The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy

[AgnosTheist]

What Catholics understand by unity is that:

1. all the faithful are united in the profession of the same faith
2. in the use of the same sacraments and sacrifice
3. and are governed by the same visible head.

of course. i’m just saying that its good to be a little bit open minded. removing #3, would loosen that narrow point of view.

 

[Donald45]

No, Donald, I won’t; forgive me, but I’m not interested in becoming involved in another discussion about the Papacy.

I must say that I find your answer a bit odd, given that:

~ you’ve chosen to log onto the largest Catholic website in the world

~you’ve elected to post on a thread entitled “The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy”

~you’ve actively posted a total of 16 times on this thread (a curiously prolific “non-discussion” of the Papacy)

And yet, your reply is that you “don’t want to discuss the Papacy.” Given the above, one would have to conclude that, in reality, you simply don’t have an adequate answer to my observations, and have therefore chosen to conveniently ignore them. Now, that’s certainly up to you, but let’s at least be honest, shall we?

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Tomster]

Your belief in the Catholic Church causes you to be at risk of being arrogant and judgemental. The true measure is not if one rejects the Catholic Church but if one rejects Christ (Christ only knows who are his and it is not by which congregation you belong). I will say in all confidence in Christ that we are home.

Caution. There is nothing arrogant or judgemental about unity in belief. All the members of the Catholic Church must profess the same doctrine, viz., the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles. Now that teaching must be the same on every point, because we cannot suppose our Lord teaching one thing now and its contradiction at another time, neither can we suppose that the Apostles taught doctrines which were at variance which each other. “Go therefore and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” He tells them to teach all nations and to teach them all things." He does not tell them to confine their labors to one or two nations, and He does not tell them to enforce some doctrines and to leave people free to accept or reject others at their pleasure, neither does He tell them to invent new doctrines of their own fancy and to teach these to the world.

 

[byoby]

Yeah. We Converts are a pain.

I spent 40 years in Protestant circles. Did I know Jesus? Yes – as far as I could know him apart from knowing him on his own terms. Was I in full communion with Him in the fellowship of faith as He intended it? Not hardly.

There really is no way around the centrality of Peter to the unity of the Church and to its authenticity. All the flapping around to squirm out of that key (!) point is just noise.

staying."

What do you suggest I need to convert from? I have already converted to Christianity.

 

[byoby]

Caution. There is nothing arrogant or judgemental about unity in belief. All the members of the Catholic Church must profess the same doctrine, viz., the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles. Now that teaching must be the same on every point, because we cannot suppose our Lord teaching one thing now and its contradiction at another time, neither can we suppose that the Apostles taught doctrines which were at variance which each other. “Go therefore and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” He tells them to teach all nations and to teach them all things." He does not tell them to confine their labors to one or two nations, and He does not tell them to enforce some doctrines and to leave people free to accept or reject others at their pleasure, neither does He tell them to invent new doctrines of their own fancy and to teach these to the world.

If what is being taught is the Gospel of Christ, how can you say that this is new?

 

[AgnosTheist]

There really is no way around the centrality of Peter to the unity of the Church and to its authenticity.

Unity. There is even schism between the so called ‘apostolic successor’ of the east & the west. The only reason the west have gotten the upper hand is because its more brutal in its use of force to spread its version of christianity and in betraying the east to the delight of the muslims. Thats like the apostles fighting among each other.

 

[Tomster]

of course. i’m just saying that its good to be a little bit open minded. removing #3, would loosen that narrow point of view.

Catholics have neither the authority nor power to remove #3. (nor would we want to)

 

[mercygate]

i was just saying that its likely he threw insults at jesus while persecuting the church.

Perhaps that is what you meant but it is definitely not what you said.

of course. the cream of the issue is whether or not any of the apostles (most especially peter) played a role in his conversion.

No. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Paul’s personal communication from Christ was a solo mandate or whether the Church played a part in Paul’s mission. Everybody remembers the Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, but hardly anybody ever thinks about the fact that for Paul’s vision to be effective, Ananias received an equally powerful vision and that Ananias baptized Paul, and laid hands on him so that he could RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT and regain his sight. Paul was definitely SENT by the Church, at Christ’s command. There is no ‘Paul versus the Church’ as if Paul’s vision trumps Ananias’ vision. They were ONE thing.

i’m just saying that they are in a reconcillatory & open-minded attitude towards catholics.

And the Church is open minded towards those Christians who are open to the Church. That is not to say that the Church is in a position to compromise the faith for the sake for “reconciliation and open mindedness”. If they really WERE reconciliatory and open minded, they would recognized that the real problems and abuses in the Church that precipitated the Protestant movement have been corrected. Now the Protestant houses are falling into ruin. Time to come back to the mother ship.

Its no use. They are sincerely convinced that they have already embraced Christ’s Church. To them what they are rejecting is ‘Romanism’. There is just too many holes in that Apostolic Succession theory.

There are no holes in Apostolic Succession. Those who reject “Romanism” are rejecting a fantasy of their own creation.

Also, if there are true christians among protestants, then how can someone be christian and not be a part of Christ’s body?

The Church acknowledges that non-Catholics who call up on the Name of Christ are, in greater and lesser degrees, part of Christ’s Body. The Blood supply may be severely obstructed, but they are part of the Body.

 

[Marc1152]

Maybe Paul was just more detail oriented than Peter, but I can’t see why Peter wouldn’t at least start off his epistles by mentioning he was Pope. Didn’t most of the epistles start off with the author describing what title they held?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ…”

He was chief Apostle…The Papacy as we know it now was something that developed over time. I don’t even think Peter was actually ordained a Bishop in the ordinary sense. But he was certainly head of the Apostles but that is not the same thing as someone in charge of ever thing or every one or every doctrine.

When the Apostles met in Jerusalem do decide on conversion of the Gentiles, James ran the council because it was being held within his geographic jurisdiction. As with all early Pope’s, Peter had a place of honor, not power.

 

[Tomster]

If what is being taught is the Gospel of Christ, how can you say that this is new?

The Catholic Church teaches nothing “new.” Non-Catholic denominations cannot quite agree among themselves as to what are the essentials. Anglicanism is one sad example.

 

[mercygate]

Unity. There is even schism between the so called ‘apostolic successor’ of the east & the west. The only reason the west have gotten the upper hand is because its more brutal in its use of force to spread its version of christianity and in betraying the east to the delight of the muslims. Thats like the apostles fighting among each other.

The Eastern Churches have Apostolic Succession. No holes. Yes: unfortunately, it IS like the apostles squabbling among each other. The Eastern Churches have less respect for Protestantism than Rome has, so be careful where you try to lead this.

 

[mercygate]

He was chief Apostle…The Papacy as we know it now was something that developed over time. I don’t even think Peter was actually ordained a Bishop in the ordinary sense. But he was certainly head of the Apostles but that is not the same thing as someone in charge of ever thing or every one or every doctrine.

When the Apostles met in Jerusalem do decide on conversion of the Gentiles, James ran the council because it was being held within his geographic jurisdiction. As with all early Pope’s, Peter had a place of honor, not power.

But the OP is unwilling to allow even a place of honor.

I contend, from the historical point of view, that a leadership of more than pure courtesy became necessary because of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of rampant heresy. James was not promised the Keys. No way to evade that. No way.

 

[Marc1152]

But the OP is unwilling to allow even a place of honor.

I contend, from the historical point of view, that a leadership of more than pure courtesy became necessary because of the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of rampant heresy. James was not promised the Keys. No way to evade that. No way.

I agree that the collapse of Western civilization left a void that the Church tried to fill but it also had nevative effects on the Church, seeing power and authority in a secularized way.

The point is, you cant leap from Peter or anything said to Peter into Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope as the RCC would have it today. Peter didnt seem to see things in that way
( James ran the council as I mentioned) and neither did the Popes that followed him until many centuries later.

www.ourlifeinchrist.com

 

[AgnosTheist]

No. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Paul’s personal communication from Christ was a solo mandate or whether the Church played a part in Paul’s mission.

When Jesus converted Paul, he already became a part of the church. So of course the church played a part in Paul’s mission.

Everybody remembers the Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, but hardly anybody ever thinks about the fact that for Paul’s vision to be effective, Ananias received an equally powerful vision and that Ananias baptized Paul, and laid hands on him so that he could RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT and regain his sight.

Its Jesus who sends the Holy Spirit. Paul was Jesus’ personal project.

Paul was definitely SENT by the Church, at Christ’s command.

There is no evidence that it was the diciples where paul spent several days with who sent him on his first preaching mission.

There is no ‘Paul versus the Church’ as if Paul’s vision trumps Ananias’ vision. They were ONE thing.

you misinterpreted me on that. its never my intention. i was just comparing paul with the other apostles especially peter. of course they are all one as a church.

If they really WERE reconciliatory and open minded, they would recognized that the real problems and abuses in the Church that precipitated the Protestant movement have been corrected.

the issues have evolved beyond that. there are just some RCC practices that cant make sense to some people. Like even some catholics here cant bear to pray the rosary, or pray to mary.

Diversity in Christian faith is good, because those who cant find spiritual fulfillment in the catholic tradition can do so in one of the many protestant traditions. and of course the other way around.

Now the Protestant houses are falling into ruin.

Both Catholic & Protestant houses are falling into ruin. Church buildings being sold to muslims or turned into government buildings. Partly because people are sick of the bigotry & bickerings in both camps. So secularism is eating up the west. You cant even prevent abortion from being legalized around the Vatican.

The Blood supply may be severely obstructed, but they are part of the Body.

Thats the message that the Pope should promote.

 

[AgnosTheist]

The point is, you cant leap from Peter or anything said to Peter into Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope as the RCC would have it today. Peter didnt seem to see things in that way
( James ran the council as I mentioned) and neither did the Popes that followed him until many centuries later.

Wasnt it that in the early days there were half a dozen Patriarchs of Christianity of which the Roman Pope was just one of them. The Patriarchs of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Byzantium, and Alexandria. Moslem invasion destroyed 3 and left 1 nearly powerless. That left the Roman Patriarch as the ultimate overlord.

 

[byoby]

The Catholic Church teaches nothing “new.” Non-Catholic denominations cannot quite agree among themselves as to what are the essentials. Anglicanism is one sad example.

My point is, that my local church teaches from the Bible. Is this a new teaching? Do you suggest that all Catholoics agree on all Catholic doctrines? If they do not, who is not in full communion within the Catholic Church? If you are in total agreement with the Pope then all that proves is that you are in total communion with the Pope. This whole discussion is devisive because one side claims to have the whole truth. Where is it that we are promised the whole truth, apostolic succesion, infallibility, or perfect unity in this current world? These are all Catholic and Orthodox teachings with which each one tries to assert its dominance over the other. We are all unified under the Cross. Why can we not love each other under Christ I do not know except for that we are still sinners (Forgiven). I know that because of pride the leadership of either side would probably never admit that they are wrong because it would show there fallibility and humanity. My church makes no claim to be the True Church but we pray and hope to be recognized by Christ. I would never attend a Church that makes this claim simply because it is nothing more than a foolish attempt to have power over individuals. Christians do not exclude Catholic Christians or anyone else for that matter from Christ simply for the fear of placing themselves under judgement. Doctrines are up to the individuals judgement with the Holy Spirit, remember the words of Paul “Everything is permissable but not everything is beneficial”. We have been set free of the law and legalism through Christ. Remember the lesson about not eating meat? Is the lesson taught one that allows for this practice if one is doing it to honor God? We are told that it is ok and even good to eat meat, but it is not ok to cause someone else to stumble.

Sorry for the sermon, but I feel better now.

 

[sandusky]

Donald45:

I must say that I find your answer a bit odd, given that:

~ you’ve chosen to log onto the largest Catholic website in the world

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

~you’ve elected to post on a thread entitled “The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy”

Can’t put anything past you.

~you’ve actively posted a total of 16 times on this thread (a curiously prolific “non-discussion” of the Papacy)

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.

Donald45:

Given the above, one would have to conclude that, in reality, you simply don’t have an adequate answer to my observations, and have therefore chosen to conveniently ignore them.

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.”

Donald45:

Now, that’s certainly up to you, but let’s at least be honest, shall we?

Is that honest enough, Donald?

 

[YADA]

I agree that the collapse of Western civilization left a void that the Church tried to fill but it also had nevative effects on the Church, seeing power and authority in a secularized way.

The point is, you cant leap from Peter or anything said to Peter into Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope as the RCC would have it today. Peter didnt seem to see things in that way
( James ran the council as I mentioned) and neither did the Popes that followed him until many centuries later.

www.ourlifeinchrist.com

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…

Peter is given the keys calling forth the prime minister role from Isaiah…you may have many leadership roles but one prime minister…look ot 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…

Institutional psychologists will tell you that in every institution there are the ‘official’ lines of authority and leadership and the unofficial ones…

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…

 

[Marc1152]

Wasnt it that in the early days there were half a dozen Patriarchs of Christianity of which the Roman Pope was just one of them. The Patriarchs of Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Byzantium, and Alexandria. Moslem invasion destroyed 3 and left 1 nearly powerless. That left the Roman Patriarch as the ultimate overlord.

That is incorrect. The Roman See was never the overlord of the other See’s even during periods of occupation by muslims. The Pope only rules over his own See. 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

 

[Tomster]

My point is, that my local church teaches from the Bible. Is this a new teaching? Do you suggest that all Catholoics agree on all Catholic doctrines? If they do not, who is not in full communion within the Catholic Church? If you are in total agreement with the Pope then all that proves is that you are in total communion with the Pope. This whole discussion is devisive because one side claims to have the whole truth. Where is it that we are promised the whole truth, apostolic succesion, infallibility, or perfect unity in this current world? These are all Catholic and Orthodox teachings with which each one tries to assert its dominance over the other. We are all unified under the Cross. Why can we not love each other under Christ I do not know except for that we are still sinners (Forgiven). I know that because of pride the leadership of either side would probably never admit that they are wrong because it would show there fallibility and humanity. My church makes no claim to be the True Church but we pray and hope to be recognized by Christ. I would never attend a Church that makes this claim simply because it is nothing more than a foolish attempt to have power over individuals. Christians do not exclude Catholic Christians or anyone else for that matter from Christ simply for the fear of placing themselves under judgement. Doctrines are up to the individuals judgement with the Holy Spirit, remember the words of Paul “Everything is permissable but not everything is beneficial”. We have been set free of the law and legalism through Christ. Remember the lesson about not eating meat? Is the lesson taught one that allows for this practice if one is doing it to honor God? We are told that it is ok and even good to eat meat, but it is not ok to cause someone else to stumble.

Sorry for the sermon, but I feel better now.

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.