Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isaiah45_9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randy_Carson said:
We already discussed this. In John 21, was Jesus really telling Peter to go take care of some woolly creatures out in a pasture somewhere?

If not, then the primary meaning has nothing to do with a herd (technically, a flock).

These quotes come to mind:

John Chrysostom

For it is a laborious thing indeed to have the oversight of a hundred men, and of fifty alone. But to have on one’s hands so great a city, and a population extending to two hundred thousand, of how great virtue and wisdom do you think there is a proof? For as in the care of armies, the wiser of the generals have on their hands the more leading and more numerous regiments, so, accordingly, in the care of cities. The more able of the rulers are entrusted with the larger and more populous. And at any rate this city was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily on Ignatius, 4)

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

Leo I - (AD 446)

**From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church…Peter…rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. **Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvellous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him. (Sermons, 4:2; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 275)
Click to expand...
I really don’t think if I were you I’d use St John, not considering other things he said. Either way neither of these exegete the passage we are talking about to mean “rule” instead of “tend” or “feed.”
 
rinnie said:
Not really. Vicar of Christ had few meanings depending on how it was used. In the 5th century Vicar of Christ was used for St Peter for being the first Catholic Pope from the gospel stating feed my sheep lead my sheep.

Although Vicar of Christ could be used in plural ways. When someone was speaking of St Peter or the Pope of the RCC it was always Vicar of Christ.

But regardless The Pope is and always was the Vicar of Christ in the Church. And still is to date.

By the way** the Pope never acquired more and more power**, it never lost nor gained any power. The Pope was and always will be the leader of the RCC. The Pope has the gift of the Holy Spirit to speak alone in the voice of Christ if needed. Always had the right, always will. No acquired power given nor lost.
Click to expand...
Although I agree with you on a spiritual level, on a secular level he certainly did. After he was given the title Pontifex Maximus by the Roman Emperor, and made reponsible for secuar rule, he continued to acquire political, economic, and material power until the Reformation. It was during this time that the statements of self defnition were produced that have given rise to so much controversy about the role of the Popel
 
Randy_Carson said:
And although I have provided Patristic support as requested, I would hasten to soften that by saying that Jesus wanted Peter to provide spiritual nourishment (teaching) to the entire flock.

So, rather than arguing for an iron-fisted ruler (which seems to freak so many Orthodox out due to their long years under Ottoman and Communist rule (which prevented them from fulfiling the Great Commission, btw)), I would simply point out that John 21 is clear scriptural support for Peter’s universal jurisdiction (since ALL the sheep would need to be fed) and infallibility (since giving false teaching would not be nourishing).
Click to expand...
Randy you don’t have to take cheap swipes. The Orthodox have been fulfilling the Great Commission quite well with a lot fewer resources. I take it as a blessing that the Orthodox have not enjoyed (or been burdened with) the colossal wealth and worldly power the Catholic Church has had. 😉
 
Seraphim73 said:
I really don’t think if I were you I’d use St John, not considering other things he said. Either way neither of these exegete the passage we are talking about to mean “rule” instead of “tend” or “feed.”
Click to expand...
And this has kinda been my point all along if you have been following my “dialogue” with Cavaradossi. We can both quote mine all day to provide support for one view or another. Protestants tend to proof-text against Catholics a lot.

I’m just asking folks to read the two passages of scripture (I also made the connection to Joseph and Pharaoh), and tell me why Peter is NOT the Royal Steward. 🤷

Because no Father said so? :dts:

As for these quotes, what does it mean for someone to be the Master of the house? What is his scope of authority?

“[Jesus] entrusts [Peter] with the rule over the brethren.”
“Peter…rules them all.”

Pretty straightforward, I think.
 
Seraphim73 said:
Randy you don’t have to take cheap swipes. The Orthodox have been fulfilling the Great Commission quite well with a lot fewer resources. I take it as a blessing that the Orthodox have not enjoyed (or been burdened with) the colossal wealth and worldly power the Catholic Church has had. 😉
Click to expand...
Sorry. That was aimed at a few folks who are undoubtedly lurking. The argument goes back long before your time in these forums. :rolleyes:
 
Randy_Carson said:
And although I have provided Patristic support as requested, I would hasten to soften that by saying that Jesus wanted Peter to provide spiritual nourishment (teaching) to the entire flock.
Click to expand...
From spiritual nourishment to supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary freely exercised jurisdiction is not only an incredible jump, but it defies logic as well.

Not only that, but that the Fathers would miss an integral article of faith as it is expressed from 1,400 AD onward, it’s just as unbelievable.

Either Christ is present all the time with His Church, or He takes a leave of absence every now and then and leaves someone running things for Him. How can you explain 24 hours Adoration and His absence so obvious that another person has to take His place on earth…

It is just mind boggling and no wonder such an article of faith didn’t exist for so long.
 
Randy_Carson said:
So, rather than arguing for an iron-fisted ruler (which seems to freak so many Orthodox out due to their long years under Ottoman and Communist rule (which prevented them from fulfiling the Great Commission, btw)),
Click to expand...
Would you please open a new thread and present an exposition on how exactly this happened? And I mean exactly, please.

🍿
 
Isaiah45_9 said:
Would you please open a new thread and present an exposition on how exactly this happened? And I mean exactly, please.

🍿
Click to expand...
:nope:

All my arguments have been presented (and refuted, to hear some tell the tale) in threads which you can read by searching the history of my posts. If you have trouble finding them, others will be only too happy to lead you to them. Trust me on this.

I’ll just say this: Soloviev and Cleenewerck - both Orthodox men of some distinction - have noted that Orthodoxy is “ossified” and “plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal fluctuations”.

Not my words.
 
Randy_Carson said:
:nope:

All my arguments have been presented (and refuted, to hear some tell the tale) in threads which you can read by searching the history of my posts. If you have trouble finding them, others will be only too happy to lead you to them. Trust me on this.

I’ll just say this: Soloviev and Cleenewerck - both Orthodox men of some distinction - have noted that Orthodoxy is “ossified” and “plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal fluctuations”.

Not my words.
Click to expand...
By quoting them you are supporting what they say. I would also add that you are the one who said the Orthodox are not fulfilling the Great Commission. 😉
 
Randy_Carson said:
:nope:

All my arguments have been presented (and refuted, to hear some tell the tale) in threads which you can read by searching the history of my posts. If you have trouble finding them, others will be only too happy to lead you to them. Trust me on this.

I’ll just say this: Soloviev and Cleenewerck - both Orthodox men of some distinction - have noted that Orthodoxy is “ossified” and “plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal fluctuations”.

Not my words.
Click to expand...
So on the flip side of that coin, we can use Catholic men of some distinction in like manner?

Got it 👍👍

:compcoff:
 
Seraphim73 said:
By quoting them you are supporting what they say. I would also add that you are the one who said the Orthodox are not fulfilling the Great Commission. 😉
Click to expand...
I do agree with them (although I held my views before discovering them), and I do contend that the Orthodox Church cannot be the one, true Church, and its failure to fulfill the Great Commission is just one of many pieces of evidence of that fact.

But I’m not going to open a new thread. I’m going to the beach for a loooong weekend, and I’ll probably not be online again for several days.

I know you’ll miss me; who else makes you laugh out loud so consistently? :whackadoo:
 
Randy_Carson said:
We have been over both of these points recently. The Greek word, poimanao, means “to rule” and it is the same word used in reference to Jesus elsewhere. If you deny the meaning of *poimanao *with respect to Peter, then you deny its meaning for Jesus, also. You have to be consistent.
Click to expand...
If “poimaino” was meant to have the meaning of “rule” then Christ would not have referred to the faithful as “sheep”. Because Christ calls us “sheep” in the passage it excludes the particular meaning of “rule” and no amount of sophistry on your part will change that.
 
Randy_Carson said:
So, rather than arguing for an iron-fisted ruler (which seems to freak so many Orthodox out due to their long years under Ottoman and Communist rule
Click to expand...
Papal universal jurisdiction was rejected by the Orthodox Church long before the Ottomans and the Bolsheviks
(which prevented them from fulfiling the Great Commission, btw))
Click to expand...
Its so much easier to ride on the coat tails of the Spanish conquistadors isn’t it, but despite the difficulties we’ve faced, Orthodox missions have been steadily gaining ground throughout the world.
I would simply point out that John 21 is clear scriptural support for Peter’s universal jurisdiction (since ALL the sheep would need to be fed) and infallibility (since giving false teaching would not be nourishing).
Click to expand...
John 21 says nothing about the papacy though, does it.
 
Sounds to me that the Church Christ built does not need a head just everyone running their own Churches, no need for a Pope.
 
prodromos said:
If “poimaino” was meant to have the meaning of “rule” then Christ would not have referred to the faithful as “sheep”. Because Christ calls us “sheep” in the passage it excludes the particular meaning of “rule” and no amount of sophistry on your part will change that.
Click to expand...
But we aren’t actually sheep. We’re humans. So, it’s just a metaphor.

More importantly, I don’t actually give two hoots about poimanao. To me, that’s just an interesting sidebar.

What I care about from that passage is that Peter, alone, is given the responsibility of feeding and tending Christ’s own flock. Now, Jesus is the Good Shepherd. On this we agree. And there is only one flock, because He told us so. Therefore, Peter is charged with caring for Jesus’ one flock of sheep - no matter where on earth those sheep may be scattered. John Chrysostom saw and commented upon this fact.

Peter is the Vicar of Christ with universal jurisdiction over the one worldwide flock of Jesus Christ.

And Jesus never said, “You are Peter and on your confession I will build my loosely associated autocephalous churches.” :nope:

But he did tell Peter, alone, to strengthen the other apostles. The lesser are supported by the greater.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I do agree with them (although I held my views before discovering them), and I do contend that the Orthodox Church cannot be the one, true Church, and its failure to fulfill the Great Commission is just one of many pieces of evidence of that fact.

But I’m not going to open a new thread. I’m going to the beach for a loooong weekend, and I’ll probably not be online again for several days.

I know you’ll miss me; who else makes you laugh out loud so consistently? :whackadoo:
Click to expand...
Then when someone challenges you don’t say “well it wasn’t me who said it.” And if you don’t think the Orthodox have been fulfilling the Great Commission then you have a strange understanding of what that Commission is. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top