Continued Jon…
Quote:
Jon, do you think, that maybe, Jesus provided the metaphorical chair of authority in the old covenant, (in spite of the various hypocrites who metaphorically sat in it) - for a reason? If so, then it just makes sense that Jesus would follow the same paradigm, regarding His new covenant - maybe? It was never the residing person, regardless of the covenant, that could be unilaterally trusted to speak infallibly; it was always God speaking infallibly through that particular position, that could be trusted, and I think that is why Jesus said, “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.”
But Joe, in the early Church, the trust was vested in the councils.
Of course… I just assumed that you and I were in agreement on that fact.
Today, for example, (or in the past) - the bishop of Rome would never declare anything dogmatic without convoking with council, as was the case with the Immaculate conception. Those councils vested with truth, declared error free doctrine, and if the holy spirit is still guiding Jesus’ church built on Kepha, into all truth, regardless of division or schism, then Jesus’ church can continue to declare error free doctrine, logically and biblically speaking. I am not trying to sell you on this point; just trying to be faithful to what I believe to be biblical fact. The Pope, without the express consensus from council, never makes a decision, dogmatically speaking. The Pope is not a one man church when it comes to leadership, like many protestant churches. The pope works in tandem with the body of Cardinals.
Quote:
Jon, ultimately, every church, regardless of denomination, has a key holder and steward of their respective flock, in charge of binding and loosing, and whether they admit it or not, follow the commands of Matthew 16 @ Matthew 18 - right?
They may not view the role of their pastors as acting in Christ’s stead, but in some sense you are probably right.
In my experience, the keys of authority are held by the pastor, (regardless of denomination) - to carry out church discipline, legislation and administration. For me, the question was: which one of these Pastors, (regardless of denomination) - is the rightful recipient of the keys of Peter, which were passed on from generation to generation, to the present day? Who, rightfully holds the key, metaphorically speaking, to Simon’s office, today?
I’ve said before, Joe, were Rome and Orthodoxy to resolve this issue - primacy - to the point of unity, it would resolve all other concerns I have.
Jon, I don’t think that you would leave the Lutheran church if in fact the EOC and the CC finally resolved the issue of primacy, would you? I’m trying not to put words in your mouth.
I started this thread with the idea of at least addressing the possible resolution of the issue of primacy, from a biblical perspective mainly, for the simple fact that most protestants want nothing to do with the history of the EOC or the CC, unless of course, that history can be used to malign and undermine the CC.
I wish more protestants would enlist the aid of church history.
Whether or not Peter identified himself as a “catholic” or a “Christian” - no one knows. The “church” adopted the name “catholic” out of necessity, and according to Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch, who were both disciples of the apostle John - the word catholic was used to identify Jesus’ church by the turn of the 1st century. The word catholic is used to identify Jesus’ church in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century as well.
