Primacy of Peter unimportant...

[JonNC]

=jmcrae;7124588]
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.

With respect, this is where I totally disagree. There is no mention of this in scripture, in the early councils, or in the three Creeds, that I know of.

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.

You can be sure that I would never claim that this is a self-centered dogma, that I am not questioning motives.

Jon

 

[Marc_Anthony]

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

And the answer, would have been, “But we’ve had a council!”

And another discussion would start…

My point really is only that infallibility is quite confusing, not that it’s false (obviously, I’m still Catholic).

 

[JonNC]

=Timothy17;7124560]

Yes. It is my belief :

Thanks, Tim.

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.

Ist council of Nicea, canon 6 spreaks of the jurisdictions of Bishops:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, sine the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.”

Pax,
Tim

And peace also with you,
Jon

 

[Timothy17]

And the answer, would have been, “But we’ve had a council!”

And another discussion would start…

My point really is only that infallibility is quite confusing, not that it’s false (obviously, I’m still Catholic).

We exist in a secularized society. Americans, especially, have no sense of entitlement as blessing, because it is seen in a purely negative light, and was wholly abolished after the American Revolution ; consequently, we view all entitlement with hesitation, even if that entitlement is not of man, but of God.

A Constitutional Professor begins a lesson, saying, “The President of the United States can veto any law,”
“WHOAH !” Exclaims the Canadian attending, “how can he possibly do that ! There are laws of God, and laws of other countries ! How dare this man presume he has authority to veto any law! He could be as corrupt as Capone for all we know ! I manifestly reject this President of yours, and the wicked Constitution that presumes to grant such authority !”
The Professor, surprised by this, tries to intervene, “Please calm down, and let me explain - there’s more to it than,”
But the Canadian student in attendance is horrified, and interupts, saying,
“Never! I am a free-born Canadian citizen, and I will never submit to such insane laws that grant feeble men such awesome powers ! I declare this all to be not only impious, but foolish and outright evil ! I am leaving at once !”

Now, had the student waited and listened carefully, he would have heard all the rules surrounding the veto, its checks and balances, and its limited application. The Professor, naturally, would have emphasized that this power is supposed to be excersized by virtue of the election, imbued into the office, and not so much due to the man holding the office. He would have confessed that Presidents can be bad, but that doesn’t mean the presidency - and hardly the veto power itself - is also bad.

If I was born a prince, or made a prince by virtue of the Monarchy, then there is nothing I can do to cancel that blessing and entitlement. I can act foolishly and behave unbecoming my status or condition, but I will yet remain a prince. I can have all the benefits of that entitlement deprived from me, either by force or by lawful action, but I shall yet remain a prince, and due all the respect a prince is due. The Roman Pontiff is the very Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, and each Apostle is likewise a Prince, because they are “a royal priesthood.” It’s easy to tremble and fear at the power that goes along with it, but this is why we must have Faith, and this is why we believe God confirms the promise Himself - for mere humans would be utterly unworthy of such powers and promises relying on their own faulty faculties.

Pax,
Tim

 

[JonNC]

=Marc Anthony;7124631]And the answer, would have been, “But we’ve had a council!”

But none, Marc, that were truly ecumenical and asseted ex cathedra infallibility

My point really is only that infallibility is quite confusing, not that it’s false (obviously, I’m still Catholic).

I agree it is difficult, and didn’t mean to imply something less than your catholicity.

Jon

 

[Timothy17]

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

But what need for a council ? Christ Himself has established the papacy. A council will either accept or reject Christ’s action in elevating Simon, son of Jonah, to Peter, carrier of the keys and Pastor of the Church Universal. A Council cannot say, “Peter can not be infallible!” As Christ Himself has said, ‘Peter has spoken infallibly,’ as it was the very cause and reason Christ made him “Peter,” that is, Rock, in the first place. Of course, I suppose a Council - with great sophistry - could somehow interpret the Lord’s words, “But my Father in Heaven has revealed this to you,” as meaning someone other than Almighty God revealed it to Peter, because God must be infallible, as every Christian - universally - believes, but I somehow doubt that.

Pax as ever,
Tim

 

[joe370]

JonNC

;7124214]Hi Tim,
Two questions:

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

Well, if the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church built on Simon, renamed Rock, then the implication is certainly there - maybe? Of course John 14 and John 16, regarding the ever presence of the spirit of truth, certainly give credence to Matthew 16, I think.

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

Why papal infallibility was not recognized by the early councils???

It was not officially defined by these early councils of the CC, like the Trinitarian dogma for example, which was defined out of necessity, but it was certainly recognized by the CC. For example, certainly those ecumenical councils embraced by many non-Catholic churches such as the Lutheran church, believed that they were preserved from even the possibility of error (in other words, infallibility) - when solemnly declaring or promulgating to the Catholic Church a dogmatic teaching (such as the Trinity, rejected by many at the time it was officially defined) - on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation - right?

 

[Nine_Two]

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

Jesus didn’t declare Peter’s words infallible, he proclaimed them correct. Just a few verses later Jesus tells Peter off for not understanding “the ways of God.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My Bible must have some pages torn out. Can you point me to the verse that says this?

As Christ Himself has said, ‘Peter has spoken infallibly,’ as it was the very cause and reason Christ made him “Peter,” that is, Rock, in the first place.

Pax as ever,
Tim

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Get thee behind me Satan and predictions of three denials…

Jesus didn’t declare Peter’s words infallible, he proclaimed them correct. Just a few verses later Jesus tells Peter off for not understanding “the ways of God.”

 

[Dokimas]

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

The NT does not proclaim Peter as the leader of the church.

 

[StTommyMore]

The NT does not proclaim Peter as the leader of the church.

Sure it does. He is the Rock upon the Church is built (Matt 16:18). He is charged by Jesus to tend the flock (Jn 21:15-19). He leads the disciples before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22). He is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14-36). It is his decision, led by the Holy Spirit, to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-43), and makes the final decision at the Protocouncil of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11). This sounds like that Peter is the leader of the Church to me.

 

[Dokimas]

Sure it does. He is the Rock upon the Church is built (Matt 16:18). He is charged by Jesus to tend the flock (Jn 21:15-19). He leads the disciples before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22). He is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14-36). It is his decision, led by the Holy Spirit, to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-43), and makes the final decision at the Protocouncil of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11). This sounds like that Peter is the leader of the Church to me.

I can see how you understand what you understand from these passages and it’s because of your presuppositions that lead you to make your claims.

 

[joe370]

Hey Marc, how’s it going? This is how I see the dialogue going regarding papal infallibility, as per sacred scripture:

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

St. Peter: I know! It was given to Jesus’ church on Pentecost! Impeccability however, like the Pope can’t make mistakes? Why, that’s ridiculous…? (However, Peter would know better than to make such a silly statement.) - Continued… Infallibility however? Of course, after all the holy spirit is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth until the end of time regardless of the wolves in sheep’s clothing, just as the HS was guiding Jesus’ church when I walked the earth, and by the way, there were plenty of wicked people in Jesus’ church in my day as well; they can’t be avoided just as Jesus predicted. But again, the idea that my successor, the Pope, (never heard of that title by the way, but I am cool with it) - can’t make mistakes? Why, that’s ridiculous…Thank God they don’t embrace this silly notion!!!

MC: Agreed Simon, or do you prefer the name Rock, given to you by Jesus…

St. Peter: Peter, which means rock, will be just fine! If you believe that fallible leaders (just as I was and my friends James, John, Paul etc…were all fallible) - are teaching infallibly regarding all that Jesus revealed, thanks to the ever presence of the holy spirit, then you are spot on?

MC: Exactly Peter. They can’t err on matters of faith or morals, just as you guys could not, in spite of the fact that you guys were all sinful, fallible leaders, like everyone is…

St. Peter: Excellent point. Just look at that Honorius guy. He is living proof that the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth in spite of the chaff mixed in with the wheat, which, by the way, according to your bible, is built on me and the other apostles. By the way, when I walked the earth there was no such thing as a bound bible. Many Christians were saved long before any of those books were penned.

MC: I know Peter. Honorius could never have altered official doctrinal truth, thanks to the power of God, safeguarding doctrinal truth from within and without until Jesus returns, at which point Jesus will collect His church. Regarding the bound bible and all those Christians that were saved through Jesus’ church long before many of the books in our bible were ever penned, I totally agree.

St. Peter: Every person, teacher or otherwise in Jesus’ church, will always make mistakes in their personal lives and that is the very reason why Jesus gave His church leadership, in His stead,** the impeccable/infallible holy spirit, **to ineffably guide them into all truth, in spite of their own shortcomings.

MC: This is exactly how I imagined this conversation would go Peter…By the way, pray for me and all of your brothers and sisters in Christ still in exile here on earth. By the way, what was it like to see Jesus walk on water, raise the dead and defy gravity…?

 

[StTommyMore]

I can see how you understand what you understand from these passages and it’s because of your presuppositions that lead you to make your claims.

Actually it is from a plain reading of the text.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, if the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church built on Simon, renamed Rock, then the implication is certainly there - maybe? Of course John 14 and John 16, regarding the ever presence of the spirit of truth, certainly give credence to Matthew 16, I think.

Why papal infallibility was not recognized by the early councils???

Given what we read in the Sermons of St. John Chrysostom, I can’t see how they would have not - he writes in great detail and very forcefully about the authority of Peter and his Successors, the Bishops of Rome - and he was quoted very extensively in Vatican I.

St. John was an Eastern Bishop, which makes his words all the more powerful - certainly, after reading his sermons, it seems impossible to think that the Eastern Church was not aware of the concept of Papal authority, as it is currently understood in the West.

 

[Dokimas]

Actually it is from a plain reading of the text.

 

[jmcrae]

Even Protestant Bible scholars agree that Peter was the Chief Shepherd of the Early Church, as we find in John 21:15-19.

What they disagree is that this role was to take successors - they say that the New Testament replaced Peter; not Pope Linus.

However, this is not the model that we see, either in the Old Covenant, or in the Davidic Kingdom. In both the Old Covenant, and the Davidic Kingdom, human beings succeeded to human beings. Books, buildings, and other objects of art were seem to be useful, but they never replaced the human authority that God had put in charge.

Joshua took the office of Moses; Solomon took the office of David, and Linus took the office of Peter.

 

[Dokimas]

Even Protestant Bible scholars agree that Peter was the Chief Shepherd of the Early Church, as we find in John 21:15-19.

What they disagree is that this role was to take successors - they say that the New Testament replaced Peter; not Pope Linus.

However, this is not the model that we see, either in the Old Covenant, or in the Davidic Kingdom. In both the Old Covenant, and the Davidic Kingdom, human beings succeeded to human beings. Books, buildings, and other objects of art were seem to be useful, but they never replaced the human authority that God had put in charge.

Joshua took the office of Moses; Solomon took the office of David, and Linus took the office of Peter.

Which protestant Bible scholars?

Where specifically in John 21:15-19 does it say Peter was the chief shepherd?

 

[StTommyMore]

Which protestant Bible scholars?

Where specifically in John 21:15-19 does it say Peter was the chief shepherd?

Jesus was talking to Jesus specifically, not His disciples as a whole.