Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Snow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RebeccaJ said:
What makes you believe the Church in Jerusalem was the most important?
Click to expand...
Jerusalem WAS the most important of the early churches until persecutions forced Christians to disperse. And, of course, after the complete conquest and destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem could not be any kind of center for anything: even Judaism.
 
Snow said:
I am familiar, somewhat, with the apologetic interpretation of Peter and primacy. I don’t find it convincing.

Are you familiar, not with the apologetic, but the scholarly take on it?

Of Peter:

“The terms primacy and jurisdiction are best avoided when describing Peter’s role in the New Testament. They reflect a post-biblical development.”

“Whether he actually served the church of Rome as Bishop cannot be know though the evidence at hand, And from the New Testament record alone we have no basis for positing a line of succession from Peter though subsequent bishops of Rome.”

“No single texts or series of texts “proves” proves the primacy of Peter in the New Testament, not even the classic texts: Matthew 16:13-19, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19”

Richard P.McBrien, Catholicism (classic text in Catholic universities) 1980, Winston Press p. 831

Father McBrien is the rowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame and past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America and was the awarded the John Courtney Murray Award for outstanding and distinguished accomplishments in theology.
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact that Fr. Mc’Brien enjoys a reputation for dissident ecclesiology, it should come as no surprise to anybody that the fullly developed understanding of papal (as opposed to Petrine) primacy is “post-biblical.” How could it be anything else?

The full-blown theology of the Holy Trinity is also “post-biblical.”

Fr. McBrien clearly states here that he is focusing on “the New Testament record alone.” (emphasis added) There IS NT evidence, of course, and it is strong. There IS external evidence that is also very strong.

McBrien is applying the limits of his scholarly discipline: historical interpretation. By that standard, none of us would accept the Resurrection.

The fact that a fully developed statement on Papal primacy is not spelled out to the dot and tittle in the New Testament is not a problem, given the strong scriptural support for it… That is how the Church grows in her thinking; we come to richer understanding as time and vicissitudes bash up against the faith. Therefore, we place our confidence in Our Lord’s words to the Eleven: “I am with you always to the close of the age.” (Mt 28)

Petrine primacy goes directly to the Great Commission in Mt. 28. Christ gives the eleven His authority to teach. Moreover, the scriptural anchors for Petrine primacy are unassailable to the dispassionate reader.
 
mercygate said:
But it didn’t stick. They are never referred to as “Boanerges” – and that name really is to their father.
Click to expand...
It stuck enough to be mentioned when the Gospels were written. This is just to point out the name thing is a non-issue, and proves nothing.
 
mercygate said:
Jerusalem WAS the most important of the early churches until persecutions forced Christians to disperse. And, of course, after the complete conquest and destruction of the Temple, Jerusalem could not be any kind of center for anything: even Judaism.
Click to expand...
So then the always unanswered million dollar question is: Why was James the head at Jerusalem and NOT Peter?
 
Snow said:
LWhat I am asking for is actually historical information, not tradition, that, for example: Linus, Cletus and Evaristus were actually Popes - monoepiscopal bishops of Rome with primacy over all other bishops.
Click to expand...
I had a debate on this very subject on another forum. I supported Roman primacy. I have much historical information in that debate for you. I am “MrPolo” in that thread. Link here. Pay special attention to the appeals made to the Roman bishop throughout the world, the Scriptural evidence, and the continued recognition of Roman primacy throughout the centuries. This doctrine did develop more clearly, but is evident from the first, as stated.
 
avenger said:
So then the always unanswered million dollar question is: Why was James the head at Jerusalem and NOT Peter?
Click to expand...
Was he? Was the headship at Jerusalem so hard-and-fast? The point is that the Church was centered at Jerusalem and Peter was there: Not WITHOUT Peter.
 
mercygate said:
Was he? Was the headship at Jerusalem so hard-and-fast? The point is that the Church was centered at Jerusalem and Peter was there: Not WITHOUT Peter.
Click to expand...
According to Acts, so were other Apostles there. Was he? That is just an avoidance question of the real issue as portrayed in Acts a,d Pauline epistles. You cannot refute James was the head of the church at Jerusalem, it just seems obvious you can not explain why it was him and not Peter. This is a question that has yet to be answered here or by any Catholic I have asked.
 
avenger said:
According to Acts, so were other Apostles there. Was he? That is just an avoidance question of the real issue as portrayed in Acts a,d Pauline epistles. You cannot refute James was the head of the church at Jerusalem, it just seems obvious you can not explain why it was him and not Peter. This is a question that has yet to be answered here or by any Catholic I have asked.
Click to expand...
No Catholic ever denies that Tradition ascribes the headship of the Church at Jerusalem to James. Yet Catholics will see Peter’s role in the Jerusalem council was absolutely central (not WITHOUT Peter). The “real” issue must include the Gospels as well as Acts & the Pauline Epistles. The Gospel warrant for the centrality of Peter in the Apostolic fellowship and for his role later is clear. “Strengthen your brethren.”
 
mercygate said:
No Catholic ever denies that Tradition ascribes the headship of the Church at Jerusalem to James. Yet Catholics will see Peter’s role in the Jerusalem council was absolutely central (not WITHOUT Peter). The “real” issue must include the Gospels as well as Acts & the Pauline Epistles. The Gospel warrant for the centrality of Peter in the Apostolic fellowship and for his role later is clear. “Strengthen your brethren.”
Click to expand...
I know Catholics see that, but Scripture does not support that interpretation.
 
avenger said:
I know Catholics see that, but Scripture does not support that interpretation.
Click to expand...
We “see” it because it is there.

At the very least, Scripture supports the unity of the Apostolic Churches and their communion with one another. That means “not *without *Peter.” Even if one chooses to reject Petrine primacy, it is impossible to reject the Apostolic unity of the Church, and Scripture is utterly clear that Peter is the centerpiece upon which Jesus promises to build His Church.
 
mercygate said:
We “see” it because it is there.

At the very least, Scripture supports the unity of the Apostolic Churches and their communion with one another. That means “not *without *Peter.” Even if one chooses to reject Petrine primacy, it is impossible to reject the Apostolic unity of the Church, and Scripture is utterly clear that Peter is the centerpiece upon which Jesus promises to build His Church.
Click to expand...
I disagree…but I respect your belief.
 
ryanoneil said:
Here is an article on the topic of Peter versus James at the Council of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...
Well, some disagreement I have with the article…

In the matter of silence, it is not for Peter, but rather: Act 15:12 ThenG1161 allG3956 theG3588 multitudeG4128 kept silence,G4601 andG2532 gave audienceG191 to BarnabasG921 andG2532 Paul,G3972 declaringG1834 whatG3745 miraclesG4592 andG2532 wondersG5059 GodG2316 had wroughtG4160 amongG1722 theG3588 GentilesG1484 byG1223 them.G846
SO we see it was for Barnabas and Paul speaking.

As far as the Greek word for judgement in relation to James’ proclamation:

ego krino : ego meaning I, krino meaning decide or ordain…this has MUCH more force and implication than a mere personal opinion, which the article implies. It is clearly from only a Catholic point of view, but not convincing.
 
The assembly kept silence because Peter stops the debate with a decisive pronouncement. In verse 11 Peter uses the words “we believe”, because he is speaking as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church. He is formulating a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation.

Then Barnabas and Paul affirm what Peter is saying. When James takes the floor he lends scriptural support to Peter’s decision and then sets forth a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in a mixed Jewish-Gentile community.
 
ryanoneil said:
The assembly kept silence because Peter stops the debate with a decisive pronouncement. In verse 11 Peter uses the words “we believe”, because he is speaking as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church. He is formulating a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation.

Then Barnabas and Paul affirm what Peter is saying. When James takes the floor he lends scriptural support to Peter’s decision and then sets forth a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in a mixed Jewish-Gentile community.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that does not follow the writing at all.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Gabriel;
Ok, I am going to buy in this little gammet your drawing. What is it that Father McBrien has got you so convinced that the quotes from Jesus and the old testament prophets deny Jesus building his kingdom upon Peter? Can you make sure these are facts that disprove Jesus teachings, and not opinions. Because if this is true, maybe we should make you and Father McBrien Pope?
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Why should Dr. McBrien be made pope?

What I find compelling is that he is a top-notch theologian. He understands history and scriptures. He doesn’t put credence in dime-store apologetics.

You assertion that “there are facts” that supposedly disprove Jesus teachings is nonsense. I accept everything Jesus taught, as I assume McBrien does. I just reject YOUR INTERPRETATION of what Jesus taught.
Gabriel:
Honestly, Neither? nor should you. Place your trust in Jesus first. then if the former agrees with the teachings of Jesus, then I will give heed to his interpretation. If it conflicts with the teachings of Jesus, R.U. N.N O.F.T.
Click to expand...
I don’t need to be lectured on accepting Jesus’ teachings. I do. I just reject your spin on Jesus teachings. You asserting that your interpretation is the exact same thing as the actual teaching is not intellectually honest.

I too have interpretations. We all do. I am just honest enough to admit it.
I can appreciate your insults and candor, but your focus statements appears to me, that the topic is to dangerous for you to handle, or your just not getting it. never the less good night.🙂
Click to expand...
Peace be with you
Click to expand...
Passive-aggressive taunt… not very effective.

PS, if you would kindly use the quote function appropriately it would make your posts easier to follow.
 
mercygate said:
Aside from the fact that Fr. Mc’Brien enjoys a reputation for dissident ecclesiology, it should come as no surprise to anybody that the fullly developed understanding of papal (as opposed to Petrine) primacy is “post-biblical.” How could it be anything else?

The full-blown theology of the Holy Trinity is also “post-biblical.”

Fr. McBrien clearly states here that he is focusing on “the New Testament record alone.” (emphasis added) There IS NT evidence, of course, and it is strong. There IS external evidence that is also very strong.

McBrien is applying the limits of his scholarly discipline: historical interpretation. By that standard, none of us would accept the Resurrection.

The fact that a fully developed statement on Papal primacy is not spelled out to the dot and tittle in the New Testament is not a problem, given the strong scriptural support for it… That is how the Church grows in her thinking; we come to richer understanding as time and vicissitudes bash up against the faith. Therefore, we place our confidence in Our Lord’s words to the Eleven: “I am with you always to the close of the age.” (Mt 28)

Petrine primacy goes directly to the Great Commission in Mt. 28. Christ gives the eleven His authority to teach. Moreover, the scriptural anchors for Petrine primacy are unassailable to the dispassionate reader.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BDawg said:
The truth is that it isn’t clear one way or the other in Acts. On the other hand, it is clear that Jesus singled out Peter, for some reason.
Click to expand...
It is “clear” on one verse in ONE out of four Gospels…far from compelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top