Primacy of Peter unimportant...

[joe370]

If the primacy of Peter is so unimportant a fact, and if it gave him no prerogatives, to be passed on, and no successors then why on earth is it so prominent in the bible?

“But as Peter could not make Jerusalem his see, because Christ made him teacher not of that throne, but of the world, so Antioch could not permanently stand to him in place of the whole world.” Archbishop of Constantinople

 

[Nine_Two]

I disagree that it is prominent, sure the teaching that Peter was leader among the apostles is there, but nothing more.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Joe,
Hope you and yours are well.

If the primacy of Peter is so unimportant a fact, and if it gave him no prerogatives, to be passed on, and no successors then why on earth is it so prominent in the bible?

“But as Peter could not make Jerusalem his see, because Christ made him teacher not of that throne, but of the world, so Antioch could not permanently stand to him in place of the whole world.” Archbishop of Constantinople

I think it would be scripturally and historically inaccurate to downplay the importance of St. Peter in the development and growth of the Church. I don’t think, however, given the practices of the early Church, that his primacy is historically what the Catholic Church has developed it to be. I wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received “infallibility when speaking ex cathedra”?

Jon

 

[StTommyMore]

Hi Joe,
Hope you and yours are well.

I think it would be scripturally and historically inaccurate to downplay the importance of St. Peter in the development and growth of the Church. I don’t think, however, given the practices of the early Church, that his primacy is historically what the Catholic Church has developed it to be. I wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received “infallibility when speaking ex cathedra”?

Jon

St Peter actually made ex cathedra statements in Acts. The first was the delivering of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Remember, up to this point, the Gospel was only delivered to Israel, but by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter extended it to all people.

 

[JonNC]

St Peter actually made ex cathedra statements in Acts. The first was the delivering of the Gospel to the Gentiles. Remember, up to this point, the Gospel was only delivered to Israel, but by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Peter extended it to all people.

That’s an interesting interpretation.

Jon

 

[StTommyMore]

That’s an interesting interpretation.

Jon

I had never really thought about it that way until my professor brought it up in my Ecclesiology class last spring.

 

[JonNC]

I had never really thought about it that way until my professor brought it up in my Ecclesiology class last spring.

Was he/she Catholic or n-C? (Probably a dumb question, huh? )

Jon

 

[StTommyMore]

Was he/she Catholic or n-C? (Probably a dumb question, huh? )

Jon

Catholic, but very ecumenically minded.

 

[Timothy17]

I wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received “infallibility when speaking ex cathedra”?

Jon

Question : How would the Apostles have accepted Papal Infallibility ?

Proposed Answer :

" Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah ! For flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven…"

Seeing as the Apostles are not recorded as making any statements, criticisms, remarks, etc., I imagine we are left to believe the Apostles accepted Jesus’ infallibly declaring those words of Peter to be infallible with a reverent silence.

Pax,
Tim

 

[JonNC]

Question : How would the Apostles have accepted Papal Infallibility ?

Proposed Answer :

" Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah ! For flesh and blood have not revealed this to you, but my Father in Heaven…"

Seeing as the Apostles are not recorded as making any statements, criticisms, remarks, etc., I imagine we are left to believe the Apostles accepted Jesus’ infallibly declaring those words of Peter to be infallible with a reverent silence.

Pax,
Tim

Hi Tim,
Two questions:

1. Is it your belief that this statement by Christ confirms papal infallibility ex cathedra?
2. If so, why was this not recognized by the early councils - the early Church?

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, hoping your days are filled with peace my friend!

JonNC, Joe,
Hope you and yours are well.

I think it would be scripturally and historically inaccurate to downplay the importance of St. Peter in the development and growth of the Church. I don’t think, however, given the practices of the early Church, that his primacy is historically what the Catholic Church has developed it to be. I wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received “infallibility when speaking ex cathedra”?

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Because of Simon’s revelation from God Jesus renames Simon by saying :

And I tell you that you are Peter, (rock) - and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Clearly corruption has been, and will continue to be a part of Jesus’ church built on Simon, renamed kepha (even though Jesus is the divine cornerstone holding the whole thing together) - which again, according to Jesus, was built on Simon renamed rock, (rock is quite apropos in this situation, for rock is solid) - at least on an individual basis, but Jesus still emphatically declared that the gates of hell (our worst enemy) - will never prevail against His church built on Simon, renamed rock. If Jesus, by saying that the gates of hell will not prevail…is not talking about individual apostasy, which doesn’t seem likely given all of the apostasy we have seen in His church built on Simon, renamed rock, due to sin, then perhaps Jesus was talking about the preservation of truth in every generation, until His return, regarding all that He taught, being protected from the gates of hell? That would make sense in light of the biblical fact that the spirit of truth is forever guiding His church into all truth, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat. Logically, nothing else makes any sense to me.

Jesus goes on to say to Simon alone:

…I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."

I too wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received this information? Would James or John or Andrew have said something like: where the heck are my set of keys? LOL…What do you think/believe are the implications of these metaphorical keys of the kingdom of heaven, given to Simon alone? You might have answered this question awhile back, so forgive me if I forgot; l have a lot on my plate as of late.

 

[joe370]

Continued Jon…

Clearly the binding and loosing (opening and shutting) - belongs to all of the apostles and of course their chosen successors, until Jesus’ return. Matthew 16 @ Matthew 18 - However, many believe that this authoritative binding and loosing ended in the apostolic age, which gave way to the bible as the Christians one and only authority, again, ending the age of binding and loosing on the part of those leaders that succeeded the apostles, which is clearly a hypocritical statement, considering all of the binding and loosing that goes on in the myriad protestant churches. I don’t believe it is biblical to believe that it has ended. Today, this binding and loosing exists in every isolated autonomous church, in the world, but I doubt that this was Jesus’ original plan, but like you said, sin has done a real number on Jesus’ mystical Body, the church militant. What are your thoughts regarding what Jesus’ original plan might have been regarding the keys given exclusively to Simon, and the binding and loosing granted to all of His apostles? Do you think that Jesus would have wanted those keys to be passed onto successors, along with the authority to bind and loose?

Jon, I often wondered, as a former non-Catholic, what Simon was suppose to do with those darn metaphorical keys, given to him by God, if he had no one to pass them onto, if in fact the protestant mindset was correct? Did the keys of authority, given to Simon, only apply to Simon’s generation? I don’t think that would be the case, logically speaking. I believe that this was Jesus’ divine plan for preserving unity, doctrinally speaking, in His Father’s house, once all of His apostles were gone. Perhaps this is why Jesus founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), and not a collection of bound books, and called it the pillar and foundation of Truth - maybe?

Like anything in life, regarding authority, the chain of command eventually coalesces, until you get to the top, at which point an individual in authority, in communion with a legislative body, makes an authoritative decision for the whole of the community. Maybe that is why Jesus said:

*"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; **and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. ** *

One thing He did not say was: take it to scripture and if he refuses to to listen even to scripture, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Scripture, by itself, can determine nothing, outside of the purview of individual interpretation, in my humble opinion.

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.” *

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

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? .

What are your thoughts friend?

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7124472]Hey Jon, hoping your days are filled with peace my friend!

I’m doing quite well, Joe. Thanks. Lot’s here, so let me confirm what you, a former Lutheran already know.
We recognize that the power to bind and loose was passed on, and is a vital role of the special priesthood. We only differ regarding the role of Apostolic Succession in the validity of who can carry that gift on.
Onward…

"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Because of Simon’s revelation from God Jesus renames Simon by saying :

And I tell you that you are Peter, (rock) - and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

I am not one of those who argues stridently that Christ is saying here he is bulding His Church on Peter’s statement of faith itself. I think the scripture clearly indicates He is also talking aboutthe man, Simon Peter. But there is a buffering here, Christ also says to Peter, “get behind me Satan.” So, Christ seems to elevate and put Peter in his place, so to speak.

Clearly corruption has been, and will continue to be a part of Jesus’ church built on Simon, renamed kepha (even though Jesus is the divine cornerstone holding the whole thing together) - which again, according to Jesus, was built on Simon renamed rock, (rock is quite apropos in this situation, for rock is solid) - at least on an individual basis, but Jesus still emphatically declared that the gates of hell (our worst enemy) - will never prevail against His church built on Simon, renamed rock. If Jesus, by saying that the gates of hell will not prevail…is not talking about individual apostasy, which doesn’t seem likely given all of the apostasy we have seen in His church built on Simon, renamed rock, due to sin, then perhaps Jesus was talking about the preservation of truth in every generation, until His return, regarding all that He taught, being protected from the gates of hell? That would make sense in light of the biblical fact that the spirit of truth is forever guiding His church into all truth, regardless of the chaff mixed in with the wheat. Logically, nothing else makes any sense to me.
Jesus goes on to say to Simon alone:

…I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven."

Your addition of “alone”, reveals your Lutheran past. I would dispute, scripturally and, considering the view of Orthodoxy and my own Tradition, that the keys are invested in Peter alone. The others were there, and there’s no reason to believe He wasn’t talking to them all.

I too wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received this information? Would James or John or Andrew have said something like: where the heck are my set of keys? LOL…What do you think/believe are the implications of these metaphorical keys of the kingdom of heaven, given to Simon alone? You might have answered this question awhile back, so forgive me if I forgot; l have a lot on my plate as of late.

again, I don’t believe they were given to Peter, alone. I believe they were given to the others, and by extension, the Church. My point in mentioning how the others might respond was that Christ had told them not to consider a pecking order, so to speak. And I don’t get the feeling that Paul’s view of Peter would match that of the CC today.

Jon

 

[Timothy17]

Hi Tim,
Two questions:

1. Is it your belief that this statement by Christ confirms papal infallibility ex cathedra?

Yes. It is my belief :

Reading the context carefully and prayerfully leads to no other logical conclusion. Consider the emphasis, the blessing, etc. : “Blessed are you …] !” He then even gives his [Peter’s] full, proper name, as to double-emphasize the “you.” This is God speaking, and he is using dounble-emphasis. He is saying things twice-over, and then adding even more by including emphasis in speech, as to warrant an exclamation mark, so really he is tripple-emphasizing His point (an allusion to the Trinity, perhaps?) Beyond this, He is not merely stating it, but exclaiming it ! God the Son has heard the voice of God the Father, speaking by the Holy Spirit through the instrument of Simon - this event is so marvelous and good that Jesus grants Simon a new condition (a new name), and confirms this action (and it is an action) with a blessing - above all of this, he then goes still further and bestows gifts, namely the promise and the keys.

It is like God celebrating someone’s birthday! Consider : on our birthdays we are i) blessed with exclamations, even repeatedly, ii) conferred new status (as in rites of passage, as in to manhood or adulthood), and finally, iii) we are given gifts. A birthday is a monumental day in a person’s life, and we enjoy them through love, friends and family - the most intimate of bonds. This human tradition of great pomp and circumstance is the closest thing I can muster to replicating the scene in these verses. All of our friends (the Apostles) are there : but it is yet our day. They confer their blessing and recognition in their silent acceptance of the praises and blessing being bestowed upon their friend (and not upon themselves). Generally, the head (parents in our youth) organize the event - in this case, it is Jesus organizing the event, and bestowing the gifts.

1. If so, why was this not recognized by the early councils - the early Church?

Jon

Perhaps the Holy Spirit had not felt fit to manifestly reveal Himself in these verses ? Also, I would ask which council was convened purely under the topic or context of asserting papal authority, especially in early Church history ? The topics were generally heresies, and council typically went as far as needed to end the heresy.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m doing quite well, Joe. Thanks. Lot’s here, so let me confirm what you, a former Lutheran already know.
We recognize that the power to bind and loose was passed on, and is a vital role of the special priesthood. We only differ regarding the role of Apostolic Succession in the validity of who can carry that gift on.
Onward…

Indeed, I think it quite sad that the Lutherans and Catholics split. Our differences are really so few in the end…

I am not one of those who argues stridently that Christ is saying here he is bulding His Church on Peter’s statement of faith itself. I think the scripture clearly indicates He is also talking aboutthe man, Simon Peter. But there is a buffering here, Christ also says to Peter, “get behind me Satan.” So, Christ seems to elevate and put Peter in his place, so to speak.

No argument here.

Your addition of “alone”, reveals your Lutheran past. I would dispute, scripturally and, considering the view of Orthodoxy and my own Tradition, that the keys are invested in Peter alone. The others were there, and there’s no reason to believe He wasn’t talking to them all.

I have always interpreted this verse merely to mean that the Apostles had the power to forgive sins in God’s name (“binding” and “loosing” referring to sins).

So again, I agree.

again, I don’t believe they were given to Peter, alone. I believe they were given to the others, and by extension, the Church. My point in mentioning how the others might respond was that Christ had told them not to consider a pecking order, so to speak. And I don’t get the feeling that Paul’s view of Peter would match that of the CC today.

Hm, very interesting Jon.

I think…the Apostles would be surprised to see how far the Church has developed. But I thin the bones of the teachings are the same, just defined. I do think the Apostles would be a bit surprised and possibly disconcerted to see infallibility actually written down and defined.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

To clarify. I think a discussion with St. Peter on infalliblity would look something like this:

Modern Catholic (MC): Well, today we have this thing called Papal infallibility. You had it too, of course…

St. Peter: Infallibility? INFALLIBILITY!?! Like, the Pope can’t make mistakes? Why, that’s ridiculous…

MC: No, no, the Pope can make mistakes-

St. Peter: You make no sense. You’ve ruined the Church. How can somebody infallible make mistakes?

MC: Well, they can’t err on matters of faith or morals…

St. Peter: Oh come on now. Look at this Honorius guy.

MC: Well, he wasn’t teaching anything officially…

St. Peter: Officially? What do you mean? Look, this is silly. Even I made mistakes…

MC: This isn’t quite how I imagined this conversation going…

 

[jmcrae]

Hi Joe,
Hope you and yours are well.

I think it would be scripturally and historically inaccurate to downplay the importance of St. Peter in the development and growth of the Church. I don’t think, however, given the practices of the early Church, that his primacy is historically what the Catholic Church has developed it to be. I wonder how the other apostles and Paul would have received “infallibility when speaking ex cathedra”?

Jon

I think once it was explained to them, they’d say, “Well, yeah - .”

I wonder what they would make of denominational churches where the congregation votes on doctrine, and hire and fire their pastors.

Keep in mind, whether or not the Pope is infallible, we (all of the baptized Christians on planet earth) are still required on pain of Hell to obey him in every matter pertaining to his authority. Even if he’s wrong.

It is a gift to us who are required to obey him, that God protects him with the gift of infallibility. It is not for the Pope’s sake that he is infallible, but for ours.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7124501]
Clearly the binding and loosing (opening and shutting) - belongs to all of the apostles and of course their chosen successors, until Jesus’ return. Matthew 16 @ Matthew 18 - However, many believe that this authoritative binding and loosing ended in the apostolic age, which gave way to the bible as the Christians one and only authority, again, ending the age of binding and loosing on the part of those leaders that succeeded the apostles, which is clearly a hypocritical statement, considering all of the binding and loosing that goes on in the myriad protestant churches. I don’t believe it is biblical to believe that it has ended. Today, this binding and loosing exists in every isolated autonomous church, in the world, but I doubt that this was Jesus’ original plan, but like you said, sin has done a real number on Jesus’ mystical Body, the church militant. What are your thoughts regarding what Jesus’ original plan might have been regarding the keys given exclusively to Simon, and the binding and loosing granted to all of His apostles? Do you think that Jesus would have wanted those keys to be passed onto successors, along with the authority to bind and loose?

No doubt the power of the keys is vested in the Church even to today. I do believe it was His plan that this power exist in autonomous Churches, but with the understanding there would be unity of doctrine. What I mean is the various patriarchates were allowed to choose their own Bishops, etc. The hierarchy was in councils, not in one Bishop.

Did I state that clearly?

Like anything in life, regarding authority, the chain of command eventually coalesces, until you get to the top, at which point an individual in authority, in communion with a legislative body, makes an authoritative decision for the whole of the community. Maybe that is why Jesus said:

*"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; **and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. ***

I don’t believe the chain of command was perceived in the early Church, as it has been these last 10 centuries by Rome.

One thing He did not say was: take it to scripture and if he refuses to to listen even to scripture, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Scripture, by itself, can determine nothing, outside of the purview of individual interpretation, in my humble opinion.

Well, you know how I feel about private interpretation. Clearly, hermeneutics is the role of the Church/

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.

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.

What are your thoughts friend?

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

 

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7124588]I think once it was explained to them, they’d say, “Well, yeah - .”

Do you think so? I ask because their successors in Orthodoxy say, “Not exactly”.

I wonder what they would make of denominational churches where the congregation votes on doctrine, and hire and fire their pastors.

Aside from the fact that early churches did “hire” their presbyters, I think they would be offended by the entire mess - denominations, lack of unity east and west. And certainly, they would expect doctrinal unity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

To clarify. I think a discussion with St. Peter on infalliblity would look something like this:

Modern Catholic (MC): Well, today we have this thing called Papal infallibility. You had it too, of course…

St. Peter: Infallibility? INFALLIBILITY!?! Like, the Pope can’t make mistakes? Why, that’s ridiculous…

MC: No, no, the Pope can make mistakes-

St. Peter: You make no sense. You’ve ruined the Church. How can somebody infallible make mistakes?

MC: Well, they can’t err on matters of faith or morals…

St. Peter: Oh come on now. Look at this Honorius guy.

MC: Well, he wasn’t teaching anything officially…

St. Peter: Officially? What do you mean? Look, this is silly. Even I made mistakes…

MC: This isn’t quite how I imagined this conversation going…

This is very interesting, Marc, coming from a Catholic. I bet Peter would have finished it with:

“Let me talk this over with the others.” IOW, a council.

thanks,
Jon