Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Randy_Carson]

This does not bode well for the Catholic Church.
** Isaiah 22:20-25 **
20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, 21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open. 23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honour to his ancestral house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 On that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.

The peg that was fastened belonged to Shebna, not Eliakim. So, while Shebna’s peg was removed, you see that another man’s took its place. That is apostolic succession at work, and you do believe in apostolic succession, right? But that’s not really the point.

GOD established Eliakim as the chief steward in the house of the king with a key just as GOD established Peter as the steward in the kingdom of Jesus with keys.

By virtue of genuine apostolic succession, Peter, and his successors, the popes of the Catholic Church, have the keys, the symbol of the office established by God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy: Wow! You said a mouth full with this post you have given us I had not thought of it that way but it makes a lot of sense when one thinks about it. You gave the best thinking on infallibility that I have heard, and why peter is the leader of the Church along side with the Apostles who so far I have read in Scripture did not disagree with peter but instead looked to him as a leader as well as a spokesperson for them. They all taught truth and Peter strengthen them as Jesus told him to do.

Pray against the blindness, spina. The truth is there for those that can see.

 

[Seraphim73]

They forced him to sign because the council needed his approval.
The Council appealed to Vigilius in order to uphold its own decisions

That is the historical reality and the fathers and church historians unanimously testify that no council has force without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

When anyone is excommunicated, the church does not look to them for their signature on the decisions at church councils. They don’t give a hoot about the excommunicated party because they are outside the church. But here this council we see the fathers after “excommunicating” Vigilius, refusing to let him go back to Rome unless he signs and gives approval of the council. Why would they do this if he were truly excommunicated?

If the pope was what you say he was they wouldn’t have forced him to do anything. They would have given passive assent. But the fact is he was stricken from the diptychs i.e. excommunicated. Again there is nothing unusual about wanting the approval of the primate and only Apostolic see in the West. I don’t have to prove that the pope was not the primate. The problem is you take every instance of the pope behaving as the primate or being treated as important to be an assent to modern papal dogmas. Just the fact that the bishops at the council struck him from the diptychs shows they did not view him as the measure of orthodoxy.

 

[Seraphim73]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about one authority limiting another authority. One binding something that another loosed, etc. Let’s consider this for a moment to see if we can eliminate any confusion.

Each of the apostles was individually infallible. Not one of them could teach error with regard to faith and morals. Does this mean that one apostle was limited by the existence of the others?

Well, it *would *if by authority it is meant that each apostle was perfectly free to do whatever he pleased. But that is not the case.

Let me begin by providing a little background for for those who are unfamiliar with or who deny infallibility. First, Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter as His royal steward. Additionally, Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.

Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.

First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing performed by the Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.

A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

So, my question for those who struggle with the idea that Peter is the head of the Church because of the existence of other infallible apostles is this: Can those who teach what is true in heaven perfectly and without error ever be at odds with one another?

If Andrew is infallible and teaches without error, why would Peter have to “bind” something Andrew loosed? They would be in perfect agreement. Similarly, if Peter bound a matter and his decision was in complete accord with the will of God, why would James or John need to come along and loose it?

Since those who teach that which is true in heaven without error, there could never be any lack of harmony amongst them. Thus, the existence of others who could bind or loose did not limit the true authority of Peter, the Royal Steward, in any way.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

No person or group of people are inherently infallible the Apostles not excepted.

 

[Seraphim73]

Pray against the blindness, spina. The truth is there for those that can see.

But yet you persist in closing your eyes.

 

[Wandile]

If the pope was what you say he was they wouldn’t have forced him to do anything. They would have given passive assent. But the fact is he was stricken from the diptychs i.e. excommunicated. Again there is nothing unusual about wanting the approval of the primate and only Apostolic see in the West. I don’t have to prove that the pope was not the primate. The problem is you take every instance of the pope behaving as the primate or being treated as important to be an assent to modern papal dogmas. Just the fact that the bishops at the council struck him from the diptychs shows they did not view him as the measure of orthodoxy.

Actually the reason the bishops did what they di was because it was at the request of the Emperor to strike the name of the Pope from the diptychs. Later it was the emperor hinslef who imprisoned Vigilius and forced him to sign. The bishops were merely under the hand and threat of the emperor because considering the Caesaropapism in the east, which prelate of the east would dare defy the emperor?

Such a thing had only been attempted against popes when emperors were involved … The bishops themselves never do or even attempt to do such things. This was a prime example of politics interefering and causing a breach of church tradition.

I cant believe the Orthodox even try use this case as proof of their position. This is a despicable situation and clearly not a model to abide by. Is this the best you’ve got?

Nevermind the glaring flaws like the council explicitly requesting papal ratification of their decisions

 

[Randy_Carson]

No person or group of people are inherently infallible the Apostles not excepted.

Yes, your church denies the infallibility of the apostles despite the teachings of scripture.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But yet you persist in closing your eyes.

 

[Seraphim73]

Actually the reason the bishops did what they di was because it was at the request of the Emperor to strike the name of the Pope from the diptychs. Later it was the emperor hinslef who imprisoned Vigilius and forced him to sign. The bishops were merely under the hand and threat of the emperor because considering the Caesaropapism in the east, which prelate of the east would dare defy the emperor?

Such a thing had only been attempted against popes when emperors were involved … The bishops themselves never do or even attempt to do such things. This was a prime example of politics interefering and causing a breach of church tradition.

I cant believe the Orthodox even try use this case as proof of their position. This is a despicable situation and clearly not a model to abide by. Is this the best you’ve got?

Nevermind the glaring flaws like the council explicitly requesting papal ratification of their decisions

Regardless it shows that a pope was not considered infallible or anything of the like. The fathers of the council did not protest the excommunication. Of course Vigilius himself only turned back to orthodoxy after being pressured by the emperor so it seems the condemnation of caesaropapism is somewhat subjective.

This council just like Chalcedon and the others accepted the pope as their head after determining he preached orthodoxy. The confession establishes the throne, not the other way around. You can’t claim the throne of Peter unless you hold the faith of Peter. Here is what the fathers of the council wrote to Vigilius.

“If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."

Here the fathers of the council say as clear as day that the pope’s headship depends on his agreement with the faith of the Fathers. That is what we have always said and still say to this day.

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff…Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself” - St Symeon of Thessalonica

And speaking of Leo’s Tome and Chalcedon

"After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.” - 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs

 

[Seraphim73]

Yes, your church denies the infallibility of the apostles despite the teachings of scripture.

Scripture teaches no such thing.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

What you present is pure eisegesis. Or gross misunderstanding. Or both.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Scripture teaches no such thing.

Not if your teachers don’t show you, I suppose.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Amen! But this does not limit Peter. It expands the authority of the other 11. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

You are reading “to rule”, whereas I am reading what the Church Catholic read for the first one thousand years: “to lead”

This does not limit Peter. It simply commissions all the apostles to make disciples of all nations. Jesus never expected one guy to convert the entire world. But He did expect one guy to oversee that process. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

I am not reading limitation. The problem is that you read supremely.

It’s simple logic. Take off your Sola Cephas glasses and read it again

Amen! Love that verse. But notice that it says nothing about limiting Peter. The Church is ultimately headed by the one Bishop whom Christ established in about five places. The buck stops at Peter’s desk. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

Peter with the disciples for Christ. Not - the disciples with Peter for Christ.

Amen! Another classic Protestant argument. All the apostles ARE foundational. But this does not diminish the fact that in context of Matthew 16:18-19, only one of those foundations stones was actually handed the keys. You’re reading limitation into the verse.

A rock by itself cannot hold the structure. Thus, Christ is the Cornerstone.

But neither you nor anyone else thus far has been able to refute the argument, so why not?

In fact, I agreed Peter being the Royal Steward for the passages in question. In fact, I explained in Post #167, I explained the interpretation. Do not bear false witness.

Randy, you are a Forum Master. Take matters of your thread to your thread. For the second time, please keep them out. I respected your wishes to take my arguments into a new thread. You have bombarded almost every recent thread that has to do with Peter and/or the Pope. Lead by example, will you?

What is in disagreement is how the Royal Steward exercised his leadership role. The evidence is clear. You need to bring up your thread because you have nothing else to offer or refute on this one.

You have not been able to refute this thread. Denial does not equal refutation.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Um…but you said it was a 2-way street implying - based on what I had previously written - that Catholics do NOT want re-unification.

A minor distraction from this thread, but that was clearly an error on your part.

Do you feel the need to point out an error on my part?

Go back and read what I wrote in Post#251:

Nonetheless, the West is asking the East to get back together on the West’s terms.

Whereas, the East is asking the West to get back together on the East’s terms.

Where did I err?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about one authority limiting another authority. One binding something that another loosed, etc. Let’s consider this for a moment to see if we can eliminate any confusion.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

Hmm

Law of Non-Contradiction:

It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections.

No, it doesn’t help. bindings and loosings cannot both belong and not belong to one Church. As such the Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth. Resolves the contradictions with the Holy Spirit. It is exactly what it did for the first thousand years.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You are reading “to rule”, whereas I am reading what the Church Catholic read for the first one thousand years: “to lead”

What are the Greek words for “tend” and “feed” again? Poimanao and bosko.

Poimanao used in reference to Christ, also, means to rule.

So, yeah, I’m reading “to rule” because that’s what the text actually says.

I am not reading limitation. The problem is that you read supremely.

It’s simple logic. Take off your Sola Cephas glasses and read it again

Peter with the disciples for Christ. Not - the disciples with Peter for Christ.

A rock by itself cannot hold the structure. Thus, Christ is the Cornerstone.

In fact, I agreed Peter being the Royal Steward for the passages in question. In fact, I explained in Post #167, I explained the interpretation. Do not bear false witness.

Randy, you are a Forum Master. Take matters of your thread to your thread. For the second time, please keep them out. I respected your wishes to take my arguments into a new thread. You have bombarded almost every recent thread that has to do with Peter and/or the Pope. Lead by example, will you?

What is in disagreement is how the Royal Steward exercised his leadership role. The evidence is clear. You need to bring up your thread because you have nothing else to offer or refute on this one.

You have not been able to refute this thread. Denial does not equal refutation.

I will concede one point. I should take discussion of the royal steward back to that thread.

Everything else here is fair game.

Play on.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hmm

Law of Non-Contradiction:

It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections.

No, it doesn’t help. bindings and loosings cannot both belong and not belong to one Church. As such the Church, the pillar and bulwark of truth. Resolves the contradictions with the Holy Spirit. It is exactly what it did for the first thousand years.

You’re skimming, right?

'Cause who said anything about bindings and loosing belong and not belonging to the Church. I said that the authority to bind and loose was vested in multiple apostles simultaneously. There was LOTS of belonging and no non-belonging.

Kinda the opposite of your point about law of non-contradiction.

You have not addressed what I actually posted regarding multiple infallible teachers simultaneously at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A rock by itself cannot hold the structure.

Jesus said He would build His Church upon Peter, the rock. It’s right there in your Bible.

Thus, Christ is the Cornerstone.

Sure, but not in the context of Matthew 16. In that passage, Jesus said, “I will build.” Jesus is the builder and not the cornerstone in Matthew 16:18.

Look, we all have our areas of strength and weakness. You know councils and canons (at least the ones that support your unique theories). I know a bit of scripture.

I know when to shut up about the history of councils. I’d like to suggest, respectfully, that you need a bit more work on your understanding of scripture.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Sure, but not in the context of Matthew 16. In that passage, Jesus said, “I will build.” Jesus is the builder and not the cornerstone in Matthew 16:18.

Look, we all have our areas of strength and weakness. You know councils and canons (at least the ones that support your unique theories). I know a bit of scripture.

I know when to shut up about the history of councils. I’d like to suggest, respectfully, that you need a bit more work on your understanding of scripture.

You know, for someone who claims to know the scriptures you are missing the most important element of understand scriptures according to Catholic teaching. I made a reference to this in Post # 1:

In Catholicism, theology is referred to as a three-legged stool. The legs being: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, Teaching Office (Magisterium). The principle being that they can’t contradict one another and that they are in harmony with one another. We’ll see how that works out.

1. 
   *]Sacred Scriptures are referred to as the Catholic Canon – closed at the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD), in response to the Protestant Reformation. There was no official Catholic Church stance in regards to a close canon, but a discipline and a practice of the books that were to be used. The consensus and the Pope historically support the same canon we have today but there was no closing of the Canon as set forth until Trent.
   *]Sacred Tradition is to be understood as the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. This could be directly or indirectly (meaning that it is developed from the deposit of faith). Sunday Worship, Trinitarian formulas and doctrines, Ecumenical Church Councils are some examples of Sacred Tradition.
   *]Teaching Office (Magisterium), refers to the Church’s leaders, Bishops, Priests, Deacons and the teachings consistent with the Whole Church, Ecumenical Councils are also a teaching office, the highest expression where the Church’s leadership gathers to define articles of the faith. Each province may vary in this teaching office as long as it doesn’t go against Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. For example: rites, disciplines, practices.

1. 
   If you head over to Dr. Hahn’s website - salvationhistory.com and read Lesson One: How Catholics read the Bible you will find:
   
   A. Divine Revelation: How God Speaks to Us
   
   Christianity is a religion of the Word, not of a book! The Word is a Person - Jesus Christ. He is God’s “final word” on everything. Through Jesus,
   
   God has revealed everything He wanted to reveal to us about who He is and what He intends for our lives. God’s revelation of Himself comes to us in three ways:
   
   1. 
      *]Scripture (the Bible)
      *]Tradition (especially the liturgy of the Church - the Mass and the sacraments)
      *]The Magisterium (the Church’s teachings, such as its dogmas and creeds)
      
      The Holy Spirit is at work through all three channels - He inspires Scripture, animates the Church’s living Tradition, and guarantees the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium (Catechism, nos. 81-82).
      
      B. Reading and Interpreting the Scripture: The Three Rules
      
      Because God’s revelation comes to us through these three channels, we must remember three important criteria for reading and interpreting Scripture: *
      1. The Content & Unity of Scripture: Though Scripture is made up of different books, we can’t read them as separate books. We have to read each one in light of the rest, keeping in mind that Jesus revealed that there is a unity in God’s plan for the world, as that plan is revealed in Scripture.
      St. Augustine used to say that: “The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New.” What he meant is that Jesus showed us how the things that God says and does in the Old Testament pointed to what He says and does in the New. In turn, what Jesus says and does in the New Testament sheds light on the promises and events we read about in the Old.
      1. The Church’s Living Tradition: We must always read Scripture within the context of the Church’s Tradition. That means that we should always see how the Church interprets certain Scripture passages, especially in the prayers and readings it uses for the Mass and for special feasts in the Church.
      2. Analogy of Faith: The same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures also safeguards the Church’s teaching authority. That means that if we’re going to read and interpret Scripture properly - the way God intends it to be read - we have to make sure our interpretations don’t contradict the interpretations found in the Church’s creeds and other statements of doctrine.
      I am following all three concepts in looking at the Scriptures. I am not making theology out of one or two verses. I have presented what is the Living Tradition of the Church.
      
      You on the other hand, are approaching this in the same manner a protestant would. You are trying desperately to limit the argument to Scripture alone and exclusively to the verses you that support your point. And are ignoring those verses that don’t. And when I present those verses all you have is that I am doing bad eisegesis and/or error. When I am presenting you how those verses match the Living Tradition of the Church.
      
      So the next time you want to lecture me about how to interpret scriptures, make sure you review Bible for Catholics 101.
      
      And yes, not only I need to learn more about Scriptures - but we all do.

 

[YADA]

I have spent time with these passages in addition to the Royal Steward passage from Isaiah that only the most obstinate mind cannot hear echoed in Christ’s words to Peter -

The passages that give authority to Peter and the disciples …What is the difference in the authority granted and differences in how this authority was given?

While they seem similar - appearing similar in wording and similar in authority - there is a great difference. I know many see these passages being interchangeable. That was what I was believed as a Bible Christian, until I truly read and studied the passages - in context.

They really are not the same - they really are very different. Not only is the authority granted different - the vehicle - the means by which the authority is granted and manifested upon the two [Peter first - then the Disciples] is different. Even the timing of the offices - first Peter’s the Royal Steward - over arching office - then the others is important.

Peter is given a for more reaching - general authority - This authority is not limited nor bound in scope … Jesus says to Peter … "Whatever you [Peter] bind … " and “Whatever you [Peter] loose …” This is open - undefined authority… it leaves the subject of what is to become bound or loosed to Peter’s discretion … Then - in addition to this unrestricted - undefined authority to bind and loose on Earth what will be held bound and/or loosed in Heaven … Peter is also given the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom … this Authority to act for our perpetual King of King - Lord of Lords - Jesus Christ … is what Randy has posted here in great detail -

The “Office” of the Royal Steward - is and can only be held by a single occupant - for if there were two such “offices” they have the potential to work in opposition to each other … And as so many have illustrated in Scripture and Early Christ Fathers, Councils, etc. - Offices are filled when they become vacant - the Office is perpetual - the office holder is not. This is what Jesus promised - esus’ Kingdom will have no end!

The authority granted to all the disciples was specific - they were given the authority to forgive and/or bind sins - and only sins …Do not get me wrong - the ability to forgive or bind another’s sins is a tremendous authority and responsibility … its huge … and it reaches from earth into the heavenly realm as well … However - as you can see by the scriptures quoted below - this authority did not come with the “Keys” to the Kingdom and the full authority to act on behalf of the King - beyond the limits outlined - sin … This authority was not through the reception of authoritative ‘keys’ but through reception of the Holy Spirit …“he breathed on them [the disciples] and said to them ‘Receive the holy Spirit’.” They also are charged with being united - the disciples are to be as unified as the Trinity - as Christ is with His Church … but even in that unity - Christ gave a singular mission to Peter - to strengthen his brethren, and in loving Christ; to feed the sheep and the lambs …those represent those entrusted to lead the people of God - the Church and the very people of God -

Peter’s authority was not limited to sins and sins alone … Peter’s authority was “Whatever” and this office and authority was marked with the bestowing of the “Keys of the kingdom of heaven” … not the Earthly Kingdom - the Heavenly Kingdom … “I will give you [Peter] the keys to the kingdom of heaven”

Matthew 16:13-19
Quote:
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John Chapter 20:19- 23
Quote:
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples* were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you. When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side.* The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.