Peter being declared pope argument

[Gorgias]

humility…

It’s a good start.

Yes, the Church realizes that it’s not God.

Now… what else? You’re making a distinction between “the church” from “The Catholic Church”. What, in your mind, characterizes the church Jesus founded?

Shouldn’t that be the other way around? The Church’s liturgy came from words of The New Testament that came from words of the followers of Jesus Christ inspired by God, through the Holy Spirit,

No. That’s pretty much the Protestant innovation of the 16th century. The NT didn’t beget the Church and her liturgy. Instead, the liturgy was already being celebrated, and sacraments were already dispensing Christ’s grace, from Pentecost onward. The apostles were already preaching Christ’s message, as He had commanded them to do. The Bible – which was just one means of spreading that message – hadn’t yet been compiled by the Church.

We believe in the Bible because we believe in the authority of the Church, who gives it to us and teaches us that it’s been inspired. Without that authoritative teaching, isn’t the Bible just another collection of good books?

 

[Justin_Mary]

Shouldn’t that be the other way around? The Church’s liturgy came from words of The New Testament…

This is exactly why I asked what did you know about Liturgy.

God inspired a lot more than the Bible. If someone truly loved the Lord & accepted Him as their Lord, wouldn’t they seek all that our Lord gave us?

& it starts with the Church. That is why He humbled Himself & became Man. To establish His Church through which our sins are forgiven.

Everything He did, from the Incarnation to Calvary was to save you by establishing His Church. His Church which He uses to provide you grace through the Sacraments, the Liturgy, the Magesterium. The Bible is a product of the Liturgy & the Magesterium.

All inspired by God.

 

[annad347]

you guys are making no sense… doesn’t liturgy mean a formal for worship or something like that… like basically the rules for how we should worship God. Rules on how to do the Eucharist, how to baptize… how to have service?

So how can you have that before you have God’s word?

God inspired a lot more than the Bible. If someone truly loved the Lord & accepted Him as their Lord, wouldn’t they seek all that our Lord gave us?

yes.

 

[Justin_Mary]

you guys are making no sense… doesn’t liturgy mean a formal for worship or something like that… like basically the rules for how we should worship God. Rules on how to do the Eucharist, how to baptize… how to have service?

The liturgy is the procedure, the prayers, the rubrics.

The Churches set up by the Apostles were instructed on which readings to read, which Gospel to preach, which prayers to pray, what instruments to use… so yes, the Apostles instructed the Churches how to worship God.

Of course the Old Testament was read. But so were several Gospels & several epistles. Things were getting out of hand. & there were many erroneous teachings.

This prompted the Church, by the Grace of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to declare which epistles & gospels were inspired & suitable for liturgy & catechesis. It is those books that make up the New Testament & used in our Liturgy every since.

The Church inspired by God to do what Jesus formed her to do.

 

[Gorgias]

you guys are making no sense… doesn’t liturgy mean a formal for worship or something like that… like basically the rules for how we should worship God. Rules on how to do the Eucharist, how to baptize… how to have service?

So how can you have that before you have God’s word?

“God’s Word” lived among us before we had the Bible. He gave us the sacraments. We celebrated them before His teachings were ever written down.

So… Jesus taught us how to baptize, and how to celebrate the Eucharist, and Jesus commanded the apostles to preach the faith… far earlier than the New Testament was ever written down. So… do we ground our faith in Jesus’ teaching, or in a transcription of some of it that was written down decades later?

So how can you have that before you have God’s word?

The Church already had God’s word… well before some of it was written down!

(BTW… does the Bible give liturgical instruction? If not – and it doesn’t! – then liturgical instruction comes from an authority that, while extra-Biblical, is still authoritative, right?)

 

[annad347]

you guys are saying the same thing I’m saying… just using bigger words… and a better spell checker.

 

[Justin_Mary]

you guys are saying the same thing I’m saying… just using bigger words… and a better spell checker.

Kinda.

The liturgy is more than the instructions. It the actual readings & prayers as well.

When I say the bible comes from the liturgy what I mean is that parts of the letters of the Apostles were read in the early churches before they were part of the bible. There was no New Testament for 300 years after Christ’s resurrection.

 

[Gorgias]

you guys are saying the same thing I’m saying… just using bigger words… and a better spell checker.

LOL!

I would disagree, though. There’s something that’s somewhat substantially different, I suspect, in what you’re saying.

Unless I’m mistaken, you’re saying “Bible first… then ‘tradition’ of men”… right?

 

[annad347]

… There was no New Testament for 300 years after Christ’s resurrection.

It was put together, organized and authenticated…into The New Testament 300 years later but it’s still from the letters, writing and teaching of the apostles which was inspired by The Holy Spirit given to them by Jesus.

Thw New Testament wasnt something made up then created 300 years later, the words existed with Jesus given to the apostles.

Unless I’m mistaken, you’re saying “Bible first… then ‘tradition’ of men”… right?

Kinda sort of yea… if you think about it… cause the bible is composed of the writings, teaching, prayers from the apostles. It wasnt something made… it was created by the writings of the apostles… so the bible was created the moment they started preaching, teaching, writing… they just didnt know it.

Traditions I guess that’s depends on which ones you’re talking about as too which came first.

Either case nothing came before Jesus.

 

[adf417]

It was put together, organized and authenticated…into The New Testament 300 years later but it’s still from the letters, writing and teaching of the apostles which was inspired by The Holy Spirit given to them by Jesus.

Thw New Testament wasnt something made up then created 300 years later, the words existed with Jesus given to the apostles.

Hi annad347
Yes and no!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Yes the writings existed but as you can see from this chart i made the church didn’t recognize them. From early on these writings and many others were being used in the church liturgies through the world and as you can see the qty of books was growing. There was only one church father, Athanasius, who had the correct listing of NT books. All others had different lists and considered theirs to be the correct list. Things were getting out of hand and the church had to put a stop to the growth and make the declaration which books were and were not inspired. Without the declaration of the canon by the church the list would most likely have grown even more.

Peace!!!

 

[annad347]

Thank God for those trying to jump on the Jesus bandwagon after His death or the apostles might never have seen a need to write anything down.

Either way the writing is where the liturgy came from so that’s why I said it came first… but you’d say it came from word of mouth.

 

[adf417]

Either way the writing is where the liturgy came from so that’s why I said it came first… but you’d say it came from word of mouth.

Since the writings were not complete till around 100AD are you saying the liturgy didn’t begin till then?

Peace!!!

 

[ziapueblo]

No, but He did give Peter “the keys to the kingdom”, which is a reference to the position of the king’s “governor of the palace” (or, in modern terms, I’ve heard folks attempt to describe it as his “prime minister”).

The “keys” have to do with the authority to bind and loose which all the Apostles where given, therefore, all the Apostles where given the “keys” because they were all given the authority to bind and loose.

Now, this is not to say that Peter did not have a special place among the apostles, it is obvious that he did.

The actual titles “pope” and “bishop” came much later.

And the Pope of Rome is not the only one with that title. There is also the Coptic Pope of Alexandria.

ZP

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Not necessarily. If you read the passage and the passage the Lord Jesus is obviously drawing from, Isaiah 22:22, the keys aren’t merely about authority to bind and loose. They are what the Prophet Isaiah spoke of in chapter 22. It is about being the Steward of the House of God, as Eliakim was the Steward of the Kingdom of Judah. The Key represents authority over all the House of God, not just to bind and loose. No other Apostle is given the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Only St. Peter is. And when combined with John 21, where the Lord Jesus three times tells St. Peter to Feed his sheep, referring to St. Peter as being the Shepherd of the Flock of God, not just of one local church but the whole Church. To no other Apostle does the Lord Jesus give these special honors to. Only St. Peter does the Lord give these honors, clearly showing a superiority to the other Apostles as the Chief Apostle, the Head of the Apostles, the Shepherd of the Church. And the Jerusalem council proves this beyond a doubt in Act 15. Who is it that settles and starts the declaration in the Council? It is St. Peter. He is the one who says that gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be saved. The issue was settled.

God Bless!

 

[ziapueblo]

This is not the historical context of Isaiah 22, also, to say that Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 have some sort of correlation is a brand new discovery, Dr. Scott Hahn to be exact. The Fathers is the Church often mention the keys belong not to just one man. Some of them the Latin Fathers to be exact (Sts Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome for example).

Again, I am not taking away St Peter’s Primacy among the Apostles.

ZP

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Definitely not true about Isaiah 22 being recently discovered by Scott Hahn. While he found the parallel, the Church beat him to it in it lectionary. Here is the link for the lectionary : usccb.org/bible/readings/082414.cfm
also take a look at this CAF post : Isaiah 22 and Matt 16: Is Scott Hahn the first person in the history of the Church to draw a parallel? - #7 by PRmerger
And I would ask, what are you referring to when you say “that is not the historical context of Isaiah 22”? I’m not saying that St. Peter is exactly the same as Eliakim, but that Isaiah 22 is a typology of what St. Peter would be as fulfilled in Matthew 16. And of course with the Lord Jesus being the Word and God, He would know exactly that His language He is using parallels Isaiah 22, for the Lord was the One Who said those word in Isaiah 22. I think to ignore the similarities, and that the Lord does nothing and say nothing without a reason, is dangerous.
And then, just because some Church Fathers said that the other Apostles may have held the keys is no case that it is absolutely true. The Church as she grew with the Apostolic Tradition understood these things better as time went by and dogmatically defined these things. And of course there is the unanswered point that while the other Apostles are said to bind and loose as St. Peter is, none are said to have the Keys that St. Peter has in Sacred Scripture.

God Bless

 

[Justin_Mary]

The “keys” have to do with the authority to bind and loose which all the Apostles where given, therefore, all the Apostles where given the “keys” because they were all given the authority to bind and loose .

Now, this is not to say that Peter did not have a special place among the apostles, it is obvious that he did.

The point of this thread is did Jesus start a physical Church or not. Whether that is the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church is beside the point. The OP is pushing a Universal Church theory & your argument just muddles this thread (my opinion of course)

 

[ziapueblo]

Cyprian of Carthage, in “On the Unity of the Church” (the longer version), refers to the keys, stating that Peter received them on behalf of the Twelve, and that the bishops, being successors of the twelve, are all heirs of the keys, because the episcopal order is a single, undivided entity. Hence, the power of the keys belongs to ALL bishops, and not merely the bishop of Rome.

And then, just because some Church Fathers said that the other Apostles may have held the keys is no case that it is absolutely true.

Not may have but have:

St. Augustine

“For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received. Hereby, then, is the excellence of Peter set forth that he was an emblem of the Church in its universality and unity, when it was said to him, I give to thee what was given to all. For that ye may know that the Church did receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven hear in another place what the Lord said to all Apostles. “Receive the Holy Ghost,” and then instantly, “whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain they are retained”[St. John xx. 22,23].

St. Jerome

“But you say that the Church is founded on Peter, although the same thing is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon all.”[see: S. Hieron., Adv. Jovin. i. cap. xxvi.; P.L. xxiii. 247].

St. Ambrose

“therefore the Lord gave the Apostles that which was previously part of his own juridical authority. Hear Him saying I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, to thee he says, I will give the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, that you may bind and loose. What he said to peter is said to the Apostles.”[St. Ambrose, Enarratio in Psalm. xxxviii. 37; P.L. xiv. 1037].

ZP

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Again, you ignored my point. Just because some Church Fathers said this does not mean that is the correct teaching. You seem to be thinking that the Church Fathers are infallible. Church Fathers can err on teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

Kinda sort of yea… if you think about it… cause the bible is composed of the writings, teaching, prayers from the apostles. It wasnt something made… it was created by the writings of the apostles… so the bible was created the moment they started preaching, teaching, writing… they just didnt know it.

Hmm… that still seems backward. They didn’t compose the NT “the moment they started preaching”. After all, as we read in John, there was lots that never made it to the Bible, but which was accessible to the apostles. So, they preached it… and only later, a subset of it was included in what would become the Scriptures.

it’s still from the letters, writing and teaching of the apostles which was inspired by The Holy Spirit

Hmm…no, I don’t think that’s right. The teaching wasn’t “inspired by the Holy Spirit”, although the placement in the Scriptures was. The apostles listened to Jesus and then taught based on the authority given them by Him.

Thw New Testament wasnt something made up then created 300 years later, the words existed with Jesus given to the apostles.

The teaching came from Jesus… and was taught through the apostles. In one mode of transmission, it’s written down; in another, it’s taught through preaching. It worked that way 2000 years ago, and continues today!

Yes the writings existed but as you can see from this chart i made the church didn’t recognize them.

Pardon? No. The Church recognized the writings of Paul when he wrote his letters. They were circulated among the local churches, and were read at liturgies. When the Gospels were written down (somewhere around 60AD-100AD), the Church had already been recognizing these narratives in her liturgies – they had been part of the Mass since Pentecost!

Either way the writing is where the liturgy came from so that’s why I said it came first… but you’d say it came from word of mouth.

Umm… no. The liturgy came first. It was there at Pentecost. The “writing down” came much later.

The “keys” have to do with the authority to bind and loose which all the Apostles where given, therefore, all the Apostles where given the “keys” because they were all given the authority to bind and loose .

No. In Matthew 16, when Jesus says “you”, it’s first person. So… “you”, not “ya’ll”. In other words: Peter alone. In Matthew 18, when the discussion is the authority to retain or remove from fellowship, then it becomes “ya’ll”.

to say that Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 have some sort of correlation is a brand new discovery, Dr. Scott Hahn to be exact.

Take a look at your Bible. The cross-reference at Mt 16:19 is Isaiah 22:22. And that far predates Hahn.

ziapueblo:

Hence, the power of the keys belongs to ALL bishops, and not merely the bishop of Rome.

Ahh… but who exercises them?