sin we have a darkened intellect and a weakened will and concupiscence.

Luke 22:29-32
“ ‘… and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you(plural in Greek), that he might sift you(plural in Greek) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular in Greek) that your (singular in Greek) faith may not fail; and when you (singular in Greek) have turned again, strengthen your(singular in Greek) brethren.’ ” RSV (emphasis added in parenthesis to clarify the Greek text.)

**Jesus singled out Saint Peter. **

John
.