Peter was never a bishop of Rome or at Rome, CC does not teach it anymore

[Wisely]

According to scripture, as I was taught it by the Jebbies over 65 years ago, St. Peter was chosen by Christ to be the leader of the Apostles, in the same way as the Pope is the leader of the Bishops.
And, according to contemporary (since Vatican II) teaching if the Bishops are the descendants of the Apostles, the Pope is the descendant of St. Peter.
I do not subscribe to the belief of “First amongst equals”. That is an Eastern Orthodox theologic excuse to justify the Great Schism and dates from the 10th Century.

Yes, Peter was chosen to be leader of the Apostles, in the same way as the Bishop is the leader of the Priests, not the other way. Read some Cyprian.

Weird, because our Bishop of Antioch is also a descendant of St.Peter. He is is first and oldest successor. But that doesn’t mean he gets special powers or else. He is just as equal as the other Bishops.

Eastern Orthodox excuse to justify the GS? Dates from the 10th century? Are you sure?
The Orientals always applied that “title” to their Pope of Alexandria after Chalcedon. Because their First among Equals (Rome) falled in heresy (according to them) and the other bishop following him too (Constantinople). Thats why the First among Equals position rested in the Pope of Alexandria.

Thats why the Orientals (and Easterners) don’t care about “being in communion with the Pope” because it isn’t necessary.

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes, Peter was chosen to be leader of the Apostles, in the same way as the Bishop is the leader of the Priests, not the other way. Read some Cyprian.

Where does St. Cyprian say that St. Peter was to the other Apostles as a Bishop is to his Priests?

Weird, because our Bishop of Antioch is also a descendant of St.Peter. He is is first and oldest successor. But that doesn’t mean he gets special powers or else. He is just as equal as the other Bishops.

Bishops of Antioch have never claimed that special status. As St. Chrysostom says, they happily gave St. Peter up to the Romans.

 

[Marybeloved]

Yes, Peter was chosen to be leader of the Apostles, in the same way as the Bishop is the leader of the Priests, not the other way. Read some Cyprian.

Where does St. Cyprian say that St. Peter was to the other Apostles as a Bishop is to his Priests?

Weird, because our Bishop of Antioch is also a descendant of St.Peter. He is is first and oldest successor. But that doesn’t mean he gets special powers or else. He is just as equal as the other Bishops.

Bishops of Antioch have never claimed that special status. As St. Chrysostom says, they (Antiochians) happily gave St. Peter up to the Romans.

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you think so? I was just stating the facts.
I don’t think any Apostle is superior to another, all of them are equals. But hey, that doesn’t mean they did exactly the same, some did more than others.

7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.

I like your understanding however I will go with Paul…

 

[JustaServant]

Gee, I wonder who that could be.

I was kind of hoping PP would be back, even if temporarily until the mods notice.
Otherwise its just going to another Catholic/Orthodox battle.

 

[JustaServant]

Pick,

Do you believe in being banned?

Do you believe in shunning?

Do you believe in repitition?

Do you believe in history?

Do you believe in being wrong?

Do you accept hope?

Do you believe in Miracles?

Do you believe in magic, in a young girls heart, how the music can free her whenever it starts?

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Despite being one of the Evangelists, John is not the equal of Peter.
Christ did not give John the Keys to the Kingdom; He did to Peter.
In addition, no where is it written that John raised someone from the dead. It is so written about Peter.

Jesus taught the apostles that the greatest among them was the least, and the least among them was the greatest (see: Luke 9:46, Mathew 23:11-12). At least two things are meant by this teaching:

1. That he was teaching them to be humble,charitable towards one another, and treat subordinates as equals or being greater…never assume you are better than anyone, do not seek honor, but serve.
2. That he was teaching them to recognize the hierarchy of the church he was establishing, and that those who were in the highest positions were the servants, and those in the lower positions were the served.

So humbly they are all equal, but hierarchically, Peter was the greatest.

This teaching is found throughout the epistles. You will see instances such as Paul citing Peter as an authority (Galatians), and using that authority to show that he preaches the true gospel, but then you will also see Paul instructing the church that they are all humbly equals, that no one is greater than the other-- that all are called to serve each other.

 

[stewstew03]

So humbly they are all equal, but hierarchically, Peter was the greatest.

Agreed. They are equal - though Peter was clearly given a leadership role.

It’s interesting that Luke writes about this question of “who is the greatest”

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:24-27[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[BenedictFTW]

From the Blogger Priest:

“…The claims of Catholicism are more impressive and clearly reasoned today than ever before. The preaching and teaching Church even preceded the canon of the Bible and the composition of New Testament Scriptures. …(This)… is the surest evidence for the enduring value of Sacred Tradition. (Any) disavowal of such Tradition as a source for revelation betrays an entirely different methodology and starting point. This is why debates are so very difficult because fundamentalists and Catholic Christians are not even on the same page. Catholicism represents genuine and historical Christianity. Protestant fundamentalism is the manifestation of a modern aberration.”

Any claims by Catholic-hating Protestants should be treated as supreme ignorance and patience used in disavowing all of the false teaching within that sect.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Agreed. They are equal - though Peter was clearly given a leadership role.

It’s interesting that Luke writes about this question of “who is the greatest”

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 22:24-27[/BIBLEDRB]

Exactly. He also demonstrates how, even though they will have positions of leadership, that they are not to be like the pharisees and their friends, who took places of honor at tables and acted like they were better than everyone else because they held an office.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 14:8-11[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, Peter was chosen to be leader of the Apostles, in the same way as the Bishop is the leader of the Priests, not the other way. Read some Cyprian.

Weird, because our Bishop of Antioch is also a descendant of St.Peter. He is is first and oldest successor. But that doesn’t mean he gets special powers or else. He is just as equal as the other Bishops.

Eastern Orthodox excuse to justify the GS? Dates from the 10th century? Are you sure?
The Orientals always applied that “title” to their Pope of Alexandria after Chalcedon. Because their First among Equals (Rome) falled in heresy (according to them) and the other bishop following him too (Constantinople). Thats why the First among Equals position rested in the Pope of Alexandria.

Thats why the Orientals (and Easterners) don’t care about “being in communion with the Pope” because it isn’t necessary.

It isn’t necessary? So Orientals and Eastern bishops are not in communion with each other?

 

[KathleenGee]

Skeptic92,

Glad you are here and we look forward to your work.

 

[Wisely]

It isn’t necessary? So Orientals and Eastern bishops are not in communion with each other?

Eastern bishops aren’t in communion with the Orientals

Necessary for Salvation as the RCC has always claimed. Surely the Orientals and the Easterns find that claim “lulzy”

If communion with the Roman Pontiff is truly necessary for Salvation and to be “fully Catholic” NO church would have separated from it. Common sense.

 

[davidmlamb]

nicea,

Irenaeus did not say Peter was the first bishop of Rome. That was not declared until Third century.

He copied 1 Clement saying that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome (which we know is false) But that is not to say Peter was a bishop of Rome.

I stand by my statements and the historians I quoted. Raymond E Brown is generally considered the “dean of NT scholars”

Peace, JohnR

John, I use to make the same flawed arguments you are making now when I was a Protestant. But what I learned is that the ecclesiastical writings of anceint Christians overwhelmingly shows us that Peter was indeed the shepard left in charge of the sheep. He did ultimately become the leader of the Church, and lived and was martyred in Rome. The gospel of John teaches us (John:21-15-18) that Christ ordained Peter to be charged with feeding and caring for God’s sheep. His ministry is to shepard the sheep until Christ returns. This is clearly supported by the historical writings.

Your arguments are typical of PROTESTantism which is inherantly anti-Catholic but they are also baseless.

John John…It is hard for you to kick against the goads. The Bible is teaching the Catholic faith and no other gospel!

Peace,

David

 

[JonathonofOhio]

If communion with the Roman Pontiff is truly necessary for Salvation and to be “fully Catholic” NO church would have separated from it. Common sense.

Jesus is required for salvation, and yet people have and still do reject him all the time. So how is what you said common sense when it actually makes no sense?

That said, we cannot say for certain that people who are not in communion with the Church are not going to heaven, since that is up to God to decide, not us.

 

[Nicea325]

Eastern bishops aren’t in communion with the Orientals

Necessary for Salvation as the RCC has always claimed. Surely the Orientals and the Easterns find that claim “lulzy”

If communion with the Roman Pontiff is truly necessary for Salvation and to be “fully Catholic” NO church would have separated from it. Common sense.

Common sense? What on earth makes you believe every living person has the same amount of common sense? The Devil in HEAVEN rebelled against God…how much common sense did he have?

 

[Marybeloved]

Eastern bishops aren’t in communion with the Orientals

Necessary for Salvation as the RCC has always claimed. Surely the Orientals and the Easterns find that claim “lulzy”

If communion with the Roman Pontiff is truly necessary for Salvation and to be “fully Catholic” NO church would have separated from it. Common sense.

Come on, man, that argument is nonsensical. So then the Eastern Orthodox Communion’s claims to the OHCAC must be utterly false, because if they were true, no one would ever leave it or dare to break communion with it- ever!

 

[guanophore]

What are these keys,** physical keys**??? the keys are knowledge and I do believe more apostles than just St Peter had knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Someone has taught you that the keys given to Peter are “knowledge”, but this is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. This change in the meaning of the keys came about during the Reformation, as a way to rip authority from the successors of the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

I respectfully disagree. No authority was given to Peter that was not given to the other apostles.
I do take all scripture into account. And I do not take it literally meaning I don’t take one verse and run with it.

This is another perspective that came out of the Reformation, developed to deny the authority of the successor of Peter. Only Peter was given the charge to feed and care for the flock. Of course, all the apostles share in this duty, but only to the extent that they are united to Cephas, the Rock.

I am glad you are not willing to build a doctrine on a single verse of scripture. This will help a lot.

 

[guanophore]

Are you suggesting highrigger1 has been banned from this forum? For repeating the views of historians? Have I got this wrong? I hope so.

No, people don’t get banned for that. They get banned for not following the forum rules, and being contentious with the mods. It is more likely that he never came here for Catholic Answers in the first place, and therefore, CAF is not really the right place for him.