Papal Supremacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jacob50
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Nine_Two said:
The reality is we don’t believe in Communion by degrees. I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church doesn’t either. It is an all or nothing proposition.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s right. Just consider intercommunion between the RCC and the ACoE.
 
Art321 said:
I see and understand your position. In any case, I shared my view in post 172 in which I said that there may never truly be a reunion. But in any case, we must hope that there will be one in the future, even if it takes centuries.
Click to expand...
I quite agree that we should be hopeful. But one thing I’ve noticed a lot, and possibly you have as well, is that some Catholics will downplay or minimize the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but will maximize the differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.
 
Peter_J said:
I quite agree that we should be hopeful. But one thing I’ve noticed a lot, and possibly you have as well, is that some Catholics will downplay or minimize the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but will maximize the differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.
Click to expand...
Legitimate Sacraments, apostolic succession. Even besides this, the Catholics are MUCH closer to the Orthodox than Lutherans or Anglicans… Part of this also may be that union with the Orthodox is a little more realistic than with any protestant group.
 
There are no clouds of mistrust between our two churches. If we continue like that, God will find a way to overcome all the difficulties that remain.
  • Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon, September 2010, following the 12th Plenary Session of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church
Click to expand...
full interview and article (Reuters): Catholics and Orthodox report promising progress in latest round of unity talks (24 Sept 2010)
 
Peter_J said:
I quite agree that we should be hopeful. But one thing I’ve noticed a lot, and possibly you have as well, is that some Catholics will downplay or minimize the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but will maximize the differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have seen that. I was one of them myself unfortunately. But the post above this one mentions, things are getting better.👍
 
Art321 said:
Let us hope it continues in this direction!🙂
Click to expand...
In fairness, the more difficult subjects are yet to come, like the role of the Papacy in a reunified Apostolic Church, but both sides seem to be working commitedly toward an understanding that will allow further progress.
 
Art321 said:
But the post above this one mentions, things are getting better.👍
Click to expand...
Yes, especially in the last 50 years. But also keep in mind that, as steve b pointed out, such efforts have been going on for centuries.
 
Art321 said:
Yes, I have seen that. I was one of them myself unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I was too. I can remember quite well how, a number of years ago, I thought that the reunion of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church was bound to happen just as soon as people started being a little more ecumenical-minded about it (and maybe a little less juvenile), whereas ecumenism toward Anglicanism, Lutheranism, etc was just a waste of effort.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
In fairness, the more difficult subjects are yet to come, like the role of the Papacy in a reunified Apostolic Church, but both sides seem to be working commitedly toward an understanding that will allow further progress.
Click to expand...
See! There is hope and I don’t think it is wrong to be at least a bit optimistic!😉
 
Peter_J said:
Yes, especially in the last 50 years. But also keep in mind that, as steve b pointed, such efforts have been going on for centuries.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand. I still think we should be a bit more optimistic about it but in the end you do have to be realistic about it as well.
 
Nine_Two said:
Originally Posted by Peter J
I don’t think that’s right. Just consider intercommunion between the RCC and the ACoE.
Click to expand...
I think it’s stranger when Catholics say that Orthodox ideas that the pope isn’t head of the whole church, or that Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived, are “valid and holy”.
Click to expand...
 
Peter_J said:
I think it’s stranger when Catholics say that Orthodox ideas that the pope isn’t head of the whole church, or that Mary wasn’t immaculately conceived, are “valid and holy”.
Click to expand...
In light of Catholic dogma, I agree.
 
Nine_Two said:
That doesn’t make any sense in the context.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense… please explain how it doesn’t make sense.
Nine_Two said:
Schism is schism, no matter how short lived. By following the impulses of someone other than his pastor, I would say that Peter did go into schism, even if it was only briefly - as he accepted correction both times. I would not label him a schismatic because it was so quickly repaired, nonetheless, it happened.
I don’t think Peter not understanding is defense against schism. Most schismatics, of any form, are quite sincere, and don’t know what they are doing.
Click to expand...
You said it yourself, he accepted correction. If he accepted correction, we can’t label him as a schismatic. On one hand you said he went into schism even if briefly. On the other you say you wouldn’t label him as a schismatic because he was quickly repaired. One thing is for instance saying a heresy (which for example happens sometimes even among Catholics), the other is formally being a heretic. Peter cannot be labeled formally as a schismatic, I think we can agree on this based on your last reply.

Whether or not he went into schism or not even if briefly, because of denying Christ, If I was to apply your logic (denying Christ = Schism) then all of us have been in schism with Christ at least once in our life time. We all have denied Christ at least in a particular situation in our life. If we also apply your logic, then all the apostles went into schism when they abandoned Christ (Matt 26:56) which is equally bad to do, and yes it is a way of denying him. You don’t need to be questioned to deny him. One’s acts themselves can deny him. In fact the only reason Peter was questioned if he knew Jesus or not and afterwards denied him, was because Peter kept following Christ at distance when he was arrested (Matt 26:58). The others, probably didn’t even followed him (or at least the scriptures don’t suggest that they did). But I have now doubt that should they have followed him also, they would have denied him too. Now, I must repeat myself. Even if Peter denied Christ, this situation doesn’t end there. He commanded him to Feed his sheep/lamb afterwards. And Jesus told him that after his fall (denials), to strengthen his brethren.
Nine_Two said:
Absolutely, he was talking to Peter in these things. He prayed for Peter, and no others (well, I assume he did pray for the others, but yes, that specific prayer was for Peter). I don’t think that can be translated into insurance for the papacy though.
Click to expand...
Since we can agree as you have stated, that such prayer was particularly for Peter and no others, What significance do you find in this? You said this doesn’t support papacy. Well if it doesn’t,…Then why pray for Peter only and not the rest? I mean he was speaking to all the apostles a few verses before. Christ didn’t take Peter with him apart. All the apostles were listening to Jesus. Yet Jesus said to Peter “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” A few verses later he speaks to all the apostles again. All the apostles heard what Jesus told Peter.

With this keep in mind I don’t mean to say that Christ never prayed for his disciples. Knowing he prayed even for those who crucified him (Luke 23:34) im sure he prayed for all of his disciples. Were just speaking about that particular verse in which Satan demanded to sift all of them like wheat, which I would say is no small thing. But Christ chooses to pray for Peter here only. I’m just asking, why?
 
Jacob50 said:
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense… please explain how it doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
Peter failed, therefore he was granted headship for the sole purpose of establishing a visible leader. It just doesn’t make sense.
You said it yourself, he accepted correction. If he accepted correction, we can’t label him as a schismatic. On one hand you said he went into schism even if briefly. On the other you say you wouldn’t label him as a schismatic because he was quickly repaired. One thing is for instance saying a heresy (which for example happens sometimes even among Catholics), the other is formally being a heretic. Peter cannot be labeled formally as a schismatic, I think we can agree on this based on your last reply.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t label him a schismatic, because he was most certainly in union with Christ when he died, as well as for a considerable time after his death. However it goes to show that even one appointed directly by Christ to a pastoral role, can fail.
Whether or not he went into schism or not even if briefly, because of denying Christ, If I was to apply your logic (denying Christ = Schism) then all of us have been in schism with Christ at least once in our life time. We all have denied Christ at least in a particular situation in our life. If we also apply your logic, then all the apostles went into schism when they abandoned Christ (Matt 26:56) which is equally bad to do, and yes it is a way of denying him. You don’t need to be questioned to deny him. One’s acts themselves can deny him. In fact the only reason Peter was questioned if he knew Jesus or not and afterwards denied him, was because Peter kept following Christ at distance when he was arrested (Matt 26:58). The others, probably didn’t even followed him (or at least the scriptures don’t suggest that they did). But I have now doubt that should they have followed him also, they would have denied him too. Now, I must repeat myself. Even if Peter denied Christ, this situation doesn’t end there. He commanded him to Feed his sheep/lamb afterwards. And Jesus told him that after his fall (denials), to strengthen his brethren.
Click to expand...
I don’t really have any argument with anything you said here, either from your conclusions regarding what I said, or what you added. I would say that the other apostles abandoned him (that being a failure), whereas Peter denied him three times (three failings), thereby requiring the triple restoration.

But as Cavaradossi commented, that is very likely going into the realm of eisegesis on my part.
Since we can agree as you have stated, that such prayer was particularly for Peter and no others, What significance do you find in this? You said this doesn’t support papacy. Well if it doesn’t,…Then why pray for Peter only and not the rest? I mean he was speaking to all the apostles a few verses before. Christ didn’t take Peter with him apart. All the apostles were listening to Jesus. Yet Jesus said to Peter “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.” A few verses later he speaks to all the apostles again. All the apostles heard what Jesus told Peter.
Click to expand...
With this keep in mind I don’t mean to say that Christ never prayed for his disciples. Knowing he prayed even for those who crucified him (Luke 23:34) im sure he prayed for all of his disciples. Were just speaking about that particular verse in which Satan demanded to sift all of them like wheat, which I would say is no small thing. But Christ chooses to pray for Peter here only. I’m just asking, why?
Click to expand...
It tells me that Peter would face more challenges than the other apostles, possibly because he held more potential than the others.

Let us assume for a second Peter has no primacy (we both disagree with this, obviously), we’ll pretend anything that gives direct evidence toward primacy doesn’t exist. We’ll also pretend tradition doesn’t exist which says he has a primacy.
In spite of this, Peter is still one of, if not the, highest profile apostles.
He was a talented individual, and because of his huge potential, he would have easily become a target.
That, above all else, is why Christ prayed for him like that.
It is also why Christ did give him the primacy. He was simply a natural leader.

edit: Please note, I’m writing this at midnight just before going to bed. If part doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, that is why.😊
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top