Papal primacy

[steve_b]

Old Rome is welcome to rejoin the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church any time it wants.

Old or new,… Rome is still here, chair of Peter, seat of the Catholic Church, where Peter is still literally buried under the altar at St Peters and where his successors preside for Our Lord over His Church. Where Peter is there is the Catholic Church

 

[ezeekl]

So we are not His disciples and can not officiate a mass ? We still need a priest and can not enter holy of holies? In fact isn’t that where you place the Lord, behind a veil,in a box,up on the altar after Mass ? Sometimes He is placed in a monstrance for us to see and worship but I still need a priest to set that up. I am not really a priest as scripture says ? Yet an early father says we are His monstrance.

The NT is prefigured in the OT. So I ask you, did the OT Jews need a priest to enter the holy of holies? Sure they did. Why? Because that was God’s design. So was it God’s design that all people have authority? Did Jesus give authority to all his disciples or just a few? If they were all priests as you claim why didn’t everyone get the keys or the power to bind and loose? Why were there only twelve apostles? Why did the apostles say that it was not right for them “to wait on tables” and so they created deacons to tend to the material needs of the church. If everyone is a priest as you want to claim then why are there the divisions we see in scripture. Your model of christianity of everyone being a priest just does not fit the picture presented in scripture.

 

[Rich]

HISTORICAL BASIS FOR APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

One document for the Early Church Fathers is so exceedingly clear on the subject of Apostolic Succession that appealing to any other historical source is unnecessary. Writing in around the end of the first century (and probably before the death of the Apostle John), Clement of Rome, the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome expanded upon Peter’s veiled thought contained in 2 Peter 1:12-15 in his “Letter to the Corinthians”:

CHAPTER 42
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

CHAPTER 44
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor.

From these two chapters we see that the Apostles tested and approved their earliest converts to be Bishops and Deacons. Additionally, the Apostles gave instructions that when these Bishops and Deacons should “fall asleep’ either due to natural causes or martyrdom that they should be succeeded by other men in the ministry. Note that Clement also exercises his primacy as Bishop of Rome by correcting the Corinthian church for improperly removing some of the “presbyters” from office. The acceptance of Clement’s intervention by the Corinthians is evidence of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, even at this early date.

 

[ezeekl]

Old Rome is welcome to rejoin the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church any time it wants.

Sadly, I find this remark so indicative of the Orthodox. The attitude expressed in this remark is I believe the primary reason the Orthodox lost their cathedral church when they refused reconciliation after the council of Florence. More than one person has pointed out the similarities between the loss of Constantinople and the Haggia Sophia and the loss of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Let’s be frank here. The use of the term “Old Rome” (as opposed to New Rome?), I think shows a level of contempt for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church that has no equivalent in how Catholicism views Orthodoxy. The use of the derogatory term “uniates” by the Orthodox in reference to those Eastern Churches that reunited with the Pope is also indicative of the prevailing attitude amongst the Orthodox. And finally the initial refusal of the Greek Orthodox metropolitan to pray the “Our Father” with Pope John Paul II during his visit to Greece are indications of the state of the Orthodox Church. Is it no wonder that they have waivered in matters regarding marriage and conception. I am reminded of what Cyprian of Carthage wrote in 251 AD in *The Unity of the Catholic Church *:

“If someone 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; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Lest someone should think this post is meant to be uncharitable allow me to say that we should all pray that the Holy Spirit guides the leadership of all christian denominations into reconciliation with the chair of Peter so that the prayer of Jesus, “That they may be one…” is manifested on earth as it is in heaven.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Old Rome is welcome to rejoin the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church any time it wants.

In another thread, you counseled someone that he would not find answers to his questions on an Internet forum. (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11345511#post11345511)

Does this post of yours fall into the category of “answers” that we can ignore?

 

[RyanBlack]

Sadly, I find this remark so indicative of the Orthodox…pray that the Holy Spirit guides the leadership of all christian denominations into reconciliation with the chair of Peter so that the prayer of Jesus, “That they may be one…” is manifested on earth as it is in heaven.

Yet the very attitude you criticize on the part of the Orthodox towards Catholics (they need to be reconciled to us) is essentially the same attitude you as a Catholic have towards the Orthodox.

 

[Abu]

RyanBlack #186
Yet the very attitude you criticize on the part of the Orthodox towards Catholics (they need to be reconciled to us) is essentially the same attitude you as a Catholic have towards the Orthodox.

It is not an “attitude” or posture; it is reality – that Christ founded only one Church, the Catholic Church with St Peter as His Supreme Vicar, with the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to strengthen and feed the sheep.

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.

The fact that they have not fallen into the other errors of Protestantism does not absolve them from their own errors.

The Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the Eastern Bishops signed the formula of Hormisdas, who was Pope from 514 to 523. That formula contained these words, “We follow the Apostolic See in everything and teach all its laws. I hope to be in that one Communion taught by the Apostolic See in which is the whole, real, and perfect solidity of the Christian religion.” Dean Milman writes, “Before the end of the third century the lineal descent of Rome’s Bishops from St. Peter was unhesitatingly claimed and obsequiously admitted by the Christian world.” ’
radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-2.php?t=139&n=1268

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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.

I agree.

Take note in the Gospels how Christ uses ONLY the Penteteuch when dealing with the Sadducees. Using pocohombre’s line of reason, that means that Jesus didn’t believe in any scripture other than the books of Moses.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

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’.

It’s interesting that Canon 28 was added AFTER the papal legates had left, and had been subsequently repudiated by the Pope.

Caesaropapism had been a “problem,” along with various heresies, within the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

So, pocohombre, thanks for pointing that out to our Orthodox brothers.

 

[pocohombre]

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.

Abu, I believe the Word of the Lord can be quite precise. We all agree the word St. Peter uses for the word to “priest” in “priesthood” is “priest”. He also states that all believers are this. This is not my ego, nor by my choosing. What all believers are not, and not by my choosing, are “elders” but this is not what St. Pater is talking. Now a priest has many functions and you can cherry pick which functions you discern St.Peter was talking about if you want but I find it difficult to differentiate from that verse alone. I will say that the Last Supper has it’s origin’s, it’s foreshadowing in the OT with the Passover. If I recall correctly, every Jewish houeshold observed, commemorated the Passover in their home, without the priests .By itself the Gospels depiction of the Last Supper do not hint that it should be any different for us They do not show that only a priest could do so in remembrance. As far as the 7 sacraments that is a whole other issue.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I found a wonderful essay on-line called Canon 28 and Eastern Papalism: Cause or Effect? which, if read thoroughly (at least the first half or so), should put to rest all of pocohombre’s arguments regarding Canon 28 at least.

 

[pocohombre]

Words evolve and change meaning over time.
None of us are still speaking Shakespearean English, for example.

Yes, but why do they evolve,especially when it seems they denote doctrinal inferences ? Things are not done in a vacuum.The reasoning seems plain and has been discussed for centuries.Changing of terminology is not innocuous. Like today it is not about “abortion” but about “choice” or not “homosexual” but “gay” or “alternative lifestyle” or “lover” and “significant other”. Everybody is trying to sell something, their particular prejudice. We all agree, only one prejudice is right , His and may we be graced to buy it.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #190
By itself the Gospels depiction of the Last Supper do not hint that it should be any different for us They do not show that only a priest could do so in remembrance.

The clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," establishes the reality.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:

1. Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
2. By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the basis of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him.

The ecclesial communities do not have the Holy Mass because they do not have valid priests who can consecrate the bread and wine, and they do not have all the seven sacraments instituted by Christ.

WHO WAS THE FIRST CHRISTIAN PRIEST
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 10-30-2012:
Jesus Christ Himself, who is High Priest. The first purely human priests of the New Covenant were the Apostles, whose priesthood was conferred at the Last Supper, which was the First Mass.
tinyurl.com/kheekxf

As only the Apostles could confer the priesthood established by Christ, no other men can be real priests without that sacrament through the Apostles.

 

[Abu]

Thank you FathersKnowBest for aoiusa.org/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/

The reality is what is denied by those with blinkers. We pray for assent to truth and for unity.

 

[ezeekl]

Abu, I believe the Word of the Lord can be quite precise. We all agree the word St. Peter uses for the word to “priest” in “priesthood” is “priest”. He also states that all believers are this. This is not my ego, nor by my choosing. What all believers are not, and not by my choosing, are “elders” but this is not what St. Pater is talking. Now a priest has many functions and you can cherry pick which functions you discern St.Peter was talking about if you want but I find it difficult to differentiate from that verse alone. I will say that the Last Supper has it’s origin’s, it’s foreshadowing in the OT with the Passover. If I recall correctly, every Jewish houeshold observed, commemorated the Passover in their home, without the priests .By itself the Gospels depiction of the Last Supper do not hint that it should be any different for us They do not show that only a priest could do so in remembrance. As far as the 7 sacraments that is a whole other issue.

Yes, in the OT as well as the NT the whole family commemorated the Passover but not everyone presided. Same too in the Mass we all commemorate Jesus but we all do not preside either. Not all of jesus’ disciples were present in that upper room at the time of the institution of the Eucharist. Just the apostles and one of them left. And at that Last Supper not everyone presided but only Jesus. As for what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:9 here it is:

" But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." 1 Peter 2:9 RSV

Notice Peter does not say, “you are a priest” He speaks in terms of plurality of race, priesthood and nation. Peter does not individualize his words. What in fact he is doing is saying that the christians were the new Jews. They were the new chosen people for these terms, “…a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…” were applied to the Israelites to indicate they were set apart from the gentiles. So too the christian is set apart from the pagan.

 

[steve_b]

Abu, I believe the Word of the Lord can be quite precise. We all agree the word St. Peter uses for the word to “priest” in “priesthood” is “priest”. He also states that all believers are this. This is not my ego, nor by my choosing. What all believers are not, and not by my choosing, are “elders” but this is not what St. Pater is talking. Now a priest has many functions and you can cherry pick which functions you discern St.Peter was talking about if you want but I find it difficult to differentiate from that verse alone. I will say that the Last Supper has it’s origin’s, it’s foreshadowing in the OT with the Passover. If I recall correctly, every Jewish houeshold observed, commemorated the Passover in their home, without the priests .By itself the Gospels depiction of the Last Supper do not hint that it should be any different for us They do not show that only a priest could do so in remembrance. As far as the 7 sacraments that is a whole other issue.

Poco,

The NT was written by Catholics for Catholics in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church collected her books and canonized them into what we call the bible. The Catholic Church is the only official interpreter of her own book.

 

[ezeekl]

Abu, I believe the Word of the Lord can be quite precise. We all agree the word St. Peter uses for the word to “priest” in “priesthood” is “priest”. He also states that all believers are this. This is not my ego, nor by my choosing. What all believers are not, and not by my choosing, are “elders” but this is not what St. Pater is talking. Now a priest has many functions and you can cherry pick which functions you discern St.Peter was talking about if you want but I find it difficult to differentiate from that verse alone. I will say that the Last Supper has it’s origin’s, it’s foreshadowing in the OT with the Passover. If I recall correctly, every Jewish houeshold observed, commemorated the Passover in their home, without the priests .By itself the Gospels depiction of the Last Supper do not hint that it should be any different for us They do not show that only a priest could do so in remembrance. As far as the 7 sacraments that is a whole other issue.

But the word Peter uses for priesthood is the Greek word, herateuma which is derived from the Greek word for priest, hiereus, Hiereus is used for Jewish priests other than the high priest. The Greek word used for high priest is archiereus. This is not the same as the word for priest of the christian church which was presbuteros. This word was carried into the Latin as *presbyter * Then into German as proest and finally into English as priest. Check with Merriam & Websters online dictionary for the etymology of the woird priest. So Peter’s intent here is obviously not what you want it to be. The use of the same English word for both hiereus and presbuteros creates the confusion that the two words are interchangeable. They are not.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I will say that the Last Supper has it’s origin’s, it’s foreshadowing in the OT with the Passover. If I recall correctly, every Jewish houeshold observed, commemorated the Passover in their home, without the priests .

You recall incorrectly.

The Passover Lamb had to be sacrificed in the Temple, and then brought home for the feast.

They do not show that only a priest could do so in remembrance.

You need to read the scriptures carefully, and take note to whom Jesus addressed those words.

And, it would serve you well to read the Early Church Fathers on this issue as well.

 

[pocohombre]

But the word Peter uses for priesthood is the Greek word, herateuma which is derived from the Greek word for priest, hiereus, Hiereus is used for Jewish priests other than the high priest. The Greek word used for high priest is archiereus. This is not the same as the word for priest of the christian church which was presbuteros. This word was carried into the Latin as *presbyter * Then into German as proest and finally into English as priest. Check with Merriam & Websters online dictionary for the etymology of the woird priest. So Peter’s intent here is obviously not what you want it to be. The use of the same English word for both hiereus and presbuteros creates the confusion that the two words are interchangeable. They are not.

ummm, that is my point. Peter says we are priests (heirus). As far as offices, the word is presbyter. It is not about Peter’s intent, it is about his words. They speak for themselves. Again we are all priests (heirus) but not all presbyters. The CC and you guys state we are all priests (heirus), just that there is an ordained class of priests (presbyter), apart from the rest of us "lay"priests. Peter uses the "classical’ sense of the word priest as one who is holy ,set apart , to reconcile sinners to God, to offer spiritual sacrifices, sacrifices of praise. It is all there in “your” Catholic scripture. Hopefully we all agree now.

 

[Abu]

pocohombre #134
We are all priests and have full access
#147
So we are not His disciples and can not officiate a mass ?
#156
I guess St.Peter goofed when he said we are a royal priesthood
#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

Those are the delusions.

The first purely human priests of the New Covenant were the Apostles, whose priesthood was conferred at the Last Supper, which was the First Mass. You will understand Christ’s institution of the priesthood at the Last Supper only when you understand that as only the Apostles could confer the priesthood established by Christ, no other men can be real priests without that sacrament from Christ through His Apostles.

Pocohombre #199
Hopefully we all agree now.

As you are still deluded – No!

Precisely because there is no priesthood (Holy Orders) to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Holy Eucharist); no sacraments of Penance (Reconciliation), Confirmation, and the Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction).