The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy

[AgnosTheist]

The Roman See was never the overlord of the other See’s even during periods of occupation by muslims.

What I meant was, with the defeat of the other Patriarchs it became as if the Roman Pope was the only Patriarch left that matters for the Christian faith. Pope Benedict whatever even said that the eastern churches are flawed.

All of those Juridctions plus newer ones are alive and well today. My goodness, the Russian Church alone has over 100 million faithful today. When did the Pople rule over the Russian Church? When did he rule over the Church Greece or Antioch…?..Never

The jurisdictions are alive, but the Patriarchs? Just the greek orthodox Patriarch that remains?

Biblically, these patriarchs should be co-equal in a council that decides for the entirety of christianity. But now, its just the Pope who has an overwhelming influence on the world. Hardly anyone even knows that the Russian Patriarch’s name is. Me, I have no idea.

 

[Donald45]

You’re observant; however, I involve myself in discussions of my choosing, not yours.

So, then, you logged onto a Catholic thread on the Papacy in order not to discuss the Papacy, correct?

Can’t put anything past you.

What’s with the sarcastic insult? Is this intended to take the place of a legitimate thought?

And if you’d read all 16, instead of merely counting them, you would have found that only two dealt with the papacy; the rest were a discussion of SS with Lampo.

Yes, I noticed that. Yet, my point remains: You posted 16 times on a thread who’s stated topic is the Papacy, yet claim that you don’t want to discuss the Papacy. Therefore, you logged onto a thread about the Papacy in order to discuss sola scriptura? Congratulations, you’ve entered over 15 posts that were completely off-topic. In any case, my point stands.

Given what you’ve said I conclude that you are just another run-of-the-mill Catholic who, as the others do, fancies himself a clairvoyant-reader-of-minds, and someone who has not yet learned the meaning of “NO.”

Again, more irrelevant sarcasm. This is apparently the tac you take in order to avoid actual thought. And once again, the conclusion is clear. You’re not logging onto this thread to actually and honestly discuss its stated subject, but to make wisecracks and sling sarcasm. By the way, having left the Catholic Church at the ripe old age of sixteen hardly qualifies you to recognize a “run-of-the-mill Catholic,” even if you were to encounter one.

Is that honest enough, Donald?

You let me know when you start being honest, and I’ll answer that question. All you’ve offered here are disingenuous pseudo-questions and sidestepping sarcasm. I’m sure you fancy yourself a self-styled “expert” on Catholic doctrine----having left the Church as a child and all----but I’m afraid you’re way out of your depth here. Just a clue: You may want to start a thread on sola scriptura and stop hijacking this one with off-topic posts----that is, if you actually intend to discuss SS once the thread is started.

God bless,

Don
+T+

 

[sandusky]

So, then, you logged onto a Catholic thread on the Papacy in order not to discuss the Papacy, correct?

What’s with the sarcastic insult? Is this intended to take the place of a legitimate thought?

Yes, I noticed that. Yet, my point remains: You posted 16 times on a thread who’s stated topic is the Papacy, yet claim that you don’t want to discuss the Papacy. Therefore, you logged onto a thread about the Papacy in order to discuss sola scriptura? Congratulations, you’ve entered over 15 posts that were completely off-topic. In any case, my point stands.

Again, more irrelevant sarcasm. This is apparently the tac you take in order to avoid actual thought. And once again, the conclusion is clear. You’re not logging onto this thread to actually and honestly discuss its stated subject, but to make wisecracks and sling sarcasm. By the way, having left the Catholic Church at the ripe old age of sixteen hardly qualifies you to recognize a “run-of-the-mill Catholic,” even if you were to encounter one.

You let me know when you start being honest, and I’ll answer that question. All you’ve offered here are disingenuous pseudo-questions and sidestepping sarcasm. I’m sure you fancy yourself a self-styled “expert” on Catholic doctrine----having left the Church as a child and all----but I’m afraid you’re way out of your depth here. Just a clue: You may want to start a thread on sola scriptura and stop hijacking this one with off-topic posts----that is, if you actually intend to discuss SS once the thread is started.

God bless,

Don
+T+

:tiphat:

 

[Donald45]

:tiphat:

“A proud faith is as much a contradiction as a humble devil.”

 

[byoby]

byoby,

Glad you’re feeling better.

The Catholic Church believes that there are two primary sources of revelation - the Bible and Tradition. In a religious context Tradition means a method of handing on truths other than by inspired writings, and the truths thus communicated. It can even be said that Tradition is a more important source of revelation.

By examining all the organs of Tradition the Church can discover the truths living in the faithful, judge the records of the past to determine if a writer substituted his personal opinion for the true voice of Christendom, declare a disputed tenet to be or not to be part of the faith, reaffirm all past pronouncements. But even if all monuments of past teaching and witnessing to the faith were lost,
including the Bible itself, the Church could still teach by looking within and consulting her living understanding of the doctrine entrusted to her.

Therefore, as there is one object of belief and that is the revelation of God, deposited in Scripture and Tradition, so there is one proximate rule of faith and that is the living voice of the Church Teaching.

How does the Catholic Church distinguish between human traditions and valid traditions that were practiced during the time of the Apostles? Is this a matter of private interpretation for the Pope?

 

[mercygate]

How does the Catholic Church distinguish between human traditions and valid traditions that were practiced during the time of the Apostles? Is this a matter of private interpretation for the Pope?

Not at all. Tradition in the theological sense is not just a preservation of archaic practices or a collection of cultural habits but a living aspect of faith. It is how the Holy Spirit guides the Church “into all the truth.”

The big Traditions are either well documented in ancient writings or can be recognized by the absence of controversy until a change is proposed.

For example, with infant baptism, the first conciliar statement on the subject does not appear until around 250 A.D., affirming that although baptism now replaces circumcision (as Paul tells us), which was done on the 8th day, Christians did not need to wait until the 8th day to baptize but could do it earlier.

A good summary of patristic docmentation of Christian teaching is the three-*volume Faith of the Early *Fathers by William A. Jurgens. It is once again in print. The best thing about this book is that it is massively indexed and cross referenced to the key doctrines of the Church.

 

[byoby]

Not at all. Tradition in the theological sense is not just a preservation of archaic practices or a collection of cultural habits but a living aspect of faith. It is how the Holy Spirit guides the Church “into all the truth.”

The big Traditions are either well documented in ancient writings or can be recognized by the absence of controversy until a change is proposed.

For example, with infant baptism, the first conciliar statement on the subject does not appear until around 250 A.D., affirming that although baptism now replaces circumcision (as Paul tells us), which was done on the 8th day, Christians did not need to wait until the 8th day to baptize but could do it earlier.

A good summary of patristic docmentation of Christian teaching is the three-*volume Faith of the Early *Fathers by William A. Jurgens. It is once again in print. The best thing about this book is that it is massively indexed and cross referenced to the key doctrines of the Church.

Am I correct to assume that the Apostles were not practicing all of the current accepted traditions of the Catholic Church or do Catholics claim that all were practiced and taught by the Apostles?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Am I correct to assume that the Apostles were not practicing all of the current accepted traditions of the Catholic Church or do Catholics claim that all were practiced and taught by the Apostles?

They were taught. The Church then was at its infancy and overtime it developed. Doctrines were defined by the Church Councils starting Jerusalem with the Judaizers, and then Council of Nicea to combat Arianism, where we Christians develop the doctrine of the Trinity…

 

[mercygate]

Am I correct to assume that the Apostles were not practicing all of the current accepted traditions of the Catholic Church or do Catholics claim that all were practiced and taught by the Apostles?

This is a great topic for another thread.

Nothing the Church believes and teaches may contradict either Scripture or authentic Tradition. “Development” refers to the progressive unveiling of truths so that our understanding deepens as necessary with time. We don’t develop new doctrines in the sense that we make up new stuff. It is more like a progressive refinement of what is already there but may not have been obvious.

No sober Christian claims that the Apostles believed everything the Church teaches today as she teaches it today. Doctrinal definition came with conflict. While the Apostles certainly “knew” about the Holy Trinity, for example, I doubt they taught it as stated by the Council of Chalcedon.

That is why Tradition must be a living thing. The Church has not yet encountered all the questions. In a way, Tradition is the path of discovering the answers already presen in the essential kerygma. That is why the Lord promised to “be with you all days” and to send “another paraclete who will guide you into all the truth.” There is much more that he has to tell us “but you cannot bear it now.”

An excellent treatment of this subject was written by John Henry Newman in the 19th Century – a non-Catholic. By the time he finished An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he had become convinced of the necessity for the development of doctrine. He is the most celebrated convert of the 19th Century.

One good example of doctrinal development within the Tradition is that the Apostolic Church certainly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But it took a millennium to define the term we now use in the West to describe it: transubstantiation.

The Churches of the East believe just as strongly as we do that Jesus Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist but the East did not encounter the philosophical assaults on this belief that the West had to deal with. They have never pinned it down as we had to. They stick with the old standby: It is a mystery!

 

[byoby]

This is a great topic for another thread.

Nothing the Church believes and teaches may contradict either Scripture or authentic Tradition. “Development” refers to the progressive unveiling of truths so that our understanding deepens as necessary with time. We don’t develop new doctrines in the sense that we make up new stuff. It is more like a progressive refinement of what is already there but may not have been obvious.

No sober Christian claims that the Apostles believed everything the Church teaches today as she teaches it today. Doctrinal definition came with conflict. While the Apostles certainly “knew” about the Holy Trinity, for example, I doubt they taught it as stated by the Council of Chalcedon.

That is why Tradition must be a living thing. The Church has not yet encountered all the questions. In a way, Tradition is the path of discovering the answers already presen in the essential kerygma. That is why the Lord promised to “be with you all days” and to send “another paraclete who will guide you into all the truth.” There is much more that he has to tell us “but you cannot bear it now.”

An excellent treatment of this subject was written by John Henry Newman in the 19th Century – a non-Catholic. By the time he finished An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he had become convinced of the necessity for the development of doctrine. He is the most celebrated convert of the 19th Century.

One good example of doctrinal development within the Tradition is that the Apostolic Church certainly believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But it took a millennium to define the term we now use in the West to describe it: transubstantiation.

The Churches of the East believe just as strongly as we do that Jesus Christ is really, truly, and substantially present in the Eucharist but the East did not encounter the philosophical assaults on this belief that the West had to deal with. They have never pinned it down as we had to. They stick with the old standby: It is a mystery!

So the Catholic Church can add doctrines as long as they do not contradict the scriptures or its older traditions?

Were the doctrines of the early church incomplete? and if so did they still have salvation?

Is Jesus not really, truly, substantially present in each one of us who believe? I confess I do not know what you mean by substantially present.

If by you mean that the bread becomes literal flesh and the wine becomes literal blood, I can see why there are problems with this. Your asking someone to not believe what they are seeing and tasting and calling it a mystery. I have a lot of trouble with this doctrine myself at this point.

 

[mercygate]

So the Catholic Church can add doctrines as long as they do not contradict the scriptures or its older traditions?
Were the doctrines of the early church incomplete? and if so did they still have salvation?

No, it is not sufficient that a development of doctrine not contradict Scripture or older Traditions is. Doctrine is integral. This topic needs to go to its own thread. Here is a good article on the authentic development of doctrine by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz or Lincoln, Nebraska.

Is Jesus not really, truly, substantially present in each one of us who believe? I confess I do not know what you mean by substantially present.

I love this! Often when non-Catholics challenge the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because “you can’t keep God in a box”, they fail to see the correlation between His presence in the Eucharist and His presence in the heart of each Christian. But the nature of the Presence in the Eucharist is of a different Order from His presence in the individual. You are smart! The key word is “substantial.” And, as you have guessed, it IS a technical word that qualifies the Sacramental meaning and does not mean “substance” the way we use it in common speech. Again: 'nother thread!

If by you mean that the bread becomes literal flesh and the wine becomes literal blood, I can see why there are problems with this. Your asking someone to not believe what they are seeing and tasting and calling it a mystery. I have a lot of trouble with this doctrine myself at this point.

You really ARE onto this. The “substance” becomes the Body of Christ (His words; we didn’t make this up!) but the “accidents” (another technical word meaning the natural, physical structure) remain as you see them, taste them, touch them. So, aside from a few rather extraordinary eucharistic miracles (google Lanciano), the consecrated host will not bleed when you chew it.

I do not see why people find it more difficult to believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament than they do in the Real Presence of Christ in every Christian heart, but the fact is that MANY people do struggle with this. Even deeply devoted converts to the faith often find their most frequent prayer: "Lord, I believe. Help thou my unbelief.

Of course people who came before the articulation of a specific doctrine of the Church “had salvation” because the full articulation of a doctrine is embedded in the original Gospel. I think it is a mercy the the Lord has managed to give us only “what we can bear” at any given time. The essential Gospel is faith in the Covenant Blood. Development of doctrine assures that our understanding of what that really IS remains true. Every great heresy is grounded on some Gospel truth that has been viewed, as it were, with one eye closed.

Do you know much about the first ecumenical councils? Man! Those were riots of theological contention in which the Church fought against rising tides of heresy to define and interpret what the Gospel actually says and means, as it was received from the Apostles, in a way that nobody could misconstrue.

 

[Marc1152]

James was the bishop of Jerusalem and had a leadership role but it was Peter who called the first council into being and led it off. It was Peter who decided to fill the position left by Judas…

The Orthodox potion is not that Peter had no role or that Peter was somehow inferior to others and we certainly never would deny that he was chief Apostle. What we claim is what history records, that the Apostles worked together in a conciliatory manner with no one person acting as a monarch. As we can clearly see from that council, Peter did not run the show as he bowed to the jurisdictional boundaries agreed upon. James was in charge in Jerusalem and so he ran the council. “Chief Apostleship” did not trump the Church as a whole.

Peter is given the keys calling forth the prime minister role from Isaiah…you may have many leadership roles but one prime minister…look to our Senate…each senator has a leadership role, then you have the majority leader and the minority whip…the VP is the tie breaker…Organizations - no matter how flat - have a form of leadership…

Yes, Peter certainly had a role as did the Popes that followed him. It was an honorary role and they did some of the things you mentioned. A Pope could mediate disputes when asked to, break a dead lock when asked to etc. That is seems to me to be far different than the Monarchial role Popes assumed later and have today .

…Those who read scripture and look at the history of the church and its maturation and who still fail to see a primacy in the Petrine Office are willfully ignoring the witness of scripture and the church…

Those who read history and scripture see a qualitativly different Papacy than the one established by Peter and by the early generations. It may be fine with you personally that there was a “Development” of the office of Pope into a Monarchy but it is not so fine others. The Orthodox Church better reflects the Tradition of Peter’s original Church as they continue to govern the Church is the same manner as they did in the past without any need for “developments”

Marc

 

[Pons]

No.

"Attempts to exalt the role of James in order to minimize the role of Peter all go against the facts. The issue was whether Gentiles could become Christians without observance of the Jewish law. The issue already had been decided. God had revealed the answer to Peter. Peter acted on God’s initiative. Humanly speaking, Peter had already made the decision. (Rulings of early Church councils always reflected decisions already made by one or more of the popes.)

What did James do? He repeated what Peter had already said. For reasons of his own he added to the council’s instructions some judaizing elements (requirements about not eating meat sacrificed to idols, not consuming blood). What happened to Peter’s decision? It became the law of the Church. What happened to James’s additions? Scripture never mentions them again. The Church ignored them. In 1 Corinthians 8, written well after the council, Paul taught that whether one eats meat which has been sacrificed to idols is purely a prudential judgment."

 

[Marc1152]

The jurisdictions are alive, but the Patriarchs? Just the greek orthodox Patriarch that remains?<<

Oh no, we are full up with Patriarchs and Metropolitans.

The Patriarch of Russia alone leads over 100 million believers: mospat.ru/index.php?lng=1