M
mcq72
Guest
Again, that is the commission. No mention of a name for such " office".
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
We are all our brothers keeper.
The beginning post article answers this , that all the apostles tended the flock.
M
mcq72
Guest
I know. Some folks thought it more glorious to be baptized by Peter than John I bet.
Peter talked first many times. He acted as spokesman many times, even before he was a rock.Definitely a leader type.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And Peter had to take care of everyone else
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And a person gets authority when they are commisioned right? Peter was responsible for his brother Apostles as well as the Church.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes. as an apostle even the leader, and fellow presbyter. Nothing more. Nothing less. Later would come the problematic institutionalizing the commission into an elevated office, exactly what Christ did not want.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Apostles are presbyters but not all presbyters are Apostles.
Christ definitely wanted Peter to be preeminent and responsible for his Apostles.
“Who is the steward who the Master set over his house, to give the allowance of food at the proper time?”
M
mcq72
Guest
Correct.
Preminent is your word. I said leader. Responsible for? Strengthen and feed were the words used. Disagree with words that allude to developing jurisdiction over anachronistically.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
In Catholic sense it does.
In full sense, Apostolic Succession is defined as Bishops in communion with the Pope exercising their power and authority to govern the Church.
Later definition of simply valid Episcopate = Apostolic Succession is mostly used in Ecumenical circles, but traditionally Catholic Church believed in the first definition to be more precise.
But where is Petrine Ministry in the Bible? “Govern My lambs” said our Lord to Peter. “On this Rock …” said our Lord to Simon whom He renamed Peter- signifying what He meant by the Rock. And then also several other parallels… this video covers some of them.
And also “govern”…
To be more clear I will borrow @steve-b 's great explanation.
Jesus again (asking Peter do YOU love me), in front of all the apostles, obviously singles Peter out again and says to him directly, feed and rule [poimaino] my sheep.[Jn 21:16…]
What does poimaino ἡγούμενος in Greek mean? Just open the link
shepherd, tend, rule, govern.
AND
poimaino ἡγούμενος is The same Greek word used in both Lk 22, and Jn 21, and that pertains to Peter.
So
Peter then, in his capacity as leader of all , says the following to those made leaders
HERE
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
A shepherd is responsible for feeding his sheep. A commander is responsible for strengthening his soldiers.
M
mcq72
Guest
And most early commentators such as Cyril, Augustine etc. cite this as a restorative singling out, not necesarily to be chief shepherd, which only Christ is.
Just as the 12 apostles fed the church (governed), so also will they do (judge) over the twelve tribes in the kingdom to come.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Sure, but what was Peter singled out for? Now if it was so practical to have one leader of Apostles why would it not be practical to have leader of Bishops? There is certainly merit in this as it was Apostolic practice during when Church did not always have means to contact this leader… it would be sad that if now that it is possible this position wouldn’t exist anymore. You said how Apostles all knew Christ personally which is true. If those people needed leader, why don’t Bishops? It almost sounds like Bishops are more trustworthy than Apostles.
No argument here :+1:t2:
However if you mean to interpret this in a way that 12 did same thing as Peter with governing, that wasn’t singled out for them as it was for Peter… and I don’t actually recall that being told to Apostles. And lastly, Peter was supposed to govern lambds of Christ… not regular sheep.
Last edited:
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Agreed on the sola scriptura. That was my point. They somehow understand only Scripture where all is…
G
Gorgias
Guest
“The apostles took care to appoint successors.” Literally, that says what you deny. It was the apostles, not Jesus, who appointed successors. The direct quote from LG says:Gorgias:
not in any way that suggests roman primacy was an apostolic choice, you didn’t.
I’m sure you can find that Christ willed it (it’s even in the vicinity of my quote from LG). However, it’s the apostles who instituted it.
But, if you’re certain it’s otherwise, I’m sure you’ll find a quote saying that?
M
mcq72
Guest
Fair and thought out response. You would almost have one convinced.
I will start out by saying we can not gloss over our differences of just how Peter was a leader. We can talk whether he was " appointed", or whether he was a leader quite naturally by disposition, and or a mixture of the two.
What also comes up is the idea of first amongst equals. Some say no such thing, but then others say no such things as two heads (Jesus and Peter), even though one is visible and one not. Scripture is quite clear that Christ is the head Shepherd. It is also quite clear He is ever present in and by not just the shepherd, but in every sheep. This is very unlike your reasonable explanation for needing a visible leader as in any worldly organization. The uniqueness of the church is His ever presence in every believer. Can you imagine if you were to look at every believer as His temple, even His monstrance.?
So yes we still need shepherding, but the invisible Head Shepherd is quite sufficient in and of itself. First amongst equals is not so far fetched then. What the early church did with councils and patriarchs is not so far fetched. We are not orphans without a visible head bishop.
I believe Jesus made no such office for Peter, though still a leader, and more certainly no office thereafter. As to those bishops that came afterwards, we trust God, even the Chief Shepherd, even the Paraclete, to provide a man for all seasons, a leader on any given situation in any time, as God sees fit, but working as amongst equals, not lording over like a worldly affair. ( and some popes were that man, but again, not exclusive to an office).
I really dont think the apostles needed the type of leader that the CC suggests. The Lord was strong in them and mighty in works, even unto to their martyrdom, save the beloved one John.
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
But the Lord himself said, “I have prayed for you Cephas… when you return, strengthen your brothers.”
M
mcq72
Guest
Again, is this commission, this exhortation, an everlasting office, or unique to Peter and the twelve? Is he now jurisdictionally over them. Seems like you spoil the brotherly service by sanctioning jurisdiction over the others.
So when we exhort or strenghthen a brother or sister are we now “over” them in governance, even institutionally?
The Lord was mighty in Peter, but not because he was pope.
Last edited:
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
In a human way of thinking, sure. But following his Lord, serving rather than being served. Not so much.
We keep them in the truth. We encourage one another. It is not something to be lorded over one another.
D
dochawk
Guest
*whoosh*
Yes, that the apostles appointed their successors, now called bishops, is anything but in dispute. Neither I nor anyone else I’ve noticed has in any way, shape, or form has questioned that. You’re tossing out a red herring.
It has nothing to do (other than perhaps as a necessary but not sufficient condition) with the passing on of peter’s roll.
Again, that needs something from history or doctrine; there are many other ways to reach a petrine role for rome.
I’ve made no such claim. I’m questioning the claim that you made as to how this works that seems to have no basis in Catholic teaching or the historical record.
Common understanding is divine origin (i don’t even know offhand wehther there is doctrine or dogma on this). If you want to demote this to “merely” apostolic, then you need a basis for telling us that our common and usual understanding is wrong.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Thank you. I must add that while we don’t share our opinions, your posts are also very well thought out and well formed.
I think your terms of “Head” and “Leader” for our Lord and Saint Peter are very good. I borrowed them for my post too
He is present in unbelievers too. It doesn’t change fact He appointed Apostles to go out into the world… Timothy was told to act with all authority. Churches were hierarchical from the start. I think that looking at every believer as His temple and monstrance is super hard but super necessary… in the end it is what we are called to do. However, that doesn’t give every believer same authority.
Main goal of Papacy isn’t to lead the Church in real sense… it is to keep Church in the tracks. Of course, that is more of a role of Holy Spirit and Papacy is one of quite many tools at His disposal. But Papacy is meant to “confirm the brethren in Faith”. So accept or reject Councils, clear confusion and lead when it is necessary. Roman Centralization isn’t part of dogmatic view on Papacy.
I guess that is where we disagree. I think that to keep Church in it’s Sacred Duty and to keep Apostolic Faith pure and therefore make sure there is always True Church with completely True Faith on Earth is what makes Papacy somewhat necessary.
In the end, it is also what Church Fathers seemed to believe, attributing to Rome St. Peter and St. Paul. It does make sense from historical perspective.
- Status