Protestant arguments against the primacy of Peter

[TULIPed]

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.

It’s a fair point. Would you cite the Levitical priesthood as precedence for this governance model?

I ask because would/could not the Holy Spirit ensure the existence of the True Church across a wide variety of local governance?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

No, I’m not! You suggested that Jesus instituted apostolic succession. I cited Church teaching that the apostles did so. No ‘whoosh’ there, my friend.

Gorgias:

But, if you’re certain it’s otherwise, I’m sure you’ll find a quote saying that?

I’ve made no such claim.

You haven’t? Hmm:

I’ve never heard anything but divine source for the primacy of Peter’s successors in Rome.

Perhaps you were suggesting that someone else, other than the Church, was making that claim?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

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.

An older brother is responsible for his siblings correct?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

It’s a fair point. Would you cite the Levitical priesthood as precedence for this governance model?

You could.

I ask because would/could not the Holy Spirit ensure the existence of the True Church across a wide variety of local governance?

The question here is did He do this?

 

[dochawk]

No, I’m not! You suggested that Jesus instituted apostolic succession.

No. I stated that

It’s just that establishing apostolic succession doesn’t establish petrine; you have to get there elsewise.

I’ve assumed the validity of apostolic from the start.

Perhaps you were suggesting that someone else, other than the Church, was making that claim?

err, no. many non-Catholics deny the primacy, or dispute what it meabns.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

It’s a fair point. Would you cite the Levitical priesthood as precedence for this governance model?

I am by no means expert, but from my understanding, Old Testament tends to show imperfect version of what we get in New Testament. Levitical Priesthood, Pharisees having authority to teach and even though their acts weren’t praiseworthy, “do as they teach but not as they do, for they sit in Chair of Moses” shows that Chair of Moses existed and was principal unbroken authority for Old Testament.

Later, much like in parable of vineyard, they were “slain” and this was taken from them and given “to another nation”. So this authority is now in the New Testament Church.

I ask because would/could not the Holy Spirit ensure the existence of the True Church across a wide variety of local governance?

While technically true, Holy Spirit does not not override our free will. In theory it’s easier to correct one guy than many… but then again God has no limits.

I think this comes down to certainty. St. Thomas the Apostle was scolded for not having certainty in Faith. But how can we be certain? Through our feelings? Then I wouldn’t fast anymore. Through our own interpretation of Tradition/Scripture? We can see we disagree despite best of our intentions. Through visible authority on Earth? Alright, but what if this authority argues with one another? Focal point is quite the answer.

 

[mcq72]

An older brother is responsible for his siblings correct?

Yes, if indeed he is older.

 

[mcq72]

Levitical Priesthood, Pharisees having authority to teach and even though their acts weren’t praiseworthy, “do as they teach but not as they do, for they sit in Chair of Moses” shows that Chair of Moses existed and was principal unbroken authority for Old Testament.

Would it be wrong to remember the Lord’s admonition, “to beware of their leaven”, their bad doctrine also ?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Would it be wrong to remember the Lord’s admonition, “to beware of their leaven”, their bad doctrine also ?

I wouldn’t identify leaven with bad doctrine. My interpretation might be off, but leaven = doctrine wouldn’t be consistent with Lord’s words in Matthew 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…
(emphasis mine)

 

[mcq72]

I wouldn’t identify leaven with bad doctrine. My interpretation might be off, but leaven = doctrine wouldn’t be consistent with Lord’s words in Matthew 23:1-3

“Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” Mat. 16:12

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And Peter for all intents and purposes was the big bro of the Apostolic college.

 

[mcq72]

And Peter for all intents and purposes was the big bro of the Apostolic college

Yes. A leader, first amongst equals. They acted as a band of brothers.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

A leader, first amongst equals.

There are no equals with a first among equals. Remember Augustus?

 

[Gorgias]

Yes. A leader, first amongst equals.

“Peter, I give you the keys to the kingdom”, not “Peter, I give all ya’ll the keys to the kingdom”.

Equal in dignity; not equal in office.

 

[ArchStanton]

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.

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] ( Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [ A.D. 200 ]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics , they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source " ( Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [ A.D. 252 ]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis** [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] ( Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [ A.D. 350 ]).

 

[Julius_Caesar]

To be fair do you have any John 21 references?

 

[ArchStanton]

To be fair do you have any John 21 references?

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics , they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source " ( Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [ A.D. 252 ]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter , whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair . So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one , fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [ A.D. 251 ]).

 

[Tecnologgamer]

This article start with a false premise that Catholics are Sola Scriptura and the Bible needs to be according of the papacy since the papacy is more older than the Bible, until the century 4 the Bible has not finished. Also, the author limit the term “God word” only to the Bible since the Sacred Scriptures gives other meanings for this term like Christ per si and the born of the Church is an acting of your word. He belives Jesus when ressucted did not planned to give an institution where he will been assisted until Dies Irae and all christians can live in a theological anarchism.

 

[mcq72]

There are no equals with a first among equals.

That is the opinion of half of Christendom.

 

[Gorgias]

Julius_Caesar:

There are no equals with a first among equals.

That is the opinion of half of Christendom.

I’m so glad that the Bible tells us that Jesus said, “take a majority vote, and whatever most of ya’ll think, I’m good with.”


Wait…