Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

[BDawg]

It is “clear” on one verse in ONE out of four Gospels…far from compelling.

I never said the evidence for Peter’s primacy was “compelling.” But one passage where Jesus singles out Simon, names him “Rock” (petros) and then says “on this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys of the kingdom,” seems more convincing than an account of who spoke up at a meeting.

 

[avenger]

I never said the evidence for Peter’s primacy was “compelling.” But one passage where Jesus singles out Simon, names him “Rock” (petros) and then says “on this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys of the kingdom,” seems more convincing than an account of who spoke up at a meeting.

Why? The length of the other account seems to refute the supposed meaning attached to the one verse.

 

[BDawg]

Why? The length of the other account seems to refute the supposed meaning attached to the one verse.

I don’t understand. Are you saying that the LENGTH of the account in Acts seems to refute the usual interpretation of the Matt. 16 passage? I would think the CONTENT either refutes it, or it doesn’t. And it doesn’t.

 

[Matariel]

I don’t understand. Are you saying that the LENGTH of the account in Acts seems to refute the usual interpretation of the Matt. 16 passage? I would think the CONTENT either refutes it, or it doesn’t. And it doesn’t.

Exactly. Since when does the lengthiness of a passage refute another passage? That doesn’t even make proper sense.

 

[mercygate]

Thank you for the post. You raise some valid points.

Yes - McBrien has critics who believe his theology is too liberal - specifically a number of American bishops. His scholarship, however, is solid. Scholars view him, not so much as liberal, but rather as someone who is assiduous in presenting both sides of the issue out of intellectual and scholarly honesty.

Generally speaking, I try to avoid saying things like “Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome” and instead say that they is little or no valid historical evidence that he was… and I am factually correct. Does that mean he wasn’t? Probably but there are things that the historical record simply cannot conclusively prove one way or t’other.

We are speaking the same language. For my :twocents: the “Peter” question is BOTH historical and theological. It is not as if there were NO evidence for the position held by the Church. Her Tradition, for her purposes, DOES carry weight. The evidence for the tradition is at least as convincing as the evidence for the Resurrection. People have no trouble accepting THAT on faith. I accept the Tradition BOTH on faith and based on the evidence of the first two centuries of history that we DO possess.

 

[Snow]

We are speaking the same language. For my :twocents: the “Peter” question is BOTH historical and theological. It is not as if there were NO evidence for the position held by the Church. Her Tradition, for her purposes, DOES carry weight. The evidence for the tradition is at least as convincing as the evidence for the Resurrection. People have no trouble accepting THAT on faith. I accept the Tradition BOTH on faith and based on the evidence of the first two centuries of history that we DO possess.

That’s a very fair position. There is Tradition and you accept it as a matter of faith - if I understood correctly,

What I argue against is when people claim it as demonstrable historical fact, but then can’t demonstrate it.

Not to make thing too difficult here, but there is some historical evidence pointing against the idea of Peter holding monoepiscopal office in Rome, as Christian communities during the time Peter would have been in Rome did not have a monoepiscopal structure but rather a committee of elders (presbyterol). It is not until the 2nd century that we hear from Ignatius that there were churches led by a single bishop.

 

[mercygate]

That’s a very fair position. There is Tradition and you accept it as a matter of faith - if I understood correctly,

What I argue against is when people claim it as demonstrable historical fact, but then can’t demonstrate it.

Not to make thing too difficult here, but there is some historical evidence pointing against the idea of Peter holding monoepiscopal office in Rome, as Christian communities during the time Peter would have been in Rome did not have a monoepiscopal structure but rather a committee of elders (presbyterol). It is not until the 2nd century that we hear from Ignatius that there were churches led by a single bishop.

I absolutely concur with the reasonability of this point.

Detail: I accept the tradition not merely “on faith” but because of the extra-scriptural witness. More than 30 ancient sources refer to Peter’s tenure at Rome.

And keep in mind that “second century” for Ignatius is 107 A.D. – not even a single generation beyond the death of the last Apostle. Also, for Ignatius, evangelized by St. John the Evangelist, the age of ALL living Apostles was within his own lifetime.

In the NT we see churches “headed” by Apostles/apostolic delegates (Timothy) and churches, as addressed by John in is epistles, that seem to have been governed by more than one elder. Is it likely that one of them was head pastor?

Nobody in his right mind would attempt to portray Peter as a triple tiara-wearing Patriarch over the Church Universal. The form of papal governance grew and developed out of necessity as congregations were planted from the central apostolic venues (Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, etc.). Yet, even among many elders, the “chief elder around here” would become central. Peter’s position as one of the Twelve certainly would have given him priority wherever he was. Whatever his primacy was understood (or not understood) to be would also have been enhanced by his martyrdom.

All of the above, in conjunction with the Scriptural warrant, augmented by the extant written witness for episcopal governance and for the centrality of Rome at an early age would support the Roman view of a papacy that stands as the focal point of unity for the Church and as a tie-breaker in the case of disputes: at the very *least. *

 

[Snow]

mercygate,

It is a pleasure talking with you.

You and I may have different beliefs about what the facts mean, but when you state the facts as they really are, it’s hard to argue.

 

[avenger]

Exactly. Since when does the lengthiness of a passage refute another passage? That doesn’t even make proper sense.

It makes sense when you use logic that a Scriptural truth is often one expounded on in length. Building a Papacy on one verse is what dosent make proper sense.

 

[Matariel]

It makes sense when you use logic that a Scriptural truth is often one expounded on in length. Building a Papacy on one verse is what dosent make proper sense.

Please see Mercygate’s post above. The ancient Fathers of the Church also concur with the Church’s position on this.

But, if you are Orthodox, I respect your church, since I respect Holy Orthodoxy, and I do not wish to denigrate your Holy tradition in anyway. The Orthodox churches are very close to the Church in what they believe and on many moral issues.

 

[avenger]

Please see Mercygate’s post above. The ancient Fathers of the Church also concur with the Church’s position on this.

But, if you are Orthodox, I respect your church, since I respect Holy Orthodoxy, and I do not wish to denigrate your Holy tradition in anyway. The Orthodox churches are very close to the Church in what they believe and on many moral issues.

I am not Orthodox, but I respect your belief.

 

[Matariel]

I am not Orthodox, but I respect your belief.

Oh, I checked out your profile, and it’s not annotated. Um, do you mind me asking what kind of Protestant you are? I figured if you’re a member of the Catholic Church or Orthodox churches, you must be a Protestant?

 

[Snow]

Oh, I checked out your profile, and it’s not annotated. Um, do you mind me asking what kind of Protestant you are? I figured if you’re a member of the Catholic Church or Orthodox churches, you must be a Protestant?

A Prostestant? What?

If they let Protestants on this board - what’s next? Mormons?

There ought to be some screening requirements.

 

[Matariel]

A Protestant? What?

If they let Protestants on this board - what’s next? Mormons?

There ought to be some screening requirements.

Orthodox, Protestants, and Quasi-Christian groups (such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) are welcome on the Non-Catholic Religions Subforum, which we are in. They are also allowed on the other subforums, as long as they are only there to learn.

 

[Snow]

Orthodox, Protestants, and Quasi-Christian groups (such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) are welcome on the Non-Catholic Religions Subforum, which we are in. They are also allowed on the other subforums, as long as they are only there to learn.

“Quasi-Christian” groups like Mormons?

I guess you’re a comedian for your day job?

 

[BDawg]

Orthodox, Protestants, and Quasi-Christian groups (such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses) are welcome on the Non-Catholic Religions Subforum, which we are in. They are also allowed on the other subforums, as long as they are only there to learn.

I’m a Mormon, and I’m here both to learn, and to make sure my faith (Mormonism) is represented in an honest and balanced way. Some of the Catholics here are 1) uninformed about Mormonism, but willing to spout off whatever comes to their heads about us, and/or 2) incredibly bigoted towards Mormons.

And therefore, some of the Catholic participants (the bigoted and ignorant ones) get mad at people like me for being here, and make up their own set of forum rules. For instance, Matariel wants us to keep our mouths shut unless we are asking questions. I suggest that anyone who wants to know who is “welcome” here should actually look up the forum rules, which are posted very prominently.

 

[Matariel]

“Quasi-Christian” groups like Mormons?

I guess you’re a comedian for your day job?

Huh? I didn’t know what to call them. I didn’t think they considered themselves Christian? I thought they said that Christians were apostates.

 

[BDawg]

Huh? I didn’t know what to call them. I didn’t think they considered themselves Christian? I thought they said that Christians were apostates.

Yes, we consider ourselves Christians. At various times, Catholics have considered Orthodox and Protestants as “apostates,” and vice versa. Well, we consider other branches of Christianity to be “apostates.” From your point of view, maybe you could call us a “heretical Christian sect,” and it probably wouldn’t offend us.

 

[Snow]

Huh? I didn’t know what to call them. I didn’t think they considered themselves Christian? I thought they said that Christians were apostates.

No, that’s incorrect. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, believe in Christ, accept Him as their Savior and are Christian.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that other Christians are “apostates.” They are Christians trying to follow Christ. They do believe, however, that the church that Christ founded, suffered an apostasy and God’s authority on earth was lost, at least institutionally and then restored in more modern times. That doesn’t make followers of Christ today and yesterday apostates.

 

[Matariel]

No, that’s incorrect. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ, LDS, believe in Christ, accept Him as their Savior and are Christian.

Ok, I respect your belief, you must be Mormon. I used to live in Utah, and we had a Book of Mormon, growing up. My Dad was a Protestant apologist, and had dialogue with Mormons. I’m converting to the Catholic Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ does not believe that other Christians are “apostates.” They are Christians trying to follow Christ. They do believe, however, that the church that Christ founded, suffered an apostasy and God’s authority on earth was lost, at least institutionally and then restored in more modern times. That doesn’t make followers of Christ today and yesterday apostates.

Doesn’t the Mormon Church believe that the Catholic Church is the culmination of that “apostastasy” and that it is the de-railed original Church? If so, where did the Church go wrong and apostasize?