Question on Church Fathers and the Pope

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Acts 12 tells us that James is killed and Peter is captured but miraculously escapes and goes into hiding.

Sorry for any confusion here, I was just pointing out the chronology of events for continuity sake. I wasn’t trying to make the point that Peter was the head of the Church because he was miraculously saved. All of the Apostles could perform miracles - that’s what told the people that they were sharing the Word of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Acts 13-14 has Barnabas and Paul leaving on their first missionary journey. Remember in Acts 11, Barnabas has been sent by the Church to oversee the conversion of gentiles in Antioch, so this was a continuation of this mission, sanctioned by the Church and the Holy Spirit.

You don’t know if its of their own accord. Their conversion of Gentiles starts subsequent to Peter’s revelation and they could very well have been acting on that basis. Scripture is silent on this. But the fact that there is a council of Jerusalem shows that the churches were not, in fact, autonomous, but reported to the hierarchy then located in Jerusalem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
In acts 15, your argument about local church autonomy really falls apart. When there was dissension in Antioch, (one of the Eastern patriarchs, after all) about the need for circumcision, Did the church in Antioch resolve it themselves ? no, they appealed to the Church leadership in Jerusalem. And who made the speech about God selecting him to bring the faith to the Gentiles? Peter. And was there dispute about what he said? no, the church fell silent. And then James, bishop of Jerusalem, whose followers created the issue to begin with, fell in line behind Peter, the head of the Apostles.

This is how it is in the modern Catholic church as well. Problems are addressed by the lowest level of authority that can handle it. The Pope only gets involved when they can’t handle it. Same with any hierarchy. And when he needs (name removed by moderator)ut from the world’s bishops, he calls a council. Just like at Jerusalem

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sure, I understand your distinction. But now I ask you. How would Peter have acted differently if he wasn’t the superior? In fact, aren’t his actions the actions of a superior, keeping in mind that a good superior takes (name removed by moderator)ut from his subordinates?

I don’t believe that anything he did shows he was the one in command. When he went to Antioch with John, he was sent by the Church, not by his own decision. When the Council in Jerusalem took place it was James who made the pronouncement, not Peter. When Paul started evangelizing to Gentiles in pagan lands, it was by his ow
n decision (with guidance from the Holy Spirit of course) and not by Peter’s command.

I think the problem is that Roman Catholics reading Acts or any New Testament Scripture, they are already thinking that Peter is superior and looking for evidence that Peter is superior, therefore any text that can be loosely interpreted as displaying Peter’s superiority is interpreted as such.

aren’t you ignoring the fact that those in Antioch had already put into place preaching to the greeks in chapter 11, subsequent to Peter’s announcement that this was okay. And aren’t you ignoring the fact that Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the church in Jerusalem (Peter, clearly not James) for the express purpose of administering to the Gentiles and that it was Barnabas that recruited Paul to be part of this mission?

There is a difference between Gentiles who are believers in God and pagan Gentiles. As I mentioned earlier, there are those who are Gentiles who believe in the God of Israel and attend the synagogue and even go to the temple, the follow the Mosaic law and all. But they are not circumcised. By all intents and purposes, they are considered Gentiles because of that, but they are faithful to Judaism. This is why they have the court of the Gentiles at the temple, and every synagogue has an area for Gentiles. This is not because they set a place for Gentile non-believers to tour the temple and synagogues. Paul and Barnabas eventually went to pagan land. They preached at the marketplace because there were no Jews there, no synagogue.

So this is a big departure form just accepting Gentiles who were already in the synagogues where they preached.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You don’t know if its of their own accord. Their conversion of Gentiles starts subsequent to Peter’s revelation and they could very well have been acting on that basis. Scripture is silent on this. But the fact that there is a council of Jerusalem shows that the churches were not, in fact, autonomous, but reported to the hierarchy then located in Jerusalem.

Obviously it was news to those in Jerusalem that there were Gentile converts. Because it wasn’t only until the Council that they even had to deal with that issue. Had Jerusalem knew about converting Gentiles, they would have thought about circumcision back then, no? But not until Paul and Barnabas brought the issue to the elders of Jerusalem did they even think about what needs to be done. From their perspective, Peter’s conversion of Cornelius was a one-off.

This is how it is in the modern Catholic church as well. Problems are addressed by the lowest level of authority that can handle it. The Pope only gets involved when they can’t handle it. Same with any hierarchy. And when he needs (name removed by moderator)ut from the world’s bishops, he calls a council. Just like at Jerusalem

True, but mind you that the issue at hand has Church-wide implications. Do you think in the modern Church they will let, say, the Archdiocese of LA handle an issue that would affect all the other Churches around the world? I’m not talking about issues like who’s going to cater the dinner for the retiring bishop. They were basically defining Church Doctrine then.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Sure, I understand your distinction. But now I ask you. How would Peter have acted differently if he wasn’t the superior? In fact, aren’t his actions the actions of a superior, keeping in mind that a good superior takes (name removed by moderator)ut from his subordinates?

Are you sure that the issue isn’t that your own Tradition forces you to de-emphasize Peter’s role. After all, Peter is discussed far more than any other apostle in the New Testament. Why would that be if he wasn’t in charge. And how can you ignore matthew 16, John 21 and Luke 22 and the fact that Peter always speaks for the Apostles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
aren’t you ignoring the fact that those in Antioch had already put into place preaching to the greeks in chapter 11, subsequent to Peter’s announcement that this was okay. And aren’t you ignoring the fact that Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the church in Jerusalem (Peter, clearly not James) for the express purpose of administering to the Gentiles and that it was Barnabas that recruited Paul to be part of this mission?

There is nothing that says the gentiles mentioned in Acts 11 were “god fearing” You are making an assumption from silence to defend your own position.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Lets change it up a bit. Why is it that we do not read of a papal office in eusebius? He gives a pretty good overview of the apostolic succession, no? And he had sources from all over which would have easily know of such a universal sovereignty? I’m being honest because I’ve not read all eusebius.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
You don’t know if its of their own accord. Their conversion of Gentiles starts subsequent to Peter’s revelation and they could very well have been acting on that basis. Scripture is silent on this. But the fact that there is a council of Jerusalem shows that the churches were not, in fact, autonomous, but reported to the hierarchy then located in Jerusalem.

Peter didn’t describe it as a one-off in Acts 11 so how can you claim that? Again, you are making an unsupported assumption to defend your position. The reason that the Council of Jerusalem was called is made clear in Acts 15. It was because Jewish Christians from Jerusalem went to Antioch and insisted that Gentile converts be circumcised, which is in direct opposition to what Peter taught in Acts 11. Peter reiterates his position in Acts 15, which silences the council and then James falls into line, calling off his disciples, with a few face saving exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
This is how it is in the modern Catholic church as well. Problems are addressed by the lowest level of authority that can handle it. The Pope only gets involved when they can’t handle it. Same with any hierarchy. And when he needs (name removed by moderator)ut from the world’s bishops, he calls a council. Just like at Jerusalem

Exactly why they need a Pope - to manage the universal questions.

 

[paul_c]

Lets change it up a bit. Why is it that we do not read of a papal office in eusebius? He gives a pretty good overview of the apostolic succession, no? And he had sources from all over which would have easily know of such a universal sovereignty? I’m being honest because I’ve not read all Eusebius.

Eusebius does indeed speak of a Papal office in many places. Here’s one of them:newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm
Book V, Chapter 6. Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome.

1. The blessed apostles having founded and established the church, entrusted the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul speaks of this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. 2 Timothy 4:21
2. Anencletus succeeded him, and after Anencletus, in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the episcopate. He had seen and conversed with the blessed apostles, and their preaching was still sounding in his ears, and their tradition was still before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for many who had been taught by the apostles yet survived.
3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles.
4. A little farther on he says:

Evarestus succeeded Clement, and Alexander, Evarestus. Then Xystus, the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After him Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom gloriously; then Hyginus; then Pius; and after him Anicetus; Soter succeeded Anicetus; and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus holds the office of bishop.

1. In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thank you for the link. However those quotes only show apostolic succession, not anything which makes a claim for a distinct papal office which is sovereign

 

[paul_c]

Thank you for the link. However those quotes only show apostolic succession, not anything which makes a claim for a distinct papal office which is sovereign

Did you miss verse 5:

1. In the same order and succession the tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us.

He’s clearly saying that the Popes are passing on the tradition and truth from the Apostles. He does not say this for the other churches successions.

Also note in verse 3,
3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles.

→ Clement is shown resolving a dispute in Corinth by proclaiming the doctrine recieved from the apostles again showing his papal authority

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It is showing that Rome had a succession of bishops who have carried the truth of the gospel. It never says anything about an infallible indestructive permanent dynasty singularly unique to Rome

 

[paul_c]

It is showing that Rome had a succession of bishops who have carried the truth of the gospel. It never says anything about an infallible indestructive permanent dynasty singularly unique to Rome

Think about it. When we say that the Papacy is infallible, aren’t we saying that it is the church trusted to carry the Catholic Traditions and the Truth of the Gospels received from the Apostles. This is exactly what is said in verse 5.

And by the way, where did you get the words infallible indestructive permanent dynasty singularly unique to Rome? This is not how the church would describe the papacy.
I would say the pope teaches infallibly in the areas of faith and morals and that it will continue to exist to do this function to the end of time

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Isnt the papacy indestructible? Until christ comes? And what about jesus’ promise to threaten his removal in the case of apostacy? Why not Rome?

 

[paul_c]

Isnt the papacy indestructible? Until christ comes? And what about jesus’ promise to threaten his removal in the case of apostacy? Why not Rome?

yes, Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the church in [BIBLEDRB]Matthew 16:16-19 [/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus never said he would remove himself in case of Apostacy. Jesus said He would remain with the church until the end of the world
[BIBLEDRB]matthew 28:18-20[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Then what about revelation 1-3 where the churches are threatened with judgement if they fail to repent?

 

[ConstantineTG]

He’s clearly saying that the Popes are passing on the tradition and truth from the Apostles. He does not say this for the other churches successions.

You are assuming too much. It just says that these Popes of Rome are in the Apostolic line. Why does he have to mention about other bishops? His subject is the Pope of Rome. This is what I am saying about trying to fill in the details with the information we are trying to prove. Because you want to say this line right here proves Papal Authority, you are trying to come up with reasoning how it will fit that conclusion. Think of it this way, if I said I took a shower this morning, do I have to make a list of everyone in the whole world who took a shower? And if I don’t it means they didn’t take a shower?

Also note in verse 3,
3. In the times of Clement, a serious dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church of Rome sent a most suitable letter to the Corinthians, reconciling them in peace, renewing their faith, and proclaiming the doctrine lately received from the apostles.

→ Clement is shown resolving a dispute in Corinth by proclaiming the doctrine recieved from the apostles again showing his papal authority

Celement is doing what he is supposed to do as a bishop. There is nothing about Papal authority here. It is the norm to ask other bishops to resolve disputes if the current bishop cannot settle the dispute in his own Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Think about it. When we say that the Papacy is infallible, aren’t we saying that it is the church trusted to carry the Catholic Traditions and the Truth of the Gospels received from the Apostles. This is exactly what is said in verse 5.

The second part is true. Every bishop carries the traditions and Apostolic truth through the lineage of their bishops. That is why we have what we call “Apostolic Succession”. Every bishop has it, not just the Pope. This list you shown is just trying to prove Apostolic Succession for the Bishops of Rome, not infallability or supremacy.