Primacy or Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome

[Seraphim73]

Well, it might be more accurate to say that “Catholics interpret the verse that way” but not modern Catholics exclusively.

No only modern Roman Catholics interpret “Thou art Peter” to mean the Bishop of Rome “By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” and “the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not by consent of the Church.”

I think, based on how the early Church actually behaved, that the fathers who did interpret the verse to apply to St Peter personally would have been shocked and horrified by the above statements.

And this has been demonstrated to be WRONG as both Protestant and a few brave Orthodox scholars have acknowledged.

I think I’ll stick with the fathers on this thank you very much.

Now, it may be that some Fathers were simply in error if, in fact, they maintained the confession interpretation exclusively. However, it is my contention (though it’s not original), that some of the Fathers would have said both. IOW, on some occasions, their preaching or writing used Peter as the rock while on another occasion, it would have suited the point they were trying to make to speak of Peter’s confession as the rock. That’s “both/and” not “either/or”.

Then why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept today that the rock is Peter’s confession?

Why would they do this? Well, the Fathers were writing before the schism and before the Reformation; consequently, there was less need in preaching among the faithful to be as precise as we might be today in a forum like this. So, if Augustine or someone wrote, “Peter’s great confession of faith, that rock upon which the Church was built…”, no one in his day would have objected to Peter NOT being the rock because of course Peter is the Rock. They would have understood that Augustine was “both/anding” the passage. I just made that verb up.

No one would have any reason to argue it because the popes were not using this verse to support their anti-canonical claims. If you asked St Augustine what he thought about the above statements about one bishop he would have been horrified.

True. Is that the company you really want to keep?

Do I want to keep company with those who avoid modern inventions? Yes I do, that’s why I’m not Catholic.

If not, can you explain how the development of the Catholic Church and the papacy are displeasing to Jesus who promised to build ONE Church upon Peter, the rock?

"But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

And could you perhaps explain how God managed to let things get so out of control that today a billion of His sheep are being misled by false teaching from Rome?

Proportion of Catholics in Latin America has dropped 25% since 1970

“A new report released by the Pew Research Centre has found that the proportion of Latin America that is Catholic has dropped 25% since 1970, falling from 92% of the population then to 69% now. Over the same period of time the number of Protestants has grown to 19%, while the number that define themselves as religiously unaffiliated has risen to 8%.”

I would be a little less eager to brag about numbers if I were you. And if anyone is being led astray it’s not by God I can assure you. I might recommend you think twice before posting statements like this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is so offensive. How do you dare use the name of Christ in vain?

That is not what I have done. Those were rhetorical questions. And you take “offense” to avoid dealing with my questions…a classic dodge.

That is a question you have to ponder privately. How did the Whole Church missed the interpretation of the keys and didn’t enact supreme, immediate, absolute, ordinary universal jurisdiction until the 15th century?

Oh, okay….

I’m done pondering. The Church did not recognize the full interpretation of the keys until such time as the needs of the Church required the fullness of the papacy.

The ONLY way you can honestly ask this question is that you have either not read or simply ignored what John Cardinal Newman wrote concerning the development of the papacy. Which is it? Because if you HAD read Newman, you should have been able to anticipate my response.

That is the exact same argument you present to Protestants when you charge them with doctrines established in the 16th century forward.

Now, I’m starting to feel a little bad for you, because you are swinging wildly…trying to land the knockout punch which has eluded you for so many years.

Protestants are teaching doctrines which CONTRADICT what the Church taught previously and denying doctrines that have been held without question since the Apostolic era.

“Jesus is not present in the Eucharist?” Not according to scripture or the Fathers.
Sola scriptura? Unknown in prior ages.
Sola fide? Unknown in prior ages.
The Rapture? Invented in the 1800’s in England.

I could go on. The difference, then, is that while I can point to specific verses that contain the seeds of the modern papacy and explain logically why the full extent of the papacy today was unknown to the Fathers, no Protestant can explain sola scriptura from scripture (or the Fathers) since no verse of scripture actually teaches that false doctrine (while there are many that say the opposite) and no Father ever did, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Straw man.

No one is saying that the papacy or the Church can’t develop.

The question is why would it develop without the Whole Church.

Schism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,** whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor”

St. Peter**

Oh, no…don’t quote scripture unless you have documentation of the unanimous consent of the Fathers (Eastern preferred) as to the exact meaning of the verse and its application to the subject at hand.

IOW, you need several quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers specifically anticipating and condemning the events that would occur several hundred years later.

Oh, wait…that’s EXACTLY what the scriptures did!

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Since you deny papal infallibility, why would this matter?

You are the one using this quote. Why would it matter to you? How about all the other Eastern orthodox quotes, the Councils, the Fathers, Scriptures? Your proposal is that only the Chair of Peter can make such proclamations. Not mine.

Does anyone? Remember, you deny even the Pope that authority.

You are saying that Christ meant for the successor of Peter to have supreme, immediate, ordinary, absolute universal jurisdiction over the Whole Church.

The Whole Church and the Fathers don’t agree with you. Church history doesn’t agree with you. In fact, 2 Western Councils AFTER the schism don’t agree with you.

If it’s so obscure, how did it survive the passage of 600 years?

Lol… Is this little quote above the Church Councils?

Perhaps LionHeart777 will provide that documentation.

But you are asking the question. That’s what happens when you copy and paste or just do quick indexed searches on software. You quote outside of context and without knowing the actual documents. If you have not verified the quote, please don’t use it.

And now to what REALLY matters (unlike your attempts at diversion):

What is your response to Fontibus’ points? The questions I posed?

1. The Whole Church has already spoken.
2. I am not declaring the See of Rome heretic. So it doesn’t apply.

Wheew, that was so hard…

By the way, don’t use arguments which you don’t know the origin and/or veracity.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Now, I’m starting to feel a little bad for you, because you are swinging wildly…trying to land the knockout punch which has eluded you for so many years.

Don’t feel bad for me, Randy. I have been able to withstand the lies, deceptions and diversions just fine.

This discussion is over you. You have nothing to present that can be of help other than polemics.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Protestants are teaching doctrines which CONTRADICT what the Church taught previously and denying doctrines that have been held without question since the Apostolic era.

Oh the irony uch:

 

[Randy_Carson]

No only modern Roman Catholics interpret “Thou art Peter” to mean the Bishop of Rome “By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely” and “the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not by consent of the Church.”

I think, based on how the early Church actually behaved, that the fathers who did interpret the verse to apply to St Peter personally would have been shocked and horrified by the above statements.

More than they would be shocked that you are not in communion with Rome?

Not. Even. Close. :nope:

(And yes, I could bury you with quotes from the Fathers in support of this.)

I think I’ll stick with the fathers on this thank you very much.

I think it’s fair to say that you’re not the only one with some familiarity with their writings…the Orthodox scholars most notably.

Then why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept today that the rock is Peter’s confession?

Both/and. What is it that you don’t get about that concept?

No one would have any reason to argue it because the popes were not using this verse to support their anti-canonical claims. If you asked St Augustine what he thought about the above statements about one bishop he would have been horrified.

Speculation. I suspect that he would have been more horrified to learn that you have been out of communion with Rome for 1,000 years.

Do I want to keep company with those who avoid modern inventions? Yes I do, that’s why I’m not Catholic.

You are not Catholic because at the time of your conversion, you were not properly informed about the distinction between “invention” and “development”.

At least be honest about that.

"But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Read more closely.

“Those who WOULD be first, must be your slave.”

IOW, Jesus acknowledges that some WOULD be first, and He describes the ideal character of those individuals. He does not say that NONE would be first, does He? :nope:

Proportion of Catholics in Latin America has dropped 25% since 1970

“A new report released by the Pew Research Centre has found that the proportion of Latin America that is Catholic has dropped 25% since 1970, falling from 92% of the population then to 69% now. Over the same period of time the number of Protestants has grown to 19%, while the number that define themselves as religiously unaffiliated has risen to 8%.”

I would be a little less eager to brag about numbers if I were you. And if anyone is being led astray it’s not by God I can assure you. I might recommend you think twice before posting statements like this.

No, God has not led His Church astray, though many have gone into schism (Orthodoxy) and heresy (Protestantism). However, if ANYONE should avoid using demographics, by all means, it should be the EO.

But I see from the strength of your last point that we have reached the end of rational discourse for the present.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Don’t feel bad for me, Randy. I have been able to withstand the lies, deceptions and diversions just fine.

Why is Newman wrong?

 

[clem456]

…
You have nothing to present that can be of help…

So you say you are discerning.
What does one do when one is discerning, and repeatedly (page after page) finds no help. As you tell others repeatedly…“No help, irrelevant, straw man, personal attack” Etc…

Are you really discerning, or is your mind made and closed?

If you say your mind is -not- made, why do you argue continuously with faithful Catholics who cannot possibly agree with you. Wouldn’t you listen and discern with those who already accept what you are discerning?

If truly you are discerning Catholicism, why are you not listening to Catholics on a Catholic forum? What do you expect here?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992) by John Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period (before 325 AD) –

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 124)

“The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 125-126)

“Rome’s vocation [in the “pre-Nicene period”] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition – that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine – and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome…” (Afanassieff from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)

“It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance.” (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FPeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm&ei=uXsQULuiMsbH6AGQ_YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGr1wZYFMd3rJaKObspqQk51ulqaw&sig2=J7j7dnKEqKMd5SgsqQOLKg

 

[Isaiah45_9]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FPeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm&ei=uXsQULuiMsbH6AGQ_YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGr1wZYFMd3rJaKObspqQk51ulqaw&sig2=J7j7dnKEqKMd5SgsqQOLKg

You mean:

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church
by John Meyendorff (Editor)
ISBN-13: 978-0881411256

I have the book. Will check the references and compare.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

So you say you are discerning.
What does one do when one is discerning, and repeatedly (page after page) finds no help. As you tell others repeatedly…“No help, irrelevant, straw man, personal attack” Etc…

Are you really discerning, or is your mind made and closed?

If you say your mind is -not- made, why do you argue continuously with faithful Catholics who cannot possibly agree with you. Wouldn’t you listen and discern with those who already accept what you are discerning?

If truly you are discerning Catholicism, why are you not listening to Catholics on a Catholic forum? What do you expect here?

More than: “It is so, because I say so.” for sure.

You do realize that instead of assertions I have pointed to the specific label and/or have referenced the opinions properly.

 

[clem456]

More than: “It is so, because I say so.” for sure.

Thanks for cherry picking a quote out of context again. Can you post the whole thing, or is that scary?

You do realize that instead of assertions I have pointed to the specific label and/or have referenced the opinions properly.

I would think that after 4000 posts of dissent, it is established that you can quote opinions (although the actual links are few and far between). So? After thousands of posts beating the dead horse, it goes beyond discerning. Non-stop disagreement is not discerning, it is agenda-pushing (your prolly on the wrong forum for an agenda that rejects the supremacy of the Pope, don’t you think?)
Your mind seems to be made. Not a problem. God bless you in your faith.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks for cherry picking a quote out of context again. Can you post the whole thing, or is that scary?

I would think that after 4000 posts of dissent, it is established that you can quote opinions (although the actual links are few and far between). So? After thousands of posts beating the dead horse, it goes beyond discerning. Non-stop disagreement is not discerning, it is agenda-pushing (your prolly on the wrong forum for an agenda that rejects the supremacy of the Pope, don’t you think?)
Your mind seems to be made. Not a problem. God bless you in your faith.

Thank you for sanctifying me!

 

[Randy_Carson]

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FPeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm&ei=uXsQULuiMsbH6AGQ_YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGr1wZYFMd3rJaKObspqQk51ulqaw&sig2=J7j7dnKEqKMd5SgsqQOLKg

GT…bringing it strong.

Nice work.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would think that after 4000 posts of dissent, it is established that you can quote opinions (although the actual links are few and far between). So? After thousands of posts beating the dead horse, it goes beyond discerning. Non-stop disagreement is not discerning, it is agenda-pushing (your prolly on the wrong forum for an agenda that rejects the supremacy of the Pope, don’t you think?)
Your mind seems to be made. Not a problem. God bless you in your faith.

Well said. :clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I just got back from the library where I went specifically to pick up a book that I’m looking forward to reading:

The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy:
Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church
By James Likoudis

I’ll be popping in from time to time with quotes I have mined from Likoudis’ own mining of the Fathers.

 

[clem456]

Thank you for sanctifying me!

Your sanctification is far from my area of competence, or anyone else’s. All I or anyone else can do is propose what the Church proposes. You are responsible to use your time wisely and faithfully, reject this, accept that, and find good faith. And lead others to it because you believe it is true, beautiful, and good for them. Good faith is not pushing an argumentative agenda at those who’s beliefs you do not share, in the name of “discerning”…
Methodist, Orthodox, Anglican, follow your conscience. May God bless you in your faith (is that more palatable for you?).

 

[benhur]

The point is missed. Continually.

you are right, had to reread, and didn’t listen to little voice before saying to reread before posting. I think you meant documentation is not always necessary, at least initially. Still, much more oral tradition/testimony to resurrection than papacy. Anyways, the point will still be missed by some, with or with out documentation for we disagree on the meaning of pre-church/testimony from Scriptures.