Protestants: Is Peter the first Pope?

[E.E.N.S]

EA_Man:

Unbroken history?

Does that include having three popes / antipopes at the same time?

Antipopes are not real popes…check your sources.

 

[Church_Militant]

EA_Man:

Unbroken history?

Does that include having three popes / antipopes at the same time?

Yes, as a matter of fact it does.

 

[EA_Man]

Church Militant:

Yes, as a matter of fact it does.

Care to explain how?

 

[Church_Militant]

List of Popes: (does yours match?)

St. Peter (32-67)​

St. Linus (67-76)​

St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)​

St. Clement I (88-97)​

St. Evaristus (97-105)​

St. Alexander I (105-115)​

St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I​

St. Telesphorus (125-136)​

St. Hyginus (136-140)​

St. Pius I (140-155)​

St. Anicetus (155-166)​

St. Soter (166-175)​

St. Eleutherius (175-189)​

St. Victor I (189-199)​

St. Zephyrinus (199-217)​

St. Callistus I (217-22)​

St. Urban I (222-30)​

St. Pontain (230-35)​

St. Anterus (235-36)​

St. Fabian (236-50)​

St. Cornelius (251-53)​

St. Lucius I (253-54)​

St. Stephen I (254-257)​

St. Sixtus II (257-258)​

St. Dionysius (260-268)​

St. Felix I (269-274)​

St. Eutychian (275-283)​

St. Caius (283-296) – also called Gaius​

St. Marcellinus (296-304)​

St. Marcellus I (308-309)​

St. Eusebius (309 or 310)​

St. Miltiades (311-14)​

St. Sylvester I (314-35)​

St. Marcus (336)​

St. Julius I (337-52)​

Liberius (352-66)​

St. Damasus I (366-83)​

St. Siricius (384-99)​

St. Anastasius I (399-401)​

St. Innocent I (401-17)​

St. Zosimus (417-18)​

St. Boniface I (418-22)​

St. Celestine I (422-32)​

St. Sixtus III (432-40)​

St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)​

St. Hilarius (461-68)​

St. Simplicius (468-83)​

St. Felix III (II) (483-92)​

St. Gelasius I (492-96)​

Anastasius II (496-98)​

St. Symmachus (498-514)​

St. Hormisdas (514-23)​

St. John I (523-26)​

St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)​

Boniface II (530-32)​

John II (533-35)​

St. Agapetus I (535-36) – also called Agapitus I​

St. Silverius (536-37)​

Vigilius (537-55)​

Pelagius I (556-61)​

John III (561-74)​

Benedict I (575-79)​

Pelagius II (579-90)​

St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)​

Sabinian (604-606)​

Boniface III (607)​

St. Boniface IV (608-15)​

St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)​

Boniface V (619-25)​

Honorius I (625-38)​

Severinus (640)​

John IV (640-42)​

Theodore I (642-49)​

St. Martin I (649-55)​

St. Eugene I (655-57)​

St. Vitalian (657-72)​

Adeodatus (II) (672-76)​

Donus (676-78)​

St. Agatho (678-81)​

St. Leo II (682-83)​

St. Benedict II (684-85)​

John V (685-86)​

Conon (686-87)​

St. Sergius I (687-701)​

John VI (701-05)​

John VII (705-07)​

Sisinnius (708)​

Constantine (708-15)​

St. Gregory II (715-31)​

St. Gregory III (731-41)​

St. Zachary (741-52)​

Stephen II (752) – Omitted from many lists (including the Vatican’s) because he died before being consecrated.

Stephen III (752-57)​

St. Paul I (757-67)​

Stephen IV (767-72)​

Adrian I (772-95)​

St. Leo III (795-816)​

Stephen V (816-17)​

St. Paschal I (817-24)​

Eugene II (824-27)​

Valentine (827)​

Gregory IV (827-44)​

Sergius II (844-47)​

St. Leo IV (847-55)​

Benedict III (855-58)​

St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)​

Adrian II (867-72)​

John VIII (872-82)​

Marinus I (882-84)​

St. Adrian III (884-85)​

Stephen VI (885-91)​

Formosus (891-96)​

Boniface VI (896)​

Stephen VII (896-97)​

Romanus (897)​

Theodore II (897)​

John IX (898-900)​

Benedict IV (900-03)​

Leo V (903)​

Sergius III (904-11)​

Anastasius III (911-13)​

Lando (913-14)​

John X (914-28)​

Leo VI (928)​

Stephen VIII (929-31)​

John XI (931-35)​

Leo VII (936-39)​

Stephen IX (939-42)​

Marinus II (942-46)​

Agapetus II (946-55)​

John XII (955-63)​

Leo VIII (963-64)​

 

[Church_Militant]

Benedict V (964)​

John XIII (965-72)​

Benedict VI (973-74)​

Benedict VII (974-83)​

John XIV (983-84)​

John XV (985-96)​

Gregory V (996-99)​

Sylvester II (999-1003)​

John XVII (1003)​

John XVIII (1003-09)​

Sergius IV (1009-12)​

Benedict VIII (1012-24)​

John XIX (1024-32)​

Benedict IX (1032-45)​

Sylvester III (1045) – Considered by some to be an antipope​

Benedict IX (1045)​

Gregory VI (1045-46)​

Clement II (1046-47)​

Benedict IX (1047-48)​

Damasus II (1048)​

St. Leo IX (1049-54)​

Victor II (1055-57)​

Stephen X (1057-58)​

Nicholas II (1058-61)​

Alexander II (1061-73)​

St. Gregory VII (1073-85)​

Blessed Victor III (1086-87)​

Blessed Urban II (1088-99)​

Paschal II (1099-1118)​

Gelasius II (1118-19)​

Callistus II (1119-24)​

Honorius II (1124-30)​

Innocent II (1130-43)​

Celestine II (1143-44)​

Lucius II (1144-45)​

Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)​

Anastasius IV (1153-54)​

Adrian IV (1154-59)​

Alexander III (1159-81)​

Lucius III (1181-85)​

Urban III (1185-87)​

Gregory VIII (1187)​

Clement III (1187-91)​

Celestine III (1191-98)​

Innocent III (1198-1216)​

Honorius III (1216-27)​

Gregory IX (1227-41)​

Celestine IV (1241)​

Innocent IV (1243-54)​

Alexander IV (1254-61)​

Urban IV (1261-64)​

Clement IV (1265-68)​

Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)​

Blessed Innocent V (1276)​

Adrian V (1276)​

John XXI (1276-77)​

Nicholas III (1277-80)​

Martin IV (1281-85)​

Honorius IV (1285-87)​

Nicholas IV (1288-92)​

St. Celestine V (1294)​

Boniface VIII (1294-1303)​

Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)​

Clement V (1305-14)​

John XXII (1316-34)​

Benedict XII (1334-42)​

Clement VI (1342-52)​

Innocent VI (1352-62)​

Blessed Urban V (1362-70)​

Gregory XI (1370-78)​

Urban VI (1378-89)​

Boniface IX (1389-1404)​

Innocent VII (1404-06)​

Gregory XII (1406-15)​

Martin V (1417-31)​

Eugene IV (1431-47)​

Nicholas V (1447-55)​

Callistus III (1455-58)​

Pius II (1458-64)​

Paul II (1464-71)​

Sixtus IV (1471-84)​

Innocent VIII (1484-92)​

Alexander VI (1492-1503)​

Pius III (1503)​

Julius II (1503-13)​

Leo X (1513-21)​

Adrian VI (1522-23)​

Clement VII (1523-34)​

Paul III (1534-49)​

Julius III (1550-55)​

Marcellus II (1555)​

Paul IV (1555-59)​

Pius IV (1559-65)​

St. Pius V (1566-72)​

Gregory XIII (1572-85)​

Sixtus V (1585-90)​

Urban VII (1590)​

Gregory XIV (1590-91)​

Innocent IX (1591)​

Clement VIII (1592-1605)​

Leo XI (1605)​

Paul V (1605-21)​

Gregory XV (1621-23)​

Urban VIII (1623-44)​

Innocent X (1644-55)​

Alexander VII (1655-67)​

Clement IX (1667-69)​

Clement X (1670-76)​

Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)​

Alexander VIII (1689-91)​

Innocent XII (1691-1700)​

Clement XI (1700-21)​

Innocent XIII (1721-24)​

Benedict XIII (1724-30)​

Clement XII (1730-40)​

Benedict XIV (1740-58)​

Clement XIII (1758-69)​

Clement XIV (1769-74)​

Pius VI (1775-99)​

Pius VII (1800-23)​

Leo XII (1823-29)​

Pius VIII (1829-30)​

Gregory XVI (1831-46)​

Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)​

Leo XIII (1878-1903)​

St. Pius X (1903-14)​

Benedict XV (1914-22)​

Pius XI (1922-39)​

Pius XII (1939-58)​

Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)​

Paul VI (1963-78)​

John Paul I (1978)​

John Paul II (1978-2005)​

Benedict XVI (2005—)​

 

[E.E.N.S]

**As for 18, This could mean many things. The keys could be insight, or assurance that the apostles would join Jesus after death. The keys could be the key points of his teachings or anything else. The second part of the verse is also highly interpretable. It could mean anything from what you say, to a restatement of do unto others. The point I am trying to make is that the verse does not clearly spell out what the church claims. What authority was given? **

That is one reason why we have the Church, to interpret the meaning of Sacred Scripture (guided by the Holy Spirit of course), it was never meant to be interpreted 1000 diferent ways by anyone and everyone who picks up the Bible claiming their own Truth.

Jesus established a Church (which Scripture calls His “Body” (cf. Eph 1:22-23), His “Bride” (cf. Eph 5:25-32), and the “pillar and foundation of truth” (cf. 1 Tim 3:15). Jesus chose to found the Church so that His followers could be spiritually guided, nourished and reconciled throughout their earthly lives in preparation to spend eternal life with God in heaven.

One Head, one body; one Christ, One Church!
That there is only one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church we are compelled by faith to believe and hold, and we firmly believe in her and sincerely confess her, outside of whom there is neither salvation nor remission of sins…] She represents one mystical Body; the head of this body is Christ, but the head of Christ is God. In her there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5)…]

This one and unique Church, therefore, has not two heads, like a monster, but one body and one head, viz., Christ and his vicar, Peter’s successor, for the Lord said to Peter personally: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). ‘My’ he said in general, not individually, meaning these or those; whereby it is understood that he confided all his sheep to him. If therefore Greeks or others say that they were not confided to Peter and his successors, they must necessarily confess that they are not among Christ’s sheep, for the Lord said in John: “there shall be one fold and one shephard” (John 10:16).

 

[EA_Man]

Church Militant:

List of Popes: (does yours match?)

Stephen II (752) – Omitted from many lists (including the Vatican’s) because he died before being consecrated.

Sylvester III (1045) – Considered by some to be an antipope

What do you mean mine?

Yours doesn’t even match.

Was Sylvester III a pope or an antipope?

How about Stephen II, was he or was he not a pope?

The Vatican doesn’t think so, but your list has him. Is your list more reliable than the Vatican’s? If not, why are you quoting from it? Why not use the Vatican’s I thought that they had the official word on these matters.

And if, in fact, there is an "unbroken’ line of popes, as you claim, then why isn’t there only one list instead of several? Very curious…

Peace

 

[Church_Militant]

EA_Man:

What do you mean mine?

Yours doesn’t even match.

Was Sylvester III a pope or an antipope?

How about Stephen II, was he or was he not a pope?

The Vatican doesn’t think so, but your list has him. Is your list more reliable than the Vatican’s? If not, why are you quoting from it? Why not use the Vatican’s I thought that they had the official word on these matters.

And if, in fact, there is an "unbroken’ line of popes, as you claim, then why isn’t there only one list instead of several? Very curious…

Peace

Get off it Man… if you can’t handle the honest answers then stop asking the questions.

What’s the list say? If the man was elected but not consecrated then that’s the reason. That should be self-evident, unless your point is just to argue…

As for the anti-pope in question, so what? Do you see a gap there in those dates? NO. There is a valid pope whenever there may be anti-popes, (we have them today…) so there still is no unbroken line.
Now, are you through playing your game?

 

[Hildebrand]

Contarini:

1. You have to show that the bishops of Rome have received Peter’s authority in a manner qualitatively different from that in which other bishops have received it. There are a good many patristic passages that can be cited on both sides of this one, so you hardly have a clear-cut case.

Irenaeus:

“2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere… The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (*Against Heresies *3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Tertullian:

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth:

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (*The Little Labyrinth *[A.D. 211], in Eusebius, *Church History *5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (*Letters *55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“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” (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea:

“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (*Church History *3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

 

[Hildebrand]

con’t

Pope Julius I:

“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica:

“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]). *

Optatus:

*“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis:

“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I:

“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome:

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (*Against the Luciferians *23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (*Letters *15:1 [A.D. 396]).

…

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid.,15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp*

 

[Hildebrand]

Contarini:

1. You have to show that the power Jesus granted Peter included the charism of infallibility, such that in any major church-dividing controversy Peter’s successors (this of course depends on pt. 1) will represent the true Church. This is the real sticking point for me. I accept that the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter (whether this can be said to be by direct divine authority or simply by providential, historical development I’m not sure). But I am not convinced that any division between them and other Christians amounts to a rebellion against Christ’s Church on the part of the other Christians. And that is really the key point. (Pt. 1 returns here, inasmuch as many of us think that the power given to all the apostles in chap. 18 is essentially the same as the power here given to Peter; thus, while we recognize the primacy of Rome, we don’t think that the power of the keys can simply be reduced to papal authority.)

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/binding.htm

 

[scylla]

For the arguement to hold water that there isn’t a consistant line then it would have deviated to a whole new Church. Which Church now claims it has an unbroken line to Peter from one of those anti-popes. As we can see even though there were some bad popes and anti-popes the Gates of Hell haven’t prevailed. Jesus promised it.

There are always people coming up trying to say the Church has fallen so they need to start their own. This has taken many forms from people declaring themselves Pope, to people declaring themselves new heads of churches to just people forming new churches.

For me it all boils down to looking back at history and watching the development of the Church. The maintaining of the Church even through horrible Popes, Bishops and Priests. The constant efforts of people trying to take over the Church and do their own will and through God’s providence never succeeding. Jesus made a promise, for me it took a little faith to believe in it, but when I took that step of faith, then I could see it.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[EA_Man]

Church Militant:

As for the anti-pope in question, so what? Do you see a gap there in those dates? NO. There is a valid pope whenever there may be anti-popes, (we have them today…) so there still is no unbroken line.

So what?!

“for nearly half a century the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side,” Cardinal Ratzinger; Principles of Catholic Theology, 196.

So whatever way this was resolved (via the Council of Constance) makes no difference apparently. The status of the Council of Constance has been left officially indeterminate. Why?

Because in order ratify Constance, the Pope would have to affirm the primacy of council over that of the papacy, while it can’t be dismissed without reopening the Great Schism.

So we’re left with an unratified Councilar verdict that cannot be abandoned lest the entire house of cards falls in upon itself.

 

[Kristina_P]

I’d better answer this quick, while I’m still a Protestant. I’d say that if this passage isn’t instituting Peter as the first Pope, it’s simply giving first to Peter the authority that is later given to all the apostles (or all Christians, depending on your interpretation) in John 20:21-23. The “keys” are simply a metaphor for this authority.

 

[cjaubert]

Kristina P.:

If this passage isn’t instituting Peter as the first Pope, it’s simply giving first to Peter the authority that is later given to all the apostles (or all Christians, depending on your interpretation) in John 20:21-23. The “keys” are simply a metaphor for this authority.

Certainly an interesting observation, Kristina, but do you not see any difference at all between Jesus singling out Peter personally and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and Jesus addressing a group of men and infusing them with the holy spirit? Both are magical and important events, of course, but both are certainly different, as well.

P.S. I presume that your reference to “while I’m still a Protestant…” suggests that you are curious about the Catholic Church. That may be why you are reading this board. Keep reading; that is, if you are looking for the fullness of truth. God bless you.

 

[Wormwood]

Catholic Dude:

I talked about it already:

And I said “convincingly” addressed.

The thing that most protestants dont realize is that Matt16:18-19 is not the ONLY verse Catholics use (though one is enough).

The thing most catholics fail to realize is that I am not protestant. And one obscure verse hardly seems enough evidence for such bold assertions, that are contrary to a very direct verse against those very assertions.

one important one was when he was given the vision in Acts10 to be the first one to open the door to Gentiles! VERY IMPORTANT!

Yes, FIRST ONE not ONLY ONE…that DOES seem important.

Javelin:

You certainly can think of many things that the image of keys could signify, but what we should do is see what it would signify to the people Jesus was speaking to - Jews.

They were awaiting a Messiah, of the line of David, who would establish a new kingdom that would last until the end of time. These things are clear in the Old Testament Scriptures

You are making sense up to this point…then you descend into pure speculation without offering one bit of evidence or one example to support your claims.

So you can make up lots of potential things that Jesus may have meant, but the meaning that makes sense when looking at his audience, Jewish history, and the activity of the development of the early Church, is the Catholic interpretation.

Obviously I can’t make them up as well as you, but if one were to look at the jewish audience you spoke of, one would be likely to notice that the jews don’t even believe christ was the messiah. If you were refering only to the apostles, you should take note that all of the apostles were there but it was peter that spoke up, so it was he that was addressed first, but all of the apostles were also likewise blessed (even Judas).

 

[mercygate]

EA_Man:

So we’re left with an unratified Councilar verdict that cannot be abandoned lest the entire house of cards falls in upon itself.

The fact that it hasn’t “fallen in on itself” but has survived this dark period of history, a Catholic would say, evidences the power of the Holy Spirit to uphold the Church.

 

[RyanL]

Wormwood:

The thing most catholics fail to realize is that I am not protestant…

So what, exactly, are you? Why don’t you update your profile and quit hiding in anonymity? You’re not Catholic, you’re not Protestant; Orthodox? Athiest? Panthiest? Hindu? Put an end to the mistakes people make about you, and explain what you believe.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BibleReader]

Contarini:

There are two major hurdles that Catholics have to overcome:

1. You have to show that the bishops of Rome have received Peter’s authority in a manner qualitatively different from that in which other bishops have received it. There are a good many patristic passages that can be cited on both sides of this one, so you hardly have a clear-cut case.

Edwin

Edwin,

Re 1, up above…

You might be interested in considering the quiet word-picture at Luke 5:1-3:

**1 ****While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. ****2 ****He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. ****3 ****Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. **

Here are the types making-up the word-picture…

**1 ****While the crowd was pressing in on Jesus and listening to the word of God, he was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret. ****2 ****He saw two boats there alongside the lake; the fishermen had disembarked and were washing their nets. ****3 ****Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. **

The Lake of Gennesaret is an analog of the Abyss Type for “the sea of damnable souls.” Below I highlighted “shore” because in a sense it’s part of the Abyss Type: The crowd is not in the Lake, but on the shore. I.e., those folks hearing the word of God are no longer part of the sea of damnable souls, but rather are saved. Suddenly, they are among the countless spiritual descendants of Abraham, as countless as “the sands of the seashore.” Genesis 22:17.

Jesus gets into one of “two” “boats.” “Two” = the Two Type = Church. “Boats” = the Boat Type = “the Church.” So, we are looking at a picture of Jesus in the Church, and His true word coming out of the Church.

Jesus is sitting in the boat. The Sitting Type = “presiding.”

So, the story is a wonderful quiet picture of Jesus presiding in the Church, His true word issuing from the Church to the saved.

Now, here’s the crux of the matter: Whose boat is it?

Answer: “**3 ****Getting into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, he asked him to put out a short distance from the shore. Then he sat down and taught the crowds from the boat. **”

You are looking at a picture of the true word of God COMING OUT OF THE CHURCH OF PETER.

 

[BibleReader]

Contarini:

1. You have to show that the power Jesus granted Peter included the charism of infallibility, such that in any major church-dividing controversy Peter’s successors (this of course depends on pt. 1) will represent the true Church. This is the real sticking point for me. I accept that the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter (whether this can be said to be by direct divine authority or simply by providential, historical development I’m not sure). But I am not convinced that any division between them and other Christians amounts to a rebellion against Christ’s Church on the part of the other Christians. And that is really the key point. (Pt. 1 returns here, inasmuch as many of us think that the power given to all the apostles in chap. 18 is essentially the same as the power here given to Peter; thus, while we recognize the primacy of Rome, we don’t think that the power of the keys can simply be reduced to papal authority.)

Edwin

Edwin, re 2 up above, consider the following…

The Church teaches that infallibility is “communicative” and “receptive”: The Holy Spirit protects the *communication *of truth; and He offers to the Faithful grace protecting the reception by the Faithful of truth.

**10 ****Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus.****11 **Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its scabbard. Shall I not drink the cup that the Father gave me?” John 18:10-11.

**50 ****And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear. ****51 **But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him. Luke 22:50-51.

So, Peter wields a “sword,” and applies it to the “right” “ear” of a bad guy, the “ear” receives the “sword” badly, and falls off, and Jesus repairs the “ear.”

“Sword” = the Sword Type = “the word of God.” See Ephesians 6:17: “And take…the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

Suddenly, it is very important that it was applied to an “ear,” isn’t it?

Which “ear”? The “right” ear. Why is that important? Because Jesus is the “right” hand of God. When Peter applies the “sword” to the “right” “ear,” that is a picture of Peter (and his successors – otherwise, why bother recording the incident for posterity in a gospel written after Peter’s death?) teaching the word of God about Jesus.

Now, note what then happens: The ear “receives the word of God about Jesus” poorly – it falls off!

And then Jesus repairs the hearing of the word about Jesus – He repairs the ear.

The Receptive Grace of Infallibility.

There it is – a Biblical picture that the Church of Peter enjoys the benefit of the grace of infallibility.