Paul Did NOT See Peter as Head of the Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomyris
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mystophilus said:
However, in the hypothetical case of God deciding to imbue me with that charism,
Click to expand...
How would God do this?

I find this a common answer among Protestants: “God did it”. Or “It came from God”.

It seems to be an obfuscation, for, as all believers affirm, “Yes, God did it. God, of course, is responsible for everything in the universe.”

The question is: how did God do this?

For example, in answer to the question: where did we get our Bible?
Yes, “it came from God”…but did God use people?

In answer to the question: where do babies come from?
Yes, they “come from God”…but did God use people to bring about this baby?

In answer to the question: where does the charism come from?
Yes, it “comes from God”…but how, exactly, do you believe this happens?
 
Mystophilus said:
Let me get right down to the basic element of this: do I believe that the Anglican, the Lutheran, the Catholic, or the Orthodox Church is inherently any more** holy, upright, spiritual,** or guarded against error than any other church on account of being able to trace a lineage of ordination back to the Apostles? No, I do not.
Click to expand...
As far as the bolded section, you are very Catholic when you say that. The Church does not claim to be holy, upright and spiritual because of apostolic succession.

As far as being guarded against error–well, what do you think about Jesus saying that he would guard His Church and be with it until the end of time? How is it that it can be full of error but also full of Christ?
 
Mystophilus said:
No, it isn’t. The plain historical fact is that we have plenty of references to Rome’s primacy of honour, but its supremacy is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Very interesting citation, but not at all supportive of your position.

Here was a dispute which escalated to the point where Pope Victor excommunicated whole churches.

This displeased a bunch of bishops who rebuked Pope Victor.

Fine.

But notice: none of them argued that he didn’t have the Authority to do what he did. Only that he shouldn’t (again, shouldn’t, not couldn’t) have done it for the sake of peace.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
Very interesting citation, but not at all supportive of your position.

Here was a dispute which escalated to the point where Pope Victor excommunicated whole churches.

This displeased a bunch of bishops who rebuked Pope Victor.

Fine.

But notice: none of them argued that he didn’t have the Authority to do what he did. Only that he shouldn’t (again, shouldn’t, not couldn’t) have done it for the sake of peace.
Click to expand...
Sorry, friend, but they “rebuked” him, as you said, which very precisely demonstrates their denial of his right to do it, as does the Asian churches’ refusal to accept his demands, even to the point of his breaking communion with them.

Think about it this way: how much authority did the Asian churches or the other bishops grant Victor over the Asian churches? None whatsoever.
 
SteveVH said:
And how would God imbue [you] with that charism? IOW, how would one know that you have been imbued? How would you know?
Click to expand...
Since it’s never happened to me, I have no idea how I would know.
 
PRmerger said:
As far as being guarded against error–well, what do you think about Jesus saying that he would guard His Church and be with it until the end of time? How is it that it can be full of error but also full of Christ?
Click to expand...
Where does he say that? Mt 16:18 says that the gates of Hell will not prevail, not that sin will not encroach.
 
Mystophilus said:
Sorry, friend, but they “rebuked” him, as you said, which very precisely demonstrates their denial of his right to do it, as does the Asian churches’ refusal to accept his demands, even to the point of his breaking communion with them.

Think about it this way: how much authority did the Asian churches or the other bishops grant Victor over the Asian churches? None whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Not quite. He excommunicated them and other bishops were angry at this.
But, excommunicate them he did.
 
Mystophilus said:
No, it isn’t all that we have. Indeed, we have the whole history of the Early Church, replete with examples, like this, of bishops of Rome trying to exert authority over the rest of the Church. The very obvious historical fact is that, like Victor, they kept failing.
Click to expand...
How did they fail to exercise their authority? The authority was never in question. The fact that some may protest against their use of such authority in a particular circumstance says nothing of their right to use the authority in the first place.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
Not quite. He excommunicated them and other bishops were angry at this.
But, excommunicate them he did.
Click to expand...
Sure, he broke communion with them, as other bishops broke communion with one another, including with Rome, repeatedly. Look up the Meletian and Acacian schisms for a start.
 
SteveVH said:
How did they fail to exercise their authority? The authority was never in question. The fact that some may protest against their use of such authority in a particular circumstance says nothing of their right to use the authority in the first place.
Click to expand...
They failed to exert authority in that the churches which they attempted to control refused to allow such control. They had no such power, because the East never gave it to them (and Africa sometimes refused to give it, too, especially under Cyprian’s leadership).
 
Mystophilus said:
I don’t follow them. I follow God.
Click to expand...
But you should submit to proper ecclesial authorities, as scripture commands.
Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
So, please don’t dodge the question.
 
Mystophilus said:
Since it’s never happened to me, I have no idea how I would know.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And neither would anyone else. Contrast that with one who has been ordained, through the laying on of hands, in a succession clear back to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ himself.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
But you should submit to proper ecclesial authorities, as scripture commands.
Heb 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
So, please don’t dodge the question.
Click to expand...
I’m not dodging the question: I’m answering it. I don’t follow my priest.

If my priest were to tell me that X was right and Y was wrong, I would not *believe *it merely because she said it, although I would *listen *to it because she said it.
 
Matthew 16:17-19. Who wants to say that Jesus is a liar? Do some of you realize what you are saying when you keep calling into question that which Jesus Christ put into place for your benefit?
 
SteveVH said:
Exactly. And neither would anyone else. Contrast that with one who has been ordained, through the laying on of hands, in a succession clear back to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ himself.
Click to expand...
Sorry, friend, that’s not knowledge: it’s belief. The difference is that the latter is unproven, because there is no physical means of proving the presence of any such metaphysical charism.

As I stated right back at the beginning of all of this, I do not *believe *that Apostolic Succession is necessary. You do. These are possibly some of the reasons why you are Catholic and I’m not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top